Brown pledges extra £7.5 BILLION while at Copenhagen

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...it-enough.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/...33_306x419.jpg

Quote:

---

Copenhagen climate change summit delegates have recognised a US-backed agreement on climate change, passing a motion this morning. The decision follows a US-led group of five nations - including China - tabling a last-minute proposal that US President Barack Obama called a 'meaningful agreement'. It came as delegates began to fear the summit would end without a meaningful resolution being reached.

This morning the conference said it 'takes note' of the accord - and said the document setting out the deal would specify a list of countries which agreed with it, as some nations were still adamant they would not accept it. The deal includes references to keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C and provisions for finance to help poor countries fight global warming.

Soeaking last night, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the agreement was 'a vital first step' but accepted that a lot more work was required to turn it into the legal treaty he had originally wanted to secure at the summit
He said: 'This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. First steps are difficult, but they are also necessary.' He said China opposed turning the proposals into a treaty 'for the wrong reasons: clinging to their version of what they think international organisations should not do'.

Mr Brown had offered to hand over £7.5 billion in extra cash to developing countries to sweeten the deal. He also offered to cut Britain's carbon emissions by an eye-watering 42 per cent - 10 times the level offered by the United States. But in a further humiliation Mr Brown was not included in a list of world leaders personally thanked by Barack Obama for their contribution to the talks. The 11th-hour deal followed two years of negotiations and a fortnight of intensive talks aimed at saving the planet.

---

Its almost as if he's trying to make it as bad as possible for whoever forms the next government. While our debt spirals and business becomes weary of investing in the UK, while we're still one of the only nations still in recession Gordy just keeps on spending. And where is the opposition to this? Cameron has not said one thing on this, this man is supposed to be an alternative to the idiots we have incharge now - where he is!?. and.. he wonders why the Conservatives are so low against Labour in the polls!. Is it any wonder why people are turning to UKIP and the BNP?

On Obama he seems to be snubbing the UK at every point he can, despite the fact we are one of the only NATO members having any real contribution to the Afganhistan war, so whether or not you agree with the war, would it not make common sense for Obama to seek closer ties with us rather than France and Germany? - but hey why should he when France and Germany creates most of our laws anyway.

Thoughts, and should the UK be pledging this amount of money,if any at all at Copenhgan?

Berlusconi what do you think of Mr Obama?

<Insert unacceptable yet hilarious comment>

Meh, let the different leaders discuss trivial and meaningless issues and waste more money. It makes them happy as it drives away from anything they will ever do that is useful. The only thing that shoud come from this, is aid to third world countries who are tackling the changes in their area which cannot be stopped from chucking money at exhaust fumes. But even still, some could just move further inland and make use of the water, rather than sit in it :/

Mr Mugabe will be able to buy all his generals and himself a new porche each.

This country is too polite - We need to sort ourselves out before we can even consider helping others. The country is in a diabolical state.

I might be the only one thinking this, but the debt may not make much difference if our country continues to flood in the way it currently does. Flooding costs us alot of money, and you can deny that global warming exists all you want, but green house gases have contributed to the world heating up. Big big polluters such as the US, China etc all need to cut their emissions and this is what this whole thing about. Money will mean nothing at all if the world ceases to exist so yeah, put it into perspective. Oh and I fully expect to be ridiculed for this view but it's my thoughts on this, so think very carefully what you write when you try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

I might be the only one thinking this, but the debt may not make much difference if our country continues to flood in the way it currently does. Flooding costs us alot of money, and you can deny that global warming exists all you want, but green house gases have contributed to the world heating up. Big big polluters such as the US, China etc all need to cut their emissions and this is what this whole thing about. Money will mean nothing at all if the world ceases to exist so yeah, put it into perspective. Oh and I fully expect to be ridiculed for this view but it's my thoughts on this, so think very carefully what you write when you try.

---

Wouldn't have as much flooding if we didn't build on flood plains (tip: clue in the name, gordon)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robbie

Wouldn't have as much flooding if we didn't build on flood plains (tip: clue in the name, gordon)

---

On flood plains? Alot of these places which flood have been lived on for hundreds of years :S Infact it is the most natural thing in the world to live near a source of water, hence in earlier times alot of people lived near rivers etc. I can't see how you can blame Gordon Brown for building on flood plains at all. Unless i'm missing something here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

I might be the only one thinking this, but the debt may not make much difference if our country continues to flood in the way it currently does. Flooding costs us alot of money, and you can deny that global warming exists all you want, but green house gases have contributed to the world heating up. Big big polluters such as the US, China etc all need to cut their emissions and this is what this whole thing about. Money will mean nothing at all if the world ceases to exist so yeah, put it into perspective. Oh and I fully expect to be ridiculed for this view but it's my thoughts on this, so think very carefully what you write when you try.

---

We have always had flooding, flooding was occuring millions of years ago and will continue long after humanity has gone (if we ever do).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

On flood plains? Alot of these places which flood have been lived on for hundreds of years :S Infact it is the most natural thing in the world to live near a source of water, hence in earlier times alot of people lived near rivers etc. I can't see how you can blame Gordon Brown for building on flood plains at all. Unless i'm missing something here?

---

They haven't all been lived on for hundreds of years, for those that have - they have always flooded. It is just like when houses next to a river flood because of terrible rain, you know its pretty much common sense so much that someone in a vegatitive state could work out;

..you build next to a river + heavy rain = flood

On top of this you have the problems that surfacing of areas creates with excess water run off which overwhelmes river systems far faster, as flood plains have been built on and the outlets of the river have been cut off = flooding along the whole river system.

On Gormless Gord and his Labour cronies, yes it is partly their fault. They allowed the building of thousands of new homes on flood-risk areas which will not only make those houses unsellable when they flood meaning families are basically uninsured and stuck, but it also makes it worse for those downstream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tash.

On flood plains? Alot of these places which flood have been lived on for hundreds of years :S Infact it is the most natural thing in the world to live near a source of water, hence in earlier times alot of people lived near rivers etc. I can't see how you can blame Gordon Brown for building on flood plains at all. Unless i'm missing something here?

---

It's been raining since time immorial, flooding inland shouldn't and isn't at all related to this. Climate change only really effects the sea level, seeing as that what is proposed to go up. When rain goes inland it is beyond any ones control, seeing as rain isn't a new invention that came about due to climate change. Coastal defences and the sea level are the main fears for this country, what happens inland isn't at all related to the sea level (for obvious reasons).

And all countries have flood plains, unfortunately not all countries are aware of what flood plains are so therefore think it wise to build towns and developments around rivers that are probably prone to, or will be prone to flooding when a town is built around them.