I don’t understand how “changes in policies on trade, aid and debt” are going to end poverty or alter the climate in Africa. Wouldn’t it work better if Africans changed their own policies? Like ending despotism, starting capitalism, opening a free market for agriculture, that sort of thing?
Crude Oil Climbs to Record as Hurricane Threatens U.S. Output
July 7 (Bloomberg) – Crude oil rose to a record, nearing $62 a barrel in New York, as Hurricane Dennis strengthened and crossed the Caribbean, threatening to become the second storm this week to disrupt U.S. production in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dennis may intensify to Category 2, out of a maximum of five, when it reaches Jamaica today, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami. The storm may enter the Gulf of Mexico in two days and may make landfall anywhere from Louisiana to Florida in four days. Last year, oil rose by at least $10 in the month after Hurricane Ivan disrupted supplies in the Gulf.
a timely story in light of our earlier economic discussions.
You DO understand that Global Waming =mongo hurricano
Do you understand how to paraphrase rather than plagiarize, and how to argue in your own words?
I beg your pardon, my posting was inappositely placed, and was directed to mr or ms. exstacysm who had engaged me about the economic ups and downs of global warming.
in hat vein I was struck by the pronounced impact that this particular storm seems likely to have, and was adding it to the examples previously adduced.
that said, I do perhaps include too many paragrphs from the original cite. I do so, however, never with the expectation that the words will be taken for my own, and thus steal from the author.
I confess that I did not think there was ever any difficulty distinguishing my “voice” and that of a more civilized commentator.
I mean, come on, people, I’m a BARBARIAN, what the hell do you expect?
Well, if you want me to debate Bloomberg and CNN, you need to get their asses in here.
It would be helpful to the rest of us if you would use the quote function for that.
now that’s what I call constructive criticism…
[QUOTE=Liberal]
If I cite a link or quote (with diacriticals) a passage to bring it to your attention in response to your post, I will hope to juxtapose the texts so as to make the issue raised apparent, or, I will adduce commentary.
I repeat my apology for confusing you in the instant case, but I WASN’T TALKING TO YOU.
One last thing does seem somewhat outre here.
I have been called many things, but taciturn, never. I think I can safely say that I am a wordy motherfucker. In fact I often go on far to liberally (here meaning quantity not quality)
All of which is a tempest in a teapot. We have had warming/cooling trends throughout the history of this planet. It’s part of the weather system. And IMNSHO, anyone who thinks we can do anything about it is foolish.
He didn’t even try. Seems to me that if he was gung ho about it he would have at least given it a shot, tried to make some deals, do some of the Bubba magic, talk to the folks about how great it was. Seems to me he took the easy way out…a wink and a nod with a ceremonial signing (by Gore) and then on to other stuff, safe in the knowledge that the thing wouldn’t be implemented on his watch, so he wouldn’t take any of the political heat for any of the negatives, while he reaps the positives of his ‘support’ for the thing…and a quick bitch slap on the 'Pubs for blocking it (without actually bothering to attempt to see if they would have or not…though I’m sure they would have). Genius. Its Bubba at his weasling best IMO.
As to your next post (Rant? Screed? Babble? Perhaps it was in code?)…gods alone know what the hell you are talking about. I can’t follow your broken prose and your (to you anyway) witty asides. If you want to actually debate you need to learn to write…or at least make an attempt to be clear in what the hell you are trying to say. To me its so much gibberish.
-XT
With tongue in cheek (only partially) I would say . . . if the monies from aid and debt relief are used to industrialize the continent, that whould surely affect the climate - just not for the better - in Africa and the rest of the world. No?
Anyway. Subsidizing agricultural economies isn’t gonna do a damn thing to help the African nations. The problem is persistent poverty, and the only solution for poverty is generation of wealth. Wealth, however, judging by 15,000 years of human history, can’t be generated in an agricultural economy. This leaves us with industrialization as an option. But industrialization is to be avoided as it, apparently, destroys the environment. (Not that the agricultural practices now taking place in Africa aren’t already doing that quite admirably.) Since industrialization is now ruled out, we can only hope to help Africa make the leap from an agricultural economy to a service economy. But nobody seems to be in favor of “exporting” those jobs.
What a pickle, eh?
By what measure? Because I’ve posted links in another thread showing that by some measures, the world’s largest polluter can quite conclusively be demonstrated to be either Australia and/or Bulgaria.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6003936&postcount=50
while the quote speaks for itself, and I suppose reflects the journalist’s distillation of perhaps the very discussions had at the G8 in real time.
That said, I will venture that the reference embrace each conuntries pro rata contribution to what are called greenhouse gasses.
Co2 mostly, methane (burping cows a menace, who knew?)The US is responsible for 25 percent of the world’s total green house gasses. This is not a controversial fibure, because the processes are not obscure, and since the chemistry is routine, it is possibole to calculate the greenhouse impact of a dollar of gdp with pretty good accuracy, once you know what grade of industrial processes are at play.
As for Bulgatria and Australia, that is just plain silly.
They may have some idiosyncratic contaminant that vaults them to the top of an anecdotal list, but as far as global warming total contribution, they ain’t big players.
Well that is quite compelling, hump old thing.
I think in light of your reassuring manner, confident and soigne carriage, and manifest acquaintance with the relevant data, you are just the fellow to handle our public relations on this issue in France.
You will recall that in last summer’s heat wave, upwartds of 10,000 French died of heat related pathologies.
As I mentioned in my OP, I am concerned lest another heat wave coupled with notorious French refusal to upgrade their swamp coolers to air conditioners, may wreak similar havoc.
In which case, we will need someone to address the odd resentment, purely unreasonable though it may be, which may crop up as a result of the bad press we are getting simply for refusing to , as was put else where “cave in”
I can think of no higher or more patriotic calling for a man combining, as you do, scientific acumen and forensic artistry, than to stand ready to counter the petty jealosies from old europe that would seek to scapegoat us for these natural variations in climate that just happen to have killed a rather larger number this year, and they will doubless kill a smaller number in some future year, to balance what is, after all, merely random oscillation…
Let’s review the bidding, shall we?
From Extism, the well reasoned, Clinton failed to get Kyoto ratified, so why should anyone care that Bush is not using his considerable political capital to do so. Because if a crippled Democratic president in 1992 could’t get ratification who needs it in 2005
From Clothahump;,(out of Houston) tut tut. Temps go up. Temps go down. Nothing to be alarmed about, I say.
Have we stumbled on someone’s coll uh, High School Junior Republicans talking points project.?
Because the arguments are so inapposite as to make one fear that young republicans are aping George Bush’s press conference style.
Buckner, put me out of my misery, In the name of humanity, as it were, I beg you.
Shut this down.
Why? And my citations for Australia and Bulgaria are measuring exactly what you argue the numbers for United States represent. The Australia numbers are measuring greenhouse emissions per capita. And although the link to the Bulgaria information appears to be outdated now, but as I recall, the measure there placed Bulgaria as the highest emitter worldwide of greenhouse gasses per dollar of GDP
http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/settlements/settlements05-4a.html
I’ve seen other citations claiming only 20% of the greenhouse gasses emitted are attributable to the United States, but I won’t agrue over a few percentage points. Problem with this figure is that it doesn’t mean anything all by itself. It needs calibrated against something: such as GDP, population, or dollar value of industrial output, etc. to be a useful datum. I mean even if output worldwide approached zero, somebody would still have to be number one offender. So the U.S. contributes 25% of the total, but while they’re doing that they’re also contributing 25% of the world’s total GDP.
These figures are from the 2004 CIA World Fact Book:
U.S. GDP (2003) = $10.99 trillion
World GDP (2003) = $51.48 trillion
Do the math.