Climate Rhetoric: A Selection

One ritual faithfully observed at U.N. Climate change conferences is that representatives from each of 193 countries in attendance get to give a five minute speech about their country's concerns. Most of the speakers make sure that copies are available in the press room. So I went by this morning to pick up a more or less random sample to look over. I know that political speeches are not to everyone's taste so read them or not, but I thought I would share with H&R readers some highlights below:

We face a daunting choice. The nightmare of humanity becoming the species that dies out just as a parasite does that devours its host. Or the dream of a humanity that rises to the challenge of cooperation and solidarity to create a new deal with our planet.  -- George Papandreou, Prime Minister of Greece

Each and every one of us here will be judged….On how we as individual women and men gathered at this great conference have responded to the scientific reality of climate change.  And whether we have responded in conscience to the indisputable facts that science has put before us. And history will be a harsh judge of us all. – Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia

The inconvenient truth is that climate change is for “real” and happening much faster than we ever thought. Since the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, new science tells us that the impacts on planet earth, people and nature are far more severe than even the findings of that report.  – Maria Mutagamba, Water and Environment Minister of Uganda

Sierra Leone like most of the world is experiencing a change in its climate resulting in extreme weather events such as storms, floods and drought with adverse impacts on the socio-economic fabric of the country.  – Ogunlade Davidson, Energy and Water Resources Minister of Sierra Leone

It is within the context of occupation that Palestinians are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Our vulnerability stems not just from the very real impact of climate change on our environment, but from the constraints we face under occupation. – Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority

If we want to be responsible to our peoples and to humanity as a whole, the world’s leaders must come to immediate and concrete agreements to reverse climate change. – Felipe Calderon, President of Mexico

The temperature in Nepal is increasing at a rate much higher than the global average….Global climate change is adversely affecting the fragile mountain ecosystem while endangering its great biodiversity.     --  Madhav Kumar Nepal, Prime Minister of Nepal

Belize is a country blessed with the largest barrier reef in the Western Hemisphere…thousands of beautiful coral islands, and abundant mangrove, broadleaf and pine forests. Unfortunately, we are not able to list our natural riches merely to extol them. Rather, it is to lament their destruction;  to testify to the havoc that is being wrought on our environment and on our people by anthropogenic climate change. -- Dean Barrow, Prime Minister of Belize

Without common action extreme temperatures will create a new generation of poor with climate change refugees driven from their homes by drought, climate change evacuees fleeing the threat of drowning, the climate change hungry desperate for food.  – Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Bangladesh’s greenhouse gas contribution is negligible, but it is one of its worst victims. Climate change, and increased frequency, ferocity and erratic pattern of natural disasters are causing havoc in Bangladesh…It is estimated that a meter rise in sea level due to global warming would inundate 18% of our land mass, force 20 million climate refugees with 40 million more losing their livelihood by 2050.  – Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh

For beneath the tip of the well-intentioned rhetoric on climate change lies the iceberg of power and aspirations to global dominance. We are dealing with vested interests. We are dealing with dominant economies resting on a faulty, eco-unfriendly development paradigm, aspiring to misrule the world.         – Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe

Viet Nam is among the few countries most heavily affected by climate change, but it is not one of the big greenhouse gas emitters.  – Nguyen Tan Dzung, Prime Minister of Viet Nam

For us this is more than just another meeting. This is a matter of life and death. – Mohamed Nasheed, President of the Maldive Islands

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Sure, you randomly selected a quote from the Maldives.

  • eb||

    Sure, you randomly selected a quote from the Maldives.

  • eb||

    "Sure, you randomly selected a quote from the Maldives."

    and Mugabe

  • Neu Mejican||

    and Bangledesh

  • Neu Mejican||

    Bangladesh, that is.

  • ||

    Neu: Is it my fault that the UN let these countries go first and thus their speeches were the ones I could grab. I also didn't grab speeches in French.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Just kidding. Random selection would not be expected.

  • ||

    Oh, "more or less random". My bad, Ron.

  • History||

    And history will be a harsh judge of us all.

    Nah, I've decided to cut you fools some slack.

  • eb||

    "Sure, you randomly selected a quote from the Maldives."

    and Mugabe

  • ||

    Dude, Id say its about time we hit it up man!

    Jess
    www.HideMyStuff.net

  • Ska||

    ???

  • ||

    That's disappointing, privacy bot. You're usually at least somewhat on topic.

  • Abandon Hope||

    You might as well be a little high when the End comes.

    Pass that opium pipe this way, Bot, my man.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Awesome, man. Simply awesome.

  • Xeones||

    I'm gonna laugh when the interglacial ends and New England is once again buried beneath a mile of ice. I'm gonna laugh so hard.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Think of the home field advantage the Pats and Sox would enjoy.

  • ||

    not funny, not funny at all

  • ||

    and you have no idea how annoying 35 million canadian refugees will be

  • ||

    Especially considering we have almost all the hot chicks already. But it probably won't be all bad if we wall up Quebec first and leave them to their fate.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Yeah, we wouldn't a bunch of religious idiots who can't speak English, drink too much and are missing lots of teeth. That's what we have Kentucky for.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Careful, dude. SugarFree is probably devising intricate ways of making you suffer even as I type.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I just have to avoid clicking the links (the ones that aren't broken, anyway).

    Of course, I'll forget about 5 minutes after finishing this post, click on a SF link, and need eye bleach.

  • ||

    Hardly. Hot Canadian women:

    http://images.google.com/image.....&aqi;=

  • Gatekeeper||

    OK you can come in

  • ||

    Oh, I have an idea. I HAVE AN IDEA.

  • ||

    That Mugabe is one eloquent dude.

  • ||

    Ah, yes, moral instruction from Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe.

    For beneath the tip of the well-intentioned rhetoric on climate change lies the iceberg of power and aspirations to global dominance. We are dealing with vested interests. We are dealing with dominant economies resting on a faulty, eco-unfriendly development paradigm, aspiring to misrule the world.

    Right, Mr Mugabe, climate change and "eco-unfriendly misrule"- is what ruined Zimbabwe.

  • Robert Mugabe||

    If climate change kills all of my citizens, I won't get my chance to do it first!

  • ||

    hey for once I agree with mugabe.

    Well, the first three sentences anyway.

  • ||

    President Pro Libertate in Alternate Universe Number 9: What a crock of shit this all is. I'm going home. How am I on time?

  • Rimfax||

    +1

  • 2999||

    Mugabe is, of course, the expert on misrule and faulty economic paradigms.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    For the win.

  • ||

    Chavez recieved a standing ovation. But this is all about science. Leftist politics has nothing to do with it.

  • Michael||

    It is within the context of occupation that Palestinians are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Our vulnerability stems not just from the very real impact of climate change on our environment, but from the constraints we face under occupation. – Salam Fayyad, Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority

    Fuckin' priceless.

  • ||

    Comedy gold.

    Apparently Israel must have gotten its hands on the Weather Dominator
    from the GI Joe cartoon.

  • ||

    + 1, because knowing is half the battle!

  • The Expatriate||

    Oh for fuck's sake! Is there anything that the Palestinians are not "particularly vulnerable" to?

  • Sean Healy||

    I knew teh Joos were behind it!

  • ||

    They ought to make a two hour montage of this conference's greatest hits. And then they should broadcast it on all three major networks and cable news networks during primetime. Let people know just exactly what this is all about.

  • Rich||

    Such a broadcast will never happen, but I believe that with clever editing a shorter montage would be a YouTube hit.

  • ||

    That is a really good idea.

  • Silentz||

    Someone page LoneWhacko. We know he's a whiz at that YouTube thing. He might even throw in a "tough question" or two on the video.

  • ed||

    Somebody get me a violin.

  • Ska||

    Couldn't get past Mexico. I'd rather read 400 comments by anonimity bot than this garbage.

  • MP||

    That's some funny stuff.

    Regarding the Maldives, how expensive would it really be to relocate them? Seriously. It's not like any supposed catastrophe would happen The Day After Tomorrow style. Can it really be that big a deal to relocate 300,000 islanders? Why should there be some grand worldwide effort to preserve the islands?

    I mean, if catastrophic GW is really happening, then there's some money to be made in Siberian land speculation.

  • ||

    For a mere $300 bilion, you could give every islander a million bucks to start over somewhere else. You could literally just buy the place, make them all rich and forget about it. But, of course that wouldn't grant them the power to steal all of the wealth in the world, so what would be the point in that?

  • ||

    Mere? Oh yeah, I forgot, it's trillions where we are getting into real money.

    Real bargain you are selling there John. Perhaps we can interest them in a quaint subdivision known as the Everglades?

  • Tonio||

    John, two things: Nobody likes to be uprooted. Assuming that the rise is indeed anthropogenic, this is kind of like eminent domain (the less objectionable sort, like for a road; not the bogus "blight" sort). If it were me, damn sure I'd milk it for all I could.

    Also, it's the lack of sovereignity. These people would go from being a nation-state to being a displaced group within another state. Can't see Australia (or anyone else for that matter) giving up sovereignity overe wherever these people are relocated to. They'd give up all their nation-perks. Imagine if we tried to relocate Rhode Island to Maine and asked them to give up their state sovereignity and two US Senators.

  • Old Mexican||

    Assuming that the rise is indeed anthropogenic...

    In my case, the rise is ginegenic.

  • Kurt||

    For 1 million bucks I'll be happy to relocate. Call the moving van, right now!

  • ||

    I seem to remember something about the Maldavians having a backup plan for relocating to a piece of Australia. Seriously.

  • ||

    HEY! they stole my backup plan.
    Dirty maldivians.

  • Xeones||

    Chavez recieved a standing ovation.

    I saw part of his speech. He blamed climate change on "rich nations." Interestingly, Venezuela probably could have been one of those before they elected him.

  • ||

    To the extent tha Venezuela has any wealth it comes from oil. If we really did cut our carbon footprint to pre-industrial levels, they would be screwed. Citgo is a state owned company. Chavez is really the equivilent of the head of Exxon. Yet, they cheer him and on and no one seems to notice his main business is selling the evil oil.

    Again, this is all about leftist politics and nothing about the environment or science.

  • ||

    For beneath the tip of the well-intentioned rhetoric on climate change lies the iceberg of power and aspirations to global dominance.

    Hey, I actually agree with Mugabe on this one. Maybe not in the way he means it, though.

  • Old Mexican||

  • Nothern Hemisphere Billions||

    Tough, I want my BMW and Juicers!

  • denialist||

    Where's the quote from the representative of the 84,000 Seychelles islanders who want to curb the emissions of 4,000,000,000 other people for their own benefit?

  • Old Mexican||

    Well, the rethoric sure fills the atmosphere with hot air - will somebody institute an "Asinine Comments Trading" scheme to limit the amount of "emissions"?

  • JB||

    These 'people' are insane and should be dealt with as such.

    They are such true-believers that they have no problem producing as much carbon dioxide as Morocco does in a year instead of using telephones and video-conferencing.

    Even they don't take their bullshit seriously.

  • ||

    Oh, but their "work" is so much more important than such trivial considerations.

    *snark*

  • ||

    Such is the nature of a cult JB. Very rarely do the grand poobahs follow the edicts they extol.

    Probably the only thing to admire about Jim Jones: he drank the Kool-Aid right along with his followers.

  • Apple||

    Actually, he had someone else shot him in the head. He was a pussy.

  • Tonio||

    Two words, Dude: Danish Hookers.

  • Old Mexican||

    Bangladesh’s greenhouse gas contribution is negligible, but it is one of its worst victims.

    I really did not know corrupt governments and total lack of investment or protection of property rights were the result of "climate change."

  • ||

    Correct me if I'm wrong. Bangladesh is a country whose land is a fucking river delta in a region that gets yearly monsoonal rains. You can't change that. If you live in a place that has devastating floods every fucking year, maybe you should fucking move?

  • Old Mexican||

    And they have been receiving monsoonal rains for hundreds of years - so how did that change with "Climate Change"? Did it stop raining? The only thing that has changed is their population density.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Ahhhh... yes.
    An oldy but a goody.
    http://bobsfunnies.blogspot.co.....ketch.html

  • ||

    Classic. Good one, Neu. ProL misses Sam a lot, but I'm not that sentimental.

  • ||

    Bangladesh has 162million people in 55000 square miles making it the ninth most densely populated country. Therefore it is a place well suited for people to live. The floods that kill so many and wipe out the buildings also bring fertility to the land.

  • ||

    Maybe if we made Ron read every one of the speeches he would eventually come to the conclusion that they have to all be lying.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    An inconvenient truth

    Miami Herald - July 5, 1989 - 2E SCIENCE

    GREENHOUSE WARMING NATIONS MAY VANISH, U.N. SAYS
    A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees," threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the United Nations U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the...

  • Old Mexican||

    I remember reading that - it galvanized my skepticism out of the sheer preposterousness of the notion described in the article.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Galvanized your skepticism?
    Dude, you are not a skeptic.
    A skeptic requires both sides to prove their position.

  • Old Mexican||

    How do you know I did not harbor the arguments from the other side before?

    It was the millenarist rethoric that changed my mind, not the science per se. The above article was the straw on the proverbial camel for me.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How do you know I did not harbor the arguments from the other side before?

    It was the millenarist rethoric that changed my mind, not the science per se. The above article was the straw on the proverbial camel for me.


    Indeed.

    While there is no doubt that there will be losers (as well as winners) in climate change (as recorded history has shown), the notion that it will destroy the world is preposterous.

    It should be noted that another ice age, which will almost certainly happen at least once before 12009, will destroy civilization in most of the world. Would not global warming have a net effect of increasing the lifespan of human civilization if it pushes the next ice age back a century or two?

  • Sean Healy||

    Survival of civilization would be a DISASTER!

  • Neu Mejican||

    I am just basing my opinion on what you post here.

    Your focus seems to be the motives of the various players rather than the evidence for or against any particular scientific conclusion. You are skeptical of the motives of those who say AGW is real, so you don't even look at the evidence. And yet, you are uncritical in the extreme of somewhat questionable sources that you deem to have pure motives.

    At least that is how it seems based on what you write.

  • ||

    Is there a website that has compiled all of the alarmist predictions made in the last 20 years over global warming Climate Change™ that should have occurred by now? I'd be curious to see how many of them have actually come to pass.

    As I recall it, the gulf stream was supposed to shut down in 2007, sentencing Europe to a certain and glacial DOOM. DOOM.

  • ||

    We are dealing with dominant economies resting on a faulty, eco-unfriendly development paradigm, aspiring to misrule the world. – Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe

    Ur tekkin muh JAHB!

  • Neu Mejican||

  • ||

    Neu: Damned fine editorial! Thanks very much for the link.

  • MP||

    Wow Neu, I'm impressed. Posting an editorial co-written by an AEI fellow shows a true ability to look past the byline and evaluate on substance.

    Thanks for remaining a valuable contributor to these parts.

    Best paragraph from the article (highlight mine):

    The real scandal illustrated by the e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors, but that scientists and advocates on both sides of the climate debate continue to claim political authority derived from a false ideal of pure science. This charade is a disservice to both science and democracy. To science, because the reality cannot live up to the myth; to democracy, because the difficult political choices created by the genuine but also uncertain threat of climate change are concealed by the scientific debate.

  • ||

    The real scandal illustrated by the e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors...

    Is that what they call a back-handed dig?

    For some reason I'm hearing Phil Hartman delivering that line, either as Troy McClure or Caveman Lawyer.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Posting an editorial co-written by an AEI fellow shows a true ability to look past the byline and evaluate on substance.

    Thanks, I guess.

    I would have thought that was the standard way to do things. Although, I do think critical reading also has to take into consideration the source. The ideas/opinions expressed are not right or wrong based on the source, but you may want to use information about the source to judge how much you trust their facts (and whether you want to independently confirm them or take them at face value).

  • Y. Serm Clacoxia||

    It is high time to recognize that action, and action
    alone, will be the agent that transmutes the flowery
    barrier of unutterability into an arbitrary but sacred
    iota of purposefulness, which cannot help but penetrate
    into an otherwise nameless and universally spaghettified
    lack of meaning, which smears and beclouds the crab-lit
    hopes of half-beings begging for deliverance from their
    own private, yet strangely tuberculine maelstroms that
    begat, and begotten were from, a howling sea of ribosomal
    plagiarism.

  • Silentz||

    Wow, anonymity bot just waxed poetic. Cool.

  • ||

    This conference seem more or less like a giant masturbatory event for world leaders.

  • JD||

    Every UN event is a giant masturbatory event for world leaders, Nick. Seriously, you tell a politician, "Hey, we're having a big conference; you wanna make a speech?" and what the hell do you think he's gonna say? He's a politician, he's not going to miss the opportunity to talk up a "crisis".

    The sad thing is that I used to really like the UN, back when I was about 8. Then I started learning what they actually do instead of just reading their sound bites.

  • ||

    Or a collection of wolves sent to determine how they will equitably divvy up the sheep.

  • ||

    That analogy seems very apt.

  • ||

    NM,

    After reading through the entire post, and cringing at how certain the writers seemed that the IPCC is right, and we are causing dramatic and unprecidented warming, I was surprised by this statement:
    "We believe the weight of scientific evidence remains sufficient to justify prudent action against climate change -- but we are equally aware that the consequences of both climate change and climate policies remain highly uncertain."

    That is one of the primary points that I feel I make over and over. We don't know with enough certainty that;
    1. warming is unprecedented
    2. we're causing it
    3. it will cause more harm than good

    Additionally, I would say we do know with some high level of certainty that;
    1. massively restricting CO2 will cause dramatically higher energy prices
    2. energy costs impact nearly everything else we do
    3. basic staples will be significantly more expensive
    4. we will depress 1st world economies, and hold back developing countries
    5. 3rd world peoples will face increased poverty as energy prices increase and 1st world aid dies up.

    Seems to me that, based on what we know, doing nothing is the better answer.

    If AGW is truly a problem, current trends suggest that we have much more time than they're suggesting. Based on that, I'd suggest that popular opinion, and spending will push for cleaner, more sustainable energy without ruinous, artificial government intervention.

  • ||

    Oh aelhues, you don't get it. WE HAVE TO ACT NOW!!! ROLAND EMMERICH MOVIES WILL COME TRUE IF WE DON'T!!! IF YOU DON'T AGREE YOU'RE THE EQUIVALENT OF A HOLOCAUST DENIER, BECAUSE WE USE "DENIER"!!! BUT WE'RE NOT RELIGIOUS OR FUNDAMENTALIST--YOU ARE!!! CHICKEN LITTLE!!! ARRGGHHHH!!!

  • JB||

    And most of the cultists act this way and demand to be taken seriously.

  • Old Mexican||

    DON'T THINK, BECAUSE IF YOU THINK, YOU'RE DEAD...


    (... because we will kill you if you do. The gov.)

  • Neu Mejican||

    massively restricting CO2 will cause dramatically higher energy prices

    Well, the position that most environmentalist take on this is that we are currently paying the price in environmental damage. The idea is to make users see that cost directly.

    A modest carbon tax would eliminate the unfair discount that carbon fuels get in the cost game and help development of cleaner alternatives. Over the long run, we are likely to reduce total energy costs.

    http://www.natcap.org/

  • ||

    What was the stated CO2 goals from the Copenhagen agreement again? My memory is fuzzy, but I think it was roughly what we produced, per capita, in 1880. In order to get that kind of results, you need much more than a modest tax.

    Also, the science hasn't proven, even in the weakest sense of the word, that CO2 is harming anything. In fact, a recent study showed that growth in northern American forests has accelerated by about 50% over the past 40 years, theoretically due to primarily the increase in CO2.

  • Neu Mejican||

    In order to get that kind of results, you need much more than a modest tax.

    Maybe, maybe not. That is one of the unknowns.

  • ||

    Let's say for argument that you are right, and we'd only need a modest increase in energy costs. Let's look at that from the perspective of a developing country. Wouldn't it make sense that if you increase the cost of energy by say 25%, then that is going to leave out more economies, and or push back their widespread modernization until such time as they can manage to push their struggling economy up over the tipping point where they can afford the energy necessary for that change? Would it not make sense globally, that even a modest increase in energy costs is clearly, and significantly harmful not only to rich countries, but much more so to those that are on the cusp of modernizing? Those nearing the point where they might be able to afford to put refrigerators, light bulbs, and water pumps in their huts? Wouldn't it be a crime against humanity for us rich countries to set them farther away from having the means to live mildly comfortable lives through our reactionary tinkering, and artificial government intervention?

    If we are heading for much warmer times, with all of the doom some say comes with that, wouldn't it make more sense to help those poor countries by attempting to make energy more affordable so they can join the ranks of those that can afford to care for their own?

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Don't bother. Neu Mejican considers all of these things features, not bugs.

  • Neu Mejican||

    aelhues,

    China and India agree with you, and I actually think their position is correct in this. The damage is the result of the output from the already developed countries, so that needs to be recognized and any global solution needs to be structured so that it supports clean energy development in the developing world as they move towards more modern economies. The cost should be born by the countries who are already doing the polluting.

    Current technologies can be implemented in the developing world that would support development and result in a cleaner more efficient energy infrastructure than we currently work with. And we could be the ones who sell them the technology.

    The trick is to get the externalized costs priced into the energy markets to help spur this innovation.

  • ||

    How about we do what we did with the sulfates and nitrates and cap and auction?

    Oh, and return to a sound money system that doesn't punish savers and force overconsumption on us?

  • creech||

    Hey, why did Bailey not show us the part of each speech where they state,
    "And therefore, effective 1/1/2010, my country is banning all tourist arrivals in order to lower the carbon footprint of those not satisifed to stay at home where they belong."

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    Did the Copenhagen prostitutes get five minutes to speak, too?

    I, for one, would like to hear how the whores who don't fly in on private jets feel about the dangers of global warming.

  • ||

    The local Danish whores sequestered more carbon than the Copenhagen conference ever will

  • ||

    but those whores are amateurs compared to the whores attending the conference looking $$ to save the planet

  • ||

    How could this be?

    World political leaders exclaiming that an emergency of the most urgent nature is upon us and that we, as a people, need to commit to the most extraordinary measures to avert this disaster and that only their massively expensive and bloated states could be the ones to carry this out.

    It's almost like the car salesman telling you that you need this much more expensive and less reliable car, not the inexpensive, practical and much more reliable car that you picked out.

    Whodathunkit? What a coincidence!

  • Tman||

    I'm kinda curious why the folks in Nepal are worried about global warming. I wonder how many people freeze to death up there every year? It has to be considerable.

  • Anomalous||

    World To End; Third World Countries Affected Most

  • ||

    So, only the socialist-green leaders bothered to print up brochures?

    Noted the conspicuous absence of any quotes from anyone representing the U.S., India, or China.

  • ||

    I love it when leftists all get together publicly to stroke themselves and each other!

  • America 3000||

    Yeah, one big target for nuking instead of a bunch of little ones!

  • jester||

    The regions with the highest tropical deforestation rate were Central America -- which lost 1.3% or 285,000 hectares of its forests each year -- and tropical Asia. Tropical Asia --including the countries of Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam -- lost about 1% of its forests each year.

    Notice how some of the biggest complainers are on this list. Deforestation is a contributor to AGW, yes?

  • jester||

    "Vietnam lost a staggering 51% of its primary forests between 2000 and 2005"

    Better. Sorry, the above was regional and not by country. I don't suppose the Maldives have any forest. Or Bangladesh for that matter. At least not much. Palestine is a veritable olive forest. Not so much.

  • jester||

    Worst deforestation rate of primary forests, 2000-2005. All countries.
    1 Nigeria 55.7%

    2 Viet Nam 54.5%

    3 Cambodia 29.4%

    4 Sri Lanka 15.2%

    5 Malawi 14.9%

    6 Indonesia 12.9%

    7 North Korea 9.3%

    8 Nepal 9.1%

    9 Panama 6.7%

    10 Guatemala 6.4%

  • ||

    Dear Nigeria:

    What the hell? Apparently your major exports are 419 scams and wood pulp?

  • jester||

    'Overall, when plantations are added to the picture [i.e. the United States lost an average of 831 square miles of lands which are termed "old-growth forests] the US gained a net 614 square miles (159,000 hectares) of forest per year.'

    Not saying forests are the most important input, but they are important. Haven't seen too many LDC socialist utopias do well in the deforestation category.

  • jester||

    'Less than 4 percent of Bangladesh's original habitats remain, and virtually none of these are rainforest.'

    Might. Just might have something to do with its plight.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    To be fair, Vietnam probably could have used some deforestation. But funny thing about that list is that everyone on it has pretty weak property rights.

    Tragedy of the commons indeed.

  • ||

    I see a common theme - we'd like all these things fixed and for you to pay for them.

  • mohammed446||

    Do you need a Loan?
    Are you looking for Finance?
    Are you looking for a Loan to enlarge your business?
    I think you have come to the right place.
    We offer Loans atlow interest rate.
    Interested people should please contact us on
    For immediate response to your application, Kindly
    reply to this emails below only.
    mohamendloanservice@gmail.com

    Please, do provide us with the Following information if interested.
    1) Full Name:.........
    2) Gender:.........
    3) Loan Amount Needed:.........
    4) Loan Duration:.........
    5) Country:.........
    6) Home Address:.........
    7) Mobile Number:.........
    8)Monthly Income:.....................
    9)Occupation:...........................
    )Which site did you here about us.....................
    Thanks and Best Regards.
    mohamendloanservice@gmail.com

    www.mohammedloanserviceplc.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement