This is where I get skeptical

The following was inspired by this

Now I know that I am supposed to take the side of the protesters, and I normally do take the protesters' side, but this is an exception. Here is what bothers me about it: The protesters and their allies are trying to bring attention to the lack of medical attention during detainment, no toilets, too cold, and having to sit there for hours. The first thing is, they were out protesting in the cold, and probably intended to protest for hours - so why is it a big deal that they had to sit out in the cold for hours? Secondly, I cannot say for sure, but I would bet that if someone had asked to use a toilet, it would have been allowed, and if someone really needed medical attention, I am betting it would also have been allowed. Think of the mind of the protester -- since I usually side with the protesters this is very obvious to me, but maybe not to others -- if, as a protester, you are detained by police, you should try to make the police look like the bad-guys, or else your cause loses credibility. So, instead of asking to use a toilet, protesters just pee on themselves preemptively, and then declare after that the toilet was not allowed and there was no other option. Now all the whining and complaining about the cold, lack of medical care -- I didn't read anything in there about somebody who actually needed the medical care, just that it wasn't available. So what I am saying is, all of these complaints are baseless, and so obviously baseless as to be quite annoying.

Now the real reason why I don't side with the protesters - 'cuz if I did take their side, I wouldn't have written the above paragraph. If you play the second video, you hear the chant "climate justice now!" This goes right to the issue here: justice? Justice for whom? Who is wronged that needs justice? I wonder if these protesters are chanting about the climate, or more for "equitable" distribution of wealth, as in giving money to "developing" nations. You see, these developing nations are demanding money in exchange for cutting carbon emissions - and the morons in our governments attending the Copenhagen Climate Summit are actually promising money. Take a look at this piece of work. It says: "Particularly among some of the poorer African countries, there are demands for a lot more money considerably sooner..." I have read other articles about "richer" countries paying money to the countries which have rain-forests, to keep them from chopping down the rain-forest. So now the trees are hostages? The countries with such natural assets have a moral responsibility to preserve them -- if they are destroying the world's rain-forests, then they are committing a crime and should definitely not be given a paycheck for it. This is so simple you can use child psychology on it: you don't positively reinforce negative behavior! Back to my topic, the protesters, I am convinced that this is just another protest in favor of redistribution of wealth -- you could call it the new face of communism. That's why I cannot side with these protesters.

Don't mistake my criticism of the protesters for criticism of environmentalism -- I am very environmentalist, and I know that global warming is a real threat. I have read books on it, written by scientists, not just listened to the rhetoric on the radio from guys who don't have any scientific credentials. Countries definitely do need to take action. But what action, is what I contest.

Now, for the solution to the problems and questions that I know have popped up in any reader's thoughts. If we don't pay those countries to stop destroying rain-forest, then how are we going to get them to stop? Here is my proposal, and I apologize to my other ideology, that of limited government: We should re-introduce tariffs against violators of an international law regarding protection of the environment. What I mean by "re-introduce" is that, with the WTO, almost all tariffs are gone or going. I think that's good - but the environment is the most important asset we have on this planet, and so destroying the environment is a good reason to impose tariffs, so that for countries who pollute too much or destroy biodiversity or impair the Earth's respiratory functioning, it becomes really hard to export their products, and so there is less reason to commit such destructive acts. These tariffs should be really high! So, what we need to do is, first, draft a UN resolution to create a binding law, based on good common-sense morality, that various things which harm the environment are illegal, as an international law. Second, draft a second UN resolution, or an amendment to WTO accession and retention, which takes care of the tariffs. All countries are subject, none are special, and this is the only thing that I can think of which will get some real results.

Furthermore, I think this thing in Copenhagen has lost some of it's focus. In the end, the only way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is to make industries use cleaner technologies. Scaling back industry itself is not an option - but a lot of environmentalists don't seem to realize this. I don't care if achieving cleaner methods and technologies is done via a nice incentive/tax-break or if its a heavy-handed law that dramatically increases the costs of doing business. Actually, amend that -- I prefer the heavy-handed law in this case! The relevant economies will go back to equilibrium, and the extra cost will reduce over time -- but with incentives, the economies will never re-equalize. Therefore, in the long run, a solid law is better than an incentive. However, some politicians like to pretend that such "clean" or "green" technologies don't yet exist -- that's all BS. The technology exists; its just expensive right now - and since politicians are ultimately paid or kept in office by business people, they feed you this crap. But if we enforce the use of clean technology, then it will become less expensive over time - not that the added expense would really ever be felt by consumers anyways; economies of scale are truly a blessing.

One more point: here in America, a very tragic thing has happened in the public opinion. Environmentalism, because it is a cause taken up by the liberals and Democrats, is now associated with the controversy of gay-marriage and other things such as the general belief that Democrats want to enlarge government and take away your guns. I will state it plainly right here: I am a conservative, I want small government (but with some well-aimed regulation!), I think people have an inherent right to own and carry firearms (actually any weapon, save maybe a nuke) of any sort, I am a Christian (but not an Uber-Christian), and I also know that global warming is a real danger and environmentalism is a worthy cause. In short, my ideal self is a gun-toting tree-hugger, and in no way do I think that if you are an environmentalist you must also support gay-marriage. This highlights the problem with our 2-party politics: voting for the environment, which currently means voting for the Democratic party, unfortunately also means voting in favor of gay-marriage and the like. To all the people in favor of gay-marriage, I mean no disrespect to you, I am merely making a point. So, there are two solutions for this problem: in the long term, we need to have more political parties holding seats in Congress. This would hopefully give us more options for fine-tuning our votes. In the short term, I really think that environmentalism should be a conservative issue. Why is it liberal? Makes no sense... what makes more sense is: "conserve the environment." And the uber-christians who make up the core of conservativism should recognize that they are told by the Bible to be the "stewards" of the Earth. Do Christians say "I'm gonna purposely go and pollute the environment to prove I am Christian!"? No, that would be ridiculous. It is ridiculous that the issue of saving the planet is on the liberal side. Christians should be tree-huggers! That was half-joke, if you missed it.

In conclusion, this is all such common-sense... any intelligent person should feel that they have wasted their time in reading this, but take heart in this: my voice is out there, the voice of reason, and hopefully many more voices of reason can join me, and hopefully soon common-sense will prevail again. If anybody is even reading this...