A few days ago, I replied to you with reasons why I say these things. Here it is again:Wabash wrote: Remember when you said you wanted proof of your being conspiratorial?
This is a good example.
And trust me, I've got a lot more links that say the same thing. I know you won't want to see them because you're not man enough to respond to what I posted above.“Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [overdeveloped countries] and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de- development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”
- John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, “Introduction,” in Holdren and Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology, 1971, p. 3.
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political.”
- John Holdren, Anne Ehrlich, and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (San Francisco; W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 279.
“[Our] gloomy prognosis [requires] organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977), p. 5.
On the July 3, 2008 edition of the program “Democracy NOW!” Holdren told host Amy Goodman: “It’s important that we have a global agreement on how we are going to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going forward, and an agreement that will include the tropical forests, that will include ways to transfer some of the revenues from carbon taxes or carbon emission permits in the North to pay for reduced deforestation in the South.”
Obama Science Czar John Holdren: I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... urces.html
…and whatever happened to making poverty history?
Finally, and most importantly, we need to tackle head-on the elephant in the background – the need for huge redistribution of wealth from North to South. The questions of economic development and human welfare in a world of scandalous inequality have surfaced many times and in different ways since the end of European colonialism: trickle-down economic theory, fair trade movements, overseas aid, structural reform, debt relief, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have all come and, at least for many of them, gone.
This is not about climate change affecting future generations. This is an issue of fundamental social justice and humanitarian welfare here and now.
-Mike Hulme, Climate Scientist at the University of East Anglia (aka the climategate source)
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_c ... hings.html
Noting the need for developed country Parties to compensate [developing country Parties, especially] the economies of Africa, least developed countries and small island developing States for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of climate change response measures in the context of environmental justice and environmental refugees,
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/aw ... /inf01.pdf
"The Nobel prize was for peace not science ... government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... form/print
- Anton Imeson, a lead author of the IPCC:
The UN, policymakers, think-tanks, NGOs, The Bilderberg globocrats, academia, etc.Wabash wrote:Who is "they?"
Holy ****, you're rlh??? (or you're guilty of plagiarism.)Wabash wrote: Denialists like to present false choices. The notion that we have to go back to preindustrial state in order to control pollution is a line that’s been trotted out against every pollution measure over the last half century (along with "It’s about redistribution of wealth”). In fact, the history particularly of this country over that period shows that when you work responsibly you can reduce pollution without harming economic activity – indeed, those efforts spawn whole new industries of their own.
I believe a necessary step to control pollution will be a greater emphasis on telecommuting. The beginnings of it are already occurring.
I just replied to you on this, see my response to you over at the place where you refer to yourself as rlh.
(and you're a lawyer??? Hard to believe.)