Handguns
Subscribe
Home› Conservation Front
FV Miss Mary
Posts: 497 Officer
Политбюро
FV Miss Mary
Posts: 497 Officer
Central planning for your oceans.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/schasis/ocean_planning_would_bring_bil_1.html
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/schasis/ocean_planning_would_bring_bil_1.html
Replies
I clicked and clicked and couldn't find out any "partners"
http://oceanpolicy.com/2012/03/14/u-s-house-subcommittee-announces-ocean-policy-oversight-hearing-march-14-2012/
Try as I might...I have a vision problem.
I can't see myself clicking on a thread/link that's written in a language I don't speak. :wink
Rob
Hero's Don't Wear Capes....They Wear Dog Tags.
Respectfully,
Typiclese
Thank You,
V/R
Rob
Hero's Don't Wear Capes....They Wear Dog Tags.
Just sayin'
Nothing is wrong with looking at the broader picture and doing things for the betterment of the bigger picture.
Typically America has done that but all to often to our detriment as our partners around the world do not play with the same sense of fairness as we do.
Further at no point should we subjugate our sovereignty in the name of the bigger picture.
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
http://naturalresources.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=284846
What's the point? What's so "bad" about this? If we are limiting our participation to our EEZ and not "subjugating our sovereignty" what's so bad about trying to make the most of our limited natural resources?
I don't see any communist overtones here, unless you equate anything that comes from the White House these days to red socialism......
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/091209-Interim-CMSP-Framework-Task-Force.pdf
Here is the NOC.
Co-Chairs
White House Council on Environmental Quality
Nancy Sutley, Chair
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Dr. John P. Holdren, Director
NOC Members
Department of Agriculture
Tom Vilsack
Secretary
Department of Commerce
Gary Locke
Secretary
Dr. Jane Lubchenco
Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere
NOAA Administrator
Department of Defense
Robert M. Gates
Secretary
Environmental Protection Agency
Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator
Department of Energy
Dr. Steven Chu
Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (invitation pending)
Jon Wellinghoff
Chairman
Department of Health and Human Services
Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
Janet Napolitano
Secretary
Department of the Interior
Ken Salazar
Secretary
Joint Chiefs of Staff
Adm. Mike Mullen
Chairman
Department of Justice
Eric Holder
Attorney General
Department of Labor
Hilda L. Solis
Secretary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
Administrator
National Science Foundation
Dr. Cora Marrett
Acting Director
Department of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary
Department of Transportation
Ray LaHood
Secretary
Office of the Vice President
TBD
Director of National Intelligence
TBD
White House Office of Management and Budget
Peter Orszag
Director
Assistant to the President for National Security
General James Jones (Ret.)
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
John Brennan
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Melody Barnes
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
Lawrence Summers
Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Policy
Carol Browner
Director
My confusion is why you view this as "Politburo", if, in fact, central planning "is what it is".
So, tell me again why this is bad and why you found the need to liken this ocean planning task force to communism?
Or is it as simple as anything that comes out of the white house these days is labeled as communism?
Just curious as to your logic here, because I don't see any (outside the one suggested by the 2nd question above)....Mike
"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.
The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
OK, got it. You're just a confused neocon who sees communism behind every door. Thanks for clearing that up. Take care....Mike
It goes into the whole Vision 2020 and Agenda 21
Many do not realize how badly the UN wants to set the US backwards, they feel it is the only way for them and the rest of the world to catch up
https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
Capt. Bob you are correct. Words mean things.
“In order to save the planet it would be necessary to kill 350,000 people per day.” - Jacques Cousteau UNESCO Courier 1991
So I presume you disagree that our Earth is overpopulated?
Do you know how many people die every year because of hunger? You're cool with that?
So it's survival of the fittest, and everyone else is just a [insert divisive term here]?
While I don't think killing 350k people is the right answer, neither do I discount the very real problem of overpopulation the challenges it results in.
You certainly are entitled to your opinion -- just as entitled as I am to think it short-sighted, wrong-headed, and mis-characterized as communist/socialist.
Take care...Mike
"So I presume you disagree that our Earth is overpopulated?"
By reading the question you must adhere to much of what Paul Erlich wrote about in The Population Bomb (1968).
"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer."
—Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."
—Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
—Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity…in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion."
—Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
But you didn't. Instead we get more quotes stating what other people think.
I will, however, directly answer your assertion that I agree with Ehrlich's book -- and you couldn't be more incorrect. However, that doesn't mean I don't believe in the underlying premise -- there are too many humans on this earth -- because I do believe that.
Why is it so hard for you to just answer the question?
Listen, if you disagree, that's completely cool. Just do so in a cogent and direct way, if you don't mind.
I have answered all your questions directly and explained my logic, and I would appreciate it if you would treat me with the same respect.
Thank you...Mike
Does this graph strike you as sustainable? Does it cause you any concern? How should we address that concern?
Because it doesn't strike me as sustainable, it causes me concern, and, while I would never condone "killing 350k people", I really have no idea how to address the underlying problem -- but that doesn't change the concern.
Exponential graphs like this tend to drop as quickly (or more) than their exponential growth. Think about what that means -- a precipitous drop in world population. That's not something I, for one, would like my descendants to experience. Shame on us if we do nothing about it, and using divisive labels to dismiss those who acknowledge this concern is not productive, in my humble opinion, as it obfuscates a real concern with ideological arguments that get us no closer to a solution (and is remarkably similar to the discussion/arguments on fisheries management)...Mike