Posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 16:39:00
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something... » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 2, 2006, at 12:14:42
> My opinion - you *are* missing something.
good :-)
> In general I think the goal is to stop anyone who doesn't already have atomic weapons from getting them.
oh. then why was the us so very keen to have nuclear power / weapons on nz soil? because... the us thought they would be able to tell us where to point them, that is why. i'm sorry but that really is the most significant factor that led to our losing our free trade agreement with the us (which is a blessing in disguise IMO) and being classified 'neutral' rather than 'friendly' military wise (again, another blessing IMO). to me... that shows me... that the us isn't against other countries having nuclear power / weapons. the us is against other countries controlling their own nuclear power / weapons. IMO the us is scared that another country will decide to bomb them (how much money has been poured into the 'starwars' project?). well... i'm sure the us will feel better knowing more alies than foes have nuclear weapons but i assure you that countries who are not on friendly terms with the us don't like the us having nukes anymore than the us likes the idea of iran having nukes. or russia. etc etc.
> But in this particular case, the new Pres of Iran has sworn to obliterate Israel, is teaching in the schools that the holocaust never happened, etc
oh. sorry - but how is this any of america's business?
> It's a bit more urgent to stop countries that have sworn to blow up other ones, don't you think?
no. i think the world should disarm. period. when the us and the uk etc have nukes some other countries feel scared and think the only thing stopping the us / uk deciding to nuke them will be... if they have nukes too. world disarmament. period. that means everyone. and if the us really wants to be a world leader then IMO it should lead by example. the present hypocracy... doesn't do a lot for 'popular opinion' of the us... or of the us government...
> There are multiple grades of uranium. Iran wants what is called "weapons grade" - which *can* be refined into nuclear weapons. Other grades will produce power just as well, but they don't want them.
why not? cleaner power? more power? i'm thinking we are probably only getting a fraction of the story here... i wonder if you can get iranian papers in translation... i might have a bit of a look online...
> ethanol sounds expensive to me...
my concern here is that i read somewhere that around 5 or maybe more of the major us businesses in the top 10 rely on oil for their success. what that means... well i'm sure they don't want to change the status quo too much. ethanol sounds like an expensive 'solution' to me. get the economy dependent on that the way it was dependent on fossil fuels... good way to preserve the status quo of the top businesses. sounds like bush is thinking money needs to be poured into developing some high tech industry. those companies can rely on that instead of oil... yeah it is a change but i think the change is going to be ultra slow because of the business interest.
anybody hear of peanut oil? did you know you can run a diesel / peanut oil hybrid car... mostly peanut oil. at around 14c (nz) per litre. used oil too. can cook food with it first then strain it or something. could you get peanut plantations going in the us? dunno.
> When the iron curtain fell and the eastern bloc countries got their freedom one of their biggest problems was pollution. A large (very large) part of the aid given by the US was for the specific purpose of cleaning that up.
so shift the burden on another segment of the world... never mind that you are looking at poor eastern countries compared with the very wealthy us of a. never mind that a lot of that pollution was a result of war (was the us giving a hand in creating that by any chance?). the us is the highest producer of waste and environmental pollution. it doesn't suffer from the majority of the effects - people in third world countries do as the seas rise etc etc. i know the us does do some things to help... but IMO it is a mere token gesture when you consider the amount of pollution it creates. more should be done. a hell of a lot more. signing the Kyoto (i think that is what it is called) protocol or treaty or whatever would be a good start...
> I go back there now and see cleaned buildings, white snow and blue skies. US money at work.
and the bombed buildings and pollution in iraq? us money at work again? and the clean up... more us money at work helping the rich get richer (the big companies) and the poor get poorer (the iraq economy being made dependent on the us)?
> But I guess that kind of stuff doesn't make the news, does it.
makes the american news persistently. our news tends to focus on the things that the us could be doing but isn't. but then our news tends to focus on things nz could be doing but isn't too (like the wind power) etc. i think that is good. it helps us not feel complacent.
> The lights in my office go out automatically at about 6:30PM. If I'm working late I have to get up and turn them back on. About an hour later they turn themselves off again.
that is good :-)
we don't have that. but that is what we need. timers. i was chatting to a guy from germany the other day. he was telling us about their recycling system. that is good too :-)
but i'm sure you can think of some things that could be done to reduce energy consumption?
some things that are practical.> But NZ isn't near as populated.
sorry - i wasn't trying to advocate that for the us. i wasn't trying to say you could power NYC on wind. i just meant that it was an impressive solution to a problem that we have over here in NZ. i think there are natural solutions. it would be nice to see some money being poured into renewable and sustainable and environmentally friendly energy alternatives.
> Don't the sheep outnumber the people?
i think so. but there are more sheep per person over in australia, so there :-P
> Solar and wind aren't practical over here - at least until the cost of fossil fuels gets higher.
ah yes. best not forget the mighty dollar... does the us govt. subsidise fuel by any chance? does it subsidise environmentally friendly alternatives? the guy from germany was saying that they have an emissions tax on their motor vehicles when they get a warrent of fitness. they test the emissions and charge more for higher polluting cars. he said we have cars on our roads that would not pass the emissions test in germany. so an emissions tax is one alternative. another is... fuel tax. apparantly you have that in germany. we have it here too. fuel is polluting so the govt taxes it and the tax money goes on researching non polluting alternatives.
> Experiments with burning garbage - an infinitely renuable source - were promising. I have no idea where that stands now, though.
interesting. i think if you have a very high heat sourse then there aren't many harmful emissions.
> Now - about sources. I'd be happy as a clam if we would tell the rest of the world to keep your oil thank you very much. It would sure help my bottom line.
i don't think the us would be happy if we told you guys where to stick your oil. i think that is why alternatives aren't taking off. the more the govt. taxes oil the more unhappy nz-us relations become... it is a bit tricky... we actually need the us to be happy with our not wanting to import as much of it (need it for airplanes currently i think)
> Let the bottom fall out of the price of oil and there won't be a nickle of help to oil workers.
> Fine, if that's the way people want it.and there isn't anything the govt can do regarding alternative jobs. i think that is an excuse to preserve the status quo. like saying 'free the slaves and they will starve to death'. i don't think that is acceptable.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:605246
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20051121/msgs/605560.html