CBC Ideas - Gwynn Dyer on Climate Wars

[Check Pilot]

Don,

You asked a lot of pertinent questions, some of which I cannot answer. One opinion I do have is that the so called "bailouts' are an atrocious example of corporate welfare. I see this as no better than the welfare as you say, "unwed drug-using single mothers with a dozen kids and drug addicts, sex perverts, those lazy teenagers and other welfare cheats".

To me the this corporate "rescue" is much worse than those single moms that you mention.

Companies need to take care of themselves. If they can't - too bad. The executives that run them need to realize that it's up to them to keep the money flowing and if they can't -- too bad -- as many Companies have done and are gone now, too damn bad. So much for the pool in the back yard, I guess. I have no, zero, sympathy for poorly run outfits. I also notice that lot's of companies are doing just fine in this very trying economic time. Good decision making and taking advantage of opportunity is what's kept these folks humming along just fine.

As I see it, this all boils down to the fact that Bill Clinton's stupid idea that EVERY American should own a house and his very far left policy of making it so easy, that the banking system in the US collapsed. That guy and his banking buddy that ran the reserve system at the time, in my opinion, caused this whole debacle. Many banks went broke because of it. Now the American taxpayer and their grandkids, because of Obama's power and policy stance, will be paying for this for a very long time.

It's having a really bad effect on us here too. Ontario is now going broke because nobody is buying many cars anymore. Bombardier is having trouble selling aeroplanes because folks aren't traveling much more either and the demand for travel just tanked in the US, (maybe I'm wrong with that one, just a personal observation from the rides in the back of aeroplanes in the US lately - mostly half full) so airlines don't need new aeroplanes anymore. The former "Centre of the Universe" in Ontario is in a lot of trouble. All because of a stupid jerk President that wanted to make everyone to buy a house they couldn't afford.

Bill Clinton said "I feel your pain". Now everyone in the world is feeling "pain".

What an idiot --- To wreck a system that let's people actually have to work and make a living and have a proper money income to pay for it....Clinton and his morons managed to eventually kill the world's economy.

Now Obama and his bunch of misguided idiot advisers are about to spend somewhere about a trillion - that's TRILLION dollars on corporate welfare. That's a thousand billion. That's way more money than I can even imagine. I haven't had a chance to listen to Limbaugh lately but unlike choc's digression, Rush still remains the only voice of right wing American politics. Unfortunately, the Republicans who spoke up in the US House and Senate meekly complained about the Obama onslaught but it has now gone on to approval in the US senate. It's now a done deal. May God help us now.

This is the worst kind of welfare!!

There is nothing - NOTHING - anyone,-- no government, no agency, no program, no policy --- can do right now to get us out of this economic lunacy except for a regaining of consumer confidence. When that happens, I and all the other "right wing" people don't know.

What a huge and atrocious mistake. That kind of mistake will eventually have an affect on us here in Canada as you saw with the collapse of our Conservative Government's decision to go back into deficit financing. Shameful from my point of view just to save their own asses from political annihilation. SHAMEFUL. It won't put work back in the hands of Ontarians. They are out of work because nobody is buying stuff anymore. Now us in the "have" provinces will need to hand out money for those out of work in what was formerly the "centre" of the country. Not that I want to, but we really can't have Canadians starving in the centre of the universe. I guess my tax dollars will be going east soon.

For those out of work, we do need a good policy for folks that don't have a job anymore. EI will hopefully help. I will not want to see kids starving because of an out of work situation. I've paid into EI for the last 40 years or so, but never had and will never need to collect it once. I'm sure the system will get food to those starving mouths of the unemployed, particularly in Ontario where it's obviously acute..

Finally, I'm not actually a right wing guy. I'm a libertarian. I want the government to stay out of my life. I don't want to be taxed like I was before in Manitoba by the Communist's there and run my life from cradle to grave. That's why I moved to Alberta a few years ago. However, Provincial regulations still, in Alberta, runs about way to deep for me with their idiot attempts to try and run my behaviour for me.

[chockalicious]

Check Pilot

I disagree with your assertions but putting the onus on Clinton and none on Bush?? I honestly think you are very confused on your history.

Clinton signed into law the bill put forth by Phill Gramm that removed much needed oversight. However the fantasy that the banks had to loan cash because of Clinton is not real.

There is a lot of blame to go around but to rant on and not even mention Bush's culpability in this really leaves me wondering if you understand what is going on or are just baying at the moon about idealogues that do not exist.

[Don Hudson]

Check Pilot - many thanks for your reply; If I may...

I'm not interested in changing your mind - I actually favour libertarianism as well, which shares a number of values with Anarchy, (not the chaos and lawlessness images that people usually conjure up when the word is used but, "no government" - "self-rule", etc - another big thread), - but I am interested in exploring further only because the black-and-white thinking expressed serves neither argument - right nor left - sufficiently to warrant their respective survival beyond cocktail chat. I think one has to appreciate subtleties not because one necessarily embraces them (or quietly does but doesn't just to remain self-consistent), but because, even disagreeing with them, they exist realistically and sufficiently to warrant serious consideration if only for comprehension of one's position. If one cuts oneself off from at least being open to broader more subtle notions from the right and the left, much is missed. Despite my friend's constant cajoling, I am anything but a commiepinkoNDPlovingtreehugger,

I note that in your response, you skip over the last eight years pretty quickly. I don't know how opinions can be offered that do not at least account for that period in history. I don't know how that is possible without giving those with whom you are in dialogue the sense of plain, unquestioned denial. At some point, it either has to be taken seriously and accounted for or a deep denial needs to be acknowledged - not changed, but at least recognized.

It is plain fact that the largest growth in, and the largest debt period, was run up not by Clinton, upon whom you focus entirely, but by Bush 43 - it is your Republicans that are supposed to be fiscally conservative and the Dems and NDP that are supposed to be the spendthrifts. In BC that's the way it was so you can make book on how I'll be voting in May.

Details to address your points...

Without Bush, the repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, first brought about by Republicans (see the Wiki entry below), with the Gramm-Leach likely would not have resulted in the crash. I think the Wiki entry on this factor is worth reading for understanding, though not convincing - I'm not interested in that - I'm just interested in thinking/examining for it's own sake. You will already know that I am no fan in the traditional "admiring" sense, of any U.S. President including the present one - my only principle and bias is people - they need to do well by their country and their government. If ordinary people can't do well in the world's most powerful nation, there is something wrong - that is my bias, if such may called that. Here's the Wikipedia note on Glass-Steagall:

"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate[11] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[12]. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). Having majorities large enough to override any possible Presidential veto, the legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [13]

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[7]"

It is no more logical today than it would have been in January 2001 to say that the occupant of the Whitehouse is going to destroy the economy and the nation. That's just so much sloganizing, the meaning of which is obscure and emotive. I think at best, a wait-and-see is in order. What if what Obama does, really works and in four years the economy is better than where it is about to go? Will you accept the results with equanimity or dismiss them as blind luck? It's a fair question given that Bush gets off scott-free and both Dems are the evil ones, the present one only week's old.

Unbridled capitalism, with no controls, is a spoiled brat child and right now, that child is throwing it's worst temper tantrum since 1929 because it has lost all it's baubles and toys. What to do? "Kill all the lawyers", kill all the corporations, or fend off the worst of what life in North America with NO economy has to offer? I don't know and perhaps like yours, my belly has butterflies, mostly for my family.

In the meantime, millions upon millions of, yes, some stupid and naive snake-oil buyers, - people, are going to, or have already, lost their homes, jobs, perhaps families, self-respect and futures. What of those who will suddenly have nothing to do - they won't even be able to "Ride the Rails"...no railways...Is it possible?

Is it right, or ethical, (note that I am not using the term "moral"), to dump these people on the street because too-bad-so-sad corporate speculation greed and graft didn't pan out? Is it now government's job solely to serve the needs of corporate America where business rules and government cow-tows? Shall we dump the corporations and send the money directly to people so they can keep their homes and have a pension and health care? Is it that simple or easy? Does Rush know? If so, how?

What happened to the American spirit where people shared in the wealth AND the pain of failure? What happened to risk and reward for ordinary people. The economy since the early 70's has turned into a crap-shoot -a speculator's game far, far above the heads of ordinary people to comprehend and "work" so that they too can share in it. It is a rigged game of exclusivity and Bush was the crowning touch on a game created first by Nixon, not so much Carter then hugely by Reagan, by Bush 41, and by Clinton. The Great Society was created by a Texan!, Lyndon Johnson.

I fully agree with you on let'em go, where corporate failures are concerned. We will never see those who belong in jail, make the trip because they are beyond, or rather are, the law. The inmates have been running the economy and men like Black, Ebers, et al, are the tip of the iceberg.

What is a shame, for Ontario and for BC alike, is, 95% of the population is simply along for the ride. And, by the way, that is part of the problem - that is exactly what they did - never got off their asses to see what their government was up to all these years of pushing degulated larceny. That is the problem I have and you're right - it is far too late to solve it. Obama is simply closing the hatches but the bulkheads don't go all the way to the top.

I doubt if Rush has any solution better than you or I but he's a proven crowd pleaser but that is what he does. Bright guy, very likable like yer blustering-but-fun uncle as a kid growing up, like Wilfred Brimley. And you know, like Chomsky's, Moore's, O'Reilly's, Geraldo's ideas, I take Rush's notions in, because it is about "what", not "who", and weigh them carefully against paused thought. Why would we dismiss intelligent, workable ideas because we don't like the color of their party?

I suggest a close reading of Studs Terkel's, "Hard Times". We're going to need the humour and the perspective.

[Fido]

If you say it often enough maybe some will believe that Clinton was not the seed of the housing problem:

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hot...tons_drive.html

[Don Hudson]

Fido;

"Say it often enough"?

Yes, you're right but of course it doesn't make it correct, (or wrong, as the case may be). What counts is the evidence - the data, the historical record. What was said, what was done? One can cherry-pick facts like a politician or lawyer or one can set hegemonies aside and engage the dialogue in a way that acknowledges inconvenient truths about one's sacred cows.

It is acknowledged that the Clinton administration facilitated conditions which led up to the present crisis. I receive BusinessWeek postings on a daily basis however, and like the rest of the mostly-conservative US (and Canadian) media, the focus is on "the left" in all those B-School articles - no mention of Bush's "legacy".

Since the debates, more people have learned the names "Glass", "Steagall", "Gramm", "Leach" and this sliver of American history than anyone either in high school or college.

In fact I wonder if we are not witnessing the beginnings of a re-write of history of the last eight years, so vociferous is this "Clinton" message and so angry is business over their benefactor...

[Lakelad]

As I see it, this all boils down to the fact that Bill Clinton's stupid idea that EVERY American should own a house and his very far left policy of making it so easy, that the banking system in the US collapsed.

roll opening credits for 'Nightmare on Main Street'

[Hadji Ramjet]

What's the answer? Beats me, seems as though there isn't an alternative that packs enough energy/unit that oil has, and is eco-friendly, emmisions friendly, etc.

You could always burn ATF in a diesel engine. No idea about the emissions, but you can get it for free.

[chockalicious]

It is important to make the distinction of what is being talked about by the loony right.

The CRA - Communuity Reinvestment Act - did not start the banking crisis. The re-writers of history will tell you that Clinton's policies forced these banks to give sub prime loans. This is not true.

Clinton shares blame in that he signed the Gramm bill into law which removed much needed oversight.

Some info on why the CRA did not cause the banking crisis:

The current mortgage crisis "was not caused by the CRA and it was not caused by poor people getting homes," said Jack Kemp, former secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the 1996 Republican vice presidential nominee, at an Urban Land Institute conference last month. "The problems were caused by lenders who took advantage of the system. The claim that the CRA caused all these problems is nonsense."

Maybe reading up on this instead of spewing whatever Rush is trying to pass off as fact will arm you with the information you need.

[Guest woxof]

Only opinion of course. But there are those partisan types who want to blame everything on Bush. But just because he may go down as the worst pres in history doesn't mean the truth about why this crisis is happening should be covered up as partisans on both sides would no doubt like to do. Or is the BBC now the looney right?

Did Bush cause the financial crisis?

By Greg Wood

BBC North America Business Correspondent, New York

"Consider the terrible consequences of the 'anything goes' Bush Administration, whose irresponsible non-regulation of financial institutions has led to this crisis."

Those words, from the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, sum up the charge against George W Bush - that in the eight years of his presidency he actively pursued policies of deregulation which caused the biggest financial and economic meltdown since the Great Depression.

It is a grim legacy for President Bush to contemplate as he enters his final days in office - but is it true?

Market collapse

He certainly presided over a widespread failure of regulation.

On his watch, the US authorities did little to prevent the sale of millions of mortgages to people who could never afford them.

They failed to police the market in mortgage-backed securities which has now collapsed with such devastating consequences.

And credit default swaps, those multi-billion-dollar bets on other people going bust, went virtually unregulated.

In recent days, Congress has been holding hearings to determine how the regulators at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) missed numerous warning signs - "Red Flags" - about Bernard Madoff, the man accused of running a gigantic Ponzi scheme which has defrauded investors of at least $50bn.

Paul Kanjorski, the Democratic Representative who is chairing the hearings, argued that the SEC's failings were - in part - due to chronic understaffing, implying that the Bush Administration had starved the agency of the resources needed to do its job.

In the blame game for this financial crisis, George W Bush comes a close second to greedy and unscrupulous Wall Street bankers.

But there are serious flaws in this argument.

Deregulation started long before President Bush came to power, and it was enthusiastically pursued by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Here is just one example:

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated the activities of commercial banks, which take deposits, from investment banks, which invest money. It was repealed in 1999.

That relaxation of the rules enabled commercial lenders, like Citigroup, to trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralised debt obligations.

'Far-reaching reform'

Many see the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as a major, direct cause of the current financial crisis.

But it was signed by a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, and supported by many other Democratic politicians, among them the scourge of Bush deregulation Nancy Pelosi.

What is more, President Bush actually increased the burden of regulation on US companies, enacting in 2002 what he called "the most far-reaching reform of American business practices since the time of Franklin D Roosevelt", the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

A response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals, including the collapse of the energy group Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley significantly increased the reporting requirements and accountability of company boards and management.

So the image of Mr Bush as the arch deregulator and the Democratic Party as the champion of stricter rules for business does not quite tally with the evidence.

But Mr Bush is not entirely blameless.

Affordable home ownership, especially for African-American and Hispanic borrowers, who had traditionally found it difficult and expensive to get a mortgage, was a key policy goal of the Clinton administration and one enthusiastically carried forward by President Bush.

A laudable aim - but there is evidence that it led to severe political pressure on mortgage providers to lower their lending standards, spawning the now infamous "NINJA" loans for borrowers with "No Income, no Job or Assets."

The mortgage finance company Fannie Mae was also being urged to fulfill its mission of helping low income homeowners by buying up more and more risky loans.

This political pressure, as well as rock-bottom interest rates and unscrupulous lending practices, helped to inflate the sub-prime housing bubble.

President Bush must take his share of the blame.

There is no doubt that George W Bush is a natural supporter of deregulation and that his administration did nothing to stop all sorts of questionable financial activities in the private sector (even though it did not condone them).

As president, he bears the ultimate political responsibility and his party has paid the ultimate political price.

But this financial crisis has many causes, being - as it is - the product of conflicting human emotions and imperfect markets and organisations.

It is impossible to blame it all on one man.

[Don Hudson]

woxof;

It is impossible to blame it all on one man.

Of course it's impossible and no thinking person aware of both history and facts would do so.

This is more a comment on the level and quality of public dialogue that exists on these serious topics than it is a defence/admonishing of the Bush Presidency or American responsibilities. The BBC has it right but of course it isn't the American media and actually gazes at the world beyond Britain's borders and not at it's collective navel as though it were the only navel on earth.

The article reads quite well for a short few paragraphs of commentary. It recognizes responsibilities in a number of presidencies as ought to be recognized.

The notions of "worst/best" appeal to those who gravitate to Guiness' Books of Records but have little to do with public political realities. One cannot occupy the Presidency for four years and not accomplish some good. But it's partisan politics so no one hears.

I hearken to views from the right (although not Limbaugh as I think he is unbalanced), as from the left because serious approaches to serious problems require full spectrum thinking. Bailing out capitalist failures is the height of hypocrisy and puts the lie to everyone who thinks capitalism is the only way to run an economy, (meaning, it works providing the taxpayer is always there to shore up failures so those market forces so deeply worshiped by free-market capitalists never have a chance to "reward" risk but they'll take the profit every time). The US is a business-run society that is anti-intellectual, and driven by religion as no other nation on earth save Israel. Obama is not going to change that - no president is. What I would rather see is money going to people who need it who are (relatively) innocent victims of corporate greed and CEO avarice. I would like to see the notion of "investment" return to the market, rather than the crap-shoot it has turned into - who can plan a retirement in this kind of environment?, (meaning the last thirty years).

The crowd is untruth.

[Guest woxof]

Perhaps it is time to realize that the idea of everyone being able to own their home, while very nice is not realistic at all. As we can see with all this government policy forcing mortgages being given to people with no job and no hope of realistically paying for it is ridiculous.

Aside from moving up into a higher income bracket, the only way these people will realistically be able to get their own home is to have it given to them by the taxpayer, which of course should only be done if a party is elected into power based on that being a part of their platform.

[DEFCON]

"The US is a business-run society that is anti-intellectual, and driven by religion as no other nation on earth save Israel.

Other than perhaps a Muslim theocracy?

"The crowd is untruth."

That "crowd" might also be considered a representation of "democracy"?

[Guest woxof]

Hmmm....lets see. Can you spell Iran. What about Saudi Arabia which has none else than the Koran as it's constitution. Many others to a lesser extent no doubt. Israel I suspect is far down the list.

[chockalicious]

While I think Don may have overstated the point about religion in the US, the subtext, if I am reading correctly, of the point Don is trying to make is accurate;

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

[Fido]

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

Only 50% of the American population know what Evolution is.

[Don Hudson]

These numbers haven't changed much since Bryan's (William Jennings) time. Both anti-intellectualism and its cousin hubris, have kept science at bay. Hopefully one of Obama's legacies will be a slight opening of the door of national curiosity - I think a turnaround in the standard of education (for all) is too much to hope for just as it is in BC with our own government intimidated by the Fraser Institute's vews on education.

Good book on the subject of the history of American anti-intellectualism is, Susan Jacoby's, "The Age of American Unreason" but there are dozens and dozens of books on the dumbing down of intellectual life in the US and the "geeking" of science in favour of the mystical/paranormal - after all, mystery, spiritualism, reincarnation and other snakeoil is where all the money is to be made.

[Guest woxof]

THE GREENIES TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR CAREER AGAIN

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7920294.stm

Airport protesters delay flights

Protesters broke through the perimeter fence

Flights to and from Aberdeen Airport are being delayed after protesters cut through a perimeter fence and barricaded themselves on a taxiway.

Seven protesters from the Plane Stupid group have placed themselves inside a "wire fortress" on a helicopter taxiway on the east of the airfield.

Police said two protesters were on the roof of the terminal building. The protest began at about 0315 GMT.

BAA said flights were affected but the airport was not closed.

The airport operator said flights to Heathrow, Paris and Amsterdam had been affected.

Plane Stupid said its protesters had dressed in the style of property tycoon Donald Trump, who is backing the expansion of the airport after his plans to build a luxury golf resort in the area were approved.

This action is dangerous and highly irresponsible

BAA spokesman

A banner has been draped across the front of the terminal building, close to the BAA Aberdeen sign, which says "Nae Trump games with climate change".

"We're here to say the expansion cannot happen, and our generation won't let it happen," said Dan Glass, from Glasgow.

Protester Tilly Gifford, 24, also from Glasgow, spoke to BBC Scotland from the taxiway, where she said the demonstrators had set up a makeshift golf course within a fortified fence.

She said: "Four of the protesters have their necks locked to the fortified fence.

"We are trying to close down the airport. We can measure its success in terms of stopping carbon emissions.

"We are here to highlight that aviation is the fastest growing source of carbon emissions."

Ms Gifford said that all the protesters were Scottish residents and they were linked to the UK protest which has carried out similar action at airports in England.

The BAA spokesman said: "This action is dangerous and highly irresponsible, not least because Aberdeen is one of Europe's busiest commercial heliports and a major transport centre for the north of Scotland."

In December last year Plane Stupid activists caused disruption at Stansted Airport in Essex by occupying the runway.

[Guest woxof]

I LOVE IT....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02...ssive-snowfall/

Out With A Shiver: Global Warming Protest Frozen Out by Massive Snowfall

Global warming activists stormed Washington Monday for what was billed as the nation's largest act of civil disobedience to fight climate change -- only to see the nation's capital virtually shut down by a major winter storm.

Schools and businesses were shuttered, lawmakers cancelled numerous appearances and the city came to a virtual standstill as Washington was blasted with its heaviest snowfall of the winter.

It spelled about six inches of trouble for global warming activists who had hoped to swarm the Capitol by the thousands in an effort to force the government to close the Capitol Power Plant, which heats and cools a number of government buildings, including the Supreme Court and the Capitol.

The snowy scene, with temperatures in the mid-20s, was reminiscent of a day in January 2004, when Al Gore made a major address on global warming in New York -- on one of the coldest days in the city's history.

Protest organizers said about 2,500 people braved the blizzard to oppose greenhouse gas emissions, but the shroud of snow wasn't the only wet blanket in the nation's capital Monday.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called on the architect of the Capitol to stop burning coal at the power plant last week, cancelled her appearance at the rally because her flight to Washington was cancelled.

Michelle Obama canned a public "Read Across America" event and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan canceled a meeting with the Democratic Caucus because the members of Congress couldn't get to D.C. An honor cordon at the Pentagon for Afghanistan's defense minister also had to be called off.

Some protesters couldn't make it as dozens of flights in the area were delayed or called off, and some couldn't face the dangerous roads or blustery weather, leaving hundreds safe, if sorry, back at home.

One protester named Kat had planned to get arrested and be bailed out Monday but decided to stay put and donate her money to a good cause instead.

"I don't want to travel in the snow today. However, I am donating my bail money to fight mountaintop removal," she wrote to the Climate Action Web site.

Even marchers in gloves and parkas were wringing their hands to stay warm, and some protest leaders were having trouble providing updates on blog sites like Twitter.

"I admit, it's hard to tweet with cold hands!" wrote the author of the Capitol Climate Action Web site, who said the activists were "staying warm with a chant: 'Clean coal is a dirty lie.'"

The plant has been seized as a symbol of the government's energy excess, and the 99-year-old facility accounts for a third of the legislative branch's greenhouse gas emissions.

Protesters gathered earlier Monday in the Spirit of Justice Park near the Capitol and marched a few blocks to the power plant, where D.C. police set up a careful cordon.

In a press release supporting the protest, Greenpeace wrote that "coal is the country's biggest source of global warming pollution" and that "burning coal cuts short at least 24,000 lives in the U.S. annually."

On a blustery, frigid day, it might be worth noting the government's own stark numbers: pneumonia kills twice as many each year.

[Guest woxof]

After having listened to Gwynn's potential nightmare scenario´s which of course he later emphasizes are only slight possibilities after scaring the heck out of the average listener, I listened to the third podcast.

Guess what..there is a solution. It involves reducing carbon emissions drastically and immediately. Of course you are thinking that I guess this will affect almost all the countries in the world but hey...we all need to make a bit of a sacrifice for a good cause.

Oh no say the greenies. The massive polluters of Asia that have taken over as the world's biggest polluter(China) and the close behind(India , Brazil, etc) don´t have to make any sacrifice. You the average taxpayer have benefited from all the past pollution so you, the taxpayer are going to have to pay for not only your countries cleanup but China´s as well.

The poor Chinese just can´t afford it. Well they have been poor for the last 1,000 years or more. What is another 20 or 30. Not a fair statement one might say. The poor Chinese can´t shouldn´t have to remain poor and this would be hugely expensive for them.

Well they have no problem spending billions on new fighter jets. And a blue water navy is costing billions and billions more. And of course there is that massive new submarine base on Hainan Island. How much for that and the subs that go along with it. The Chinese have the money. All they have to do is redirect it from the massive military buildup for a non-existant threat which in reality is to become a superpower. And guess what is in the news today? A 15% increase in defense spending by China for 2009. Consider that 15% to be the west´s contribution to China´s cleanup. They can do with it as they like and I have a green suggestion. My global portion of sacrifice complete now in the form of useful advice.

I have no intention of subsidizing what Dyer and his followers are proposing. That is what truly is the SCAM OF THE CENTURY. The foolish idea that the west should subsidize China into a global superpower.

You don´t hear that from good old Gwyn.