BBC Blog Network

User Profile

VeliAlbertKallio

Listed below are comments made by VeliAlbertKallio between Friday, 9th January 2009 and Sunday, 14th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Stop the blocking now 3:59pm on 14 Jun 2009 I will leave a message for His Excellency President Ahmadinejad to look into this. However, part of the difficulty is that the winner's power base is far more rural with few internet responses reach BBC and thus BBC's imbalanced comments may have been unintentional than provocative.

Otherwise, BBC column's responses may seem from Iranian perspective intentionally unbalached and seeking a political twist to the events.

It is also important to recollect that this was an important election and there is a need to deflate excess euphoria the lively campaings had stimulated. There is a certain justification for jamming if the media like BBC becomes unduly focused to the post-election riots and demonstrations. Indeed, the heated exchanges were rather expected.

It is important to prevent unfortunate situation like in Kenya recently when the winners and opposition were grid-locked to a dysfunctional electorate conflict.

The situation in Iran has not been like in case of Zimbabwe where there were a sustained obstruction of opposition to access media, in Iran the debates have been open including impartial TV access to opposition. Therefore, the feelings of undue inference and conspiracy from outside media is unlikely to get too much support and this soon dies out.

BBC should do a fact finding missions to those regions which voted for the winner too rather than focus on the riots.

However, it is very important to maintain a credible and accurrate vote counting systems and perhaps get international monitors to assist on non-biases. The monitoring of elections should be left for unbiased bodies rather than media whose focus, need is often on visualisation of things.

Veli Albert Kallio
Fellow of Royal Geograhpical Society
Member of His Excellency President Ahmadinejad's Personal Facebook
Carbon: How much is enough? 8:39pm on 27 Mar 2009 There is a straightforward solution to your question about turning our emissions from 10,000 kg / year to 2,000 kg: "politically, how can it be turned into reality? There is no need to struggle to see a political path that leads to its adoption. If you are interested in seeing whether anyone else has succeeded where I am failing, the answer is here: WTIs.

What are the WTIs?

WTI stands for the Work Time Initiative. It is a scheme where time spent (on sweaty and slow) public transport, such as buses and trains, is made as payable working hours. The employee produces the travel tickets and valid timetable (proof of travel) to his or her employer to claim the commuting time in public transport as a payable working hours (full ticket prices also refunded). WTIs reward people who spend longer hours to get to the work as connections and waiting time are all added up.

The employer's accountants submit quarterly or biannually all the cost of their commuted employers to the government bursary which reimburses the extra empolyment cost incurred by the people going to the public transport (it only pays for their way to travel between home and work).

The Government Treasury then levies the cost of those commuters who prefer not to use public transport as fuel duties, road taxes, congestion charges (i.e. Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM licence, evening licence and weekend licence) to segregate and manage habitual drivers who choose to go to work in their own car nevertheless of encouragements.

The cleverness of the WTI is that it virtually forces the developers of the office spaces to look into the aspect of having public transport infrastructure in place to make the office sites accessible where they are built. A government business rates are also made to support the WTI compliant property planning and government DTI grants can be obtained to instigate the public transport provision if there is no certainty of it.

Department of Transport will then issue a 5-year guarantee for supporting the instigation of the service twice a day to take public or employees from transport hubs to the WTI compliant business development.

WTIs do initiate a secondary emissions reduction as the public becomes more acquainted with their public transport services and may start using buses and trains for their other journeys as well and reduce shop rounds. WTIs also apply for schools by arraanging home collections this reducing the school run traffic during the peak hours.

WTIs do include a limited taxi provision about once a month, with extra allowance when there is failure to supply public transport to or back from the work.

The key purpose of WTI is to reimburse the public for the extra cost and time it takes to travel between home and work by using public transport. Any society that really values something as important will attach a monetary value and reward for the activities society sees important and worthy to be maintained such as schools, hospitals, prisons and army.

The public transport is an important provison and if our society is serious about emission and it wants to achieve effective reduction in the fuel use, the only solution will be Work Time Initiatives (WTIs).

WTIs also reduce secondary emissions: i.e. congestion-related traffic slowdowns, need to enlarge road networks, reducing amount of oil extracted from the ground, oil transported by sea, and energy used to turn crude oil for the end-user products, reduced wear and tear of vehicles and roads which all add their bits of energy use and emissions.

Veli Albert Kallio

Fellow of Royal Geographical Society
Member of Geoengineering and Climateintervention
Ethical Man is reborn 8:37pm on 16 Feb 2009 We've lined up all sorts of people to speak to but we need more. We want to meet people who are already trying to find the answers the world needs.

Who do you think we should be talking to?

Please talk to our contact person at BBC, Jim McNeill. I can also produce files from UN archives of the climate research complaint made by the World Indigenous Nations Summit in joint session closing plenary plea to the United Nations General Assembly.

The North Americas' indigenous nations made a complaint against the group of Western countries' at the UN General Assembly claiming that our scientists are too optimistic about long duration that Greenland's ice sheet will take to melt away. They estimate Greenland ice sheet to destablise suddenly between 2011-2013, about 3-5 years after the loss of Arctic Oceans sea ice based on native histories.

The indigenous nations expressed this in dismay for the sake of their brethren in the Pacific and Caribbean (as well as for the wider world community that have towns and cities sea side that will be flooded as Greenland ice sheet will destabilise very suddenly in the post-sea ice Arctic based on their native recollections about huge ice dome on the Hudson Bay area that slid out.

American indians native histories suggest that the huge Laurentide Ice Dome on the Hudson Bay never melted but it slid soon after the North Atlantic sea ice retreated from South Carolina to Newfoundland.

You need to speak to Jim McNeill, who is our primary link at BBC. He can then explain the complaint. A state sanctioned motion has also been put forward to this effect in Poznan, Poland in December 2008 by Bolivia that has been underwritten by His Excellency President Evo Morales who is an "unofficial spokesman" for the American indigenous peoples advancing their voices through the state vehicle of Bolivia.

Jim has the geophysical file of the World Indigenous Nations Summit in joint session with the United Nations General Assembly which we at FIPC believe has been overlooked due to cultural illiteracy to take in and follow the proposition of the continents original occupants about what happened there before Europeans arrived.

I or Jim can produce list of indigenous leaders on the climate change issues and the UN paperwork submitted by Indigenous nations summit concerned of ice sheet land containment failure risk (ice sheet slide out).

Veli Albert Kallio, FRGS
([Personal details removed by Moderator])

- Press-spokesman for a symposium "Arctic - Mirror of Life" convened by His Excellency Kofi Annan (the former UN Secretary General), Jose Manuel Barroso (the President of European Commission), and HAH Bartholomaios I in September 2007.

- Co-ordinator of Frozen Isthmuses' Protection Campaign (FIPC) of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans.

- Indianice geophysical research group, data-validation team secretary and indigenous groups liaision and advocate.

Jim is in a position to explain much more, if you wish to investigate matter internally.

Rgs, Alberty
Ice-cool analysis 08:43am on 15 Jan 2009 It has not been my intention to carry out personalised attacks, but there were misplaced attacks against Richard, BBC journalists on the pub, University of Illinois, and the author of this article. So, I too took out my venom...

By the way when has the dilution of Southern Ocean salty water by fresh water run off been caused by a cooling climate.. or the sea ice in the Arctic thins due to cooling, or that thin seasonally formed ice containing less dust particles from Chinese factories.. well you say ice thinning is good, and the ice is not melting because of warming...

That is flat-earthing to me pretty much!
Ice-cool analysis 8:25pm on 14 Jan 2009 It is so sad that CuckooToo (1.) thinks that the University of Illinois is bunch of alarmist idiots: “the University of Illinos agrees with the findings, albeit with the usual caveats present when addressed by alarmists.” The problems with computer models are that although the machines can push more calculations, it is so easy to miss out the signs and consequences of global warming. First of all, as the global warming has increased Antarctic temperatures, there is more melting occurring on land during summers. The melt water run off from land does not contain any salt in it and this terrestrial water freezes easier than the salt containing sea water of the Southern Ocean. As the volume of melt water from land to the sea has hugely grown, and also the thick sea ice and ice bergs are more extensively melting, there are much more non-saline freshwater (lighter and floats on surface) mixing into the surface waters around the Antarctica. Previously, as the sea water contained more salt around the Antarctica, it kept away the ocean ice-free - much like the local councils start pouring salt grit on their roads to keep the roads from freezing. But, like today, if you remove the salt, the roads quickly freeze up, in the Antarctica this means more open seawater as there is less salt to keep sea ice free.. That is what is happening in the Antarctica as the sea water salinity is decreasing with more ice cover, quite unsurprisingly, as a result. The carry-over of increased snow fall (due to increased temperatures in the north) also help to build up thickness for the ice as more snow falls into ice and then fuses onto it.
Thus CuckooToo’s rhetoric question: “Doesn't this just confirm what skeptics are always banging on about - headlines telling us that the Arctic has record ice melt, but not that Antarctic has ice gain?” getting its answer from the global warming. Just like in the Medieval Age when there was a major opposition for Christopher Kolumbus’ project to experiment whether the Earth was flat or round, we have today the same non-intelligent resistance and degree of ignorance surrendering to triviality and banality rather than a proven experiments.
While some Cuckoos were pain in the neck of Christopher Kolumbus’, the others attacked the heliocentricity of the solar system as advocated by Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei. After eating first some cuckoo, we then was forced to eat next some paw paw, who afterwards tries to elaborate the chicken story from the Antarctica to the Arctic as well PAWB46 (3.) Papaya tries to sweeten the chicken egg by conjuring up that there is no evidence of climatic warming driving the Arctic Ocean’s rather rapid summer-time sea ice losses: “None of this proves greenhouse gas effects. Summer melting could be due to soot deposition or greater melt from ocean currents or other natural effects as the earth has warmed from the Little Ice Age.” Well anything goes for everything here to explain away a melting ice in the summer, except the heat! May be this, may be that, but not certainly mentioning a fact that the Arctic climate has warmed up. How do you then explain that Greenland has become land of farmers where potatoes, broccoli and other veggies are grown whilst a generation ago you needed a hammer and chisel to dig a hole into a frozen ground? Chickens and paw paws aside, my choice of food is broccoli from Greenland. Bala-la-laa!
You are also a hopeless liar as there is clear evidence seen in the Arctic and Greenland that the current warming has well overtaken the medieval warm period. You then go on to iterate your old adage “Global climate model predictions are irrelevant as they have no validity and are not scientific evidence.” You say it yourselves, for you they are a bull ****! At the very end, you even blaspheme on the virtuosity of the Arctic Ocean having today a wafer-thin seasonal ice cover:
“The thinner sea ice may now be cleaner than the old ice (chinese coal-burning excepted) and so may have a greater albedo than the old ice.” What a virtue to cool the Earth! What a holy stupidity is this unseen since the Medieval Dark Ages. You act here just like one illiterate medieval fools that happily carried fire wood to Savonarolas fire when he was burned alive as “heretic in alliance with a demon” accused as such by the era’s conniving priests who dressed him in a gown with imagined presentations of devil, his supposed partner. Then this old lady prayed for God’s blessing, threw his firewood into pile, thinking of acting as a force for the cause of good. The global warming deniers are happily heaping up their own fire wood, CO2, onto the global warming greenhouse gas fire.
Timjenvey (4.), self-declared ignorant: “Not being a scientists I'll just stay with some history I've been taught over the past 50 years for my perspective.” I am from the Nordic region native, I never knew that the Vikings circumnavigated Greenland. Timjenvey, who was that circumnavigating Viking that built colonies around Greenland? “About 1k years ago Vikings were sailing around the area of Greenland and setting up thriving settlements.” This tells much the rest what you know about history of Greenland or Arctic. I have been visiting the church which Eric the Red’s wife built there, but I have never heard of this circumnavigation… Or did you say it was, may be, Christopher Kolumbus who discovered Greenland and sailed round it?
"Predict and survive" - or not 2:56pm on 14 Jan 2009 Further inspection of replies have discovered further inappropriate misstatements and utter falsehoods on the responses given that have not yet been corrected.

I fully agree CuckooToo (4.) that vast sums of money needs to be put in clean water and food provision for millions of people is needed and there exists ethical bias, thinking that saving souls tomorrow are somehow more valuable than the poor millions dying at present. But CuckooToo fails to recognise that ‘if one puts too much sugar in coffee, one cannot put some salt into coffee as its antidote’. This is just what is happening today when carbon dioxide that warms the climate, and sulphur dioxide that cools the climate are added by man to the atmosphere. Both of these act as antidotes, but at what cost? The former forms carbonic acid, while the latter forms sulphuric acid and both acids together then drive sea water pH down acidifying the oceans. So, giving the poor a glass of water today is not good antidote if there is no glass of water for tomorrow due to hydrological changes caused by global warming. Thus your stated solution is as good as salt in over-sweetened coffee cup.

Deliberate misinformation has been spread by Globalclaptrap (19.) who suggests that ”Having wasted billions of tax payers money on wind farm subsidies”, where Gordon Brown has spent it? I want my hands onto that money coffin, where are your billions of pounds budgeted you say that have been spent by the UK government to build wind turbines. This is a false misrepresentation: the UK government has not built thousands of wind turbines, nor made any of the large capital investments you say to build wind turbines, that you falsely stipulate here as a major cost to the tax-payers in the past. I have not found any multibillion budget items spent by Gordon Brown when he was chancellor of exchequer. Such a sums of money has not been spent by him.

You are pure liar stating utter falsehoods with a philosophy of arguing that who screams the loudest wins the argument whatever the content. “By the way..... CO2 is not a poison and/or a polluter. Tipping points? The only one I want is the one that tips Al Gore, Hansen, Mann, Holdren etc into obscurity.” Do you say, CO2 is not a pollution? How about Charles Keeling and his annually growiong CO2 concentrations in the air rising every year since 1957. Do you say, CO2 is not a poison? How about the acidification of the ocean (pH change of sea water from slightly alkali to acidic) resulting in 10% coral calcium exoskeleton growth decreases. (Coral animals seem hell-bent throwing off their skeletons into cup board, I suppose.)

PAWB46 (20.) at 6:22pm on 10 Jan 2009 points that over the last few days the wind turbines were not sufficiently turning. How about the rest of year? The power generation emission for a day does not matter what extremism you seem to expect. Nonsense, given that in a calm day by definition there is not wind around. So, burn then fossil fuels hell bent for moment to make up the gaps. What truly matters is not a 100.00% continuous energy out put by the wind turbines. Even coal-fired power stations and nuclear reactors must be taken down from time to time unless you advocate and induce Chernobyl-style break downs. The non-polluting renewable energy output, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year is what matters in the long, cumulative run. Not the temporary lack of wind or machinery breakdowns.
"Predict and survive" - or not 6:15pm on 13 Jan 2009 Let me be frank, your comment is right. Ref. PAWB46 (30.), the Arctic Ocean did not melt (100%) in 2007, only 40 % more melting occurred than during 1960-1990 years averaged. (I intended to refer to the 2007 melt season in the Arctic Ocean 2007 and something was lopped off the text when editing and pasting.) Thank you!

But you too make mistakes. Your own argument appears squarecircular.

Here are more of your squarecircular paw paw on the menu today:

PAWB46 (8.): ‘Negative feedbacks will adjust for the miniscule effect we are having on the atmosphere.’ This statement appears on the litany to claim that carbon dioxide emissions are negligible because there are negative feedbacks that keep the CO2 concentrations from growing year after year. This is totally wrong, Charles Keeling’s measurements have shown a steady increase every year since 1957, most recently the build up of excess CO2 has been growing above 2 p.p.m. during each 12 month period. This is untrue square bit in your squarecircular approach.

After that your argument (8.) goes merrily round about saying roundly that renewable energy is no good to solve the CO2 problem, where you admit it as a problem or at least a potential problem because it suits your argument: ‘Renewables and greater efficiency won't solve our energy problems. You must therefore be advocating a vast expansion of nuclear power if you want to reduce CO2 emissions.’ Good! Nuclear is good at solving CO2 problem, I agree. Is this your change of heart? No, this is a typical squarecircular argument that leads the perspective from canvass like in Indiana Jones roll-ball-nonsense clips without any coherent storyline. All the way above until now you had been trying to refute the climate change, global warming and now you say that there is, or potentially is, an energy problem to be fixed with nuclear power.

A “problem denial” is a typical characteristic behaviour associated with people who are compulsive smokers or alcoholics. At times they are admitting that they have a problem, then suddenly and vehemently deny there is any problem when come to the next off licence selling them a bottle of whisky. A true petroholic is all the same. Should I give a psychological definition for this syndrome, because there is one? Better not, as your squarecircular argumentation is just a basically confusion just like a painter may muddle up his projections in a complex object on canvass when painting at the other end. Here your canvass is climate change leading to Pablo Picassos Guernica.

But on a rare point with you, I whole heartedly do agree that we need a vast expansion of nuclear power capacity. The supply-side economics of all replacement power generators is tightening supply and longer queues, therefore, we better to use them all to get rid of the CO2 problem as quickly as possible which the round side of you seem to agree so wholeheartedly.

Thou shall win his argument and who will shout out the loudest, whatever the content therein…

Just so, your criticism of Richard PAWB46 (17) is equally futile slander. ‘Perhaps Richard can tell us why the BBC is so quick to report unsubstantiated articles/press announcements as if they are facts?’ You claim that day after day the 'Science and Nature' section quoting predictions from climate models which have absolutely no basis of evidence.’ You also say that the climate models are not used for predictions, so for what are these then made? Surely the weather is not the same as a climate, the weather model tells what the weather is tomorrow, the climate model just tells what the moving averages are and within what probability and frequency the extreme weather events are more likely to occur as the atmospheric composition changes.
"Predict and survive" - or not 3:13pm on 12 Jan 2009 Hi, I love to suck paw-paw, cuckoo and chicken (although I try to be more vegan like the IPCC’s President Rajenda Pachuri recently suggested at the UN climate report):

According to PAWB46 (8.) ‘The earth's atmosphere is at a very low concentration of CO2 compared with the past.’ The fact that dinosaurs did breathe far more carbon dioxide has no relevance for us as no one is today equipped with the lung system of dinosaurs. It is necessary to correct your view because that the present 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen gas ratio did not apply: the ancient air bubbles trapped in amber reveal concentration of oxygen to have been much higher somewhere around 30% v. 20% we breathe today. CO2 in carboniferous or Jurassic era are no reference point for us today as far as I can see dinosaurs walking here with us today. These concentrations are historic which present ecology is not adapted. If one were to follow this line of false argument that the change of reference climate never matters for ecology, we can probably start planting palm trees in Greenland. Surely you succeed.

This argument further down also needs correction: ‘Negative feedbacks will adjust for the miniscule effect we are having on the atmosphere.’ So, it just ‘happens’ that the Arctic Ocean melted… Some say, the 2007 melt was just a ‘blib’ or ‘one-off anomaly’. If so, how then the nuclear submarines that have measured thinning ice since 1950’s with a sustained downward trend. You try to stipulate is that during this period, the sea ice has started to melt at lower temperatures. Change of physics.

In Australia the belly is up as much the climate is down when looked from UK perspective. BritinAussie (15.), please provide evidence for your accusations that BBC receives press releases from Greenpeace and then cuts and pastes them into BBC News website resulting in false news. ‘Its straightforward and simple and requires no critical faculties, leaving plenty of time to go to the pub.’ Let me ask you, how do you know Richards and others beer sipping habits? Are you going for beers to see Richard there in the pub too? What an alcoholic Aussie you are! Get more XXXX, less BBC!

Britin, tell it to the New South Wales’ farmers in Australia that there is no "tipping points" in the climate that changes plant ecology. You incorrectly refer to ‘remarkably large negative feedbacks’ which have kept the Earth habitable despite the Sun’s 25% increased luminosity over the last 4 billion years that will help us out. There is astronomic error: when the Sun was formed from collapsing interstellar gas cloud, all the planets initially mopped up the gas from space to form the proto-planetary gas disk like seen in numerous Hubble Space Telescope images. Only the most flat-footed creationist can possibly dispute the Hubble Telescope images. Over 4 billion years ago the initial atmosphere of the Earth was made of 95% hydrogen and 5% helium like that of sun. What does then 25% sunlight change matter over 4 billion year ago as the Earth’s initial atmosphere did not consist any oxygen. Over the billions of years its composition gradually changed into another soup of gases, possible for life, which then has remained as a self-regulating system ‘Gaia’ (due to photosynthesis).

There is no need to fabricate falsehoods to deny the highly detrimental effects and unsuitability of CO2 in excessive amounts released by increasing human activities.
"Predict and survive" - or not 8:46pm on 09 Jan 2009 The huge difficulty of making accurate predictions for abrubt system changes is well-understood in mathematical modelling. It is called chaoticity, a system that is highly chaotic will by definition be highly unpredictable due to interactions of many variables or factors limiting quantitatively attainment of enough data to make a calculation. A good example of a highly chaotic tipping point is when a snowflake lands on a slope triggering an avalanche. No one ever in right mind could make suggestion to calculate the load to resolve the timing when the avalance is due from trillions of snowflakes that had been falling before the tipping point is reached.

The climate change has many tipping points which are well understood, but hard to translate into concentrations of CO2 or temperature that would give us the tipping point when the Amazon will have 3-year long draughts that would kill its treecover. Or, which amount of the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover needs to be removed to desabilise greenland. The tipping point can be well understood in principle, but that does not mean that it ever can be pinned down in time projections.

The information theory distinguishes between hard problems and soft problems. There are defined problems well understood but not resolvable in practise. But there are also problems that are unknown because the estimated models are wrong in their first assumptions.

Above type of forecasting problems are more akin to old adage GIGO, meaning carbagge in, carbagge out. A good example of this is An Inconvenient Truth, or An Inconvenient Debate when UK governement was taken to courts over Al Gore's video that referred to Abraham Ahrenius (a Chemistry Nobel Prize winner) older model where the climatic concentrations of CO2 were driving ice ages and interglacials. The later research more inklined to point out that CO2 was more like respondent than the driver of CO2 concentrations. The present model is that Milutin Milankovits (1941) model of gradual orbital forcings (sunlight variations) due to earth's orbital changes drives glaciations and interglaciations and CO2 follows these.

It goes without saying that there is a thing called Murphy's Laws and our principals have made a complaint to the United Nations General Assembly that even Milutin Milankovits idea is wrong and it interferes the historical views and experience of some nations. So, they say the West is entirely wrong and the ice age was caused by forcing from geothermal fluctuations on the Mid Atlantic ridge and volcanic eruptions and build-up of Iceland Jan Mayen ridge caused superheating of ocean and this then led to a rapid pile up of snow on the land causing a fast ice age and resulting cooling.

If so, all this UK High Court decision on Al Gore, so much sarcastically enjoyed by the petroholic lobby may see tables turned around once again if carbon-14 is pulled out from beneath Greenland ice core, the sunken cities on bottom of Bay of Cambay do not show up erosing of 15,000 year melting of the ice, but evidence of ice sheet slide-out and rapid land containment failure. As per this the Melville Bay coastal rocks will be studied whether there is signs of failure, subsidence or seaward movement as Greenland terrestrial ice cover responds to the imminent loss of the cooling Arctic sea ice.

Science and knowledge is changing and advancing and the above just shows once again that we need to act based on caution rather than responsively due to uncertainty and the long lead times the Arctic permafrost and sea warming takes that is many years of committed warming beyond a complete freeze up of fossil fuels.
Five to watch in 2009 8:19pm on 09 Jan 2009 CuckooToo

I do agree that renewables have their limits and therefore I have campaigned 50% nuclear 50% renewables as replacement. Besides, philosophical views there is the issue of capacity constraint. If all replacement energy were to be done by windmills, queues to get them would grow very long. But same applies for nuclear too. There is a lack of people and manufacturing capacity that only would be worse if all new power would be switches off. Fortunately, many new technologies have been developed to increase number of suppliers. I would never suggest turning lights off, unless there were some clear catastrophic change underway, such as the Amazon dessiccation or ice sheet destabilisation, permafrost seeping out lots of CH4 or CO2.

It is also important that Iran gets the energy it needs and produces its own fuels knowing its frequent skirmishes with USA and UK wheter it is Iraq or Afghanistan border demarkation which make European supplies of nuclear fuels unreliable. After all, what do the English military boats have to do in Iran's waters near Basra, did Iran bring its boats to sail in Thames estuary? Fortunately, Iran is going to get unbiased support from Russia and China to sort its nuclear power generation out and provide some oversee to its actions that is less politically tainted than ours that keeps the lights on Teheran without any reference to elections taking place in the UK or USA.

If Europe and USA want to help Iran to develop without nuclear power and without extending coal power, let them pay all the wind and solar energy power required by Iran if both nuclear and coal are perceived unpalatable to the West.

I think China has sorted out its population growth and keeps its people fed in comparison to India which very soon does not have enough free soil left to feed its ever growing number of people. Much of them already being fed by fossil water from the Himalayas or ground aquifers that may run out. What's the point of rights in producing people if you can't later feed them? You need to be some sort of nihilistic admirer of the Third Reich if you think it is OK to produce people just later to let them die due to lack of any ability care and feed them. Population control is important issue in conservation of biodiversity through land management and urbanisation which both deprive non-homo sapiens quota of land.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

VeliAlbertKallio