Scenario: Earth has ten years left to support life because of manmade pollution. Where will politicians go?

Question

Scenario: Earth has ten years left to support life because of manmade pollution. Where will politicians go?

Answer 1

they will fly all over the earth on junkets to study the problem,travel all over each country to make paid speeches about it & make hollywood films about how their the only one with a solution to the problem.

they will create so much pollution doing this that it will cause life to end in 5 years instead of 10 & most of us will be so fed up with listening to their BS that we will wish it had ended much sooner!

Answer 2

Democrats will fund a study, Republicans will say it isn't true.

Answer 3

Outer space.. it's a conspiracy I tell ya! =)

Answer 4

some will deny it

some will fly into outerspace

some will make a movie

and some will be making chuck norris jokes

Answer 5

they will blame some country or people for causing too much pollution. next they implement actions to somehow reverse the result of pollution. and if nothing works, they abuse their power since its their last ten years on earth..

Answer 6

I wish they would all just go away, and take all of the Hollywood celebrities with them.

Answer 7

make sure your tin foil hat is triple thick.

Answer 8

where they belong...h**l!

Answer 9

To Hollywood! To make glorious films about saving the Earth. That is the best that they can do about the environment- shouting  and blaming each other!

Answer 10

“Thanks to the success of the European and other monetary unions, we now know how to create and maintain the 3-Gs: a Global Monetary Union, with a Global Central Bank and a Single Global Currency.”

    ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœThe world is ready to begin preparing for a Single Global Currency, just as Europe prepared for the euro and as the Arabian Gulf countries are preparing for their common currency. After the goal of a Single Global Currency is established by countries representing a significant proportion of the world’s GDP, then the project can be pursued like its regional predecessors.”

Simply put, the regional model becomes the steppingstone to a one-world currency. However, the problem of nationalism prevails. Discussing this “problem,” Bonpasse writes,

    ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœThe task can be stated quite simply: how to move from the current 147 currencies to 1. Developing the political will to overcome the residual strength of nationalism is the major challenge for the movement to a 3-G world. As with the implementation of the euro, the economics and politics of monetary union are inextricably bound together; and the logic of both point toward the 3-G world.

    "The question now is not whether the world will adopt a Single Global Currency but When? and How smooth and inexpensive OR rough, costly and chaotic will the journey be?” [Italics and capitals in original]

To the internationalist, national sovereignty is the overriding obstacle. In order for a Global Central Bank and world currency to exist, some other political arrangements will have to be formed. Robert Mundell understood this political problem when giving a lecture in 2003 titled, “The International Monetary System and the Case for a World Currency.” His response was frank: “a global single currency could not be achieved without a global government. To enforce a single currency would involve big problems of organization.”

But this reality isn’t stopping the SGCA and others of like mind from progressive planning. As Bonpasse asserts,

    ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœIt is now time to seriously pursue the goal of a Single Global Currency as managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union.”

Already the SGCA has a date in mind: 2024. Regarding a headquarters for the Global Central Bank, Bonpasse suggests Basel, Zurich, or Geneva.

     “Switzerland has a reputation for sound money, and locating the GCB in Switzerland just might be the necessary incentive for that country to join the Global Monetary Union as a member.”

    ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœThe governing structure of the GCB should be relatively easy to design, given the available, successful models of the US Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, and associated organizations such as the World Health Organization. Not everyone is happy with the structure of all those organizations, but it’s a negotiable political question…”

He’s right: it is a political question. This was evident to Richard Cooper when he brought up the idea of a global central bank and currency while at a 1984 Federal Reserve conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire:

     “The idea is so far from being politically feasible at present – in its call for a real pooling of monetary sovereignty – that it will require many years of consideration before people become accustomed to the idea.”

2004: “…if the global market economy is to thrive over the decades ahead, a global currency seems the logical concomitant.” — Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, former senior economist at the World Bank.

Eugenics has new names like social biology, population control & enviromentalism

These elites, for being so smart, are in fact some of the most biggest fools to ever walk the earth. They are so inbred that they can devise these complex idea without it ever occuring to them that these exact same plan seem to fail era after era. We give them too much credit.