Climate change plan under fire
17:00 CEST: The prime ministers of eight Eastern European countries have issued a statement calling for changes to the EU's climate change package.
The eastern eight (the Czechs and Slovenes haven't joined in) argue that at a time of "serious economic and financial uncertainties" the package has to be reconciled with economic growth. They say that for less affluent members of the European Union, reducing greenhouse gases has been achieved at "a very high social and economic cost".
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
I am not yet sure if they want to scupper the whole thing or are after more money from the richer countries.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Mark,
Somewhere in between would do for me.
A reduction in the grandiose objectives of the EU singular obsession with combatting Climate Change but combined with more emphasis on developing manufacturing through support of research and developement funding and initiatives targetted at job creation throughout the EU would be ideal.
Whether the eurocrats and politicians in Brussels, Strasburg and Luxembourg can get away from their Green agenda and mindset is the 64,000 Euro question though.
Complain about this comment
As I already mentioned in Mark's previous thread, if there is any benefit from this credit crunch financial crisis, it will be the quiet jetisoning of pointless and expensive policies to 'combat' climate change.
Complain about this comment
I think the Poles et al are protecting their coal industries, and not their economies.
I think building nuclear power plants and running them also creates economic growth and creates well paid jobs. I guess it takes some skill to organise a change over between different industries, move workers around, redirect spending, etc. Easier and less disruptive to stick with the status quo.
Or perhaps they are refering to being forced to use wind and solar power, in which case they are probably correct... but then the reply remains the same, SWITCH TO NUCLEAR POWER! Sighh...
Complain about this comment
I will wait to see what the Hungarian media has to say but my first reaction is that this is jostling for position. As you said in your earlier thread, there are problems for eastern European countries not yet in the Euro zone regarding the refinancing of their banks. A sensible position for the Eastern nations might well be that their richer brethren either extend the necessary support to the eastern financial system or they will divert resources from the climate change expenditure to compensate. Collectively, the eastern eight are a very powerful voice. Possibly the big four are about to get a timely reminder that they are members of the EU, not the masters.
Complain about this comment
#3 - Rob_Hob
I refer you to my previous post on an earlier thread. 39% of Hungarian power is already nuclear generated. It needs to grow and nothing is currently under construction but it is better than most.
Complain about this comment
As a Pole, I am disappointed. Transforming the energy sector to meet the most modern criteria is a problem, but it's also an opportunity. While I acknowledge the difficulties and costs, I also think that by giving up the ambitious goal of reducing carbon emissions we let the possibility of quick development go by. The legacy of years of undeserved communist rule will haunt us for many years to come. I guess some additional EU funds for restructuring, retooling etc. could help change the government's mind. Still, I think that should be done in a more positive fashion, instead of just saying "no".
Complain about this comment
I hope that they get sensible about the politically correct farce that climate change has become, and actually remove all the so called eco taxes that have been loaded onto us in it's name. There has been so much rubbish spoken about climate change that it has become a nightmare, and I for one don't believe much of what the scientists are claiming. After all it is their research grants that they are in the most protecting by claiming more urgent research needs to be done so they are not exactly unbiased in this.
Much more sensible is to press ahead with wind farms and nuclear energy, but to achieve that there have to be less public enquiries, court cases etc and more actual construction. Wind farms seem to be pretty much a good solution as although a 2 mega watt generator is 96 meters high it's ground impact is fairly small, simply an 800 ton slab of concrete. I had a chance to view some new ones last weekend and it was very interesting.
Complain about this comment
#5 threnodio, I am not familiar with thesituation in Hungary, but I think the rest of the East (or rather South East these days as well) does not have much in terms of nuclear power production. I know Poland has historically relied on coal, and the coal industry has had great influence in the country... but yes, from country to country, the circumstances differ.
Complain about this comment
Personally I've been disgusted, even as a person living in Western Europe, at how the "EU" solution has been lead almost entirely by the traditional big players of the EU. I hope the Eastern states do give them a reminder that this is now an EU of 27, not 15.
Either way, somebody please save the free market!
Complain about this comment
I believe that this challenge is in the the very best interests of the EU and that these 8 Accession countries to the EU continue to exert their influence as a collective voice to challenge the "Old Europe" mindset of the EU masters.
Hopefully this is the first difference of opinion of many that will make the likes of Germany and France realise that Europe is now a BIG collective and that the French and Germans are no longer masters in the house.
This could actually be a huge benefit to the EU by making the EU far more acceptable to many Europeans who do not happen to live in France or Germany.
Complain about this comment
#7 Buzet23, you illustrate well what I meant in the prvious thread about people not understanding how science works, as per your comment that "you do not believe scientists claims".
TO begin with, these ARE NOT simply claims, they are logically PROVEN research, with evidence, explanations, experiments, etc. They are not claims as we make on this blog for example.
The OTHER thing everybody HAS TO understand is that conspiracies in science ARE NOT possible, be it for for grant money, philosopical reasons, etc. The reason is simple: IT PAYS FAR MORE in science to "BETRAY any possible conspiracies", because if you can PROVE/discover an established argument to be wrong, it makes your career, gives you more work, and gives you staus, fame and money. It is every scientist's DREAM to prove the majority incorrect. The key word here is PROVE, as it is not just enough to claim something.
Thus conspiracies in science DO NOT exist, and equally ALL ESTABLISHED FACTS are under constant review with people searching for faults in them.
Thus when I say that the MAJORITY consensus in science is that human caused global warming is real and significant, I mean it is a WELL ESTABLISHED fact, reviewed thousands of times for all possible faults by opposing scientists. The level of proof is far greater than is required beyond the reasonable doubt in law, for example to convict and execute someone in the US.
Complain about this comment
What happened to all those people who said we would only have to make marginal sacrifices and that there would be new opportunities, new jobs, new profits to be made by going green? Where are their voices now? Have they forgotten that the polar ice caps and the glaciers continue to melt, the deserts continue to grow, floods and other weather anomolies continue to get more severe? When they told us we could all live with the sacrifices we'd have to make (but they themselves rarely did to any real degree) were they lying then or are they lying now? Have they condemned us to be doomed in the long run for a near term economic bail out or were they crying wolf exaggerating the impact global warming will ultimately have?
As someone who waited for hard evidence and finally saw it and was convinced, it seems to me that the shoe is now on the other foot. Is Europe going to prove that I was right all along when I said that its drastic demands of the US were a cynical attempt to destroy an economy it couldn't compete with and that's why it doesn't insist other major CO2 producers like China and India and those who are burning down the rain forests like Brazil and Indonesia shouldn't be pressured into voluntary compliance with severe restrictions too? Why doesn't any of this surprise me?
Complain about this comment
Whilst on the subject of energy resources in eastern Europe, Romania has large natural gas reserves but - under EU instruction - the domestic price has been artificially increased to match that of imported gas. Consequently, people in the poorer areas are going back to burning wood, even in apartment blocks, with greater consequences for deforestation and the impact on the environment.
Complain about this comment
#11 - Rob_Hob
I agree with you whole heartedly but I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment.
I would like us to suspend credulity for a moment and imagine that some very convincing scientific evidence were to emerge that humans were not responsible for global warming or even that it is not in fact happening.
What would we do? We we give a huge sigh of relief and go back to massive coal power generation, driving big gas guzzlers and so on? Of course not. What the acceleration of global warming has done is focus our minds on something we should have been doing all along. Intellectually, it is the equivalent of suing for peace after the missiles have been launched.
We are as a race polluting this planet to a degree that is way beyond anything sustainable and we would have to address the problem anyway. All the dire warnings about global warming add a certain piquancy or urgency but that is really a side show. What matters is that we address the output of toxic matter into the atmosphere comprehensively and urgently because there really is no other choice.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to read the BBC article to which Mark first links (see "issued a statement") - it seems the PM Silvio Berlusconi for Italy is/was intending to veto the EU's climate change package "saying Italian businesses could not absorb the cost."
Can lone EU Nation's still block EU packages that have previously been agreed? Is there a veto still?
Nevertheless, it would appear that the 8 EU Accession states do have an ally within the big 4 EU Nations.
Complain about this comment
When it comes to money, the ten new member states have 177 billion euros coming in to their economies in the EU's 2007-2013 budgetary period under the Structural funds and the Cohesion Fund.
Combined, these countries have chosen to use a paltry 4.2 billion of these euros - or 2.4% of all EU funds - to fund drastically necessary energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.
Slovakia, Estonia and Bulgaria make up the bottom three of the World Energy Council's energy INefficiency rankings for the EU. To produce a unit of GDP in Bulgaria you need 5-6 times more energy than the EU average.
There are jobs to be had in renewables too - but this fact and the ill-advised, carbon heavy spending plans for 2007-2013 tend to get glossed over in a region where being green often means you get tarred as a communist.
Complain about this comment
#16 - Greig_v_Brne
So Green is the new Red?
Complain about this comment
Tend to agree wth threnodio's #14.
spent last winter translating IPCC volumes (UN; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; national greenhouse gas inventories programme). Basically it is an instruction for countries how to calculate their emissions and how to report them.
a myriad nightmarish spreadsheets to fill in and formulas to calculate, rich with options how to classify one thing or the other, apply varios mathematical models. and all changes every year.
how to say. was not convinced. plus minus one model - plus minus several tons of emissions in or out.
but when you empty a bucketful of oil into a sea and see an oily sticky bird on the shore - this convinces.
most dangerous things one can see without any instructions. cough, sniff, smell and touch and get dirty all over.
these should be cut.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
I find it useful to remind some basic historical facts. The first alphabet the Czechs used was Cyrillic. Saints Cyril and Methodius introduced it among the Slavs of great Moravia. So, according to your classification, Prague belongs to the Eastern Europe, whereas Vienna is definitely on the western side, as far as the border between the two civilizations is concerned.
I hope my reminding you this part of your history won't be found offensive.
Complain about this comment
#11 threnodio, the new evidence would have to first disprove what exists already, some smaller details may change, but I think the case is already proven....
... HOWEVER, for the sake of a theoretical argument, even if Global Warming were disproved, my preference for nuclear power is based on ENERGY SECURITY and the fuels reserves being able to last TENS OF THOUSANDS of years if properly utilises (possibly much longer too), while the COSTS can be lower than "renewables". So, if you remove the global warming as an argument for using nuclear, I would still have the other three left.
Complain about this comment
To threnodio (14):
You forgot one thing from your devil's advocate approach, namely: nuclear power with associated costs of safely depositing nuclear waste and dismantling nuclear plants is more economical than burning coal.
In my opinion the conversation about the environment and global climate change hasn't for a long time been about the environment, but about philosophies of living. Greens object to the idea of our energy based civilization that relies on science and technology deserting the natural traditional human life, the objection is against all this. On the other hand those who think that there is no man made climate change are partly a counter reaction against green philosophies, but their main objection is science itself: they don't want society driven and lead by science and scientific approach instead of relying to ideologies and religions.
In the end why we as humans aren't using best technologies to satisfy our needs and best structures to govern is that people are essentially scared anything that is complex and thus opt for easier to understand options. It's easier to understand coal power than how an modern nuclear plant functions. Essentially, extremist are irrational, and rest of the population too simple to understand and make a rational judgment. The main failure of our societies aren't however extremist or common man, its our scientific, economic and political elite that hasn't convinced rest of the population on what way to go.
Complain about this comment
So called "Green" policies and arguments are flawed, false, and harmful. Climate has always been changing, and is a major factor in the evolution. It is a very preposterous notion that humans can significantly influence global climate, intentionally or not. Carbon dioxyde is introduced in hothouses since it boosts plant growth, whereas ecologists are trying to persuade us it is harmful. Temperature on Earth was already much higher (Greenland was green), and there was no doom because of it.
My opinion is that these ideas are favoured by:
1. Greedy governments looking for new forms of taxation
2. Social activists who are, actually, conservative. They wish to "preserve" status quo, as if it was dictated by some divine authority.
Complain about this comment
#23 - jaksap
You are flying in the face of good and valid science. In the improbable event that your view prevails, I hope you are young enough to see the consequences for yourself. Mercifully I am not.
Complain about this comment
#24 threnodio, it is frustrating to see people repeating anti man made gloabal warming like mad parrots, when just a few posts above I have tried to explain how it is a PROVEN fact.
#22 Jukka, you have interestingly found the common thread in both extreme greenies, and the climate change deniers... they are all driven by cultist like dogma, and both attack science and technology.
Unfortunately for us all the EU seems to have caved in on CO2 reductions. I hope we survive as a species in the next few hundred years.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob #25
A pro man made global warming expert was reported as saying that ...
'Working against global warming is a less well-known phenomenon known as global dimming which results from particles in the atmosphere reflecting light back to the sun and thereby masking the warming process. Airline trails provide such particles.'
Does this explain global cooling since 1998 and did climate modellers predict this cooling?
If not, just how accurate are these models?
Complain about this comment
Nucler as percentage of total energy production:
Bulgaria - 44%
Romania - 20%
Hungary - 37%
Slovenia - 40%
Slovakia - 34%
Check Republic - 30%
Poland - 0%
UK - 20%
Germany - 21%
France - 88%
Italy - 0%
In short - quit the bulshit! :-)
Complain about this comment
jaksap @23
Well summarised.
The world was indeed warmer (Greenland, viking habitations in Newfoundland and 'vinland', vineyards in northern England in Roman times) and also colder ('Little Ice Age', Frost Fairs on the frozen Thames, etc.)
Who would the watermelons say? I guess Bodocea for driving her 4X4 SUC (Sports Utility Chariot).
Complain about this comment
@Rob-Hob (25)
No, its the idea that climate change suddenly stopped being a natural phenomenon that has become cultist dogma. You too are a 'dogmatist', just like #1 polluter in Tennessee mr Al Gore for stating the 'proven fact' dogma.
The only fact there is, is that climate change is and always has been a natural phenomenon.
@threnodio
pollution is an entirely different, and surprisingly enough, unrelated topic to climate change.
pollution = man made
climate change = natural phenomenon
See the difference there? The fact that pollution and climate change are not linked can be easily proved. Climate change has happened throughout history (ice ages coming and going) even when there was no pollution.
Once you confront a greenie with these facts, the few sane ones with rational thought will then claim that the pollution has speeded up the global warming. That is untrue also, since average surface temperatures have DROPPED 0,2 celsius since 1996. Once confronted with that fact, the greenies will start foaming at the mouth and call you names.
Complain about this comment
I am sorry for the energy plan is under
fire....
What can be done to repair it!
Complain about this comment
to #20: No I do not find it offensive, why? It is a fact. Cyrillic was used in church context; but already by 1000 AD Old Church Slavonic was nearly completely replaced by Latin and thus Roman alphabet. The Czech language was always written in Roman alphabet.
But one does not classify countries based on scripts, I just listed it as one (I admit, marginal) example how the two worlds are different.
Geographically, from Warsaw, it is about 2600km to Ural Mtns. (Eastern boundary of Europe) and about 2000 km to Castlebar in Ireland. Prague is West of Vienna. Culturally, during the last 1000 years, Czech Lands were always part of the Western Europe, apart of the 40 years of Russian domination.
Calling those countries Eastern Europe simply puts them into the same category as Russia. I would just avoid the term, but on the other hand, if one wants to be rude to people in those countries, calling them Eastern Europe is a good start.
Complain about this comment
#26 BackintheEU, I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say or how it contradicts global warming. I am sure the scientists took it into account...
... dimming by particles is real, and in the extreme form is called a "nuclear winter". Spreading all kinds of fine particles in the armosphere is one of the more crazy solutions proposed to reduce temperatures, if we get to a run away greenhouse effect (think Venus here in the end) because we do not solve it in time... as now seems likely with the EU giving up.
None of this contradicts man made global warming...
... neither do naturally occuring warming or cooling MaxSceptic, as the point is that what we are causing is FAR greater and above what normally occurs.
The other MAJOR thing about too much CO2 is that it acidifies oceans even if we manage to keep temperatures down by spreading areosols in the atmosphere or by space shades (for an even crazier idea). Acidified oceans will mean collapse of many food chains because crustaceans and corals are not able to form shells and survive... no food for fish, whales, and a lot of people. Yes, oceans in the past existed when CO2 concentrations were even higher, but CURRENT animals are not used to it, and a lot of them will die and go extinct without adapting as the change is too fast for evolution to catch up to.
I am constantly amsued and frustrated at the same time by people repeating the same tired anti global warming arguments that have been countered by experts in the field. Do you guys argue with experts on everything: doctors, mechanics, investment managers, etc... or just climate scientists?!
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975 I base my arguments on the available science. The science says: man made global warming is real and significant. It is not a greenie or dogamtic argument.
What you said is not a counter argument either, you just mentioned some real events without explaing how they are supposed to counter the evidence on global warming. You have not presented a scientific argument. I DO NOT try to make a scientific argument - I TAKE the established science facts, and keep repeating them: human caused global warming is real, and GREATER than any natural effects happening at the same time.
Complain about this comment
@Rob_hob
"the science says"...
You mean: "the science which agrees with me (rob_hob) says"...
What you say is not an established science fact at all. Most CO2s are naturally produced. And also, only roughly 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2, but only 0.001% of the Earth's atmosphere is man-made CO2. And if your socalled scientists are to be believed, if we give them and their favorite politicians more power and money they can 'solve' the 'problem'.
Flashback to 1975, your scientists were causing a fuss and alarm over what they considered to be the impending ice age. When that was debunked, it became global warming, when that was debunked it became climate change. And then they said, act before 1995 or the effects are irreversible, when that was debunked, it became 2001, and then 2006, and now 2015. How can these people be so sure of the 'point of no return' when everytime they make a prediction, they mention a different year? You people need to finally realize that the public isn't buying your scam, and increasing the scaremongering hasn't worked either. Climate change is a natural phenomenon and history proves it. And that is the only real fact that we can be certain of.
Or maybe do your scientists also have a plan to stop the tectonic plates from shifting? Tectonic plates cause earthquakes and all that, so maybe they gonna claim they can stop that too, given enough money.
And finally, did you know Al Gore stands to be very rich if there is going to be a global 'carbon trading' market? He's got a company that does just that. Your prophet Al Gore is a self-centered greedy fraud. And his family company is the #1 polluter in Tennessee. 'Carbon emissions trade', its quite unbelievable, an actual market for buying and selling 'hot air'.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob says:
"I TAKE the established science facts, and keep repeating them"
Whereas he says mcdv1975 only: "mentioned some real events"
I think I'll go for the "real events" every time when trying to establish for myself what is "really" happening.
The only settled and indisputable fact is that there are a lot of Rob_Huds that will continue to keep "repeating" what they've been told by the IPCC believing it to be fact and refuse to see what is patently "really" happening in the world around them.
Complain about this comment
1. Climatology as science. Term science is misinterpreted here. Metaphorical example: A scientist studies extracted lottery numbers over a period of time. He uses advanced statistics and powerful computers. He comes up with interesting patterns in winning numbers. All this doesn't make him any more likely to guess the next extracted combination. This is what most climatologists won't tell you about their research. Their ability to accurately predict is very small. Climatologist can only say they are getting better over time, and that they are using supercomputers. That doesn't say their predictions are any good. BBC had a story on a climatologist who was angry at sattelite observations which showed that Amazon rainforest becomes greener due to more sunny days, contradicting his model. Not a behaviour you'd expect from a scientist.
2. Scare mongering. Y2K, SARS, Avian flu, market meltdown, climate disaster... There seems to be a predisposition in humans to speculate on catastrophies. It probably has to do with the religious/philosophical notion of doomsday.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob @32 asks:
"Do you guys argue with experts on everything: doctors, mechanics, investment managers, etc... or just climate scientists?!"
Absolutely!
Name me a 'financial expert' who foresaw the current financial credit crunch. (And if someone claims they did, then they should be able to actually prove it by flashing the millions they made selling short on the stock markets in the past few weeks. Anything but a few millions of cash in the bank is just windbaggery).
Most of the predictions large and small that have not come to pass were made by 'experts' - as have virtually all of humanity's mistakes.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
#34 mcdv, this is just getting into an arguemnt for argument's sake. YES, science says it is so. NOT just science that agrees with me... SHOW ME the science (not opinions or polemic) that says otherwise.
STOP throwing facts at me without making an argument, and tell me WHICH established and reviewed scientists say otherwise. Like I said I am not qualified to PROPERLY assess climate science... I doubt you are qualified either.
SO, show me the science! Prove it... but do not TORTURE my intelligence by repeatng the same kind of stuff over and over again. Full arguments, papers, research, NOT disjointed claims I do not even have a way of checking.
HOW does Al Gore come into it?! Does the world begin and end with America? I am only vaguelt familiar with the person, and ONLY from what I hear posted on the net.
Complain about this comment
#35 briton, LOL Science IS REPEATED not made up on a blog. Discoversies are repeated, based on work done by experts, and the work quoted (i.e. repeated). This is the WHOLE point. Real events need proper interpretation, assessment, science and scientists do this... and BLOG posts do not... whatever one may go for or prefer.
OPINION or personal interpretation does not matter on facts - proper science and research does matter and provides them.
However, I am beginning to think it is pointless arguing about how science works with those who have no idea about it, or are unwilling to learn. Though why I am surprised when even Italian prime ministers make the same mistake...
Complain about this comment
Thinking about these recent posting makes me wonder why it is not the GW alarmists that are called the ?Deniers". The slavish advocates of the "Science is settled" school are the ones "Repeating" their mantra and denying real events.
I thought it was interesting that the two Presidential candidates, when asked a question about "Climate Change" in the debate last night, avoided the subject and gave answers relating to dependence on foreign oil. Could it be that they both want to distance themselves from their previous positions on "Climate Change" that might make them look a bit silly going forward?
Complain about this comment
#27 CynicalDude
Looking at your list with percentages I wondered how could we (USSR) have left Poland without nuclear energy
infrustructure.
Asked mum.
She says "we built in Finland, in Chechia, in Roumania, but with Poland, you know, we always had most difficult relations, they hedgehogged against. Besides, they always had coal."
So I guess nothing has changed; good luck in convincing Poland.
Complain about this comment
Rob, re post 11 and your comment
'Thus when I say that the MAJORITY consensus in science is that human caused global warming is real and significant, I mean it is a WELL ESTABLISHED fact, reviewed thousands of times for all possible faults by opposing scientists. The level of proof is far greater than is required beyond the reasonable doubt in law, for example to convict and execute someone in the US.'
Not sure I agree with you on your definition of a fact or may be I have interpreted what you have said wrongly. Firstly, so you know where I am coming from, I believe climate change is probaly man made, perhaps even almost certainly. However a fact is that 2 plus 2 equals four, a kilo weighs more than a pound. It will also include temperature measurements taken at a given time, date annd place etc.
Last I heard was that about 90% of climate scientist belived climate change was man made. They base this on an interpretation of number of observed facts. However that interpretation in it's own right is not a fact. It is their best theory as to the cause of climate change, but it is not a fact. It still leaves 10%, who also looked at observed facts, and came up with a different interpretation.
Same applies in a court of law, jury will base their decision on accused guilt from the information they hear. They then deliver a guilty verdict, it is a fact they delivered a guilty verdict, it is not a fact the person is guilty.
I do think it is important in the debate that all sides listen to each other with an open mind to the possibility that they may just be wrong. As soon as you label something a fact, beyond debate, you may dismiss something without giving it proper scrutiny.
Agree 100% with you re nuclear power.
Complain about this comment
Robhob is a typical 'believer' in the climate change/man made fraud.
He basically says so himself, ie 'do not throw facts at him' and 'do not throw real events at him'.
I tend to trust facts and real events over crazy theories. You see, in a computer model, one can get any result one wants by entering the necessary data. And that's how the climate change/man-made crowd does it. They drew the conclusion first, then search for only that data that fits their theory, and then proceed to threaten/bully/insult anyone who dares to disagree. Well, fortunately, in science it is still not a democracy. One scientist can be right and the rest can be wrong.
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975
I agree with your comments about Rob_Hob and his ilk. The scientific facts regarding AGW/CH no longer matter to them they have their belief that the "Science is settled" and will not listen to any inconvenient truth that does not fit with their view. The only people I've personally met that behaved in this blinkered way were people from Northern Ireland during the troubles and more recently Islamic fundamentalists.
In the future, after the climate has continued to go its own natural way and the agenda has moved on from CO2, Universities will have courses devoted to the study of psychology and human behavior displayed by the turn-of the-century GW alarmists. Students will wonder how the GW hysteria ever got so out of hand in the face of so little supporting evidence that the UK even appointed a Minister to be in charge of it.
Complain about this comment
Well they have a point. If you are ready to work less and earn less, and these countries aren't, then you say hang on a minute. Either Miliband is representing un-joined-up tick-box government thinking, or grand environmental plans are viewed as a kind of 'recession dividend' and a good way of burying that fact that the real economy is despaired of. Most probably, in an inept way, the former, but by the same token possibly not.
Complain about this comment
There is crisis everywhere but for China. China looks like a winner here. This week Russia fowarded to China the bordering territory under dispute for so many decades. I strongly believe that Russia sold it to china amid its economic crisis, but it won't admit it because it might cause huge dissatisfaction of its populaion. Russia does not give out territories for free it is fighting for gaining additional ones. Do you buy to the claim as if Russia fll so much in love with China that it decided to make such a present? :) Soon it might put out more land for sale to cover the loss it latly sustained.
Complain about this comment
@ingag11 #46
Your logic seems to escape me- one one side Russia is looking to gain new teritories, on the other- it is giving them away to China!? Perhaps there is something more here- Russia actually wants to move further to the West and that is why they want to annex the Baltic states, Ukraine and Gerogia. Then they will move the capital Moskow to a more comfortable postion and then sell Siberia to the Chinese. There, as neat a theory as anything!
According to you logic, when Russia has border dispites with China, this is because the land-grabbing Russians want to conquer the world. Howver, when the same border disputes are resolved, this is still not OK- that is when the cunning Russians are selling rubish land for hard cash to the unsuspecting Chinese.
It always amazes me how people always present the Russains as dumb, but it comes to conspiracies they suddenly become clever and capable of complicated schemes.
Complain about this comment
#47 I agree with you it is very clever, but one day nobody will remember about the money Chinese paid, like Americans did for Alyaska. If people do not know the truth later generations will fight to get it back unless the government airs the amount of the money it recieved.
Complain about this comment
ingag11,
what's wrong with resolving a long standing uncertainty over islands in the river (river separates us with China, this was clear, but the islands in it were kind of jointly used, and the largest one was - of course! Russian. Yes we lost in land now - passing over the Chinese the largest island. But we got the small ones that are closer to our shore. Somehow we do want to keep a distance to China, and as clearly and logically cut as possible. This is streamlining of the borderline. That island was not Sebastopol, no memorabilia, nothing to despair about. Russians had dacha-s there.
Two years ago we have similarly cleaned up the border with Ukraine in one corner a bit. But there we both did it idiotically, because neither side wanted to lose an inch, simply quarreling and being stubborn. In the result the border passed through a live village, in the manner one poor man has his toilet in the yard now abroad. Behind a beautiful striped pole in the ground. So he keeps violating the borderline several times a day, incl. visits to his children across the street, who are now Ukrainian.
This time we did it clean and to mutual satisfaction, even that we indeed lost in land.
With Alaska - we've swallowed so big a piece that we couldn't process it. We had no people and no adventure-minded expeditions enough to populate what we've got in the future USA. Many countries at that time gave up on their belongings in the America, for the same reason, Spain and France and Holland and who not. It was a trend and in the air. too far away to maintain, and to lie like a dog on a hay-pile - "myself don't eat - and won't allow others" - was stupid.
Complain about this comment
I cannot believe Russia takes Astrology more serious than the real world, real global economic situation :))
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/21-10-2008/106597-global_crisis-0
Complain about this comment
#49 Alice
" one poor man has his toilet in the yard now abroad." - LOL, you are right that happened it to us when we devided border with Turkey. Your comments are always fun to read.
Complain about this comment
Yes Inga, and imagine what he tells about dear Russian government, every time he gets a TV crew attracted by his toilet story!
Likewise the people who had dacha-s in that island in the river - how to put it softly -write letters to all stations, because surely they got no compensation, neither from own side, forget about China.
Luckily we don't have a full borderline with Ukraine, only every time we quarrel we have another go at it. And jointly cause trouble to locals within, say, 10-15 km every time. When the locals' cries reach certain heights, both sides drop the matter, until the next occasion.
While people living there find it very convenient to be able to change the sides. They use post-office that charges less for parcels, carry goods back and forward which are cheaper to buy on the other side, run small businesses on the difference in petrol price, and somehow it seems any borderline can finance a family.
But there ought to be a deal btw countries giving a special status, by law, what's called here "citizens of pre-borderline zone". For them normal visas and all doesn't apply, short visits are allowed by law.
Likewise the border with Esthonia, Ivangorod one side, Narva - across the bridge over small river. Narva and Ivangorod walk the bridge a thousand times a day shopping. Estonians buy here medications prohibited by EU laws, and "what's cheaper". Russians also capitalise on Estonian goods.
That border is a joke, because the river is so small, that many people without the "borderline zone" insert into the passport, sometimes, how to say, simply swim to the other side after the cigarettes.
Russians of course, Estonians are law-abiding. Borderlines guards catch these naked swimmers every other day and Estonia keeps complaining to us, like we "again fished out your drunk subject, stop this."
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS