Squeersy.... if the left was genuine and sincere in it's belief about us causing AGW..then it would have not the slighest problem with us keeping the income and expenditure from our 'climate management' efforts WITHIN Australia and exclusively so.

RENEWABLE ENERGY.. If we establish a price on Carbon.. ok..fine.. not too much but.... it MUST MUST MUST go ONLY ONLY ONLY to subsidize renewable energy IN IN IN..Australia.. such as Solar Panel/Grid Connect inverters.

The 'moment' some leftoid starts to woffle about 'climate debt'to 3rd world countries...aaah BUSTED! we know what they are on about. "Wealth Redistribution/Socialism the whole kit and kaboodle."

So.. let's test you Squeersy.. this is the *Patriot Test*.. quite appropriate with Aussie day coming up...

DO you.. agree..that ALL funds raised through any kind of carbon tax should be used exclusivly within Australia ?

AGIR,
No, of course not.
I loathe and despise patriotism (the first refuge of a scoundrel) and patriots. But putting personal aversions to one side, once it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that Western industrialisation is responsible for AGW hitherto, they should make restitution to the victims of their excess.
As for wealth redistribution, that's inevitable and already underway. I'm only sorry you won't live to experience the just humiliation yourself.

The real problem is

too many mouths. The

result poverty.

The solution birth

control.The UNs

quick fix, AGW.

@ Squeers

/// once it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that Western industrialisation is responsible for AGW hitherto, they should make restitution to the victims of their excess ///

But if you are going to debit the cost , it is only FAIR to credit the benefits.

Will the new world order that is drawing-up the accounts credit the developed world for the trillion$ of aid and assistance it has provided?

From : A New Green History of the World by Clive Ponting

“The mortality pattern of the industrialised world …was not repeated in the developing world…Here the reduction in mortality rates was far greater and quicker …THIS WAS THE RESULT OF IMPORTATION OF ADVANCED MEDICAL TECHNIQUES, vaccinations, antibiotics, drugs and chemical spraying of mosquito breeding grounds. This had an immediate impact” [p224]

AND:
“The United States …funded much of the research [for the ‘Green Revolution’] through the Rockefeller Foundation” [ p 244]

AS A RESULT:
“In Africa …The population hardly increased at all between 1750 and 1900 and then rose more than five-fold in the twentieth century” [ p234]

And, we have not even begun to consider education & other technology yet !

@ Garum Masala

/// I do and I really believe the majority agree with emission controls ///

I’m all for the minimisation pollution and the maximisation of alternative energies, but as ALGOREISRICH (very cleverly) points out, you can do these things without bankrolling the developed world. The developed world (in general)shows little real interest in implementing measures which would REDUCE its population to sustainable levels, little real interest in reducing environmental degradation and pollution ( unless it’s funded by someone else) and seemingly only attends functions like Copenhagen and Cancun to petition for additional freebies.

ERROR ERROR ERROR

My post to Garum Masala should read:

/// I do and I really believe the majority agree with emission controls ///

I’m all for the minimisation pollution and the maximisation of alternative energies, but as ALGOREISRICH (very cleverly) points out, you can do these things without bankrolling the UNDERdeveloped world. The UNDERdeveloped world (in general)shows little real interest in implementing measures which would REDUCE its population to sustainable levels, little real interest in reducing environmental degradation and pollution ( unless it’s funded by someone else) and seemingly only attends functions like Copenhagen and Cancun to petition for additional freebies.Posted by SPQR, Monday, 24 January 2011 5:50:05 AM

SPQR,
I was partly having a bit of fun feeding into AGIR's reactionary prejudices.
I don't believe we will ever be or be in a position to make financial reparations--though can you imagine if the boot was on the other foot? In the litigious world we've made we'de soon be crying "sue!" if it was shown that foreign rapaciousness was responsible for our own environmental and social degradation!
What reparations we will of course have to undertake, should AGW prove to be as dire as predicted, will include welcoming climate change refugees by the millions, in some cases re-establishing entire dispossessed populations from the south-east region.

As for the movement of capital from West to East, that is happening completely independently of economic levers and amounts to a "natural" economic process under capitalism. The "creative destruction" unleashed by capitalism doesn't stop at state borders and, in fact, is indifferent to how wealth is distributed.
The "UNDERdeveloped" countries are and will be bankrolling themselves as we simultaneously fall into poverty and defencelessness.
It's rich, btw, that you can criticise the third-world for overpopulation, environmental degradation etc. And we set the standard of sustainability do we? The average westerner who consumes the equivalent of a hundred from starving countries.
I'm also tired of that hypocritical stuff about capitalism lifting millions out of poverty.
Into conditions of slave-labour and ultimately shallow-consumerism if they're lucky. Though most (like Africa) were left with burgeoning populations and no infrastructure after the wealth-extraction process. Anyway, the good old days of countries transforming themselves into disgusting parodies of our socially-polarised affluence, as caricatured recently in Dubai, are mercifully nearly over.
The amount of money we give away to colonies we formerly exploited and often left baron, btw, is such a miserable token it's more an insult and source of embarrassment than anything to complain about.
We spend more on fireworks!