http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.

“Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth,” so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.

Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.

The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, “it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions”.

Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: “Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton” whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.

She admitted that China’s population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.

“I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited,” she said.

She said some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people’s lives, she said.

This holistic approach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and environment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation, she said.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

colvindesign@hotmail.com

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

You need to know that Congress held hearings on the FED in 1911 – the hearings were called the Pujo Hearings – Wilson called a halt to the hearings. The Pujo Committee was doing what you are doing right now – trying to put the brakes on the FED –

If Pujo had continued, there wouldn’t have been a FED. Pujo knew it was a fraud. The banks involved with the FED had hijacked the U.S. Treasury, and were holding the funds in their vaults. Federal marshalls were trying to arrest the heads of the banks. Rockefeller took off for South America.

Wilson called the whole thing off and Federalized them. I have tons of stuff about the FED and the fruad – they continued the fraud after Wilson federalized them.

During the 1950′s, they met at U.C. Santa Barbara can came up with this whole credit scam. The FICO score is the key to the scam. They wanted to change the Constitution so that the FED was above the President. This agenda is still in play. They put the Agenda in the Congressional Records in 1971. I have to citations – but you can find them.

They called it the “Economy Under The Law” where the FED rises to power and becomes a 4th branch of government. I had some mathematicians look at FICO’s scoring system – FICO does not calculate anything reliable – In fact, the original legislation for the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1971, is unconstitutional and can be easily overturned by the Federal Courts as unintelligible and vague.

It’s void on it’s face. But unless somebody gets in touch with me, I can’t provide anybody with the facts. I’m getting obliterated by the bureacracy. I’ve been trying to tell you for 5 years what they did – I predicted the crash – I called Trans Union in Chicago a few years ago – I told them – Marmon sold Trans Union before the crash – they knew that credit scoring is a scam invented by the FED

You need to return to pre-1971 banking laws – and dump the individual credit score – it’s ok to score business – but when you score individuals, you’re playing into the scam

Individual Americans are not responsibile for the economy of the United States – but an individual credit score, where entire classes of individuals are excluded, will crash the economy. You cannot exclude entire classes of people.

Congress held hearings on this in 1967 – they called it the “Poor pay more economy” and they tried to stop the credit scoring scam.

You’re just repeating the very same hearings – and you don’t have the original information unless you pull up the original hearings from the Congressional Records.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And this is supposed to provide ammunition to the Democrats against the Republicans. Can they be serious? After all this spending we’re supposed to be happy with “No Big Cost Rise”? I thought the proposition was to lower the expense. How much of a joke can this be? At least in Europe, with all their socialist medicine they get free care, or so I hear. So we’re supposed to pay Socialist rates and get nothing in return except for No Big Rise in our current premiums? I’ve never heard of anything so ridiculous. I hope I’m not the only one befuddled by this non logic.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Ron Paul 2012

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0