Christmas Trees Banned From Climate Summit
Participants in the COP15 climate summit should not be subject to Christmas symbols such as fir trees, says the foreign ministry
Although the COP15 climate conference is set to take place during the Christmas season, the Foreign Ministry believes the holiday and all its symbols should be kept well clear of the summit.
That point was bluntly illustrated when a sponsorship providing numerous Nordmann fir trees for the conference was rejected by the ministry, according to public broadcaster DR.
The trees – the most common species used as Christmas trees in Denmark – were intended to be placed as decorations for the entrance of Bella Center, where the conference is taking place.
But Christmas is a religious holiday that has no place at a United Nations function, according to the Foreign Ministry’s Svend Olling, who is the head of practical planning for the climate summit.
‘We have to remember that this is a UN conference and, as the centre then becomes UN territory, there can be no Christmas trees in the decor, because the UN wishes to maintain neutrality,’ said Olling.
Nordmann firs otherwise fully live up to the climate-friendliness standards of the summit’s organisers. The firs are among the best trees at binding carbon dioxide and preventing its release into the atmosphere.
 |
|
thought they were banning the tress cause of their lights…
while all thosde guys jet in to Copenhagen
Anyway,
These kind of gatherings seem to serve to generate a mass-hysteria for a common cause.
Like George Orwell’s Animal Farm book, where mass hysteria meant one pig
overtrumping another in self-sacrificial willingness
- except here it’s always someone else (not the politicians) who has
to make the sacrifice…
“We must all cut down to save the planet”
There is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission
limits set as deemed necessary)
and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
– limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
– make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it.
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x
And since when do light bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
Not like cars.
And cars are taxed.
They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy
efficient alternatives.
Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for CO2
emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
Taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.
Few seem to know about the industrial politics behind the supposedly environmentally justified bans
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
“…as the centre then becomes UN territory,…”
Do they have some sort of unilateral power to seize a nation’s sovereign territory once they set foot on it that I’m not aware of? Perhaps this is simply an oversight on my part with respect to my failure to recognize the all encompassing authority given to the UN by themselves in their own disturbing state of elitism ad nauseam.
These fucking assholes really piss me off. They want to sanitize the UN from all western culture influences…. except for the wealth producing ones of course. Fuck them.