it is a globalization plan that is about spreading the wealth.
Yes, fixing up low income housing is just a crime against humanity.
Not really. It’s an article about social housing upgrades.
yeah really, my claim is the article shows the real reason behind the climate change propaganda: wealth redistribution.
how the wealth is redistributed and whether it is a worthy cause or not is immaterial.
You can disbelieve that climate change is man made, all you want, but it’s clear that the climate IS changing.
There is no doubt, what-so-ever that climate CHANGES.
These are houses built in the 60’s and 70’s. It is no doubt in need of major renovation. You’d be hard-pressed to find someone living in the most gently used house from the 1960’s that hasn’t had a single improvement.
i agree the climate is changing and always had. my argument is the reason politicians are pushing it to the degree they are is because the paris executive order is really a globalization plan to redistribute the wealth.
the actions of the parties involved is the proof.
i changed the title
So people in extreme poverty are getting what is far overdue, in all likelyhood, living conditions that are far less than ideal. If a politician has found a way under the flag of ‘climate change’ then who gives a crap? It’s not immoral to believe in climate change…
…I mean its even Biblical. We are to be as shrewd as snakes and as kind as doves. If anything fits into that well, this does.
Too late, as the leftist knee has long since jerked, but who could/would sign on to this:
This was written by Robert B. Charles, former assistant secretary of state at the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, and educated at Dartmouth, Columbia and Oxford, who worked under Colin Powell, and who raises questions that must be answered first!
why don’t they call it what it is? why fear monger? why lie?
because the ultimate goal is globalization. it is easier to persuade the sheep this way.
is it warming because the devil is coming/here (sounds good, haha)
Did you read the article you posted? This is about poor people getting safe housing. It isn’t about the Paris Climate accord. This is about Legislators are using any way possible to secure this money so those without don’t die like they did at that fire in London.
This is about 6,000 FAMILIES living in housing, some of which is incredibly substandard. we’re talking anywhere from 8,000 to 30,000 people.
They are using climate change funds to actually make a REAL difference in people’s life, transforming housing from what you would not want your family to live in to something decent.
They did it via some legislation that has ties to a global treaty.
This article isn’t about globalization. It’s about 6,000 families who will have a safe place to live.
climate change funds
they are allowing companies to put co2 in the air and taxing them to pay for something else. this is wealth redistribution. the article isn’t the issue of my topic, but an example of the wealth redistribution.
do you deny climate change funds are really just a wealth distribution scheme? it does very little to offset the building of NEW coal plants through 2030. especially when they claim we hit critical max in 2000 per some scientist.
how many windows would you have to replace to offset the output of a new coal plant?
I, again, really don’t care how the legislator’s get the money. They found money to serve the poor. If you want to argue wealth distribution you can argue that no matter WHERE they get the money from. A business now has to pay more “tax” and that is going straight into the community? That’s not a bad thing–in fact, that’s probably closer to how it should be done.
You’re arguing EVIL WEALTH DISTRIBUTION. No, not really, we’re just finding new ways to create a sin tax. This is no different than the taxes on cigarettes being used to pay for school lunches. The money has to come from somewhere to serve the poor. The goverment might as well find a way to get money from those who act recklessly rather than those who function in a less destructive way. Becuase even outside of global warming coal powered plants are nasty.