Thanks greatly to the Federal reserve bank+ World bank+UN n Consortium of Cie n scams, fake n falses finacial institutions arond the world to maintain lie and self destruction. Fran-massonic and other manipulative n religious sectes and corporate narrow minded psicho who think they are over n control the world until now.

Seek n kill those tugs bastards who have lead population mass often to the gravyard or war as their salutary end.

Conference et resolution which do not mean anything to the bankers as well as the UN key vetoers.

I am starting my own solution if there is a real global warming or a true climate change. It is better, rather than waiting for Gvt n UN or FRBA to solve it for you.
Plz do not trust UN, environmentalist, expert or scientists once an for all.

In My opinion.

Luc

AlanDownunder: – Kenneth at 11:43pm December 20.On purely altitude considerations, deep feelings for Tuvalu might be more in order — feelings deep enough not to be swamped by phobic paranoia about the UN in particular or collective action in general.

Well said.

True, we were only in SD, what, three months and I haven’t been back, but I have Deep Feelings for my native land.

- Kenneth at 11:43pm December 20.

On purely altitude considerations, deep feelings for Tuvalu might be more in order – feelings deep enough not to be swamped by phobic paranoia about the UN in particular or collective action in general.

lucklucky: “Each and every attendee at each and every one of those summits chose to be there, not because of some nefarious UN conspiracy, but because they felt that a global perspective was the most sensible way to look at this problem.”People are romantic and also need to give a mean to their lives. Which means finding new “problems” to solve and also feel they are building the Grand Design or maybe i should call a Blockbuster Life. For them local politics is trivial and already traveled. No one tried to make a World Government yet so they are in a unique endeavor which will arrant them immortality and since Humans try everything to reach immortality…

Who are these “people” you speak of? Bush sr., who was in charge during the Rio conference, or only those Democrats who ran the White House during Kyoto and now Copenhagen? Regardless, how is the US president’s (to stick with that example) decision to attend or not, to send a heavy delegation or not, to sign or not, to propose to ratify or not UN politics?

Sarcastro: Ezra makes a great point! Blowing up buildings to get 72 virgins is totally saner than health care reform!]

No, Sarcasto. He said it would be less dangerous and less distorted.

Is creating a strawman argument by putting words in someone’s mouth an example of arguing in good faith?

On 9/11 al Qaeda blew up the WTC in an attempt to destroy the US economy. Hence the economic target.

They only caused a temporary disruption.

Obamacare will cause far more damage than they ever could have.

People are romantic and also need to give a mean to their lives. Which means finding new “problems” to solve and also feel they are building the Grand Design or maybe i should call a Blockbuster Life. For them local politics is trivial and already traveled. No one tried to make a World Government yet so they are in a unique endeavor which will arrant them immortality and since Humans try everything to reach immortality…

But if you clamp down in those countries, those emitters involved in manufacturing and agriculture, at least, can just move to countries that aren’t covered, at no reduction in emissions.

It’s all crap, scientifically, but if you buy the premises and the approach of reducing emissions by regulation or tax, you must have a universal regime or it just leaks.

This whole thing is just a scam to enrich the people who trade in carbon credits and sell “green technology” and “green science,” at everyone else’s expense, regardless of any actual climate issues.

I suppose we can view legitimacy as a secondary social construct, devoid of who or what is being legitimized, but still… they’re ALL crooks and worse so the idea of any of it being legitimate is a bit strained.

Talnik:
Yeah, maybe. But guess which state has more nukes!

… and more importantly, more Randian jackalope ranchers.

Talnik: AlanDownunder said:“Tuvalu being, in some senses, the US’ equal at the UN is no more ridiculous than South Dakota being, in all senses, California’s equal in the US Senate.”
Yeah, maybe. But guess which state has more nukes!

Euh… South Dakota? Isn’t that a perfect place for missile silos?

Kenneth Anderson: Peter:Well, remember, you get what you pay for … as I’ve often noted, what goes up here is unrevised first draft.Though you might not like the book any better.I’m quite sure Martinned won’t! :)

Even more than the EU, the UN is its members. Speaking of the UN (presumably meaning the secretariat) as having some kind of institutional voice that carries weight relative to the permanent five and the other major powers in the world is just silly.

Any organisation of any size has an organisational culture, which usually involves a significant investment in the goals of the organisation. Academics think academia is the greatest thing since sliced bread, lawyers think the law is the solution to all problems, Google employees think that Sergei Brin and the other guy are gods, etc. No one goes to work for the UN secretariat unless they believe in international law and international/multilateral collaboration. That’s organisational culture. But the UN secretariat, certainly the secretariat other than the secretary general, is so insignificant relative to the Permanent Five that it doesn’t matter what “the UN” (still presumably meaning the secretariat) thinks.

It wasn’t the UN secretariat who decided to UN-ify global warming. The impetus to do that comes from places like General Assembly resolution 44/228 from 1989. (Adopted without vote.) In fact, that resolution continued a process started with the 1972 Stockholm Conference. My point is, this process has been ongoing for a long time, without ever being legally binding. To the extent that Rio and Kyoto contained some legal requirement to work towards a successor treaty, this is a very weak obligation indeed. (If for no other reason than that the US never ratified Kyoto.) Each and every attendee at each and every one of those summits chose to be there, not because of some nefarious UN conspiracy, but because they felt that a global perspective was the most sensible way to look at this problem.

A. Zarkov: Let’s look at who produces carbon emissions.
China 21.5%
USA 20.2%
EU 13.8%
Russia 5.5%
India 5.3%
Japan 4.6%
UK 2%
Add these up and you get 73%. The African countries (sans Nigeria) each produce less than 0.1%. Thus there is no need to bring in most of the Third World. This is not a problem for the UN. The major emitters can negotiate any cuts in emissions by themselves and they don’t need to give any of these countries anything. They are chronic and incurable mendicants.

Unusually, I actually agree.
I wouldn’t describe the OP here as anything other than ridiculous paranoia, but that doesn’t mean that the UN is the most appropriate forum for dealing with this. Are all the relevant players in the G20? I don’t think so. Well, then we’ll have to invent some new forum. Unilateral or bilateral action doesn’t work, that won’t overcome the collective action problem here. But get the six mentioned by Zarkov together with Brazil, and you’re in business.

P.S. You may have double counted the UK there. (At least I hope your number for the EU includes the UK.)

China 21.5%
USA 20.2%
EU 13.8%
Russia 5.5%
India 5.3%
Japan 4.6%
UK 2%

Add these up and you get 73%. The African countries (sans Nigeria) each produce less than 0.1%. Thus there is no need to bring in most of the Third World. This is not a problem for the UN. The major emitters can negotiate any cuts in emissions by themselves and they don’t need to give any of these countries anything. They are chronic and incurable mendicants.

/edit up to 24 as a wrote this.

For the UN, status quo is defined only by borders. Till a border is crossed, the usual rhetorical wankery happens. But once a border is crossed, the charter says the rest of the world comes down like a ton of bricks. At least that is the collective security theory.

Check the charter, or better yet, the history. It's supposed to prevent a World War 2 by keeping borders as static as possible. And no, it's not perfect. See tbe former Yugoslavia. Lotsa border-changing there!

And before you say it, I agree with you, that's a pretty weak definition. It's not well put together to deal well with civil wars, even genocides. And it's pretty inefficient at foreign aid as well, but it's the best we got.

Plus the status quo sucks. Ethnic strife, brutal dictators, corruption. Though empowering the UN to be able to do more to change it is probably not something anyone really wants.

So then you are left with the UN not being much other than a debating society. But merely keeping the rhetorical chanels open is something I see as well worth the cost. See WW-1.]

It may be galling that Congo has as much voice as we do, except that it totally doesn't practically.]

The U.S. Senate’s members were originally appointed by the governments of the Several States. The Senate’s function was to protect the rights of the Several States. To my way of thinking, the passage of the 17th Amendment was a great blow to Federalism because direct election of Senators made Senators answerable to the same (though in large states arguably broader) constituencies as members of the House of Representatives while simultaneously leaving state governments unrepresented in Congress. The Founders established the House to be the voice of the people; now Senators have the same political motivation as do House members, albeit every six years and state wide. But, especially in small states, what, other than the six year versus two year terms, is the practical difference in political motivation?

At this point the UN has a system of representation arguably similar to that of the original U.S. Senate but nothing comparable to the U.S. House of Representatives – also not good in a body that aspires to govern the world, but for the opposite reason than direct election of U.S. Senators is bad: only state interests are represented and the people have no voice – which is especially bad for those suffering under totalitarian regimes as well as the rest of us. Under the U.N. system, dictators hold inordinate sway.

2. It takes a hell of a lot of denialism and a hell of a lot of paranoia for nationalistic concern about a non-exemplary polity ceding a degree of sovereignty or sociopathic concern about creeping socialism to exceed concern about the effects of climate change. But for the paranoia, I doubt the denialism would even exist.

Ichthyophagous: The UN is founded on the obviously silly notion that all General Assembly members are equal, whether they contain 300 million people or 12,000 (the population of Tuvalu).

Like the US Senate.

Doctor Gator: As if with a Black Hole, were seemingly are being sucked into an Orwellian World, in which the only true facts are those facts that the governing classes and their academic and media henchmen promulgate.

It’s odd to observe this, but we’re quickly heading towards a place where the world-view of Muslim extremists will be less dangerous and less distorted than the world-view of mainstream ‘moderns’.

Global warming? Socialist conspiracy to take over the world once they somehow get the US, China and India on board.

Health care? You know that’s socialist. More so than Social Security or Medicare or anything else!

Gay marriage? Socialist plot to get to tax churches!

Abortion? Socialist population control.

War in Afganistan? Lame rules of engagement is socialist plot to humble America so it’s pride can be broken – the first step towards socialism.

Passing any laws at all? Well, that just expands government, totally socialist!

Paddlin’ the school canoe? You better believe that’s a paddlin‘ socialist!