News24

Big 3 polluters reject climate deal

2011-12-07 07:17

Durban - The world's three biggest polluters China, the US and India refused to move toward a new legal commitment to curb their carbon emissions on Tuesday, increasing the risk that climate talks will fail to clinch a meaningful deal this week.

The EU is leading efforts to keep alive the Kyoto Protocol, the world's only legal pact to tackle climate change, with a conditional promise to sign a global deal that would force big emitters to change their ways.

But with the planet's biggest polluters digging in their heels, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon acknowledged the almost 200 nations meeting in the South African coastal city of Durban could struggle to strike a deal backed by legal force.

"A legally-binding comprehensive agreement may not be possible in Durban," UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told the talks. "But this will have to be our priority."

The European Union is pressing for a pact by 2015 which would update Kyoto to reflect the emergence of developing countries such as China as big carbon emitters and impose cuts on them.

A vital clause in the pact which enforces binding cuts on rich nations expires at the end of 2012, but all parties have agreed there is not time to negotiate a complex global deal by then.

"The European Union would like to see things concluded as early as possible," EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told reporters when asked if it would accept a date later than 2015.

"We want a legally binding deal. We have really good reasons to want that," she said.

Deal date

Although the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of next year, the EU wants a deal agreed by 2015 that would take effect no later than 2020.

Scientists say greenhouse gas emissions need to peak and start falling by 2020 to avoid devastating effects, such as island countries being submerged and agricultural crops failing.

The European Union's condition for signing a deal is that other heavy polluters agree to a road map under which they would commit, at some stage, to binding reductions.

Without that, the bloc says, there would be no meaningful progress for the planet as the European Union accounts for only 11% of all emissions.

China, the US and India together make up nearly half of the world's CO2 emissions and they all have reasons for not wanting to be part of a new global deal.

The trio want to put off any commitment on binding cuts until 2015. That would be after publication of a scientific review of the effects of climate change and work to measure the effectiveness of emissions pledges by individual countries.

Although China has moved towards domestic targets for cutting carbon, Beijing says it is not to blame for previous generations of industrial pollution and cannot allow its fast-developing economy to be shackled by the drive to cut carbon emissions.

Beijing gave positive signals last week that it was prepared to contemplate some form of binding targets but has since consistently refused to be pinned down on what China is prepared to accept and by what date.

The country's lead negotiator Xie Zhenhua told reporters China might be part of a deal if, after 2020, global efforts were in line with "common but differentiated responsibilities".

China not bound

That wording, lifted from the Kyoto Protocol, places a heavier burden on rich nations for reducing pollution than poorer nations, who have historically been less responsible for the emissions that are changing the planet's climate.

However, the world economy has moved on significantly since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Developed nations are bound by its terms but developing nations are not - including China, now the world's top carbon polluter.

For its part, the US is held back by domestic politics at least until after a presidential election in 2012 as Republicans and President Barack Obama's Democrats squabble over every attempt to pass environment legislation.

"We would be quite open to a discussion about a process that would lead to a negotiation for the thing, whatever it turns out to be, that follows 2020, and we are also fully willing to recognise that that might be a legal agreement," US climate envoy Todd Stern said.

India says it is a late-comer to industrial development and its economy lags China, making it reluctant to accept binding targets that could curb its growth.

"We believe strongly that we should consider the need of a further legal agreement [...] after assessing the actions of all under the 2015 review and look at the science," Jayanthi Natarajan, India's environment minister, said.

The EU's Hedegaard said she was holding bilateral meetings with all parties, not just the big emitters, in an effort to increase pressure for a solution.

Even without a deal by the end of this week, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol will still exist, but would not enforce carbon cuts.

Important agreements would remain in place which enable the monitoring and verification of carbon emissions, which provide practical data that could help form the basis of a future deal.

Comments
  • Luke - 2011-12-07 07:33

    No great surprise. Sad however

      Gungets - 2011-12-07 08:22

      Cop Out 17

      JuditVictor - 2011-12-07 11:02

      I'm just surprised at how fast they changed the subject from Global Warming to Climate Change - I guess it was shortly after Europe and England snowed over. I don't buy any of it at all! I don't trust the press in this, I don't believe it's human beings at all. So what exactly happens when there's a volcanic eruption? To how many factory fumes is this exactly equal to?

      Ernst - 2011-12-07 11:20

      @JuditVictor: Mate, get your facts straight. First of all, it was the Bush administration that mandated that global warming be called climate change, becuase climate change sounds less threatening. "I guess it was shortly after Europe and England snowed over." The global average temperature is going up. Warmer air holds more moisture. If that air moves over Europe in the winter, that air quickly cools and you have massive snow storms.

      Shaun - 2011-12-07 12:58

      hey JuditVictor Global warming just means there will be an average rise in global temperatures however many still believe that it means that every region will experience temperature rises. In fact many regions will not experience high temperature rises but rather a greater variation in temperature and weather patterns. Climate change is a better term because extreme weather events are going to start occuring more frequently with increasing severity. The Earth's geological processes also emit greenhouse gasses and must be accounted for to determine culumative impacts. Remember the Earth does not need us for anything, and climate change mitigation is mainly for us.

      Soetdoring - 2011-12-07 23:19

      @Ernst. Wow, how logic, except that the alarmists now say their model did in fact showed the snow, but dear Al Gore was told to say in his Nobel movie that our children will not see snow again. Ouch. Now be careful with your statement that the global average temperature is going up. That might be true (not proven beyond doubt because of heat island effects, moving of weather stations from mountainous regions to coastal regions, etc) for surface temperature, be the temperature in the troposphere has remained pretty static since weather balloon measurements started.

      Ernst - 2011-12-08 09:52

      @Soetdoring: Yeah. You are such an expert, and the climate scientists, with PHD's, actively publishing in peer-reviewed journals are all a bunch of idiots. "but dear Al Gore was told to say in his Nobel movie" Why are you so fixated with AL Gore? Al Gore is not a climate scientist. As for the link you provided earlier (c3headlines): I havent found any citations to peer-reviewed research, published in prestigious scientific journals, to back up any claims made by the website. If I missed any then answer the following question: 1) Do the citations provided, point to research done by the 3% of scientists that think manmade global warming is not true. (the other 97% say man is responsible). And what is the impact factor of these journals? How many citations do these author's have? What is the prstige of the journals? 2) Seeing that you are such a conspiracy theory fanatic, where do these "websites" get their funding? One can virtually make any claims on the internet and provide fancy graphs to back it up (c3headlines). If these claims have not been scrutinized (peer-reviewed) by experts in the field, then it is not worth the paper it is written on.

      Soetdoring - 2011-12-08 11:31

      @ Ernst: You know my opinion on peer review. I have said earlier that effective critism against this DANGEROUS global warming hoax comes mainly from independent climatologists and do you honestly think the global warming mafia will allow them to publish in their controlled journals? I will not disclose my qualification but I will tell you I have more than 30 years experience in all branches of chemistry (including analytical chemistry). I do not need peer review to tell whether results are based on half truths. So, if I must not pay attention to what Gore says, why the hell did they give him a Nobel prize? Has it occurred to you that Hansen from NASA is also not a formal qualified climate scientist? This 97% scientist supporting global warming is nonsense. Every time one of these so-called scientists is cornered, he/she backs off and falls back to the rhetoric: Never discus the science, attack the man and repeat the mantra - humans are responsible for global warming. The global science religion is orchestrated by scientists from East Anglia University together with a few from America. Only a handful . Einstein once said that he is prepared to change his view if only ONE scientist would come forward and prove him wrong - all this while he enjoyed the full support of mainstream. And then Hubble came forward and proved to Einstein that his view on a static universe was wrong upon which Einstein humbly admitted the biggest mistake of his career.

      Soetdoring - 2011-12-08 12:06

      Typo: global science religion should read global warming religion.

      Ernst - 2011-12-08 17:31

      @Soetdoring: OK soetdoring, so the whole scientific process is flawed according to you. By the same argument, the "science" you are pointing to is also flawed.

      Ernst - 2011-12-08 17:39

      @Soetdoring: What does someone with knowledge in chemistry know about climate science? That's like consulting a plumber if there is something wrong with your heart. You have never published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, yet you claim to know everything about it. You go on about Al Gore, yet you take a person as Christopher Monckton seriously (a Guy that think's he can cure Aids). "Einstein once said that he is prepared to change his view if only ONE scientist would come forward and prove him wrong - all this while he enjoyed the full support of mainstream. And then Hubble came forward and proved to Einstein that his view on a static universe was wrong upon which Einstein humbly admitted the biggest mistake of his career." By the same argument (your argument), the science you are pointing to is also flawed and not settled.

  • Peter - 2011-12-07 07:33

    They should be penalised until they conform

      Walter - 2011-12-07 08:12

      Who and how do you penalise the monsters? As I thought and said at the outset, COP17 has been a waste of money and time! The bloody Yanks will only do something that suits them and stuff the rest of the world! China and India I'm sure would have been embarrassed into signing if the "big boy" had played ball. Go emit many more tons of carbon flying back to your material bastions.

      CyberDog - 2011-12-07 08:38

      Jeez, pot calling kettle black much, these are all insults hurled from a peanut gallery in a country that is resorting back to coal fired power stations due to incompetence and corruption ... Typical Africa mentality. Always know better. America and China, even though they are the biggest producers of pollution, have done a lot more in the long term than Africa(bio-fuel laws, massive funding for green solutions, etc... damn, most of the current technologies produced were developed by the US Military ) Oh, and what has South Africa contributed, besides hosting the meetings? I am far from being pro america, or pro china, but hell, clean up your own back yard before bitching about the neighbors. All the while, you are wearing Chinese manufactured cloths and using American developed technologies manufactured in china. It is not about their decisions, it is about you supporting their decisions by continuing to purchase their goods, goods that generate massive amount of pollution to create, these exact goods, who's prices will be effected by these strict laws. Why not do your bit to penalize them, stop using chinese and american made goods then.. Oh wait, you cant, you have become to dependent on them.. oh, the stupidity.

  • Shining - 2011-12-07 07:33

    Even at this level, responsibility and accountability are an issue. We will only begin to play a positive role in our own evolution when we move beyond the understanding that action = reaction = change and actually implement it.

  • Craig - 2011-12-07 07:38

    smoke or is it Smog &Mirrors. Just the normal BS from the Big Boys to avoid responsibility.

      Craig - 2011-12-07 10:15

      How come we are allowed to share the same moniker?

      Victor - 2011-12-07 10:44

      Because when you check the hyperlink it uses your Facebook profile ID, which is a unique number

  • Larry - 2011-12-07 07:43

    It was alway's on the cards. These guys will do nothing, except look forward to the next conference at another nice location. All they have managed to do is to contribute the Global Warming with a lot of hot air and the carbon from all of their private Jets.

  • Keighley-Ann - 2011-12-07 07:45

    Sadly these three countries are the big manufacturers, so of course it comes as no surprise that this was rejected! At the end of the day, it's about money, greed and capitalism - to put it plainly...POWER! And they don't give a toss about the repercussions their impact has on the future of our planet and the people...my question is, why do they even bother to show up at #COP17...to show face and to at least 'look' like they're trying to make a change?!? Please, the world is not stupid...we're just powerless against their dark force! The rest of the world should boycott these three countries and the UN should put sanctions and stricter tax laws/ international trade laws against this lot! The quicker we fight back, the better!

  • Kevin.Ellianda - 2011-12-07 07:49

    People don't realise what impact we really have on the planet. They would rather chase money than try to better our planet and work with the planet. I wonder what use all the money will be when we reach a stage of no return and the planet starts giving back what it has received all the years!

  • chiepner - 2011-12-07 07:59

    Maybe the rest of the world should just start to boycott their products untill they comply. Or governments that comply with this deal should enforce and "enviromental taxation" on all products that does get imported from these three nations. I know its much more complicated than this, but something needs to be done to make sure that these big polluters either gets on board or their economy suffers directly from their non confomity. People are losing their homes, people are going to starve and the earth as we know it might be in for one major climat shock. Its sad that these governments are still not getting this or lets rather say just dont care.

  • Phumezo - 2011-12-07 07:59

    Why this country that has more pressing issues to deal with on its table is conserning itself with this psuedo-scientific nonsense that is a myth is mind boggling to me! Only cartels such as green peace and WWF are going to benifit from these outcomes and not the developing nations! Before the world comes to an end we have to redress first the issues of inequality and proper distribution of wealth in Africa amongst its people! To me this is just another ploy by the white capitalists that is only meant as a form of attack towards the poor and marginalised!

      jaques.vanniekerk - 2011-12-07 08:12

      you are an idiot

      Reinet - 2011-12-07 09:15

      Distribution of wealth - in other words those who work for their money must share it with those who don't. Idiot as Jaques said. Real communist attitude. Wake up and smell the reality - communism is dead. Learn to create and work then you will also have- then we will talk again and see if you will be willing to "distribute" your wealth.

      Johan - 2011-12-07 09:16

      You're going to hurt yourself with that keyboard.

      stefan.vanderspuy - 2011-12-07 09:29

      What a useless and nonsensical load of garbage!

      Delton - 2011-12-07 09:45

      Amazed you can even type that much considering your IQ borders on 0.

      Rob - 2011-12-07 09:58

      @Phumezo: Inequality is a myth! Coommunism, collectivism and even socialism end up stealing and redistributing existing wealth, and always in a manner that creates a new class of individuals who have corrupted the system to get rich and powerful. If you believe anything differently from this you are smoking too much! The best you can hope for is a system of checks and ballances that encourage recognition and reward for production and results (NOT JUST WORK INPUT), but most of all the system must inhibit corruption and greed. So what do you want?....The ANC? Please......

  • Observer - 2011-12-07 07:59

    Here's a possible solution. Like with the Fair Trade initiative, we should strive for a green trade project. Buy goods only from those countries or companies that have committed to reducing or eliminating their carbon footprint. The more this happens, the less likely the large manufacturers will have an opportunity to stall changes but rather start to embrace them since it will impact on their bottom line. Basically it is " pay me now or pay me later"....and I opt to pay me now to save our planet.

      Rob - 2011-12-07 10:21

      Now that is a promissing start to an idea. As a first step we must stop buying South African manufactured products...unless the specific manufacturer meets defined green objectives. Expand on this and we may get somewhere. Leave it to corporates and governments and we will not!

  • Michael - 2011-12-07 08:05

    Europe should stop buying goods from USA, China and India. Let them feel the pinch.

      Juan - 2011-12-07 08:50

      In return those countries would then stop buying European goods. The world economy is integrated, you can't do that.

  • Lexa - 2011-12-07 08:06

    The problem with most INDIVIDUALS is that their 'WORLD' only exists within a 500m radius of their current location! They will never comprehend the impact their selfish, fake and pathetic lives have on this planet. The saddest thing is that our children are going to have to deal with our mistakes! People suck, really wish the WORLD would catcha wakeup!!!!!!

      Rob - 2011-12-07 10:25

      @Lexa: You make two important and valid points. Apathy is a problem, but who cares?!!!! But the most relevant point you raise is the children, there really are far too many of them, and mostly in those countries that are demanding that the west allows them dispensation to pollute. This really is the core of the problem....too many people in some places.

      Lexa - 2011-12-07 11:27

      The great kull. Christians talk about Noah and the great flood. Time will tell...

  • gregmcdavid - 2011-12-07 08:14

    Are we supposed to be shocked by this? They were always going to say "yes we'll stop but don't force us to keep our word..."

  • NrGx - 2011-12-07 08:16

    whoever thinks that the will reach a deal now in KZN is living in lala land. The simple fact of reaching a deal here, does not present business deals with the attraction of a lucrative investment. These coutires will bide their time and wait till the event is held in a 1st world country that can present them with investment opportunities in sustainable development. Just what does SA have to offer other than corruption, thats all they see now and that is NOT attractive.

  • samuelbowker - 2011-12-07 08:21

    They will do nothing but why are we expecting a bunch of businessmen to do the right thing, never going to happen! it's up to us, don't buy products from these countries and stick to it.

  • johan.visser - 2011-12-07 08:21

    Won't someone start a global movement to boycot the products produced by these countries?

  • Craig - 2011-12-07 08:21

    Who do these people think they are to decide the fate of the planet that we all call home for the sake of their (current)economic prosperity!! Sanction the lot of them, and boycott their tourism until they start taking responsibility and acting upon it!

  • Clive - 2011-12-07 08:23

    The big 3 should be sanctioned by the rest of the world. We must stop buying there goods until they get into line and stop destroying our world.

      Alan - 2011-12-07 09:13

      Agree 100% Clive .. we will be taking responsibilty by boycotting the Countries that wont change their ways, and also the companies (like Shell and Sasol) who are shocking polluters. Fact is that everybody who takes action in this way is helping to effect meaningful change. It just takes enough people to take action and hurt the pockets of the offenders for change to take place. We all have a moral responsibility to oppose greedy exploitation of the planet!

  • Erich - 2011-12-07 08:25

    In Durban International Conference Centre where the Kyoto Protocol is being discussed, it is referred to as COP17. In Pretoria Central Prison where a certain new inmate is brought in with a wheelchair, it is referred to as COP15.

  • reinhard.pettenburger - 2011-12-07 08:29

    Exactly as I predicted a total waste of time and money!!! There should be sanctions against the USA,China and India (I am sure the need us more than we need them).

      Charmaine - 2011-12-07 09:11

      Offcourse they need us more, but how do we stop supporting them? Let us pray to God for guidance. Blessed be

  • Mark - 2011-12-07 08:30

    It's not really about the USA, China and India being the bad boys. Every single consumer on earth is part of the problem. Everybody that owns a fossil fuel driven vehicle, buys an imported pair of shoes or clothing, is part of the problem. It's the 7 Billion humans on this small planet that are causing it harm.

  • Damian - 2011-12-07 08:30

    And they wonder why the rest of the world hates them. Why do America need to pollute so much anyway? Its not like they produce anything worth while in their country anyway. They are a declining nation of consumers, who are getting fatter on the labour of the rest of the world.

      Juan - 2011-12-07 08:53

      Bull crap in a bucket. America still produces many of the finest products in the world.

  • Gary - 2011-12-07 08:30

    Humans, the worst kind of animal.

      Sattva - 2011-12-07 12:41

      that would be an insult to animals - grins :)

  • aardvarkie - 2011-12-07 08:36

    Considering China are largely responsible for the extinction of two species of Rhino and an increase in the horn trade since last year it's no wonder they could care less. As for the USA and their wars, well I need not say more. The whole COP thing is a big fat joke not worthy of a scoff let alone a laugh.

  • Greg - 2011-12-07 08:40

    China & India are correct in their stand point. The horse has already bolted thanks to the 'developed' nations abuse of the environment to get where they are today. Sadly these conferences will yield nothing, not even when the final catastrophy hits. From another view point, there is always the suspicion that the 'developed' countries don't want the emerging economies to challenge their hegmony on economic wealth.

  • Brendan - 2011-12-07 08:40

    Why does the rest of the world just boycott trade with these three to enforce compliance??

      Craig - 2011-12-07 09:09

      Because they will survive by doing business with each other and the rest of the world will see its arse, Japan needs China, Europe needs the US and China, Africa needs everybody, these three together are self sufficient the rest are not.

  • Deon - 2011-12-07 08:46

    Africa is also at fault here. Why do they keep on begging for money from the rich countries to change?

  • Ben - 2011-12-07 08:52

    This whole thing is a waste of time. They're not going to budge a finger if it's going to cost them money. End of story. FYI Stop with the whole "We're killing the planet" thing....It's a climate thing. Nothing is happening to the planet. This old rock's been through a lot in the last 6bil years. From volcanoes to meteor bombardments to you name it.. and you're worried about a plastic bag? Face it people. The planet's not going anywhere..... we are.

      Louise - 2011-12-07 09:10

      This is probably a troll attempt in any case.Sorry Ben but you have it all wrong. We will exhaust this planet of all its resources until there is nothing left of it. This is my job and the things I work with on a daily basis is scary. We see the extinction of species on a regular basis because of corruption. It is because of this mentality that people continue with their carelessness thinking there will always be enough. There wont!

      Ben - 2011-12-07 09:21

      Resources we want/need... Resources gone... So are we. Then after than the planet will slowly recover. Will take time but it will. The only reason people are so worried is because they themselves are becoming threatened...

      Louise - 2011-12-07 10:28

      I agree with you, but it wont be the same. Things lost are permanently lost and there will be nothing we can do to save ourselves or to stop the changes of this planet that will probably support life forms that can survive in the much more impacted environment. Im not all for the human race, I also care for the animals and plants that will suffer along the way because of our doing.

  • Rob - 2011-12-07 08:52

    Useless, waste of time and resources. COP17 has already produced more pollution than it will eliminate by flying in all these delegates. We're all screwed, the US, China and India just want to ensure that they profit all the way to the end. We're not doing too badly either when it comes to wrecking the planet. Well done guys!!! Keep up the awesome work!

  • Louise - 2011-12-07 08:58

    What happened to logical thinking? I don’t understand how you can weigh money and life against each other. Surely our existence is far more important. Humans will be their own end as predicted.

  • Jimmy - 2011-12-07 08:59

    Americans are not big on discipline, or morality. Their economy is in a complete mess because they owe trillions of dollars which their children and grand-children will have to repay. Why should they care ? In the same way, their descendants will have to pay for current pollution in the future (with their lives ?). After all, today's lungs still function quite well. As long as the current generation doesn't have to take responsibility, let future lungs collapse, even their own flesh and blood.

  • MatthewHealing - 2011-12-07 09:07

    Well then they can suck our COP and get out of the country.

  • Charmaine - 2011-12-07 09:08

    This is very bad for all of us, they should re-consider as it affects all of us. God only Knows. Blessed be

  • Ann - 2011-12-07 09:09

    It looks like the 'non-signers' think this is a game. Somehow leverage must be found. It is ludicrous that profit is put before health and common sense!!!

  • TahirSema - 2011-12-07 09:09

    As expected! Major powers of this world are not willing to put humanity before capital.

  • Pravin - 2011-12-07 09:11

    Not only Europe but the whole world should stop buying products made in these 3 countries. Support products made in SA people... Please.

      Ernst - 2011-12-07 11:16

      I totally agree. Well said.

      Sattva - 2011-12-07 12:45

      hear hear !

  • Eric - 2011-12-07 09:28

    The issue for me is how many US, Chinese and Indian companies are there outside of those countries that are polluting. If they want to stuff up their countries is one thing but to have factories that is stuff up our country is something that we can put an end to. That is whee the focus should be. Clean up our own backyard. If I litter then the municipality will clean up and bill me. So the same can be done here. Put things in place to cut down the emissions and then bill the company. We do own this land after all.

  • brendon.langford - 2011-12-07 09:40

    Wow you'd think that if we had no planet it would be a problem, China India and the US seem to know something we don't.

  • Angus - 2011-12-07 10:30

    Agree with most of you on this forum, but seriously, mankind is doomed! We are such utterly selfish, beastly creatures hell-bent on destroying ourselves through unadulterated greed!

      Ben - 2011-12-07 12:39

      Gus is that you?

  • Ernst - 2011-12-07 11:14

    It is in every coutry's interest that the issue gets tackled. Dont these idiots understand that once a livable climate is destroyed, buy buy economy.

  • ludlowdj - 2011-12-07 11:19

    Not surprising as the governments refusing to be tied down are also the countries most aware that climate change as presented by the worlds governments is a lie based on lies and perpetuated in the never ending race for wealth. People seem to be blinded by the whole climate change fiasco so here is a short answer section for you; does climate change exist - YES Is it man made - NO does man contribute to climate change through his lifestyle and manufacturing process's - YES Can climate change be stopped - NO bottom line is millions are being conned into spending money on initiatives which will have no effect on the speed or severity of climate change as the basic reasons and principles the phenomenon is based on are false.

      Ernst - 2011-12-07 12:04

      "does climate change exist - YES Is it man made - NO" Yeah. You are right, and all the climate scientists, with PHD's, actively publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals, are wrong.

  • Stroopwafel - 2011-12-07 12:01

    "Climate change talks"... it's because everyone is talking and no one is taking action.

  • Richard - 2011-12-07 15:28

    Global Warming is such a scam. Average temperatures have been going up and down for millions of years. They've just learnt to measure it!

  • Chaapo - 2011-12-07 16:21

    And you call these friends when our countries suffer most the effects of climate change?

  • TaniaSandraSteyn - 2011-12-07 21:22

    So World - you are happy with pollution? Do you have a warm, fuzzy feeling while you pile your own waste around you? Even the lowest form of life doesn't sh*t where it sleeps. And paying off low-yield countries is just an interim measure for passing the buck. She is not called Mother Earth for nothing. She is already in the first throws of aborting the children who have no respect for her bounties. Unfortunately, the good will suffer with the bad - as in every human endeavour for gain. The most unfortunate statement I have read is that certain churches see this as inevitable and a necessary as a precursor to the end of the World. I urge you to read Genesis again.

  • niel.malan - 2011-12-08 07:14

    Total failure of Obama to live up to his election promise. We don't need dithering now, we need decisions!

  • Chris - 2011-12-08 15:02

    no surprise They should be penalised until they conform only makes sense

  • pages:
  • 1