Monday, December 6, 2010

A few questions for the organizers of the Climate Change Summit in Cancun...First one, "Why are you not holding this conference in Chad or Niger?"...just askin'

Actual Conference Center:  Lots of damage to the eco-system to build this, no?
 I may be a bit critical here, but is it REALLY necessary to have a United Nations Summit on Global Warming in Cancun, Mexico?  Did they not have a summit recently in Copenhagen, Denmark?  Is it safe to say that 90% of the people at this summit (and the Copenhagen summit AND every other summit) know each other and have met on MANY occasions before? Do these summits cost LOTS of money? Does the UN NOT have a budget problem like most other entities? Rhetorical question: Where does the UN get its funding?  Could they have been sensitive to the plight of 99% of the rest of world that is struggling to get by, and held this summit using the latest and greatest technology to tele-conference?  Oh, and lest I forget, could they have REDUCED the carbon emissions they are trying to prohibit us from emitting by not flying hundreds/thousand(s) of people there in the first place?  Is that not the goal of these summits?

I am not against meetings at exotic locales (ok, I lied, I am against them especially when it is on someone elses dime), just meetings that at the outset EVERYONE knows will produce minimal results, if any.  I believe this group travels more than U2 on a concert tour....  wonder where the next stop will be and if I can get a Tee-Shirt...

Note: I DO care about the environment, but I don't care for feeble attempts at trying to solve a problem...Why don't they meet in sub-Saharan Africa so they can see problems first hand?  Guess that would not be as comfortable for them and the Margaritas are probably not as good either...
View My Stats