$$ should be spent on reducing poverty, improving literacy, improving agricultural sustainability, telecoms, utility and rail infrastructure rural areas so people do not need so much fuel to commute and can live independently and profitably in rural areas; this reduction in urban migration would reduce jams, pollution, urban slums and provide a better environment livelihood for all.
$ wasted on such subsidies will only result in scarcity in times of need as Malaysia has shown: 'The mystery of Malaysia's tsunami aid': http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4100030.stm . The humanitarian suffering that follows will only result in more civilian dissatisfaction, religious radicalism and political instability.
If necessary, such subsidies should be better focused: e.g. to rural farmers, however, I believe organic fertilizers, free internet connectivity and good rail connectivity to markets would be much better.
Penny wise pound foolish, these stupid 3rd rated politicians are going to DROWN the nation and SINK this world. Hope their charges know better and VOTE THEM OUT soon before we all have to drink salty water.
Dec 18, 2009
As an engineer by training, I tend to support views of the sceptics because by 2020, the different camps could still be arguing.
The Earth has experienced worse climate changes before. But why focus on climate change when the Earth has already witnessed serious damage to its environment through pollution - waste, chemicals and carbon dioxide - of its land, rivers, seas and air?
Are the politicians at the Copenhagen summit not seeing the wood for the trees?
Since the summit was politically motivated by a confluence of various interest groups keen to establish 'carbon tax' or 'cap-and-trade' schemes, the focus has been shifted to blame games and monetary contributions to redress climate change.
Nations should refocus to tackle the core issue of emissions of toxic gases released by combustion of fossil fuels and other pollution caused by human activities. It is more practical and meaningful to curb irresponsible human activities and let Nature take care of climate change.
One undeniable fact is the past 100 years' historical baggage of industrial nations. Their prosperity was built on the back of carbon dioxide emissions.
Rich nations should volunteer to contribute more to set up a universal 'green fund' to develop sustainable alternative energy sources, subsidise reforestation programmes, and encourage reduction, reuse and recycling of materials, while transferring green technology to developing or poor nations to improve life and benefit humanity.
World leaders should collectively work out realisable approaches to cut carbon dioxide emissions and curb pollution.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi