Compman, if you read the article it was .05%, not 5%. The average American household makes $48,000/yr – so if they wanted to contribute directly that would be $24.
I’m just wondering why reject this outright when the people putting this together are specialists in their fields with far more knowledge and access to information than anyone on this forum? I tend to listen to people who are experts and it generally does me well.
And for a greater than 200% return? Remember, these people are saying what we’re currently doing is wasting money and we need to be smarter about how we invest our money since nothing we do will make a significant impact on actual warming. If nothing we do is going to make an impact on warming we might as well not lose money and actually do some good.
But why put any money into it if it isn’t going to do any good? Also, sure it starts out at $24 per year, but remember when income taxes and SS taxes were low? Once you open the door and the animals run out of the barn, it is pretty hard to corral them back into the barn.
No, it’s not going to stop the globe from warming, but if that’s you’re only measure than you might as well kill yourself because nothing you do in this world will stop that.
The article clearly states that $800B properly invested in an array of programs could net $2.1T in economic benefit. That sounds like doing good to me.
Oh, and that would be a one-time investment of $24. The article says the whole program would run $800B, not $800B/year. Not bad for $24 – 100 years worth of improvement.
the key word is “could” benefit. I “could” marry a 21 year old blond that is worth millions and my life would be better too based on my study. I still believe this is just another way to start a global tax on all of us. How many times must we be fooled before we learn. As GWB would say, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I won’t be fooled again”. I am paraphrasing as I don’t remember is blunder off the top of my head.
“The article clearly states that $800B properly invested in an array of programs could net $2.1T in economic benefit. That sounds like doing good to me.”
If they are so good at financial forecsting, why aren’t they all getting rich in the bond market?
This is the UN dude, where Zimbabwe and Sudan help to make policy. 2/3 of the world is one big s#@%hole for a reason: corruption and economic/financial ignorance imposed on dirt poor ignorant their citizenry by dictators whose only goal is to enrich and empoer themselves. When the West sends money to these thugs it doesn’t get to the people it’s supposed to help, it goes into the pockets of the Yassir Arafats of the world.
Actually, this isn’t the UN, it’s a conference with participants that happen to also work for the UN.
And who knows how much these people are worth? For all we know they need never work again. I know at least five of them have at one time in their lives made a million dollars in one go – from their Nobel prize.
I still see no reason in casually dismissing the recommendations of experts out of hand just because you don’t like who they associate with.
Algore won a Nobel Prize for telling lies about global warming, so that tells you what Nobel Prizes are worth.
Think of it: they want public money for a 100 year attempt to… what exactly? Fight every form of pollution? Guess what? The USA is one of the cleanest industrialized nations. We clean up our messes. Tell India and China and other hellholes to clean up their own messes -at their own expense- and leave us alone.
If you are comfortable with a supra-government planning a 100 year project to regulate the earth’s climate, you’re hopeless.
Did you know that there is global warming being detected on Mars and Venus? Do we need an intergalactic panel to form a committee to come up with a 100 year plan to cope with this impending catastrophe to?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Compman, if you read the article it was .05%, not 5%. The average American household makes $48,000/yr – so if they wanted to contribute directly that would be $24.
I’m just wondering why reject this outright when the people putting this together are specialists in their fields with far more knowledge and access to information than anyone on this forum? I tend to listen to people who are experts and it generally does me well.
And for a greater than 200% return? Remember, these people are saying what we’re currently doing is wasting money and we need to be smarter about how we invest our money since nothing we do will make a significant impact on actual warming. If nothing we do is going to make an impact on warming we might as well not lose money and actually do some good.
But why put any money into it if it isn’t going to do any good? Also, sure it starts out at $24 per year, but remember when income taxes and SS taxes were low? Once you open the door and the animals run out of the barn, it is pretty hard to corral them back into the barn.
Not do any good by what measure?
No, it’s not going to stop the globe from warming, but if that’s you’re only measure than you might as well kill yourself because nothing you do in this world will stop that.
The article clearly states that $800B properly invested in an array of programs could net $2.1T in economic benefit. That sounds like doing good to me.
Oh, and that would be a one-time investment of $24. The article says the whole program would run $800B, not $800B/year. Not bad for $24 – 100 years worth of improvement.
the key word is “could” benefit. I “could” marry a 21 year old blond that is worth millions and my life would be better too based on my study. I still believe this is just another way to start a global tax on all of us. How many times must we be fooled before we learn. As GWB would say, “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, I won’t be fooled again”. I am paraphrasing as I don’t remember is blunder off the top of my head.
“The article clearly states that $800B properly invested in an array of programs could net $2.1T in economic benefit. That sounds like doing good to me.”
If they are so good at financial forecsting, why aren’t they all getting rich in the bond market?
This is the UN dude, where Zimbabwe and Sudan help to make policy. 2/3 of the world is one big s#@%hole for a reason: corruption and economic/financial ignorance imposed on dirt poor ignorant their citizenry by dictators whose only goal is to enrich and empoer themselves. When the West sends money to these thugs it doesn’t get to the people it’s supposed to help, it goes into the pockets of the Yassir Arafats of the world.
Get a dang clue.
Actually, this isn’t the UN, it’s a conference with participants that happen to also work for the UN.
And who knows how much these people are worth? For all we know they need never work again. I know at least five of them have at one time in their lives made a million dollars in one go – from their Nobel prize.
I still see no reason in casually dismissing the recommendations of experts out of hand just because you don’t like who they associate with.
Algore won a Nobel Prize for telling lies about global warming, so that tells you what Nobel Prizes are worth.
Think of it: they want public money for a 100 year attempt to… what exactly? Fight every form of pollution? Guess what? The USA is one of the cleanest industrialized nations. We clean up our messes. Tell India and China and other hellholes to clean up their own messes -at their own expense- and leave us alone.
If you are comfortable with a supra-government planning a 100 year project to regulate the earth’s climate, you’re hopeless.
Did you know that there is global warming being detected on Mars and Venus? Do we need an intergalactic panel to form a committee to come up with a 100 year plan to cope with this impending catastrophe to?
http://www.junkscience.com