That is why leftists want to be judged by their intentions and not the consequences of their actions which is almost always tragic. They make a law to try to curb sex traffic in Central America and it causes an avalanche of unaccompanied children to storm our borders and swamp our capacity. I shouldn't blame it all on the law. Obama's speeches and executive orders have also added fuel to the fire. It is pretty sick to lie in your air conditioned and heated home and create policies that harm poor people that make a hundredth of what we do. They claim to care for the poor but the dirty little truth is the cause comes first and if anyone wonders what the cause is, it is leftism, socialism or whatever you want to call it. I would call it immoral. It is one thing when you ignore history and are fooled once but when you make the same stupid mistakes over and over, it becomes intentional.

The quotes you provided don't really do the paper justice. The paper has some good points, but is filled with a lot of rhetoric. It says it is focused on "povertry" then goes on to mainly talk about the impact of the Climate Change Act in the UK, and the environment.

Raising an issue that many people in Asia and Africa have no access to electricity and argues changing to a non-carbon industry will affect these people. They don't have access at the moment, so would have thought providing these people with an alternative that actually gives them access would be easiest. Solar panels (especially in the sub--Sahara) or geothermal energy could be small scale operations that provide energy as a cheaper alternative to building large scale infrastructure from a centralised station.

The report to me focuses too much on their own agenda, which is fine, but doesn't really offer any solutions. Other than of course stay the course and hope for the best. Which to me isn't a solution but wishful thinking.

Also I think reports such as this should try to remain objective ... however the use of subjective terms, not using accepted terminology, but instead 'blog' terminology and the use of religious undertones (e.g. 600 million souls) will harm this paper's ability to have any attraction to mainstream policy makers. They need to read some guides on writing in plain English.

Aside from the World bank decision's effect on thrid world nations, we have the affect on food prices right here in the US. 27.3% of our corn is used for ethanol fuel. That equates to 22.5 million acres of farmland used for producing ethanol for fuel.

The warmers would ahve us believe that the reason for the increase in food prices is due to global warming caused droughts in California. So lets examine this lie. First, they have no evidence that the drought is actually caused by global warming. Indeed when looking at droughts across the US and the world, there does not seem to be any increase in droughts in the last 60 years.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v49...

So we are clear, warmers predict droughts will increase. There has been no increase in the US or globally, so while seeing no global change and thus not having anything to even back that their predictions are occurring, they use a drought in one location and claim it is caused by AGW. At the same time, they chastise skeptics for looking at too small of timeframes and/or areas.

So while they are blaming the California drought on AGW, they are also blaming the food prices on teh california drought. While I am sure it is having some affect, the the liberal estimates of cost of the drought is $5 Billion. All the while the value of the grain being used to make ethanol fuel is $19 billion, or 4 times as much. And the ethanol fuel is costing us more in gas as well and since food must be shipped, you get the double whammy.

And while the food prices increase, the US is still continuing to produce more per person. Supply and demand would normally tell you this si impossible except for the fact that food is being diverted to ethanol fuel. All of this done to have no impact on CO2 emissions.

So the warmers have the audacity to blame AGW on the food price increase, when the true cause is CLEARLY their own stupid ethanol scheme.

The only way they get away with such absurdity while pretending to be for the people is that they scare-monger until people falsely believe that climate change will spell the end of humanity.



Mintie,

Kano is entirely correct. The World bank's decision is entirely immoral yet environmentalists praise this filth. What kind of sickos praise a policy that kills millions of less fortunate???

I am all for them having solar power, instead of coal IF it is feasible. But it isn't and that is why the African nations are not using solar. It may be feasible in the near future, but it is not now. You don't like them having energy, then you live and DIE without energy FIRST.

So lets review what the warmers have done for us thus far.

1.) Gasoline taxes have risen due to taxes. This has the added benefit of increasing the cost of everything that needs to be shipped. What can you think of that doesn't need to be shipped.

2.) Ethanol is required to be added to fuel which increase the cost of fuel so see #1.

3.) Ethanol increases that cost of corn, which is also used for feed.

4.) Government spending on climate change amount to more than 122.8 Billion over the last ten years

5.) Government regulation addressing climate change which affect many industries.

All of these thing affect to poor and middle class, NOT the rich. You don't really think that food cost per person rising by say $50 a week affects the uber-rich do you?

As if all of this were not enough, the liberals in their defense of the common man want to create a carbon tax which will be a regressive tax, hitting the poor at a far higher percentage of income than the rich.

Real humanitarians. This, of course, does not make them immoral (well maybe the politicians, but is there actually a moral politician?). This simply means that they are being duped.

Large powerplants by themselves don't give countries reliable energy. You need distribution systems as well, which greatly expands the costs and delays. That's why small local systems give you a lot more progress for your buck. Cheap solar is charging cellphones and providing a cheaper, healthier alternative to kerosene for nighttime lighting all over Africa, The economic benefits also tend to stay in the local communities rather than ending up in offshore banks.

Liberals say they care for the poor but the EPA raised $1000.00

a year more expense on the average person a rich warmon might afford it . A Carbon tax will freeze people and people will die from the heat because they cannot afford electricity .

Absolutely! Many people in Europe have frozen to death, caused by the high energy prices of the left.

Many factories have been shut down due to the policies of the left.

Many of the uneducated go to bed scared of the environment, because of the lies of the left.

For the World Bank to decide not to lend to third world countries money to build coal fired power stations, I think is immoral and disgusting.

You know 2.5 billion people do not have reliable electricity, and burn wood and animal dung for cooking and heating, causing lung problems a possible 2 million people (children included) it is thought could be killed this way, plus with no refridgeration many many people die from food infections.

The Left wants the poor to stay poor. They idolize village life, but they themselves would not wish to live that life.

and are they immoral?

"Energy sources that are not based on fossil fuels make power and food – both of vital importance for the poor – more expensive and more difficult to obtain. The world is being urged to go much faster than necessary to combat the exhaustion of fossil fuels. The environment may be preserved by many actions without placing prime emphasis on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. In the long term the human race may have to replace fossil fuels as an energy source, but not at present.

The changes imposed thus far have not dealt with the risks of climate change through a sensible, steady and sustained improvement in energy and other technologies and have therefore failed to address the problems of the here and now, of which the abject poverty of large numbers of people is perhaps the most pressing. In this, the consequences of the Kyoto Protocol have been immoral."

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/06/Kelly-climate-and-poor.pdf



The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) Academic Advisory Council:

Professor David Henderson (Chairman)

Professor Freeman Dyson

Professor Richard Lindzen

Professor Henrik Svensmark

Professor Fritz Vahrenholt

...

http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council/