Environmental concerns have caused one high-ranking UN official to declare that “the West” does not need more cars, televisions, and other consumer luxuries.

United Nations Development Programme head Helen Clark told AFP in an interview: “So the issue is how to get human development that will see it continue to rise for the world’s poorest people and people in developing countries. Because frankly human development in the West – we don’t need more cars, more TV, whatever. Our needs are by and large satisfied, although the recession has put a lot of strains on that.”

Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand, also stressed the responsibility of richer countries to reduce their environmental footprint: "There is, in my opinion, a very heavy responsibility on the countries of the north to look at how they sustain their living standards with a much lower environmental footprint."


UN Official: Western Nations 'Don't Need More Cars, More TV, Whatever' | CNSNews.com (http://cnsnews.com/blog/paul-wilson/un-official-western-nations-dont-need-more-cars-more-tv-whatever)


Can we get rid of the UN and its footprint?

#### the UN

In some ways that official is correct. Its like a normal weight person going back for seconds during dinner. Nutritional they may not need seconds, from a long term perspective they may even better off not going back for seconds because they may be in the early stages of a forty year process of putting on 50 pounds, even though the short term consequences are that important.

Nevertheless its human nature to go back for seconds. Likewise, population growth and economic growth are not permanently sustainable due to scarce resources imposed on us by the planet, but 40 years seems so far to an individual, just like 1000 years seems so far to us a modern population, that it seems like a harmless enough act.

The official is right in some ways, but he should focus on more effective ways of making his points compared to the kind of nagging/accusation way he is going about it now.

the article said nothing about second helpings .......


but Luxuries, Cars Tv's Etc ......


so put on ashes and sack cloth - give up your TV, car, and house, and live life on the street - and us know how it feels to live 3rd world and do without

United Nations Development Programme head Helen Clark told AFP in an interview: “So the issue is how to get human development that will see it continue to rise for the world’s poorest people and people in developing countries. Because frankly human development in the West – we don’t need more cars, more TV, whatever. Our needs are by and large satisfied, although the recession has put a lot of strains on that.”




?
allow me to try and respond to this in a respectable manner.

To Helen Clark,
You F-ing sorry ass liberal dyke,
Dont worry about what I drive, what I watch, its none of your business, you are nothing more than a washed up whore skank that is long past her expiration date, if you feel so strongly about the poor people, give your F-ing money to them, once you do that and are living in poverty, then you go ahead and try to tell me how I should live.
Please you slimy fish smelling whore of the UN, do not take any of this as an insult.

Now Im going to go watch my big screen tv that I brought home in my SUV after stopping at the steakhouse for dinner, while not once worrying about obamas starving family in Kenya.

Peace
BCP.

Environmental concerns have caused one high-ranking UN official to declare that “the West” does not need more cars, televisions, and other consumer luxuries.
While the rest of the world was playing Fred Flintstone, the USA was developing technology that would benefit the world. Sorry if you chose to stay in your stone huts, tree houses and caves.

For the UN: :war: :shutup:

The official is right in some ways, but he should focus on more effective ways of making his points compared to the kind of nagging/accusation way he is going about it now.

The typical liberal response in the political realm however, is to find a way to BAN behavior they don't think is right. Like banning sodas (instead of beer or hot dogs or fried chicken or cheeseburgers or chocolate).

Real conservatives believe that people have the freedom to do dumb things if they want to - it's not up to the government to rule their behavior if it's within the law. How many times have we heard a liberal say words to the effect "they don't NEED all that money - they don't NEED all that stuff".

I'm flabbergasted that there is anyone who thinks one of the roles of government is to compel people to be nice and socially aware and polite or they'll get their collective asses kicked. The government doesn't tell us what to do, we tell them what to do.

I'm flabbergasted that there is anyone who thinks one of the roles of government is to compel people to be nice and socially aware and polite or they'll get their collective asses kicked.

If the government would actually do that I'd support it wholeheartedly. However, we'll note that their social dictates do not include incarcerating criminals or putting down our rabid humans.

allow me to try and respond to this in a respectable manner.

To Helen Clark,
You F-ing sorry ass liberal dyke,
Dont worry about what I drive, what I watch, its none of your business, you are nothing more than a washed up whore skank that is long past her expiration date, if you feel so strongly about the poor people, give your F-ing money to them, once you do that and are living in poverty, then you go ahead and try to tell me how I should live.
Please you slimy fish smelling whore of the UN, do not take any of this as an insult.

Now Im going to go watch my big screen tv that I brought home in my SUV after stopping at the steakhouse for dinner, while not once worrying about obamas starving family in Kenya.

Peace
BCP.
What are you trying to say here? :confused:

The government doesn't tell us what to do, we tell them what to do.



but the progressive want to use the Gov. to compel behavior they favor


Fascism: is a religion of the State, it assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. it is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. it takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, wither by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy.


not be confused with Nazism or Hitlerism

allow me to try and respond to this in a respectable manner.

To Helen Clark,
You F-ing sorry ass liberal dyke,
Dont worry about what I drive, what I watch, its none of your business, you are nothing more than a washed up whore skank that is long past her expiration date, if you feel so strongly about the poor people, give your F-ing money to them, once you do that and are living in poverty, then you go ahead and try to tell me how I should live.
Please you slimy fish smelling whore of the UN, do not take any of this as an insult.

Now Im going to go watch my big screen tv that I brought home in my SUV after stopping at the steakhouse for dinner, while not once worrying about obamas starving family in Kenya.

Peace
BCP.

Now tell us how you really feel! :buddies:

Oh, and get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN!

If the government would actually do that I'd support it wholeheartedly. However, we'll note that their social dictates do not include incarcerating criminals or putting down our rabid humans.

Come the revolution, comrade, you'll do as you're told.

Sorry, Deej, but if the government actually did that, you'd be so black and blue you'd never be able to sit down.