Posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 14:02:38
In reply to Re: okay so maybe i'm missing something..., posted by alexandra_k on February 2, 2006, at 16:39:00
> > 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?I have no idea there... but that wasn't the original topic - Iran was.
>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.
>I don't disagree. And I would be happy if there were no nukes anywhere. But it's hard to figure out how to put the cat back in the bag.
> > 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?
>Actually, It's the United Nation's business. The US isn't the only country worried about this.
> > 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...
>I think the world should disarm, too. But no one will ever go first. So we need to think or another way.
In the meanwhile it does no one any good to have other countries join the group, does it?
Can we stop them all? Not alone. It's a world issue.
> > 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...
>Start here. Remember that the only reason for uranium enrichment is weapons:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5629
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20060204&hn=29404
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-02/04/content_4135719.htmand about the new president:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5621
> > 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.I would like to see that. I find it hard to believe.
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.
>Most busines benefits from cheap oil - something the US population thinks of as a birthright.
> 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.
>Who needs plantations? We've got several places (things start small) using recycled restaraunt oil to make diesel. It doesn't require a hybrid car, either. Any diesel car can use it.
> > 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?).How so? The pollution was created by cheaply made communist era steel mills factories.
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 think we should sign Kyoto, too, but it doesn't do anything about the pollution from rising populous countries. You should see the air in China. It's very visible.
> > 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)?
>Got anything to back that up?
> > 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.
>Actually it didn't make the US news either. If I hadn't been there I wouldn't have known about it. We're not too good at promoting ourselves...
> 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.
>We do recycling where I live, too. With curbside pickup so it doesn't take much effort at all.
> ah yes. best not forget the mighty dollar... does the us govt. subsidise fuel by any chance?No it doesn't. And when the price goes up the govt. starts talking about "extra" taxes for the oil companies. Even though right now what sounds like obscene profits are smaller rates of return (on investment) than most companies - Proctor & Gamble, Microsort, .....
>does it subsidise environmentally friendly alternatives?There are usually tax credits of some sort for those who use alternatives. They come and go, depending on the mood at the time.
>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.Where I live we have annual inspections that include emissions tests - for gasoline users, anyway.
No higher taxes if they don't pass. They just aren't allowed on the road.
>>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.
We have fuel taxes, just not as high.
>
> > 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.
>Well, actually most of us in the oil biz would be thrilled with *stable* prices more than high prices.
It's difficult to do the economics of drilling (the investment for just one well is huge) when you have no clue what it will sell for.
poster:AuntieMel
thread:605246
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060204/msgs/606327.html