Tag Archives: Durban

The Death Of Nelson Mandela

Posted on by

Nelson Mandela has died at the age of 95. Nelson Mandela spent 27 years as a prisoner in South Africa for opposing apartheid, then emerged to become his country’s first black president. All of the major (and minor) news outlets are posting stories about his death. As usual, I have a few observations.

In the early 1970’s my parents made a business trip to South Africa. They spent time in Johannesburg and in Durban. This was during the time that Nelson Mandela was in prison. Upon returning to America they observed that South Africa was in a place very similar to where the American south was before the civil rights movement–things were very tense and there was no harmony between the white and black populations. Something was going to explode. There were some explosions, but compared to what has happened in other Africa nations, they were relatively minor. Apartheid ended in 1994 after international sanctions and negotiations between Mandela and South African President F. W. de Klerk.

What is the lesson we can learn from the life of Nelson Mandela? I think the most important lesson is the lesson of forgiveness–this man spent 27 years in jail for opposing apartheid and was able to forgive his country for the way he had been treated. Because he was able to move forward rather than dwell on the past, Nelson Mandela became President of South Africa. If more leaders followed the example of Nelson Mandela in forgiving past wrongs and wanting to do what is in the best interests of all people in his country, the world would be a very different place.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Waste Of Time And Money Sponsored By The United Nations

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported on some of the plans of the United Nations Climate Change Conference. The group is currently meeting in Durban, South Africa.

The article reports: 

Negotiators at the conference are considering “a new tax on every foreign currency transaction in the world,” according to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). “Every time you travel abroad, you’ll have to pay a climate tax,” explains CFACT, the group that released the “Climategate” emails. “More importantly, every time we import goods, every time we export our fine products (think jobs) we will do so with a climate tax skimming off the top.”

The article states that President Obama is open to the idea, which will place most of the burden on Americans–Europeans will not have to pay the tax within the Eurozone and thus will avoid most of the expense.

The article concludes: 

CFACT suggests that Obama is open to implementing this tax and similar policies in the absence of a full climate treaty, which would require congressional approval.  “We have learned that while many have discounted this conference, knowing that a full climate treaty is difficult to achieve especially with a U.S. Senate that will not vote to ratify,” CFACT says. “Obama and his fellow climate travelers are working around the Senate and planning to stick America with the bill.”

Some perspective on this can be found at wattsupwiththat.com, where Anthony Watts posted a commentary by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. Lord Monckton concludes his article by stating:

As President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic pointed out at a recent climate conference in Cambridge, if we leave less wealth to our successors because we have wasted trillions on the non-problem of global warming, we harm future generations by denying them the full inheritance they would otherwise have received.

But don’t expect any of the delegates here to get the point. They are making far too much money out of the climate scam –at taxpayers’ expense – to want to do anything other than recite that The Science Is Settled. As the West goes bust, drowned under the sheer cost of the ever-expanding State, the UN, the IPCC, the UNFCCC, the UNEP and the WMO are luxuries we can no longer afford and will no longer pay for. Time to shut them all down and make their self-serving, rent-seeking bureaucrats go out into the real world and do a proper job.

This is one more reason for America to get out of the United Nations. If this is a conference of United Nations delegates, how much of a carbon footprint did they leave by meeting in Durban instead of closer to the United Nations headquarters in New York City?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Common Sense From The Wall Street Journal

Posted on by
The cenotaph in Durban's central Farewell Square

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal posted an op-ed in its Review and Outlook column entitled “The Post-Global Warming World.” I’m not linking to the article as it is subscribers only.

The article reminds us that the United Nations annual climate-change conference will meet in November in Durban, South Africa (Do you ever notice that these conferences never take place in the low-rent district? When was the last time they had a conference in Newark?) The 1997 Kyoto Protocol is set to expire, and they are looking for the next step forward. There are, however, a few problems. India and China were not covered by the first pact to limit carbon emissions and now the United States, Russia and Japan have said that they will not agree to a new binding pact.

The article reports:

…Last week, EU Climate Action Director General Jos Delbeke told reporters that “in reality what may happen is that the Europeans will pronounce themselves politically in favor of the Kyoto Protocol” but won’t lock themselves into any new anticarbon pacts unless “other parties join the club.” 

The problem with going green is that as of yet the technology is not there. All that has been accomplished in countries that have attempted to go green is that they have seriously taxed their economies. Some of the facts that have emerged on green energy–wind mills need up to 90 percent of their capacity backed up (usually with coal or gas plants)  in order to prevent blackouts , and wind mills kill birds. Solar power involves lead batteries which release lead pollution. We simply did not have economical, successful green energy yet. We may have it in the future, but we don’t have it yet, and no amount of carbon restrictions or government subsidies is going to change that.

The article concludes:

The science on climate change and man’s influence on it is far from settled. The question today is whether it makes sense to combat a potential climate threat by imposing economically destructive regulations and sinking billions into failure-prone technologies that have their own environmental costs. The earnest people going to Durban next month may think so. The rest of the world is wearier and wiser.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Durban.

Enhanced by Zemanta