We’re the rich ones?

The Washington Times Weekly - - Letters To The Editor -

Let me see if I have this right: At the Copen­hagen Cli­mate Sum­mit the “Rich Na­tions” have ap­par­ently agreed to give some­where be­tween 10 and 100 bil­lion dol­lars a year to de­vel­op­ing na­tions if they agree to not emit CO2. The other so­called rich na­tions of the world are ex­pect­ing the United States to carry the lions’ share of this. It is im­por­tant to note that China and In­dia are listed among the de­vel­op­ing na­tions, which means they will re­ceive part of the money for not emit­ting CO2.

I am hav­ing trou­ble with the def­i­ni­tion of who is a rich na­tion. This coun­try has a na­tional debt of $12 tril­lion, and that is be­fore Democrats pass na­tion­al­ized Health Care at a cost of $2.5 tril­lion, and be­fore Cap and Trade is passed, the cost of which is be­yond com­pu­ta­tion. So how do we qual­ify as a rich na­tion?

What that all means is that in or­der for us to pay our share of the Copen- ha­gen Cli­mate Sum­mit Agree­ment the fed­eral gov­ern­ment must bor­row the money, most likely from China, in or­der to pay China for not emit­ting CO2. I guess that kind of logic is way above my pay grade be­cause it makes no sense to me.

What does make sense to me, since I am a re­tired me­te­o­rol­o­gist, is the fact that hu­man-caused global warm­ing is based on BS, bad sci­ence. How­ever, the U.S. Supreme Court de­ci­sion that al­lowed the EPA to reg­u­late CO2 un­der the Clean Air Act and then the EPA’s action to de­clare CO2 a pol­lu­tant is, how­ever, much above the pay grades of Supreme Court Jus­tices and even fur­ther above the pay grade of any­one at the EPA, or for that mat­ter the pres­i­dent.

The de­struc­tion of this coun­try is go­ing on right be­fore our eyes; if we don’t say stop and say it very soon it will be too late. Allen E. Barr Stevensville, Mon­tana

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.