94 Americans refuse free medical care, if illegal Immigrants will get it too

Why should nations' emissions of Carbon Dioxide be assessed on PER CAPITA , rather than PER AREA?

Belgium and the Netherlands, combined, have a bigger population than Australia.

Isn't it reasonable that Australia would use more coal than them? We have a huge mining industry.

Plus, countries which use Nuclear Power instead escape scot-free.

(1) Americans refuse free medical care, if illegal Immigrants will get it too - Shamir
(2) "Immigration should not be racially based"
(3) Australia Overtakes U.S. in Per Capita CO2 Emissions
(4) Coal & Iron exports, coal-based power, & long driving distances make Australia the biggest PER CAPITA emitter of CO2
(5) Developing countries have a lot more people and therefore lower per capita emissions
(6) Emissions in parts of China 'above rich nations'
(7) New climate change pact will replace flawed Kyoto treaty

(1) Americans refuse free medical care, if illegal Immigrants will get it too - Shamir

From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net> Date: 20.09.2009 02:28 PM

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Red_Ed.htm

America Sees Red

By Israel Shamir

There is a Jewish tale, in which a man is promised that he will be granted any wish he chooses, so long as his neighbour will get twice as much. After some thought he states his wish: please put me out one of my eyes! This is a very American attitude. An American refuses to get free medical care, if the condition is that others will get it, too. This we learned from the rallies against Obama's health reform. The slogans and ideas of the demonstrators were just too weird!

A little girl asks how she will pay the bill for the reformed health services. This little girl -- or rather, her parents – did not go out and ask how she was going to pay off the bills for the Iraqi and Afghani wars, how she was going to pay for the US involvement in Palestine, how she would repay the trillions given away to the bankers. Up until now, Big Government was good. It provided billions for AIG - ok. Billions for a new fighter jets - great. Billions to Blackwater to kill more Afghanis and Pakistanis - fine. Billions to Israel - perfect. But funding for health? What a communist notion!

The US health insurance problem is something we foreigners can't understand. All of us, whether in England or Russia or Israel or France, have a national health service; we regret only that it is not as good as it used to be. But how can normal people prefer turning their health into a commodity and making it dependent on their bank accounts? This strange attitude is rooted in America's older ills.

The US is an experimental 'project' – to see what would happen when a rather empty space is colonized by people of diverse backgrounds, ethnicities and affiliations, all moved by the desire to get rich and knowing no moral inhibitions but the Smith and Wesson. At first, they destroy the natives and the neighbours, afterwards they turn to cannibalism. If the Americans do not eat each other, it is only because they have found somebody else to eat together.

America was informed by love of profit and by hatred of communism. Her anticommunism is visceral, brutal, basic, inherent. The United States was created as the supreme sheriff, as the bastion of staunch individualism, of 'homo homini lupus est', of rejection of the notions of solidarity and mutual help. This was the plan of project designers.

Human nature being what it is, this satanic plan was partly upset by the inherent goodness of men and women. There are many wonderful Americans, rebels against crass materialism and unbridled greed, but they are isolated in their milieu; the best American characters are living and fighting alone. Such is Thoreau in his Walden. Such is Ishmael aboard the Pequod. Such is the Old Man at the Sea. Solidarity – togetherness – is conspicuous by its absence from American literature.

Every European state, from England to Russia, has its National Health, for every nation considers self a living body, and every member of the nation is as valued as a body part. All these nations are or were Christian and solidarist. Their citizens were embraced by one church. The US is different because of the anti-solidarist and anti-Christian spirit of her founders. Her Manifest Destiny did not connect to the faith. The US founders openly denied she was a Christian nation when concluding the Tripoli treaty, and their denial was sincere, because solidarity is a basic tenet of the Christian faith.

Every part of American society – Left, Right, churches, parties - are touched by this lack of compassion magnified by envy. The US Right is obsessed with anticommunism. This goes without saying for the imperialist Right of Ronald Reagan and George Bushes Junior and Senior. What is upsetting is that even the traditional anti-imperialist, nationalist American Right (the "paleocons") are equally anti-communist and anti-Christian. I, for one, hoped they would understand their mistakes of yesteryear and become allies of other anti-imperialist forces including China, Russia and Iran. Alas, while they do not like neocons, and this is all to the good, they are no better themselves: Instead of fighting Arabs, they would rather kill Russians.

In a recent essay, Patrick Buchanan glorifies Adolf Hitler's Germany and vilifies Communist Russia. He is sorry that the US allied with the Russians against the Germans, and not vice versa. Though Russia is no longer Communist, he would like to fight it anyway.

Mind you, I do not need smelling salts every time Hitler's name is mentioned. I do not think everyone has to hate Hitler. I am at peace with people who admire Hitler for sentimental reasons: they like his solidarism, or German greatness or his vegetarianism, or his treatment of banks and bankers or unification of German lands. But there is a red line: people who admire Hitler because he attacked Russia and/or massacred civilians are my enemies too. In the battle of Stalingrad, I know which side I am on. And Buchanan is on the other side.

Similar anti-communist and anti-Russian notes prevail in other far-right white-nationalist writings. Be on the look out for the telling word "hordes". For neocons, there are Muslim hordes, for the white-nationalists, these are Russian hordes, as in Patrick Buchanan: "By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin". He forgot to explain that this happened because the people of these great capitals had decided to try their luck in Moscow under Hitler's banners, and it may well happen again if this lesson is forgotten.

Our erstwhile friend Tom Sunic came from his search for a New Right to the Old Hitlerism: "The last shot in the European capital of Berlin was fired by a drunken Soviet soldier, killing the young French Waffen SS volunteer." Well, God bless the Soviet soldier, drunken or sober, for his steady mark, and to hell with the SS-man, young or middle-aged, especially if he volunteered to do that butcher job.

Buchanan writes of "the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin". Hatred of Stalin, the man who stopped Hitler, created modern Russia and resurrected the Russian Church after the Trotskyite excesses, is the common ground of these anticommunists. If they care at all about the Russian people as they pretend they do, they can ask them and find out that despite decades of anticommunist propaganda, Stalin is much loved by Russians. In the huge recent poll run by the Russian TV, Stalin was chosen 'the most important personality in the whole history of Russia' next to St Alexander Nevsky. The Russians remember that Stalin became the leader of an illiterate country devastated by civil war – a country of no industry, of dying agriculture, of no money and of plenty of debts, surrounded by enemies. He created industry, built housing and roads, created full free health care and comprehensive free education for all; he made Russia the best educated country in the world.

Unprejudiced Americans may find Stalin's simple attitude to life and business rather to their liking. He'd have solved the current financial crisis by dispatching the bankers to chop wood somewhere deep in Oregon and by canceling all debts. The automobile plants of Detroit would be saved. When Stalin discovered a Zionist Lobby in his country, he smashed it on the spot instead of surrendering to them, while ordinary Jews who were loyal to Russia retained their positions. That is why his name is besmirched by anticommunists.

This is neither the time nor the place to deal with impossible exaggerations of alleged Soviet crimes. It is enough to state that they are fantastic. Nobody, even Stalin, could have killed one hundred million people out of one hundred sixty million, won a war and yet found himself with two hundred fifty million at the end of it.

This sick hatred of communism pours out of a column by another anti-imperialist right-winger, Chuck Baldwin. This "alternative candidate" fumed against the Chinese national flag, which is red, being hoisted at the White House's South Lawn for an anniversary of the Chinese national holiday. He speaks of "the extreme offensiveness of flying the Communist Chinese flag". This is "unbelievable, unreal, horrific, obscene, even traitorous… for the communist leaders of Mao's China are the Butchers of Beijing, and this proves … the communist leanings of President Barack Obama".

Further, Baldwin spreads the heart-rending story of the Chinese people's suffering under the cruel leadership of Mao. If Communist leadership is so bad, how come the US is indebted to China to the tune of a few trillions? Before Mao, China was an impoverished semi-colony of the West, 'the Chinese and dogs were not allowed' into some parts of Shanghai, famines were annual, and Anglo-American navies studiously supplied the people with opium when they weren't busy burning Beijing Palace. Now, after so many years of Communist tyranny, the Chinese are a shining example for the rest of the world.

In any case, flying the Chinese national flag at such events is not a proclamation of Communism as state doctrine, it is just a normal sign of courtesy. Likewise, flying the Israeli flag over the same lawn was not considered by the sane as a sign of submission to the Elders of Zion, nor flying the British flag as cancellation of Declaration of Independence. It is pity that the Obama administration allegedly got cold feet and decided to cancel the event. This suppleness of Obama's back is not a good sign, as we have already learned in the Middle East.

The US Left is afraid of communism as well. In many, many articles and responses to the anti-Obama rallies, left-wing authors invariably stress the racism of the demonstrators. William Rivers Pitt called the "white, middle-aged, overweight, pissed-off right-wingers… a Klan rally minus the bedsheets and torches." Susie Day pretends that the rallies were formed by those whites upset by Obama's mouthing off to a white cop.

I am not a great believer in racism. Reputation of this sin is largely overblown, to the best of my knowledge. The Russians, who are supposed to be racists, loved Stalin, a Georgian. The French and the Germans, presumably also racist, had a Jewish prime minister and a foreign minister respectively in the last century. The Americans had no problem electing the black Obama. So much for racism. The American leftists who explain everything by racism are barking up the wrong tree, and they know it – but they dare not speak about the real problems.

This sick fear of human solidarity is American society's knee-jerk reaction. It was activated by the Lobby in order to undermine President Obama. Because he spoke against Israeli expansion, because he mentioned Palestinian rights and sorrows, they fight against him on every possible occasion – even on the issue of national health. If Obama would just do everything they want in the Middle East, his domestic initiatives would pass as easily as a steamer through the Golden Gate.

Obama is attacked at every step. Look at the Middle East: Israel wants to bomb Iran. The President refused Netanyahu's pleas to attack Tehran, but the Lobby doesn't take no for an answer. In the Voice of the Lobby, a.k.a. The Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens impossibly claims: Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War. How? Obama's refusal to attack Iran is "pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran". The Voice of the Lobby does not hide the fact that such a strike could well usher in a "price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between." For a normal reader, the conclusion is clear: that's why Obama forbade the Israelis to attack Iran. But the Lobby's sophist offers another solution: let Obama's America attack Iran instead of Israel. Obama's refusal to interfere with Iran is presented as "Obama's pushing Israel toward war". Begorrah!

While the enemy is active, no friends are forthcoming to help the embattled American President. Many of us received and forwarded an email claiming that Obama supported the coup d'etat in Honduras. But much less attention was paid when Obama actually cut off US aid to Honduras in response to the coup.

Sensing this loneliness of the President, Netanyahu ridicules his mild and limited demands. There is no other word for Israel's response – that they will freeze some settlements' construction work for a few months. Such a response is only marginally better than "shove it". This was followed by an announcement that some five hundred new Jewish homes will be built in the teeth of Obama's demand. Obama does not dare to push intransigent Israel any more, for Congress and the Senate are in the Jewish pocket, and these powerful Jews prefer Zionism to Communism.

What a pity! Once upon a time, the Jews were all for Communism and none for Zionism, and the human lot markedly improved. In a remarkable article, Winston Churchill wrote in 1920s: the Jews are choosing between Communism and Zionism, let us direct them towards Zionism so they will isolate themselves and stop bothering us. His plan was realised: Jews were seduced by the Zionist idea, parted with communism and became its enemies. The result was quite sad: the positive contribution of Israeli Jews to mankind's welfare is next to zero, unless you count the development of new torture and surveillance techniques. Jews elsewhere waste their abilities and time on the same rotten Zionist project, instead of helping their fellow countrymen to improve their lives. Winston Churchill lit a candle, and its light attracts the butterflies who die in its flames. The daring report of Judge Richard Goldstone is a first harbinger of a weather change: despite his pro-Israel sympathies he condemned the recent Zionist atrocities in Gaza.

Now it is time for Obama to move forward fearlessly. He should listen to his fellow- Americans. If they are so upset and worried by immigration, stop immigration completely. Send away illegal aliens, or legalise those who have lived long enough in America. Show people that you care about them.

Proceed with the health care. This field is ripe for revolution. Only in a time of crisis can a great leader enact radical reforms:

· Borrow the script from Illich's Medical Nemesis, and minimise the cost of medical care. Do it the Cuban way.

· Treat health care like fire brigades – human bodies are no less important than buildings. Nobody is amazed that the fire brigades are not private. Turn health care into a public service, and make all doctors public employees.

· Ban private medical care.

· Provide medical help for everyone, at the state's expense.

· Stop expensive live-saving, life-supporting devices. No transplantations, no complicated infertility treatments, no reproductive technology, no heart-and-brain operations, no abortions.

· Cut down research. Let incurable diseases remain incurable.

· Allow people to get born and to die; this is normal, as opposed to this morbid fear of death.

· While he's at it, nationalise pharmaceutical companies. Let them sell medicine to the national health service at the cost of production.

Thus the national health system will become good, simple, comprehensive and inexpensive. Communism? Yes! Good for you? Yes, unless you are a wealthy gynecologist. And Comrade Stalin would approve of it! J

(2) "Immigration should not be racially based"

From: Tony Ryan <tonyryan43@gmail.com> Date: 19.09.2009 07:34 AM

> Immigration should not be racially based, but nor should
> there be "Open Borders"

The argument that race should not intrude on choice of migrants entirely misrepresents the situation. The real issue is CULTURE.

Cultural compatibility is the primary pivotal issue.

Considering how many people would like to move to Australia, it makes sense to select those most likely to adapt willingly to Aussie culture and values. Before the Commonwealth Police Force was morphed into those seekers of seditionists and terrorists, the Australian Federal Police, a study into sociological preconditions of crime vis a vis unemployment by choice and unwillingness to conjoin the Oz community, identified Vietnamese and Lebanese; especially the Muslim persuasion of the latter. History has demonstrated the outcome of ignoring cultural compatibility as the main criteria.

Not that there is anything new in this wisdom. It was recognised thousands of years ago that it was important for migrants to speak, look and act as much like the indigenous peoples they had joined, and as quickly as possible. This was astutely paraphrased two thousand years later by Shakespeare... "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

All of which brings us to the ongoing revision of history orchestrated by globalists and their UN agents; more specifically in this case, the White Australia Policy. This was always an intensely proselytised misnomer; the more so since its passing. In a uniformly simplistic world, when to most people 'culture' meant stuff the upper classes and their social-climbing disciples patronised... opera, painting exhibitions, ballet and symphony orchestras, the word 'race' was the catch-all. Russians, the post 1917 Red Menace, who are as white as anyone in the pale-face brigade, were regarded as just as dangerous as the Yellow Peril.

In those times, the term 'mixed marriage' referred to the family-dividing scandal of a Protestant marrying a Catholic; and the enormity of marriage across different races was just too awful to even contemplate. This did not begin to change until 1960.

The real criterion of that era, nowadays viewed as a humorous parody of empirist logic, was British Values. Their banners of Honour, Loyalty, Justice, Fair Play and Cricket formed the genesis of Oz values today, even if the Poms were somewhat hypocritical in their application of these virtues, as the ANZACs repeatedly discovered. Another fact of life is that few other cultures subscribe to these values, leading to many migrants regarding Australians as fools; suckers who deserve to be ripped off. Many were the Housing Commission Houses in which three migrant families shared space while they raised finance to purchase houses, and then become the landlords of Australians.

Although there was minor conflict between Greek and Italian migrants and their hosts, within a generation this had eroded to a minor irritant. But Chinese continue to regard their Australian hosts as foreign devils, and uniformally acknowledge their own racial superiority. Migrants from Sudan also feel free to impose their culture, and Muslims appear to be attempting to colonise this country.

Whenever I raise these issues with migrants I am told that if Australians want a Policy of Multiculturalism we must learn to accept their cultures. They are invariably non-plussed when I point out that Aussies were never consulted; that the policy was imposed from above. Moreover, independent surveys ( ie AIA, August 2006) have found that 86% of Australians do not support the Policy of Multiculturalism; and this calls into question the validity of 'official' pollsters, who uniformally demonstrate majority public support. This is the product of clustering interviews outside of schools and specifically targeting 14 year old girls, or using selective phone numbers.

This takes us to the second most pivotal issue... democracy.

In October 2009, the Australian Independent's survey will repeat the 2006 question, along with gauging the true extent of AGW gullibility. After this, Australian politicians can expect increasing public confrontation over the abandonment of electoral majority rule. And many non-English-speaking migrants can expect to be unceremoniously returned to their country of origin.

Reply (Peter M.):

Even 100 years after British migrants came to Australia, their descendants were still calling Britain "home". The Vietnamese are settling in much faster, the moreso because they oppose Hanoi with a passion; their second-generation are inter-marrying - they're not really a problem.

But numbers are a problem. If all the people came here, who want to come here, we'd be swamped. When I was in India, various Indians asked me to confirm reports they had heard about the availability of the Aged Pension - clearly not available (for most people ) there.

Migrants turn up here, immediately get Welfare, and tell their relatives back home about this bounty.

Plus, they're nearly all city people. So, when they come here they insist on living in the big cities, making them even more congested.

India, the Philippines and some Muslim countries are not doing enough to stop their population growth. In particular, they should make tubal ligation freely available to women who don't want more children.

I was amazed at the numbers of people in India, yet few people talked about the Population issue. Clearly, it's being kept off the agenda there, as it is in the Philippines, because of the power of the reigning religion in each country.

Immigration is partly about evening-out population densities around the world. But if the crowded countries don't stop the explosion, why should recipient countries help them out? We should make immigration conditional on the source countries stopping their own population growth, not by suppressing sex (as they try to do) but by making Contraception available and free.

(3) Australia Overtakes U.S. in Per Capita CO2 Emissions (Correct)

By Jeremy van Loon and Alex Morales

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aN60ck4Sz4iE

(Corrects Canadian emissions to 18.81 tons from 19.81 tons in second paragraph of story published yesterday.)

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Australia has overtaken the U.S. as the biggest emitter per person of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, according to a British risk analysis firm.

The average Australian contributes 20.58 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year to cool homes, drive cars and generate electricity with coal, the U.K.-based risk assessment company Maplecroft said today. The U.S. fell to second at 19.78 tons per inhabitant a year while Canada was third at 18.81 tons.

The ranking indicates how much more people in wealthier nations emit than those in large developing countries, a key argument used by China and India to push for emissions cuts in the U.S., Europe and Japan as the United Nations aims to write a climate-change treaty in Copenhagen in December.

The average Chinese person emits 4.5 tons of greenhouse gases a year and a typical Indian 1.16 tons, according to the survey. Because of populations in excess of 1 billion, the aggregate emissions of those two countries makes them the first and fourth-biggest emitters, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, which ranks the U.S. second and Russia third.

China and India argue that developed nations such as the U.S., Canada and Australia must cut emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels in 2020, and that poorer countries need room to raise their greenhouse gases to allow them to develop.

To contact the reporters on this story: Jeremy van Loon in Berlin at jvanloon@bloomberg.net; Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: September 10, 2009 04:26 EDT

(4) Coal & Iron exports, coal-based power, & long driving distances make Australia the biggest PER CAPITA emitter of CO2

Australia coming last on climate

ADAM MORTONSeptember 14, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/australia-coming-last-on-climate-20090913-fm7a.html

Australia ranks last among wealthy countries in being ready to compete in a clean energy future or play its part in a strong climate treaty, an international report has found.

While the debate in Canberra focuses on whether to pass climate change legislation this year, the analysis by London-based consultants Vivid Economics suggests Australia is already being left behind.

Among G20 nations, Australia is ranked 15th for its readiness to maintain its wealth as the world introduces a price on carbon dioxide emissions.

Only developing nations South Africa, India, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia fare worse.

Australia's poor standing is blamed on its reliance on greenhouse-intensive exports, cars and coal-based electricity.

In terms of being ready to play its part under a pact to limit warming to 2 degrees, it slips down the list to 16th.

"The largest turnarounds in carbon productivity are required by Australia, Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia," the report says.

"The longer these countries take to achieve these turnarounds, the more costly the eventual transition will be."

Commissioned by European think tank E3G and Australia's Climate Institute, the report is timed to pressure Kevin Rudd and other leaders heading to the US next week for a G20 meeting and UN climate summit. Both are seen as crucial to hatching a climate deal to be signed in Copenhagen in December.

The report is backed by British climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern, whose 2006 report for the British Government was the first to explain the economic impact of failing to tackle climate change.

Its findings include:

- Leading nations have significant ground to make up to show they can live up to a substantial climate treaty, if one can be agreed on. Only two nations - Mexico and Argentina - are on track to play their part in giving the world a chance of avoiding 2 degrees of warming. China, South Africa and Germany are close.

- Australia needs to double its carbon productivity - the GDP generated for each tonne of carbon dioxide it emits - to play its part in a substantial treaty.

- Economic growth does not have to suffer under a carbon price. Germany, South Africa and Mexico have shown they can decouple growth from emissions.

- France, Japan, Britain, South Korea and Germany are best placed to capitalise on a global carbon price.

The Climate Institute said the report showed claims that taking action on climate change would damage international competitiveness were "outdated and backward".

It said the world was already moving to low-carbon products. For the first time, investment in clean energy last year outstripped investment in fossil fuel technology.

Institute chief executive John Connor said the report underscored the urgency of Australia introducing an emissions trading scheme and not offering extra compensation for big-emitting industries.

"It also highlights the importance that world leaders … increase financial and investment incentives for clean technologies in developed, but particularly developing, countries," he said.

In a preface to the report, Lord Stern says the global economic recovery is an ideal opportunity to cut emissions. "Countries which don't seize this opportunity will undermine their future competitiveness," he says.

(5) Developing countries have a lot more people and therefore lower per capita emissions

Australians the 'world's worst polluters

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/11/2683439.htm?section=business

By Simon Lauder for the The World Today

Updated September 11, 2009 15:57:00

A report by a British risk analysis company says Australians have overtaken Americans as the world's biggest carbon dioxide polluters.

The report relies on US Energy Department data to highlight the risks business would face in Australia under a global emissions trading scheme.

UK risk assessment company Maplecroft has puts Australia at the very top of the chart when it comes to per capita emissions of CO2.

Maplecroft finds Australia's heavy reliance on coal makes for an average output of 20.58 tonnes of C02 per person per year, compared to 19.78 tonnes in the USA.

China, which recently overtook the US as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter overall, has a per capita average of about 4.5 tonnes per person. ...

But not everyone buys the argument that business is damaged by Australia's ranking as the number one carbon emitter per capita.

The chief executive of the Minerals Council of Australia, Mitch Hooke, says the climate change argument should be about commitments to solutions, not seeking concessions.

"Not getting into this business where the developing countries who have a lot more people and therefore lower per capita emissions think there should be less obligation on them to reduce emissions than the developing counties," he said.

"That's why we have this continuous per capita debate. It's about trying to shirk blame, it's about trying to shirk responsibility, yet in actual fact everybody has got to focus on solutions to managing climate change." ...

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is just months away.

Professor Barry Brook says the two different ways of deciding who is the biggest polluter is likely to be the biggest stumbling block.

"So it's a bit of a political game like that. Australia has about five times the per capita emissions of China for instance but China produces over 20 times the carbon emissions of Australia because China has such a huge population," he said.

"So you can play around with these numbers all you want but ultimately what matters is the total global carbon budget and unless humanity as a whole can find solutions to that problem, then all of that petty bickering amongst nations about who's more or less responsible isn't really going to be very helpful."

(6) Emissions in parts of China 'above rich nations'

(AFP) – September 12, 2009

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g-JiOd2a2T0PHSBbF_Ej8fum3F4g

BEIJING — One of the world's top authorities on climate change warned on Friday that carbon emissions per person in parts of China were higher than in some developed countries.

Nicholas Stern, the British author of an acclaimed review on climate change, told students in Beijing's People's University that 13 Chinese provinces, regions and cities had higher per capita emissions than France. Six also overtook Britain.

"There are many parts of China where emissions intensity and emissions per capita are looking much like some of the richer countries in Europe," he said in a speech that laid out his predictions on global warming.

Stern warned that if the world continued to emit around the same levels of greenhouse gases every year, there was a 50 percent chance temperatures would rise more than five degrees Celsius (nine degrees Fahrenheit) within 100 years.

A rise of "five degrees Celsius has not been seen on this planet for 30 million years -- we as humans have been here for only 200,000 years," he said.

"This type of temperature change involves radical dislocation, it involves re-writing where people can live, it would involve the movement of hundreds of millions, probably billions, of people."

"This would result in extended, serious global conflict."

Stern's comments came ahead of a key summit in Copenhagen in December aimed at hammering out a new climate change pact to cut emissions.

China and other developing nations are opposed to any compulsory cuts in emissions, saying their per capita emissions are low and the responsibility for solving the problem rests with developed countries that have polluted longer.

Based on Stern's calculations, emissions per person worldwide would have to fall to two tonnes by 2050 to minimise the risk of a dangerous rise in temperature.

Currently, according to Stern, China emits six tonnes per person, the European Union emits an average of 12, and the United States 25.

Stern, a noted economist, said he was confident China would lead on climate change action.

"China will use its leadership... to explain to the developed world what their obligations are, and China will support developing countries as a whole," he said.

(7) New climate change pact will replace flawed Kyoto treaty

FROM BEN EISEN, policy analyst, Frontier Centre for Public Policy

September 2, 2009

http://www.saultthisweek.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1724601

In December, the United Nations Climate Change Conference will convene in Copenhagen. The purpose is to create a new international climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.  ...

Canada’s inability to meet its Kyoto commitment is not a source of national shame -- it is the inevitable result of a flawed treaty that failed to recognize the relationship between population growth, economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions.

As the Copenhagen conference approaches, Canada should learn from the failure of Kyoto, and participate in a new climate change agreement only if the new pact does not punish growth. Predetermined emission caps make little sense in a dynamic country like Canada in which the rate of economic and population growth are unpredictable.

The new climate change treaty should only be signed if emission targets are flexible, and responsive to changing demographic and economic conditions.

Ben Eisen is a policy analyst with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author of The Environmental State of Canada -- 30 years of Progress (www.fcpp.org)