³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

afganistan

a bogus narrative which is a failure of philosophy is unlikely to have a good end? if you sow stupidity why expect success?

Howells is of course right. But it won't fit in with the extremist unlimited migration policy of the eu/market fundamentalists/lefty internationalists cabal?

not sure why NN is having a rant at cameron over Lisbon? Do they already think him PM?

the politics pen is just being a fashion victim. what's wrong with 'old fashioned' investigative journalism on a NEWS programme?

how entertaining it's going to be to see a lot of crack pot ideas shot down by self appointed experts. maybe it makes more sense if i put some of that 'bbc whitener' in my coffee? thank goodness for iplayer that allows you to skip the circus acts.

We should not be surprised about the situation in Afghanistan; NATO forces are on a hiding to nothing; the real objective needs to be stability in Pakistan and that is achievable.

Kelly's rules will be accepted and things will move on; a big clearout at the next election; end of - as my nephews say.

The Tories and Europe story will run on but below the radar; the party sees power in its sights and will do anything to achieve it; look at what Labour did in 1997! If it means hushing up on Europe - no probs.

We need to be much more interested in what a Conservative government will do in terms of transport, education, Afghanistan et al. The truth is out there and it's scarier than any of us can imagine.

So NN looks like it's slightly behind the curve; a Gallic shrug, a sip of raki and back to backgammon.

"Today, five British soldiers were shot dead by the very policeman they were helping to train."


There is no honour is this war.

My thoughts and prayers are with the realtives of these brave young men - our men, our honourable men.

On the EU referendum, whatever Cameron said would have been wrong. If he had insisted on pressing on with a referendum, the critics would have pointed out (quite rightly) that such a referendum is legally meaningless, the treaty now having entered into force.

Of course, if you want to withdraw from the EU entirely, as UKIP do, then I suppose continuing to go on about a referendum is fair enough. But if not, then surely the only logical thing is to draw a line in the sand and say no further powers will be transferred without a referendum in future. Of course, whether future governments respect that rather than trying to get round it is another matter, but it seems worth a try.

As a rule, the problem with powers being transferred to the EU isn't that each one is a big step in itself - it's the cumulative effect of all the changes added together. At least making it law that no further powers can be transferred without a referendum might concentrate the minds of any future government.

BRER TONY AND BRER DAVE THEY DUN REAL DEVIOUS LITTLE CHILLEN.

Tony said '45 minutes' - Dave said: 'cast iron referendum'. They both added other, tricky, fudging stuff - deliberately. After Tony's words the media went ape: "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE IN 45 MINUTES!" Tony lay low and say nuttin. After Dave's words, all the Tory/Greek chorus sang: "We'll have a referendum - not like Phony Tony - na na na-na naaa." Dave, he lay as low as Tony (REAL low) and say a simlar nuttin.

Gordon said: "Stand aside, I have a moral compass" and we all ended up in the briar patch.

funny how dragon's den feel no need to adopt a NN report-debate format for part of the show?

why not add in a bit of Strictly and Match of the Day and Eastenders to NN format for that 'winning' formula?

Three or four years ago a junior supervisor in a supermarket chain was caught eating two grapes from a bunch that was just about to be consigned to the waste bin. He was found guilty of theft.

He didn’t get five years ....

He got sacked.

And ... Oh yes! ....

There seems to be a growing campaign railing against ‘all women’ short lists ....

What exactly are the forces in action both for and against?

Is it misogyny, assertive action, affirmative appointment, tokenism, dogma, or vote seeking?

Is there any evidence that affirmative action or, on the other side, tokenism has any positive - or possibly negative - effect or outcome?

How on earth do you allocate the places on a shortlist of four to six? Would one of the candidates have to admit that he stroke she was a transgender, disabled, unemployed Jedi?

And ... Oh yes! .... 2

Does anyone actually know why the back room boys of the Nu Cons are so anti Europe?

And does the statement from Mr Cameron this afternoon now prove that ...

A Nu Con can con an old con if the old con believes the Nu Con will be the next national con?

And ... Oh yes! .... 3

Is a promise as good as a cast iron guarantee?



Sorry, has to be said .... the politics pen is back .... Whoop-de-do .... Not!

TAKING THE PISS

It has to be said that without alcoholic intake, there would have been no pissing on the war memorial. If only he had indulged in pot instead.

When will the complicity of alcohol, its barons, dealers and pushers, be evoked on these occasions? Answer: when Parliament closes its 19 bars.

Many many months back when the open debate on lack of helicopters began I wrote in this blog that was a pretty stupid thing to do.

There was open discussion of the need for helicopters due to the increasing deaths due to roadside improvised explosive devices. Helicopters would get round this problem.

Wrongly I pointed out at the time that the market for parts for IEDs would drop as every shoulder mounted rocket launcher on the global arms market was being bought up in eager anticipation of swarms of helicopters appearing in the skies of Afghanistan.

So wrong. If the UK Government were so openly in the media announcing a change in tactics from ground to air mobility systems, quite naturally I anticipated a counter move from the Taliban in response.

A counter move was obvious. To put Taliban within the security services British troops were training was a tactic I didn't see coming. But there again I am not the UK intelligence services with the £billion to undertake such assessments.

As soon as the open debate on helicopters broke the availability of rocket ground to air systems needed to be monitored as best as possible. Below expected change would indicate another response from the Taliban rather than the obvious rearmament.

Putting Taliban within the security services was a move which should have been predicted and covered with such open telegraphed debate months back on UK tactics in Afghanistan.

What we are seeing is a display of complete incompetence in Afghanistan. The Taliban are making the UK look very stupid on the global tactical chessboard. Tragic for those who died, but sadly also true.

Good job they didn't have an election 'protected' by 'security services'. What a blood bath that would have been!

Celtic Lion

NEWS FLASH - Champaigne Charlie Cameron show's his true colour on the EU referendum "YELLOW" hang your head in shame.

In relation to the murder of our troops in Afghanistan, I feel the only way to prevent a repetition is to Train the Trainer. Carefully select the Afghan Officers and bring them to a designated army base in the UK for training. Once they have the skills, they can be flown home and train their own men. I also feel we should bring our lads home to their families and loved ones. Politicians be damned.

poor emily, you sound very ill tonight, hope you get well soon!

Patrick Mercer just exemplified the problem when he spoke about conflict in Afghanistan 'over the last 100 years'. The UK have been fighting the war of the last 100 years whether it was the UK or Russia. Opposition with rifles hiding in mountains. The 5 deaths show the Taliban have moved on.

Last year on Paul Mason's blog over the recession, the thoughts of Galbraith were discussed over his view of the Great Depression. Galbraith considered government's made the situation worse by trying to solve a problem that had already happened instead of dealing with the present and future events.

The UK government did this with the FMD outbreak of 2001. Using initially the same tactics as the 1967 epidemic, when the pattern and vector of infection was completely different.

So in Afghanistan the Government having had troops killed on the ground, eventually start thinking about helicopters, like the US did in Vietnam in the 60's. While the Taliban have put their operatives within the security services.

The lessons of history though assessed and writ large are not seemingly being learnt. What good are helicopters when the enemy is within?

Celtic Lion

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

INAPPROPRIATE USE OF THE TERM 'MURDER'? (#11)

I first heard 'murder' used, in connection with the war in Afghanistan, a day or so back. It set me wondering. I have now been moved to read my dictionary, and see it defined as: 'illegal killing'

Are we now in the surreal world of: "I wage just war on you - you try to murder me?" Or is ALL death, in war, now murder? That's going to put a bit of a serious blood-stain on Emperor Tony's escutcheon!

As indicated before: I am in no doubt that, had the Hun invaded our islands, Churchill intended we should use every possible ruse - including infiltration and guile - to kill Gerry, by whatever means available. Surely its what indigenes do?

from mimpromptu
In view of so many undesirables following Madam Mim trying to attract her attention with or without their mobiles, she is developing a PERSONA whereby a poke face will be in operation most of the time but she does reserve the right to pull funny faces from time to time, using facial ticks and mimicry, and occasionally she may be sticking her tongue out at them as well, but that's reserved for only very special occasions. I now understand why Catherine Deneuve, for example, found it necessary to resort to her 'persona' for so many years. My position is different, however, as I am not officially recognised by the media as Monika Magdalena B., not yet.
mim

gordons carbon trading big idea.

Gordon's monetisation of carbon is another disaster for the country. in another 'unregulated' exchange where carbon credits are given away free to some' the plan is to make every person on the planet pay a tithe via a proxy just to breathe and eat. this would make those firms that dominant the exchanges [rothschilds and rockerfeller] the richest people on the planet forever.

Carbon trading could trigger a financial collapse like the sub-prime loans crisis


Carbon markets not working, says Deutsche Bank


CFTC chair calls for comprehensive regulation of emissions markets


paul sort them out.

Carbon

Post 52 from Tuesdcay 3rd November

/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/11/tuesday_3_november_2009.html

I notice from searches people have been looking with reference to #13 above my self and Al Gore quoting my work when he was notified of his Nobel Prize.

Below is the submission to an United Nations Environment and Development report commissioned by the UK Government which DEFRA had asked me to contribute to.

On the 13th December 2002 I had been invited to a conference in London to set up the new generation of climate models (which later contributed to the other 2007 Nobel Prize for the UNEP IPCC). We were guarded by anti-terrorist machine gun toting police. Quite noticeable and out of the ordinary for me comin' from up North. A bizarre juxtaposition as we were supposed to be 'saving' the world, which includes 'terrorists'.

December was also the building up to the war on Iraq, Afghanistan already invaded. The week before we had had still born twins and I was upset that the grinning politicians could countenance killing more children causing more grieving parents.

So I used the UN report to make an anti-war protest. I used climate change as an example of the greater environmental threat we should take seriously rather than war on Iraq.

Notice below I very specifically use the phrase " Now I understand it is widely acknowledged that CO2 emissions from industrialised economic growth cause climatic change". I never commit myself to saying 'I' believe CO2 alone contributes to climate change-despite the week before working on the climate models the UK now uses.

Then I use the phrase:

"Now a building could be destroyed and 3000 people lose their lives. A nuclear bomb has the the potential to kill a few million in a city.

Unfortunately these are insignificant compared to the most awesome tool of mass destruction. Economic growth not integrated with its cost burden on social and environmental systems at all levels of its implementation, local, national and international."

Here I have dropped 'climate change' and widened the assessment. But here was the world changing risk assessment that in 2004 covered the globe when the UK Chief Scientist Sir David King, I believe a member of the UNED, gave the risk assessment "climate change was a greater threat than terrorism".



³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ news planning have read the original 2002 work and know Sir David was not the original author, but because he is a celebrity still cited him. The massive danger to all our lives is because of 'celebrity soundbite' many of the major environmental threats to our existence are being ignored.

Climate change and Africa were given as alternatives to war on terror ie Afghanistan and Iraq. Climate change and Africa became the agenda of the 2005 G8 in Perthshire. Those with a twisted sense of humour now realising one of the biggest global jokes was to get Blair and Bush to discuss an anti-war agenda without them realising. This UN report I am contributing to being a seriously influential 'special American mommy lover' of a report.

From the G8 you get Live8, the Stern Report etc. Note I am also introducing the dangers of increasing consumer debt in 2002, I believe the 'expert economists' NN now have on refer to this as the 'credit crunch'

Everything from one submission. The legal people who have seen the original consider it one of the most influential works of the 21st century if it was responsible for all that we see above now in the media. They consider it even more extraordinary if it didn't influence but managed to predict everything.

When Al Gore was notified of his Nobel Prize he said the British Government had warned climate change was a greater threat than terrorism. Well it wasn't the British Government it was Roger Thomas. And Roger Thomas didn't quite say that, he said economic growth not integrated with it's cost burdens, which may include a component of man made climate change. Which is subtly different than what the media are saying.
.........................
Changing Futures
19/12/02
Roger Thomas
Submission to UNED report


This forum is supposedly directed at UK domestic policy, unfortunately domestic policy now seems international policy. The news last night was war on terrorism and war on Iraq.

Even the DEFRA website itself considers SD about UK and the world outside as a "WHOLE".

Recently I was invited to look at Guidance for Policy Makers and Regulatory Impact Assessment by the Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit.

This document is available at the Cabinet Office RIU website.

Now in the consultation draft Annex 4 under Sustainable Development it says "One purpose of cost-benefit analysis is to ensure that in pursuing any single objective, we should not impose disproportionate costs elsewhere....the needs of the present may also result in costs to the environment or social welfare".

Now I understand it is widely acknowledged that CO2 emissions from industrialised economic growth cause climatic change.

The principle stated in the Cabinet Office draft also being applicable to the global dynamic. Probably why there was a worldwide response to the US decision not to co-operate on Kyoto.

National economic policy not integrated with sustainable development analysis and goals imposes costs on the social and environmental systems of the planet.

A country such as the US as the biggest emitter of greenhouse costs presumably imposes the biggest individual costs on the social and environmental systems of the global dynamic.

Now a building could be destroyed and 3000 people lose their lives. A nuclear bomb has the the potential to kill a few million in a city.

Unfortunately these are insignificant compared to the most awesome tool of mass destruction. Economic growth not integrated with its cost burden on social and environmental systems at all levels of its implementation, local, national and international.

Its effects are indiscriminate drought, famine, flood, destruction of crops, fire. It is not millions, but 10's and 100's of millions who pay the price.

It has just been announced that we have had the 2nd hottest year on record globally, the hottest being 1998.

Coincidentally we now have reports of the impending famine in Ethiopia due to drought. Millions of men, woman, children, families and animals just waiting to die.

Are these paying the cost of air conditioning in Houston, £158 billion of UK consumer credit, 12 lane interstate highways and congestion on the M6.

The UN wants US$340 million to deal with this disaster, I am sure somebody will supply the correct figure.

Now I have the draft UNEP IPCC Third Assessment Report Summary for Policy Makers Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability (19 Feb 2001). Why it is the draft is another story.

Now table SPM-2 page 16 on Regional Adaptive Capacity and Key Concerns : Africa......

..................................

It goes on but you already get the contents.

This why I get frustrated with NN interviewing people on climate change. If they are going to inform the public on climate change they should have the engineers and not the oily rags. Surely the viewers deserve that.

Barrie see the Cabinet Office and the government above have Annexes.

#50 wappaho meow

Celtic Lion

Interesting look at carbon and economic and ecological consequences from January 2007. The final figure is a revelation in back calculating other schemes. Check the maths!



Celtic Lion

exit strategyitis

if after 7 years of training there are still no afghans to train afghans then the training must be rubbish or the pay and conditions for the police are so bad and dangerous only opium smokers will do it?

if we use our models of society then the afghan police should have among the best of pay and conditions? as should the farmers. by 'bribing' these classes with state money we keep peace and food. if it works here why not there. money is power.

europe

anything that upsets the french means you are on the rational and right track?

given Brown thinks it a good idea the eu has a written constitution then the uk also needs the 'good' of a written constitution? why do they block a 'good' for the british people [again!]?

are the wheels come off camerons wagon? are the anti eu tories snatching electoral defeat from victory?

The Politics Pong

can you change the format to Takashi's Castle? anyone who makes it through to the end gets to put their policy in for consideration?

Jeremy can wear the white suit.

PAR FOR THE COURSE? (#20)

You have set me thinking. If an external force majeur, grafts a national army onto a feudal-minded quasi-nation, surely the next event (after we leave) is a military coup? Britain then declares some tyrannical General legitimate for strategic purposes - and history (as in other states we have rogered) repeats itself.

#18 Roger Thomas

"When Al Gore was notified of his Nobel Prize he said the British Government had warned climate change was a greater threat than terrorism. Well it wasn't the British Government it was Roger Thomas. And Roger Thomas didn't quite say that, he said economic growth not integrated with it's cost burdens, which may include a component of man made climate change."

Does it really matter who said it first and I doubt the Nobel went to him because he said it as he campaigned and changed minds via "An Inconvenient Truth"?

I don't follow links because of the far right nature of many posters on here and so it was better to see the detail on the plain page.

Other thoughts are many will agree about the costs of climate change due to human impact but surely the real issue is limiting its damage and future impact as we cannot actually ever be certain what the precise value of the human component is.

"It has just been announced that we have had the 2nd hottest year on record globally, the hottest being 1998."

Things like that do make me alert and sceptical. I am not a scientist but isolated data may not have any statistical significance and its not certain how temperatures will play out in the short to medium term as I understand it. The science behind long term human induced climate change via CO2 does seem very concrete.

They could drop temporarily as those who have been studying ocean currents have suggested.

Finally you said the other day that "with the Klu Klux Klan what you see is what you get".

I am not sure that will get you a Nobel for that whether you said it first or not as many have been and are subjected to their violence.

Barrie #15

I think it's a legal killing if you are in uniform. Murder if you are not part of a recognised army. Either way, the other guy is dead.

Yes, I would fight in the hills, on the beaches etc. same as the Afghans are doing. It looks like we may have to the way the current 'invasion' of these isles is proceeding. But then it is not an official invasion so we would be hauled up for murder I suspect.

#5 barriesingleton

"BRER TONY AND BRER DAVE THEY DUN REAL DEVIOUS LITTLE CHILLEN.

....

Gordon said: "Stand aside, I have a moral compass" and we all ended up in the briar patch."

Meanwhile your moral pal jaded_jean proposes ideas like National Socialism and eugenics and race "realism" on this page and you applaud that poster.

The history the far right propose on this page where say the Holocaust is either "overstated" (Newfazermk2 whose grandfather was also in the RAF like Nick Griffins) or was "made up to put people off statists" (jaded_jean).

The science they espouse is based on a few errant minds that try to propose that there is a difference in intelligence between the races due to genetics but as the Channel 4 "Race and Intelligence" shows there is no kind of consensus for that view and in general science shows we are all very similar. Its not even clear IQ is the ultimate indicator of intelligence.

Genetic variation is greater within a race than between races and in general the differences between the races are cosmetic.

Genetic mixing actually helps the gene pool as it avoids the problems of "inbreeding".

So I am not sure that your moral compass works that well.

I may be missing the point of the question with regard to tonight as I thought the BoE had announced QE would be extended by £25 billion - perhaps that is a tranche from the existing quota.

But my worry is that we are not coming out of recession because we are so laden down by debt and there is no optimism that things will get better as we are so dependent on financial services.

So would the economy respond better if it was indicated how the economy will be or could be rebalanced?

I have yet to see any convincing suggestion.

The far right on this page seem to live in their la-la-land where we get rid of the banks and London and build things. Its not clear what or who would buy the things we build or whether London would be suited to large scale industrial activity.

There could be infrastructure changes to facilitate a carbon-free economy and electric/non-carbon vehicles but that would only be a short term boost.

I suppose until we know how safe the banks are going to be we don't know how much to rely up on them.

Its such a shame that Labour are paralyzed and waiting for the election with such trepidation.

Go1 #25
(Newfazermk2 whose grandfather was also in the RAF like Nick Griffins)"

Come Go1 - PAY ATTENTION! I've put you straight on this previously. My grandfather was NOT in the RAF. If, despite being corrected, you still get simple facts like this wrong who is going to believe anything else you say?

19.

it is the monetisation of carbon that is the scam. it gives the illusion something is happening when actually all that is happening is another wealth transfer from poor to rich.

If this was trying to deal with slimming it would be like monetising fat instead of slimming and buying 'fat' credits from the fat market [owned by sugar companies] so you can eat a tub of icecream. whatever is going on isn't dealing with the problem ie the need to slim.

of course the eco priests blinded by belief are merely acting as unwitting frontmen for the market players who are getting very rich thank you.

in the meantime the practical things that would make a difference like a feed in tariff are blocked. the energy multinationals will not give up their uk cash cow without a fight. in the meantime they hide behind the politically driven smokescreen of carbon trading as 'the solution'.

Afghanistan Losses

Sadly there is noway to eliminate all risk, I could go out one morning and never return home due to a car accident or be robbed and killed or become a victim of a terrorist attack, anyone saying otherwise is not thinking with a clear head.

All we can do is try and reduce risks, but things don't always work out how we wished they had ,specially in a complex war zone.

My condolences to the bereaved, but no words I may utter will diminish their loss.


Lisbon Treaty Referendum

I can't see how there could be a referendum on Lisbon after it's ratification and it becoming law in all 27 nation states. After all, it was a amending treaty, any post ratification referendum would have been by it's very nature a In or Out EU referendum, something that was never promised.

If anyone broke their 2005 manifesto promises, it was the party in power (NuLabour), they had the votes in Parliament to enable a referendum , they chose to vote against holding a referendum.

Makes me think what NuLabour has in store for us next.

Anyone who missed Camerons speech yesterday, the links are here .

Here's a thought...

1,428 coalition soldiers have died thus far in Afghanistan. Since 2001, the US alone have spent $223bn on the war in Afghanistan.

4,679 coalition soldiers died in Iraq throughout the war. The US alone spent almost £700bn on the war.

So, thats 6,107 soldiers dead and almost $1 TRILLION spent (by the US alone) so far...

Add to that tens of thousands (some say c.100,000) of civilians killed across both countries.

And what state are Iraq and Afghanistan in now? Let's cut the c**p... an utter mess on both counts. And the polical capital gained / lost... I think we all know that too.

Compare - around 3,000 people died in the Twin Towers on 9/11, and the rebuild costs are estimated around $10bn

So, thought No 1 - less people would have died, less money would have been wasted and less damage caused all round if the US (and others) had actually just sat back and let Al Quaida carry on with the terror attacks post 9/11. [Controversial... intake of breath]. Or, are soldiers and foreign civilians less important than Wall Street bankers? Hmm.

Or better still - thought No 2, the real one - why not actually try to ENGAGE with the muslim world properly and try to FIGURE OUT exactly why it is that some factions hate the US (ahem, sorry) the West so much. Hey, they might have a point. US and others' foreign/economic policy might not actually be 100% right/constructive.

This isn't a 'war', people, it's a difference of world view. Now, isn't that what we've historically employed diplomats for?? Either that or it's Hiroshima again... but somehow I don't think that's the way forward.

I'm not alone in thinking there could have been a different path to resolving post 9/11 global issues... and I'm not alone in thinking we're just fuelling the hate in (not) tackling it by throwing money and dead people at the situation.

We're only hurting ourselves in the end.

(Light blue touch paper, walk away...)

#28 Jauntycyclist

"it is the monetisation of carbon that is the scam. it gives the illusion something is happening when actually all that is happening is another wealth transfer from poor to rich."

Yes! There are so many ways in which your statement could be shown to be correct, an entire book would be required not just a post.

All that cap and trade ultimately archives is granting someone the right to pollute with CO2 in exchange for money. If CO2 does contribute to climate change, all the schemes are doing is internalising natural ecological processes into an economic system. On the basis of if CO2 contributes to climate change, if you need to contribute to climate change "it will cost you this much and we take a cut for allowing you to do it".

If climate change is so serious why are they dealing with it in so a remote hit and miss way. Next time anyone is out in a car or train look at the miles of hedgerows were trees could be planted. Look at the acres and square miles of open space we have were we pay people to cut grass, that could have trees planted on it instead.

Look across the face of the globe where we have crated man made deserts due to deforestation, eg sub Saharan Africa were lush forest were removed for pre 13th century metal working. Forests create their own rainfall, a million square miles of forest could be created.

Carbon could be taken out of the atmosphere without the need for politicians and economists ever having to discuss insane complex carbon trading schemes which make money for artificial markets not stabilizing the reality of the planet's ecological life support systems.

Carbon trading does not stop the pollution of land and oceans by toxic and radioactive waste, carbon trading does not stop excessive resource use, carbon trading does not stop species extinctions, carbon trading does not stop over population, carbon trading does not do many things.

Apart from make money for the markets.

Celtic Lion

Well tonight I am going to sit in dark no TV, no computer, no heating. Please everyone else do the same. We can all not put carbon into the atmosphere.

The amount we all save can be sold to the world's military so they can drop bombs on children, blow people up or whatever they want to do with their carbon credits.

What a wonderful world it will be when all warfare is green and eco friendly.

Celtic Lion

what is conservative policy on euro currency,what are their criteria for joining and will it be put to a referendum

THE FIRST STEP TO A 1000-YEAR PROBLEM IS TO ASK THE RIGHT QUESTION (#30)

Yup - all of that. Might I suggest the answer lies - at least partly - in HomSap's unaddressed duality of animal and cerebral? Add my old saw about wisdom losing-out to cleverness, over millennia, while all taboos atrophy, and I think the problem is framed.

I suspect we are beyond recovery, this side of the next global cataclysm. The only viable approach I can envisage is to (subversively) introduce philosophical and psychological thinking to the very young, to immunise them against our sick culture. (I say 'subversively' because Ed Balls will 'namesake' the whole idea.)

...We're only hurting ourselves in the end...

unless you are an arms dealer/manufacturer?

the neocon poison is being brewed in the foreign office castle. they must seek to perpetuate the darkness lest the light comes in and thaws their perpetual winter cursed earth.

32

...if CO2 contributes to climate change, if you need to contribute to climate change "it will cost you this much and we take a cut for allowing you to do it"....

further there is no if. for a human to exist they must have a carbon footprint. so its like saying if you need air to live you will have to pay for it. there is even no tax free allowance of carbon per person when one might think a certain footprint is allowable in nature?

we are all paying the tithe now. its just the cost is hidden in the bills.