Govt to contribute €23m extra for climate change in other countries

Cavehill Red

marco_polo wrote: »

I respect you are entitled to your opinion on where your money is spent, personally I am happy enough for a small percentage of my taxes to be spend on overseas aid (In spite of the huge flaws in the system). I would prefer a fairer WTO deal for third world nations myself as the mechanism for encouraging economic development, but we can be damn sure that is never going to happen.

The EU's bilateral deals with the Third World are incredibly generous, actually. We have open markets for them already, while they tend to tarriff all imports.
I'm glad you're happy to divert funds we're borrowing abroad. I'm not. The government's role is to represent its own citizens and provide for them from the exchequer. It can't even do that, as the latest budget and the 'bailout' revealed.
So I don't see where they have the mandate to lump debt on me to fund AKs in Africa.

Sonnenblumen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

See the light? Cop on, ffs.
Let me spell this one out so that it's crystal clear - the IMF have intervened in our economy, it's so screwed. We are beyond our wildest nightmares in debt. Add the sovereign debt to mortgage debt and personal debt, and you're looking at close to half a million per taxpayer, and it's rising exponentially because of the punitive interest rate on the bailout.
We cannot afford as a nation to bail anyone out when we're on life support ourselves. If individuals wish to contribute to other nations so that their corrupt elites don't have to fund their own education or healthcare systems and can instead divert money into defence budgets or Swiss bank accounts, so be it. I donate to Goal myself.
But the Government has absolutely no moral right to burden the already debt-drowned Irish taxpayer with further debt in order to support other nations.

That does seem like a panic attack? Unfortunately you also seem to have forgotten much of your Irish (economic) history? A case of eaten bread is soon forgotten or was it an oversight?

Fortunately the world and most fairminded people will disagree with you. If you want to help, stop digging a hole and be more prepared to offer some help to those with far greater needs.

Cavehill Red

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

That does seem like a panic attack?

Sure, I'm panicked. This government just nationalised around 100 billion of private debt, burdening me and every Irish person with hundreds of thousands of euro of debt. Only an irrational person wouldn't experience a degree of panic at the prospect of trying to pay that gargantuan debt back as it grows at 6% and our economy crashes.

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Unfortunately you also seem to have forgotten much of your Irish (economic) history? A case of eaten bread is soon forgotten or was it an oversight?

Who ate the bread? Anglo and AIB ate the bread. The Irish taxpayer didn't eat the bread.
One might also ask, who eats the IDA bread? And who pays for it? And why are they borrowing at 6% when they themselves are insolvent to buy other people's bread?

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Fortunately the world and most fairminded people will disagree with you. If you want to help, stop digging a hole and be more prepared to offer some help to those with far greater needs.

I contribute to Goal. That is my personal and voluntary decision as a PRIVATE CITIZEN. The Government is burdening me with debt to fund corrupt African states who use aid to fulfil health and education roles that are their responsibility, while diverting the freed-up funds into defence and personal bank accounts. As a TAX PAYER, the Government is forcibly indebting me to financially benefit African armies and corrupt African juntas.
If you are incapable of seeing the difference between the two - a private citizen's voluntary decision and the forcible indebting of an already bankrupt nation - then you lack basic understanding of economics.

mikom

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Fortunately the world and most fairminded people will disagree with you. If you want to help, stop digging a hole and be more prepared to offer some help to those with far greater needs.

Meanwhile back in Ireland.

CHILDREN ARE now scavenging in bins for food, such is the dire level of poverty among some Irish families, the Kilkenny branch of the St Vincent de Paul society has said.Its president Liam Heffernan said two five-year-old children were found searching through a bin in Kilkenny city in recent days by a social worker who contacted the HSE in relation to the case.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1209/1224285101038.html

Iwannahurl

mikom wrote: »

Meanwhile back in Ireland.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1209/1224285101038.html

Which Ireland?

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/partying-celebs-tickled-pink-on-irelands-blackest-day-2428432.html

Degsy

marco_polo wrote: »

.
For an even bigger buzz you could just go over there on safari and burn 50 euro notes in front of them.

You might as well burn your money as think its going to make a difference.

How many hundred of billions have been thrown at africa for them to spend on wars and genocide?

The old axiom of "giving a man a fish and he has food for a day" seems to have been long forgotten.

Sonnenblumen

^^^^nothing new about rooting through bins.

mikom

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Which Ireland?

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/partying-celebs-tickled-pink-on-irelands-blackest-day-2428432.html

Yep, Andrea and Sharon Corr, Lord Henry Mountcharles, Alison Doody, Kathryn Thomas, Lorraine Keane, Rosanna Davison and Glenda Gilson, are all over at my house once a week. :rolleyes:

It's the same the world over, you hardly think Mugabe denied himself a party whilst others suffered.

Cavehill Red

Aid actually hurts Africa - http://www.dambisamoyo.com/deadaid.html

WallyGUFC

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

What's mad about a rich country helping a poorer country?

What stone have you been living under? The country is fecked, and we are a poor country. And we will be for a verrrrryyyyyy long time! Even though ya wouldn't think it looking at the front page of today's Indo!

mikom

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

^^^^nothing new about rooting through bins.

Leave your past out of this.

WallyGUFC

Iwannahurl wrote: »

With a couple of minor edits, imagine how that might read to the taxpayers of Germany:

Throwing money at Ireland isn't going to save it, how much money has been poured into it since the first EEC funding started decades ago? It's a badly planned mess that's corrupted as fùck and with a huge percentage of ill-educated people that don't know how to live off their own land. (Famine and civil war haven't made it easy for them either!)

Let's not forget Germany aren't totally innocent here. Their banks lended recklessly to ours and fuelled the f*ck-up.
Why should we be giving money to Africa? Why are charities now, more than ever, polluting our screens with images of poor Africans struggling for food when contrary to your beliefs, there are people in this country literally on the breadline. Just because you aren't doesn't mean others aren't screwed. The world doesn't revolve around you and thank god because we'd be mightily fecked if it did!

Iwannahurl

Degsy wrote: »

You might as well burn your money as think its going to make a difference.

How many hundred of billions have been thrown at africa for them to spend on wars and genocide?

The old axiom of "giving a man a fish and he has food for a day" seems to have been long forgotten.

Give a man a drink and he'll spend an hour. Teach a man how to drink and he'll spend 8.5% of his income...

Wibbs

marco_polo wrote: »

I respect you are entitled to your opinion on where your money is spent, personally I am happy enough for a small percentage of my taxes to be spend on overseas aid (In spite of the huge flaws in the system).

So you like wasting money then? Pissing good money after bad? Money that isn't yours, nor is it your taxes. Overseas funding is now running this country, your taxes pay off the debt.

I would prefer a fairer WTO deal for third world nations myself as the mechanism for encouraging economic development, but we can be damn sure that is never going to happen.

They already do as Cavehill Red pointed out. They have better deals than many Asian countries had. They had their debt wiped. More than once. Maybe we should ask for that. What happened every time? They just ran up more.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

With a couple of minor edits, imagine how that might read to the taxpayers of Germany:

Throwing money at Ireland isn't going to save it, how much money has been poured into it since the first EEC funding started decades ago? It's a badly planned mess that's corrupted as fùck and with a huge percentage of ill-educated people that don't know how to live off their own land. (Famine and civil war haven't made it easy for them either!)

Yea nice bit of comparing apples and oranges there Ted. Might strike an emotive note, but the reality is a tad different.

So we're spending 600 odd millions on these overseas funds? Not our money mind, so add the interest payments on that while you're at it. This last budget just cut already one of the worst health services in the western world by under that amount. I'd prefer to see that money spent here in hospitals than in the third world, where as history has shown us it'll get pissed up a wall like it always has. If people want to donate privately then more power to them but this country simply can't afford it. People will die because of it. People a lot bloody closer to home. Oh they won't be as photogenic as some African kid with flies on his or her face with some doleful voiceover, but they'll still die largely unseen save to their families on hospital beds or in their homes waiting for one. If you want emotive and photogenic, then take pictures of Irish children looking down the barrel of a coffin because somewhere like Crumlins childrens hospital is underfunded.

Wibbs

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Give a man a drink and he'll spend an hour. Teach a man how to drink and he'll spend 8.5% of his income...

So? It's his or her choice. Just like it's the choice of some bloke in Africa who wont wear a blob on his knob because its not manly, or the woman who wont stop at two kids where 8 will do, because its her culture. Or the blind eye turned to rampant multi partner sexual practices. I'm not paying for the man to blow his liver in the pub, so why the hell should I pay for the rest?

Not when there is need, real need here. I have a mate who volunteers with the Vincent DePaul*, he is seeing real need on a daily basis. I have elderly neighbours I check in on during this cold snap and found some with no heat on because they couldnt afford it. Others hadn't bought food for the same reason. Another neighbour had to call an ambulance for his elderly neighbour because she was hypothermic.


*They're worth supporting. None of the bloated admin staff of many I could name. A real charity for a change.

Iwannahurl

Wibbs wrote: »

So? It's his or her choice. Just like it's the choice of some bloke in Africa who wont wear a blob on his knob because its not manly, or the woman who wont stop at two kids where 8 will do, because its her culture. Or the blind eye turned to rampant multi partner sexual practices. I'm not paying for the man to blow his liver in the pub, so why the hell should I pay for the rest?

Not when there is need, real need here. I have a mate who volunteers with the Vincent DePaul*, he is seeing real need on a daily basis. I have elderly neighbours I check in on during this cold snap and found some with no heat on because they couldnt afford it. Others hadn't bought food for the same reason. Another neighbour had to call an ambulance for his elderly neighbour because she was hypothermic.


*They're worth supporting. None of the bloated admin staff of many I could name. A real charity for a change.

1. Oh dear, reactionary and ill-informed.

2. You are, actually (NB: 2002 estimates -- adjust for eight years of inflation, especially in terms of health service budgets).

Wibbs

OK point taken, but bad though it is, they're Irish people. People who for the most part have worked and paid taxes in this country. Indeed have done with every drop they drank. If you've blown your liver you'll have spent a fair wedge on drink and paid the taxes while doing so. I'd still prefer to spend 600 million on just tackling that problem here, never mind what 600+ millions would od for the education services. As we speak there are kids going to school in leaky unheated prefabs. I might have some chance of seeing a good result out of that. Spending money on much of the third world is pointless. It simply hasn't, nor will it work. Simply put never mind them, what do we get out of it?

Iwannahurl

Wibbs wrote: »

OK point taken, but bad though it is, they're Irish people. People who for the most part have worked and paid taxes in this country. Indeed have done with every drop they drank. If you've blown your liver you'll have spent a fair wedge on drink and paid the taxes while doing so. I'd still prefer to spend 600 million on just tackling that problem here, never mind what 600+ millions would od for the education services. As we speak there are kids going to school in leaky unheated prefabs. I might have some chance of seeing a good result out of that. Spending money on much of the third world is pointless. It simply hasn't, nor will it work. Simply put never mind them, what do we get out of it?

That's this argument.

Shooting ourselves in the foot, as global citizens, in the longer term.

Focusing again on Ireland's profligate booze culture as just one example by way of illustration, a 30% reduction in alcohol-related harm would save the Exchequer €1 billion. That's one-fifth of the cost of the schools building programme as outlined in the National Development Plan.

Cavehill Red

Classic whataboutery.
We could cut the ODA budget and voila! 650 million annually saved, plus the 6% interest on it compounded too.
A lot quicker and simpler than prohibiting alcohol. And it needn't be an either/or. Both are possible. But one produces savings a helluva lot faster.
And like I said - AID DOESN'T HELP AFRICA.

Iwannahurl

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Classic whataboutery.
We could cut the ODA budget and voila! 650 million annually saved, plus the 6% interest on it compounded too.
A lot quicker and simpler than prohibiting alcohol. And it needn't be an either/or. Both are possible. But one produces savings a helluva lot faster.
And like I said - AID DOESN'T HELP AFRICA.

No actually, it's called a bit of perspective.

marco_polo

Wibbs wrote: »

So you like wasting money then? Pissing good money after bad? Money that isn't yours, nor is it your taxes. Overseas funding is now running this country, your taxes pay off the debt. They already do as Cavehill Red pointed out. They have better deals than many Asian countries had. They had their debt wiped. More than once. Maybe we should ask for that. What happened every time? They just ran up more.

Yea nice bit of comparing apples and oranges there Ted. Might strike an emotive note, but the reality is a tad different.

So we're spending 600 odd millions on these overseas funds? Not our money mind, so add the interest payments on that while you're at it. This last budget just cut already one of the worst health services in the western world by under that amount. I'd prefer to see that money spent here in hospitals than in the third world, where as history has shown us it'll get pissed up a wall like it always has. If people want to donate privately then more power to them but this country simply can't afford it. People will die because of it. People a lot bloody closer to home. Oh they won't be as photogenic as some African kid with flies on his or her face with some doleful voiceover, but they'll still die largely unseen save to their families on hospital beds or in their homes waiting for one. If you want emotive and photogenic, then take pictures of Irish children looking down the barrel of a coffin because somewhere like Crumlins childrens hospital is underfunded.

First of I am not an support of the Aid system in the long term, but it is not something that can be cuttoff instantly.

In terms of free trade I presume you are talking about the Everything but Arms inititive, sounds great in theory but it actually accounts for grand total of 11 products, from countries who account for a whopping
0.003% of total EU imports. Not to mention the safety valve that allows for a complete cuttoff if these countries actually did start importing a signifigant amount into the EU. It is tokenism of the highest order.

Presenting a choice between Crumlin childrens hospital and Foreign aid is a false dichotomy.

Cavehill Red

marco_polo wrote: »

Presenting a choice between Crumlin childrens hospital and Foreign aid is a false dichotomy.

Like the false dichotomy of EU membership and foreign aid? Or alcohol abuse and foreign aid? Those sort of false dichotomies?

Iwannahurl

Not dichotomy, perspective.

marco_polo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Like the false dichotomy of EU membership and foreign aid? Or alcohol abuse and foreign aid? Those sort of false dichotomies?

Exactly like those. I wasn't aware I have used either of them myself though.

Cavehill Red

marco_polo wrote: »

Exactly like those. I wasn't aware I have used either of them myself though.

No, you didn't. But those McGuffins were raised in the discussion.

bleg

To put this in perspective 24 million was raised from the prescription tax over a 12 month period. So the money paid by the sickest in our population pretty much went straight off to a 3rd world country's climate change programme.

Makes sense to the Greens I'm sure.

Iwannahurl

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, you didn't. But those McGuffins were raised in the discussion.

Not McGuffin -- McPerspective.

marco_polo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Aid actually hurts Africa - http://www.dambisamoyo.com/deadaid.html

Haven't read it, but it must be a pretty short book if it proposes ending all foreign aid support instantly without putting any other measures in place first like as has been proposed in this thread , I am guessing there may be more to it than that though?

Sonnenblumen

mikom wrote: »

Leave your past out of this.

the only way is up!

Sonnenblumen

Wibbs wrote: »

So? It's his or her choice. Just like it's the choice of some bloke in Africa who wont wear a blob on his knob because its not manly, or the woman who wont stop at two kids where 8 will do, because its her culture. Or the blind eye turned to rampant multi partner sexual practices. I'm not paying for the man to blow his liver in the pub, so why the hell should I pay for the rest?

We also have our own 'homegrown' version of casual sex, single parent families, multiple partners etc. In Ireland there is of course the safety net of welfare payments, which some believe are too high and encourage more of the same behaviour.

In times of need, some will recognise the greater needs and be selfless in their generosity whilst others may prefer to sulk behind a thin veil of refusal but what is essentially selfishness.

Wibbs

marco_polo wrote: »

Presenting a choice between Crumlin childrens hospital and Foreign aid is a false dichotomy.

I don't think it is. Both may need help, but one we'll see the benefit locally and is more likely to be successful. It's better value if nothing else.

As far as the Third world and sub Saharan Africa in particular the whole approach needs a radical re think. I'm pretty convinced aid does bugger all. It saves a few on the ground and if they were your few that's good, but long term it cripples the place. We also need to stop blaming the rest of the world for Africa's woes too. One it's seriously arguable and two it doesn't give confidence within the various countries to dig themselves out. I'd also throw out this black white BS. There are plenty of black men and women and countries that do alright thanks very much. You see this race fear with Mugabe. His fellow heads of state know he's a nutjob, yet are afraid of raising too much of a fuss over the muppet, becuase it would look bad being that he's a fellow black man. Whites and Asians are even more afraid of that. Sod that. Plenty of European and Asian nations took out other of their fellow muppets and that didnt come into it.

Me being somewhere to the far right of Mussolini I'd pretty much use the UN to invade and recolonise a few countries. Zimbabwe would be first in my sights. Zimbabwe went from one of the richest countries in the world and the breadbasket of Africa to the basket case of Africa, in not much more than a generation. I'd line mugabe up against the nearest wall and riddle the fcuker and try and gaol his cronies. Install a civil service and train the next generation of lads and lasses to take over. Nationalise the resources and run them right and keep the bulk of the profits in the country, while leaving a sweetener for the nations involved in the rebuild process. Again build an educational system so local people will take over as soon as. While rebuilding the country foster trade with the "invader" nations and the more local nations(who should also be involved in the "invasion"). Too prickly a notion for some? Well we've screwed up financially and have been pretty much invaded on that level by the IMF and a section of the EU in order to clear it up or at least to attempt it. It doesn't always require armies, but probably would do in those kind of nations. Africa has about the richest resources of any continent in the world. Their soil would grow roots on your shoes if you stood still long enough. They have huge natural resources, yet are dirt poor and starving. It's mad Ted.

Iwannahurl wrote:

Shooting ourselves in the foot, as global citizens, in the longer term.

Not really. I mean realistically if much of Africa fell off the global map in the morning it would barely be noticed. Bono and Geldof et al would be looking for other employ, but that's about it. As has been pointed out trade is minimal with them so it wouldnt affect most of the world one little bit. As far as the health of the globe goes the health and number of whales is probably more important.

some_dose

When I was in college studying zoology we did had a few lectures on population dynamics and carrying capacity (i.e. the ability of a population to sustain itself using the resources available to it). While it was taught through the principles of animal populations it is obvious that it can of course be applied to human populations. Our lecturer eventually got on to the subject of human populations and the problems in Africa.

He said something that shocked the vast majority of the class. He said that forced abortions should be carried out in sub-Saharan Africa. People were literally lost for words. However, after thinking about it for a while, I have to agree with him. It has become a joke at this stage. Third world countries simply CANNOT support their own populations. By throwing money at the problem we are simply prolonging it and of course exacerbating it.

I, for one, shall never again donate to the third world charities. There are far too many problems close to home for us to deal with. Problems which too often go unnoticed. For that I have to commend SVP - truly unsung heroes in the midst of our society.

(On a side note - fcuk the Greens. I hope the door hits them on the arse on their way out)

Iwannahurl

Wibbs wrote: »

Me being somewhere to the far right of Mussolini I'd pretty much use the UN to invade and recolonise a few countries.

Not really. I mean realistically if much of Africa fell off the global map in the morning it would barely be noticed. Bono and Geldof et al would be looking for other employ, but that's about it. As has been pointed out trade is minimal with them so it wouldnt affect most of the world one little bit. As far as the health of the globe goes the health and number of whales is probably more important.

You don't say! It doesn't show one tiny bit.

What's the smiley for "sucks air through clenched teeth"?

Thing is, is there not a good business case for mitigating climate change in developing countries, which relates to the OP's starting point after all?

Wibbs

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

We also have our own 'homegrown' version of casual sex, single parent families, multiple partners etc. In Ireland there is of course the safety net of welfare payments, which some believe are too high and encourage more of the same behaviour.

With respect that's crap and doesn't bare a closer look. Yep we have all that, but not even close to the situation in Africa. It's a thorny one to look and oft avoided, but the levels of the above in Africa are off the scale by comparison. Aids figures tell the story. We have HIV here of course and safe sex is always a good bet, but did we get the epidemic once promised? Nope we didn't. Not even close. In certain cultures in Africa their sexual habits and mores directly impact the rates of HIV/AIDs. HIV hasn't an airborne vector. You don't get it from sharing a ciggy. One cultural reason slightly NSFW in content http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/1999/12/10/drysex Others include some cultures with many more sex partners for both men and women(inc plural marriage) and widespread use of prostitutes. In the west the majority of HIV infections are from homosexual encounters(though much much less than it was as that community fought hard to reduce it). In Africa that trend is reversed. So there can be only a couple of conclusions. Either the AIDS figures are massaged to get more aid(which some consider plausible) or the reasons for its massive growth lies with local heterosexual cultural practices. Until those are acknowledged then we're all píssing into the wind trying to reduce it(including African commentators who say the same). Then you have the family sizes. 2.2 kids is a rarity. They'd give good oul Oirish catholic families a run for their money as far as fecundity goes. More mouths to feed. Again cultural as its not just the poor who do this(where its understandable as insurance) but the middle classes and rich too.

In times of need, some will recognise the greater needs and be selfless in their generosity whilst others may prefer to sulk behind a thin veil of refusal but what is essentially selfishness.

Yea smacks a tad of "holier than thou" to me. Plus I see nothing wrong with some level of selfishness, more self interest when it comes to a nation. Indeed all too often selflessness is smugness dressed up in finer clothes.

Wibbs

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You don't say! It doesn't show one tiny bit.

I've no problem with my stance. And your happy clappy hand wringing solution? More aid and hope it turns into something better? My stance though aggressive and radical would be far more likely to gain actual dividends.

What's the smiley for "sucks air through clenched teeth"?

this :mad::rolleyes::eek: ensemble may cover it

Thing is, is there not a good business case for mitigating climate change in developing countries, which relates to the OP's starting point after all?

Yep there is a case, with developing and growing nations such as China and India. If they follow the wests lead and every Chinese home ends up with a car we're in trouble. In fact on that basis, Africa remaining agrarian and undeveloped would actually make better sense. Unless we and they buy into sustainable resources. Great business plan, if they would go for it. I suspect not. They'll naturally want their gas guzzlers and all mod cons. So though it sounds harsh my original statement that whales are more important as barometers still holds true.

Iwannahurl

some_dose wrote: »

When I was in college studying zoology we did had a few lectures on population dynamics and carrying capacity (i.e. the ability of a population to sustain itself using the resources available to it). While it was taught through the principles of animal populations it is obvious that it can of course be applied to human populations. Our lecturer eventually got on to the subject of human populations and the problems in Africa.

He said something that shocked the vast majority of the class. He said that forced abortions should be carried out in sub-Saharan Africa. People were literally lost for words. However, after thinking about it for a while, I have to agree with him. It has become a joke at this stage. Third world countries simply CANNOT support their own populations. By throwing money at the problem we are simply prolonging it and of course exacerbating it.

I, for one, shall never again donate to the third world charities. There are far too many problems close to home for us to deal with. Problems which too often go unnoticed. For that I have to commend SVP - truly unsung heroes in the midst of our society.

Your zoology lecturer may have been standing to the right even of Wibbs when making such pronouncements.

Such accounts of population size versus resource consumption seem to be based more on ideology than on science.

If we're to send the UN anywhere to force a population to behave responsibly in terms of resource consumption, where would be a good place to start?

Hint.

Wibbs

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Your zoology lecturer may have been standing to the right even of Wibbs when making such pronouncements.

Such accounts of population size versus resource consumption seem to be based more on ideology than on science.

Not really. Certainly applicable where it comes to resource utilisation anyway. Africa could easily feed the entire world, yet in so many areas they're starving or on the breadline. Is that all the west's fault? It's time more African nations took responsibility for the state of their nations and let go of the "whites did it to us". Just like we are slowly coming out of the notion of "t'was all de Brits fault".

If we're to send the UN anywhere to force a population to behave responsibly in terms of resource consumption, where would be a good place to start?

Hint.

Yep the US are the most wasteful on the planet. I agree and they'll see the two days. If they could be forced to cut back, hell yes I would pull the trigger on that one in a heartbeat. That said they also give a lot back to the world. Do we want another US style environmental disaster in somewhere the size of Africa?

Iwannahurl

Wibbs wrote: »

It's time more African nations took responsibility for the state of their nations and let go of the "whites did it to us". Just like we are slowly coming out of the notion of "t'was all de Brits fault".

Our post-colonial adolescence will be protracted, spotty and full of aimless incoherent rage.

For the moment at least, it's the Greens' fault.

Nolanger

We're already a laughing stock so why the fuss on donating money for something like 'climate change' that doesn't actually exist?

DarkJager

I'm sick to death of this climate change nonsense, there are far more important things for people to worry about now. Hopefully when Captain Planet and his party are annihilated at the next election, any other party might think twice about making bull**** tree hugging policies that nobody cares a **** about but has to pay for anyway.

Nolanger

The sad part is than when 'climate change' gets found out as nonsense they'll move on to something else. Remember the funding for the ozone hole and the greenhouse effect?

Sonnenblumen

some_dose wrote: »

When I was in college studying zoology we did had a few lectures on population dynamics and carrying capacity (i.e. the ability of a population to sustain itself using the resources available to it). While it was taught through the principles of animal populations it is obvious that it can of course be applied to human populations. Our lecturer eventually got on to the subject of human populations and the problems in Africa.

He said something that shocked the vast majority of the class. He said that forced abortions should be carried out in sub-Saharan Africa. People were literally lost for words. However, after thinking about it for a while, I have to agree with him. It has become a joke at this stage. Third world countries simply CANNOT support their own populations. By throwing money at the problem we are simply prolonging it and of course exacerbating it.

I, for one, shall never again donate to the third world charities. There are far too many problems close to home for us to deal with. Problems which too often go unnoticed. For that I have to commend SVP - truly unsung heroes in the midst of our society.

(On a side note - fcuk the Greens. I hope the door hits them on the arse on their way out)

Sounds like your lecturer got seriously derailed, mixing Darwin with Himmler! Sub-saharan victims have plenty of excuses, I fail to see someone with a cosy 3rd level qualification should? Close the door on caring and that's when trouble begins.

RasTa

Better out of the country then in imo, it would only be wasted here.

K-9

Wrong thread.

K-9

mikom wrote: »

Meanwhile back in Ireland.



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1209/1224285101038.html

Shocking stuff, very sad and very emotional.

I can see why people are against, some genuinely see it as a failed system, it is the posters on this thread who'd also be the first to shout, slash Social Welfare that don't give a b*llocks about those children. So while you are genuine, there are a few crocodile tears on here.

OctavarIan

Some of the posts in this thread are hilarious, stuff you'd expect to hear from rabid republican hicks in backwater USA.

People who deny climate change is an issue should be shipped off to some island somewhere away from the educated population.

Yeah I went there.

waxon-waxoff

I think the Government should buy a large area of rainforest with the money. That way it can be preserved and let the trees do the job of cleaning the air. I think the scandinavians already do this.

Like others im suspicious of many charities and what they do with their money. Admin, wages etc eat up a whole lot of donations, the boses of Concern and Goal earn six figure salaries. Giving money to African governments directly is an even bigger waste. Corrupt officials spend it all on fleets of Mercedes and mansions. The hard fact is that Africa has gone downhill since they lost their colonial rulers and giving more aid to Africa is pointless. How about spending the €23m on condoms and giving them out free, should prevent the spread of aids for a few years.

bleg

The recession has done more for reduction in CO2 emissions than any crappy Green donation.

Iwannahurl

OctavarIan wrote: »

Some of the posts in this thread are hilarious, stuff you'd expect to hear from rabid republican hicks in backwater USA.

No need to look to Alabama or Utah for the Red in redneck!

jezko

"An additional €23m is to be spent by the Government helping poorer countries to deal with climate change.

The announcement has been made by Environment Minister John Gormley who said: "Ireland is facing severe economic difficulties, but we have to remember that climate change is threatening the lives and safety of many, through flooding, drought and other problems."

so why not spend this additional 23 million on Protecting Irish Homes and communities from Flooding due to the massive Developments climate change that have plagued our CELTIC TIGER isle ...

AND what is the Total that we are spending "An additional €23m" on Saving the lives and safety of many other Nationals. besides our own???

CHILDREN ARE now scavenging in bins for food, such is the dire level of poverty among some Irish families, the Kilkenny branch of the St Vincent de Paul society has said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1209/1224285101038.html