Is this supposed to be a parody?

I gather you are in favour of capitulation to the Islamofascists. After all, they hate you for your morals.

The first position is indefensible, so we can assume you agree Kyoto has thus far failed to reduce CO2 emissions.

Whether the next round of cuts has any effect remains to be seen. Most likely, if the cuts genuinely bite, CO2 production will simply move to those developing nations that don’t have their own targets, and we’ll see no overall reduction.

But we will see a transfer of wealth from Europe to the developing nations, which, after all, is the main (unstated) aim of the Kyoto Eurocrats. Just like the communist apparatchiki of yore, the Eurocrats’ privileged position is secure regardless of the underlying economic conditions, and Global Warming represents the perfect vehicle for the spread of their soci4list agenda.

Quick, someone give this guy a Nobel Peace Prize. Now.

What I meant was that the world, on the whole, did not do a very good job of coordinating in WWII. To tackle climate change politically we would need far more cooperation than in WWII, not the same level. Sorry for not spelling it out in my comment.

As for the terrible result of WWII, which has been much lamented lately on the far right –

Okay, I’m lost. What view do you hold about the Soviet’s takeover of Eastern Europe at the end of WWII? Do you lament it? If not, why not?

#42: I’m not saying we shouldn’t help the Bangladeshis, just that I don’t believe the rich countries have a moral obligation to do so just because we have historically been the biggest emitters. The CO2 is a common “bad” that helped create a much larger common good from which all of us (Bangladeshis included) are benefiting.

Current political or religious terrorists don’t go for economic targets; but these would be entirely appropriate for a revenge cult blaming rich countries’ energy wastefulness. It could do an awful lot with a few RPGs or hijacked oil tankers.

As for the terrible result of WWII, which has been much lamented lately on the far right – there’s been a meme about how the U.S. should never have coddled those russians, but attacked for freedom’s sake in 1947! – well, that is one of those swampy little sentiments that derive from the right’s addiction to playing computer war games. After you’ve bought your Clancy approved Limited Nuclear War game and scored the surprise direct hits, you get all warm and hard and Patton-ish. And you are playing for freedom! Your throwing in of Churchill, the far right’s Britney Spears+Mother Theresa figure, was truly a bonus. Since Churchill signed on quite blithely to send the Russian Displaced persons back to Russia, and felt the main thing to do, after the War, was to retain British rule over its empire, his beliefs about the freedom of Eastern Europe strike me as meaningless rhetorical ploys.

I’m glad you agree on the desirability of Kyoto.

I think more people than just the American right who were upset by the fact that WWII resulted in many Eastern European nations becoming satellite states of a cruel dictatorship. I am not American, but that result of WWII upset me. And I get the impression from his writings that it upset Churchill, who was only half-American. Personally I think anyone who cares about liberty should be upset by that outcome of WWII.

They can and will do quite a bit to make the situation infinitely worse.

Indeed. The lack of democracy in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union probably explains the severe environmental damage in those areas.

So you think we can tackle climate change with: – a large chunk of the European states doing their best to stay neutral (eg Ireland, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden) – China in a state of civil war – the Australians hauling home when they feel threatened – military occupations of any countries that get in the way of the grand scheme (eg Iran) – Germany breaking treaties left, right and centre?

Sure, the Bangladeshis owe “us” a huge bill for the technology “we” have developed for them absolutely gratis (oh really), to deal with problems partly caused by “our” own emissions the first place.

To be clear, the alleged spectacular failure is mainly in mugwump’s mind.

[Put that in perspective: your average Hummer produces about 500g of CO2 per km. Let’s say gas costs roughly 1 Euro per liter (it is more in Europe, but this is a rough calculation), and the Hummer gets 5km/liter (a little low, but the low gas price cancels the underestimate).

So the Hummer can travel 2,000km (most of the way across Europe) before producing 1 tonne of CO2 at a cost of 7 Euro cents, but the price of the gas to get there is 400 Euros. So about 0.02% of the cost of driving across Europe in a Hummer is due to its CO2 emissions.

With that level of Hummer disincentive I say what are we waiting for?? Kyoto here we come!]

roger: When people’s very lives are at stake, the most important problem now is to prevent big companies from offshoring their operations.