This is an interesting international taxation scheme. It's common name is the Kyoto Protocol. As information, China, India, and Brazil, all nuclear powers BTW, are considered "developing countries". China is expected to exceed U.S. emissions output by 2009.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B12F83A5B0C748CDDA80994DE404482
Via international carbon finance, there is a potential to generate up to 100 billion dollars per year in green investment flow to developing countries, Mr. de Boer said. None of the other types of financial resources available to these countries have a potential of this scale.
http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSitePage=1211
Does this type of international taxation scheme empower, or disempower, your country while empowering countries which are, possibly, unfriendly to your country's best interests?
Personally, I have absolutely no respect for international institutions which would attempt to claim absolute power and authority over all nations. Therefore, I believe this type of wealth redistribution is against the best interests of my country. People claim that this taxation scheme is an environmental savior but what happens when the wealth has been redistributed and all countries are emitting at the levels that developed countries normally do?
Here's some interesting reading material concerning the scientific validity of this international taxation/wealth redistribution scheme:
The Leipzig Declaration
The Heidelberg Appeal
The Oregon Petition
and the Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming
http://www.sepp.org/policy declarations/home.html
You can find the IPCC Working Group 1 scientist/author information here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_home.html
The people listed above are responsible for establishing/proving the scientific validity of the Kyoto Protocol.
There's a lot to this issue. I've done a lot of research on this and have my own opinion. While I may have submitted the above in a biased manner, I encourage people to do their own research and compare the validity and political leanings of the scientists and supporters on both sides. Personally, I think that the current $100 billion/year taxation scheme does nothing to help the environment and will, sooner than later, cause great harm when there are no developing countries left to buy credits from.
This doesn't mean that developing countries shouldn't be helped. I'd just like to see a valid definition of "developing country" along with a valid solution from those who oppose the IPCC Working Group 1's findings.
Also, it's interesting to note that what the Global Carbon Emissions Trading Market actually does is drive up the price of oil. This benefits OPEC countries greatly. If this was unfavorable to OPEC countries, I might say that the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol might be to move countries away from fossil fuels. Since this actually empowers and enriches OPEC countries, I'm more than a little skeptical over the idea that the Kyoto Protocol is as "environmentally friendly" as they claim it is.
Thoughts and opinions?
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B12F83A5B0C748CDDA80994DE404482
Via international carbon finance, there is a potential to generate up to 100 billion dollars per year in green investment flow to developing countries, Mr. de Boer said. None of the other types of financial resources available to these countries have a potential of this scale.
http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSitePage=1211
Does this type of international taxation scheme empower, or disempower, your country while empowering countries which are, possibly, unfriendly to your country's best interests?
Personally, I have absolutely no respect for international institutions which would attempt to claim absolute power and authority over all nations. Therefore, I believe this type of wealth redistribution is against the best interests of my country. People claim that this taxation scheme is an environmental savior but what happens when the wealth has been redistributed and all countries are emitting at the levels that developed countries normally do?
Here's some interesting reading material concerning the scientific validity of this international taxation/wealth redistribution scheme:
The Leipzig Declaration
The Heidelberg Appeal
The Oregon Petition
and the Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming
http://www.sepp.org/policy declarations/home.html
You can find the IPCC Working Group 1 scientist/author information here:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_home.html
The people listed above are responsible for establishing/proving the scientific validity of the Kyoto Protocol.
There's a lot to this issue. I've done a lot of research on this and have my own opinion. While I may have submitted the above in a biased manner, I encourage people to do their own research and compare the validity and political leanings of the scientists and supporters on both sides. Personally, I think that the current $100 billion/year taxation scheme does nothing to help the environment and will, sooner than later, cause great harm when there are no developing countries left to buy credits from.
This doesn't mean that developing countries shouldn't be helped. I'd just like to see a valid definition of "developing country" along with a valid solution from those who oppose the IPCC Working Group 1's findings.
Also, it's interesting to note that what the Global Carbon Emissions Trading Market actually does is drive up the price of oil. This benefits OPEC countries greatly. If this was unfavorable to OPEC countries, I might say that the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol might be to move countries away from fossil fuels. Since this actually empowers and enriches OPEC countries, I'm more than a little skeptical over the idea that the Kyoto Protocol is as "environmentally friendly" as they claim it is.
Thoughts and opinions?
