April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
“In Mexico, Socialist International outlines priorities for COP16” reads the release. One could say the Obama administration has weighed in early, what with this being the former home of the woman in charge of U.S. policy on such matters, ‘Energy and Environment Czar’ Carol Browner.
Whether that is the case, or if the cadre is simply doing fine without former SI Commissioner Browner, after she transitioned into the Obama administration, here is the core of their demand:
First and foremost amongst the priorities highlighted was the urgent need for an ambitious and realistic international agreement with binding commitments, objectives and deadlines, and as a minimum, the formalisation of the voluntary pledges made since Copenhagen. It was noted that even if every pledge made since Copenhagen were formalised and honoured, it would still leave the world far short of what was needed. The necessity for deeper emission cuts was emphasised, keeping in mind the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities thus ensuring that the wealthiest nations reduce their emissions first and the most….
The need to put into place the proposal to create the Copenhagen Green Fund to mobilise 100 billion dollars per year by 2020 to assist developing countries was emphasised, along with the importance to set a multilateral framework to fulfil the short-term commitment of 10 billion dollars per year in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
So, that’s what the world’s socialists demand to ‘combat climate change’. Imagine their demands to combat continental drift.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?