At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

This should raise red flags to all that read it ... but libs on this site are already leaning in that direction . I could point to one hopelessly confused lib's latest article but that would just encourage his half-brained thought processes ...

Most people don't understand how hopelessly biased the UN's IPCC agency is . They are not a science agency . It is strictly set up to come out with a uniform agenda that no one on its roster would challenge , not because it is accurate ... but because their function is political , not scientific . Why would anyone believe the IPCC ? And the rest of the UN is equally misleading and biased . Their "human rights commission" is also a hideous parody of itself .

There are so many conflicting scientific opinions and reports it's absolutely impossible to determine whether global warming exists or not. We hear the polar ice caps are melting because of global warming and then we hear that they're not melting because of global warming. We hear that the sea level is rising...

If there are going to be any disasters caused by global warming I doubt that it will happen within the lifetime of my grandchildren so why should I worry about it?

Hey, Petey, if you have nothing to say it's not necessary to post a blank comment.

I think my editing is what may have caused a blank comment to appear ... or else a slow server .

You know the old expression : In vino veritas ...

My glitch is better than your glitch. Often I can't even post a blank comment.

Try posting in Chinese :

Ugh , my above comment is now blank for me as well ... Should I try again ?

Can you think of how people like this can get to "see the light" ? Perhaps some time living in a culture where mediocrity is the expected norm ?

Holy crapola ... I've got 2 articles up on the front page at once . How did that happen ... OK it was article pimping & self-promotion .

Ted Kaczynski at least had some nice explosives to keep him warm when he was in Montana .

it takes state controlled media to make sure everyone is pretending the same thing.

Maybe that's why people in the west are so gaga over teh interwebs . In the US we had Brian Williams to "tell it like it's supposed to be" .

Ohhh hee hee I feel one coming on.... oooo. Wait for it...Wait for it...

Commie!!!

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled

It is statements like the above that just make me not want to believe anything else in the article. There never was pure capitalism (just like there never was pure communism, socialism, etc.)

They never did say in the editorial what she planned on changing the economicdevelopmentmodelto, and the assumption is, of course, that any other economic development model is authoritarian communism, or maybefeudalism, or some other dire sounding bogey man...

Do you have trackback on the original interview? Can't find it anywhere.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

There ya go . The time of the industrial revolution was about as purely capitalistic as any era in history. Problems ?

It is statements like the above that just make me not want to believe anything else in the article.

So ... how did the tiny island country of England become such a dominant global power right after the industrial revolution ? Was it their religion ?!

The author did not say what was going to replace capitalism. Indeed, the Secretary did not mention in the quotes that the capitalist theories were what was going to be changed. This (the change0 was the speculation of the author, unless it was mentioned it elsewhere in the interview. That is why I asked for a trackback.

Problems?

I am surprised I didn't read about the big orgasm that she had, all the while screaming,'China! Oh, Yes! China!" Do I really need a sarcasm tag???

Probably something to do with Carbon markets

And the relevance of your question is???? Oh, that is right, there is no relevance to your question.

See, you just don't see anything at all wrong with the statement that I quoted, when it is logically, historically and factually challenged.

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled

Above is what you quoted .

See, you just don't see anything at all wrong with the statement that I quoted, when it is logically, historically and factually challenged.

Really ? Please at least make an attempt to answer my question . Then we can talk about " historically and factually challenged " .

Do I really need a sarcasm tag???

Do you really need 3 punctuation marks ?

bloomberg...

Biggest Emitter China Best on Climate, Figueres Says

The words only, ever, at all disqualify the statement from logically serious consideration.

Capitalism did not suddenly pop into existence after feudalism (although the term was first used in 1826). It partially arose from the need for financing of expeditions to establish colonies and haul all of the goods back to the European homelands. (Think Hudson Bay Company, et al.)

Basically, it was the countries of western Europe who were running around, scarfing up and laying claim to the "wilderness" where only some "savages" lived, and fighting over who got what land. (Theft:The original capitalist principle!) To do this required a whole bunch of ships: commercial to start and maintain commerce, and state to protect all of those commercial ships. So all of the countries had navies, and the one that turned out to be the spoiler was the English Navy, 'cause it Lambasted the Spanish Armada in the English Channel, and after that, England was the toughest kid on the block. So, through the combined efforts of war, theft, piracy, et al the little country of England plowed it's way to prominence. (I know, it is still woefully incomplete, but it is better than the author did, and I answered your question at the same time, though I did not want to because it is totally beside the point of my comment.)

A shorter work week? What is he, Some kind of anti-Capitalist? Work them children as long and hard as they are able. If they fall in the machines, there are plenty more where they came from... The shorter work hours were a compulsion of the workers and did not arise from the capitalist drive.

Yes....

The words only, ever, at all disqualify the statement from logically serious consideration.

I agree the statement was hyperbolic but it was not completely misleading .

Theft:The original capitalist principle!

Now that was hyperbolic ! Capitalism did not invent theft . It's been around since the existence of the natural order . The point that was being made , although not particularly detailed , was that the combination of capitalism [which also has existed for a long time ] with the industrial revolution did establish a greatly improved standard of living for the masses of humanity in that region . And along with that came the shorter work week and improved lifespan . The shorter work week came about because it became unnecessary for workers to toil as long as they had in the past , due to improved productivities .

through the combined efforts of war, theft, piracy, et al the little country of England plowed it's way to prominence. (I know, it is still woefully incomplete

Yeah , very incomplete . You are just ignoring what the invention of the steam engine did for industry , mining and later on shipping . The late 1700's were critically important in that regard . Since the mid 1860s the effects of the steam engine on the average worker in the west were dramatic & positive . Did you happen to notice that the author was referring only to the last 150 years ? You can sob dramatically all you want about the nasty English navy but it was the later British contributions to technology that were undeniable ; And the resulting improvements to nutrition and living conditions .

Capitalism in one form or another has existed since the advent of widespread trade . The ancient Phoenicians and Athenians were particularly notable in that regard . But neither had the technical capability that the steamship and the accurate portable timepiece [with its improvements to navigation ] had on shipping and trade . 150 years ... not that much time to escape from the mediocrity and drudgery that preceded that era .

Apparently this was in reply to my comment on the previous page . It looks like we agree again ! See my more detailed reply to Broliver above ...

I wasn't ignoring anything, I just didn't feel like typing a book on the history of the western powers. England ruled the seas (even before the Industrial Revolution) because she took them. Not crying over anything here, just stating facts.

You don't think theft is a part of colonial conquest? They got what they wanted by taking it militarily. Sailing over, sticking a flag in it and bawling," I claim this land in the name of The Great King Umptysquat."

Did you happen to notice that the author was referring only to the last 150 years

Then why reference feudalism? That was not a dominant organizational system in Europe since roughly 1500 (though the last vestiges of it in Europe were hanging around until the French revolution). Mercantilism, a mixture of feudalism and proto-capitalism, gained ascendancy during the Enlightenment. The real development that kicked the whole thing into gear was the idea of shares of stocks. The Industrial revolution gave fuel to the tool that was already in existence.

Trade has existed as a definitional aspect of being homo sapiens since before the dawn of recorded history. Capitalism, as a defined term, has only been around since 1826. Free trade? Never seen it, though the abuses made by the capitalists in the name of more money, more power was very evident in the first 50 years of the Industrial Revolution, enough so that it became apparent to all that businesses could not be allowed to operate unregulated because of their abuse of the workers.

Anyway, the article did not give the specifics of how The Secretary wanted to change the economic development model to, and so is just a harangue against any other system besides pure capitalism (which has never existed anyway), and the UN and climate change.I bet the writer got a gold star and a pat on his head when he combined the three.

I think that's only in the case of males . Females who orgasm for > 4 hours do not suffer the same social stigma ... at least not from men .

You don't think theft is a part of colonial conquest? They got what they wanted by taking it militarily.

I don't think all colonialism is exclusively about theft . It depends to some degree on which country . Spain was definitely all about theft . England ... not so much . Failing to make that distinction means your brush is FAR TOO WIDE . Using a paint roller when you paint line paintings is not a good policy .

Then why reference feudalism?

For contrast ?

abuses made by the capitalists in the name of more money, more power was very evident in the first 50 years of the Industrial Revolution

Again , the author is talking about the last 150 years . Can you say the same thing about that era ?

it became apparent to all that businesses could not be allowed to operate unregulated because of their abuse of the workers.

Confusing cause & effect does not make your case . Improvements in productivity are what allowed govt to step in and regulate . Before that drudgery & toil was king .

Petey: Your version of the history of the Industrial Revolution wears rose colored glasses, and they must be the wrong prescription for your eyes because you are just dead wrong.

Confusing cause & effect does not make your case . Improvements in productivity are what allowed govt to step in and regulate . Before that drudgery & toil was king .

Me confusing cause and effect? Allowed the gov't to step in and regulate? Absolute horse hockey. I guess that somehow you missed the children working 12 to 16 hour shifts, chaining the workers to the machines that allowed the "increases in productivity" to happen. That was the human capital that was expended to make the"increases in productivity" a reality. Why on earth would the regulations be there if people were not doing the very things that the regulations are intended to stop?

You seem to want to believe that capitalism is a large, fluffy plush toy that is so much fun because it can only do good, while the history of capitalism is littered with exploitation because the motivations of a capitalist are primarily to maximize return on investment.

I don't think all colonialism is exclusively about theft

Why do you take the statements I make and turn them into absolutes? I did not say anything about exclusivity, but it was a large part of the colonial movement.

Again , the author is talking about the last 150 years . Can you say the same thing about that era ?

Yes. Just as power corrupts, so does money, and the more of it there is to be had, the tendency is toward more corrupt practices to get it. Even today it is evident because people cut corners to increase the short term gain.

And once again I will note my original question of do you know where the interview is , if it exists?

Someone in another thread called this thread "lame" . But he is too chickenshit to show up here and exposit on this topic . But that's not surprising since he is : 1] ahistoric 2] incapable of exposition , only capable of personal attacks and lauding his own imagined intelligence . I will leave it to the readers to guess who I'm referring to ...

I guess that somehow you missed the children working 12 to 16 hour shifts, chaining the workers to the machines that allowed the "increases in productivity" to happen.

Again ... you are talking about the beginnings of the industrial revolution , not the last 150 years . And BTW if you think farming was better in regards to long hours you are the one with the rose colored glasses . Farming [before it became industrialized ] was the most back breaking toil for the longest hours . You seem to ignore the contrast that the industrial revolution brought its change from . It might have been "closer to nature" but it was by no means a garden of Eden .

Why do you take the statements I make and turn them into absolutes? I did not say anything about exclusivity, but it was a large part of the colonial movement.

Here was what you said :

You don't think theft is a part of colonial conquest? They got what they wanted by taking it militarily.

Did it discuss exceptions ? No . I specifically asked about England which you chose to ignore . Why is that ?

You want the interview details ? Try here for some of the gist of what she said :

bloomberg...

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said yesterday in an interview at Bloomberg News headquarters in New York.

Here is a link to all of the wars that Great Britain has been involved in from 1707 till the present . I would like to draw your attention to the Column on the right hand side indicating the outcome of each of the wars. You will notice that when a war is won, territory is normally ceded to the victor(s). So armed conflict to gain territory.... sounds an awful lot like armed robbery to me. And not all of the conflicts were about the territories ceded, because Great Britain, England,the UK or whatever you want to call it was a player on the world stage from before 1700, and as a result had holdings in disparate regions of the world.

So to answer your initial question of how did the tiny island country of England become such a dominant global power right after the industrial revolution ?, it didn't. It was already a major power.

I would also like to state that I made no claims as to the difficulty or otherwise of any type of work, so you can stop raising that as an issue. I also made no judgement based on the closer to the earth issue. Both seem to be red herrings.

The Industrial Revolution was from (approximately) 1760 to 1870. Workplace safety only came on the scene after the fact and did not really come into effect in the US until after 1880 . Indeed, it took The Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911 to really start reform of industries that prior had operated largely with impunity.

And, if you think that the capitalists of the world have all gone to make things as safe as can be, I have but one word for you: Bangladesh .

Finally, the interview you linked really has nothing in it for information. She said nothing of importance in that interview, especially pertaining to this article, and her observations seam straightforward and truthful, though lacking in any real, new information.

Persistent Genital Arousal...

Broliver ,

Thanks for the link about British conflicts . I will look it over & get back to you . However my first impression is that Britain was only one of many combatants in a lot of those conflicts ...

"I would also like to state that I made no claims as to the difficulty or otherwise of any type of work, so you can stop raising that as an issue"

I'm going to keep raising that issue as a point of reference . One can only judge a change based on that which preceded it.

Acupuncture could probably help that condition ... my guess .