Global warming affects countries like Darfur the most and because Darfur isn't developed it doesn't have the ability to adapt to global warming like the countries which caused it can. Besides the stratergies combatting global warming exclude the third world anyway which is the given reason why the US doesn't sign up. Global warming->no Darfur to be developed.

And I am actaully working on the development of Darfur, they have a very potiential for renewable energy production (solar) which is being introduced by development agencies, fossil fuels won't help them develop unless you still believe neoliberalism.



And on the topic of the icebergs, there were more icebergs come up, Aussies decided to be checkie and put an Aussie flag on one because they "like stealing everything which belongs to the kiwis" (they said that), but what they didn't realise was the day before some Kiwis put a New Zealand flag on the largest iceberg. And Shreik the sheep (was the wooliest sheep in the world before it first got shaven to measure the wool, managed to get pretty wooly since then too) got shaven on one of the icebergs for random publicity. And the leader of a major right wing party resigned and got replace by someone who actaully believes in global warming so now about 85% of our parliament has global warming policy and the rest appart from the 3% party on the far right, say they believe in global warming but haven't developed a policy to combat it...now to wait 2 years for some policy to actaully be implimented.

This post has been edited by Pisces: Nov 30 2006, 02:43 AM

Uh.. You mean like 20 years.. Remember I said something bad has to happen first? Icebergs are cool, wait till they sink a ship...

Anyways you would be silly to say though that the development of 3rd world countries (which is a outdated name anyways.. They do deserve better then that) could be done without fossil fuel. Sure maybe in a hundred years and lots of investment, but a simpler process will be used first and that process with need.. Gasoline.

At least, thats my idea.

As long as you don't believe that Rock for Darfur stuff works I'm all cool with your liberalness

Sudan is an exporter of oil actually--it enrichs the government scammers at expense to the environment

One of Africa's main problem is drought-related crop failures, which may be related to global warming.

As for development, I favor raising living standards in developing countries, if it occurs coincident to conservation on our part and global population reduction--preferably by taxing large families. Of course, it isn't THAT simple, but we could certainly do with a tax on large families in the United States, as opposed to the current tax system which encourages large families. 2 children per family is quite enough.

Edit: I imagine that there should be a lot of potential for sustainable energy in Africa. North Africa has a lot of sun, and probably some wind. Same for other desert or semi-desert areas. South Africa could surely use waves and tidal energy to some effect. The problem is, petro-states like Sudan will be more hostile to sustainable energy because the government controls the oil, enriching the leadership, whereas sustainables tend to be more locally-controlled.

This post has been edited by canis216: Nov 30 2006, 06:18 AM

Tell me what exactly are they going to use gasoline for? Cars, the roads there are compassion even if they could afford enough cars to do their part in emissions, power generation? The majority of the population doesn't have a electricity grid and it would cost billions to build one, for individual generation it would cost individuals a large proportion of their income and require hours of time to get the petrol, villages in the middle of no where tend not to have petrol stations capable a supplying the village. Solar power is much better for development.

But I really don't want to get into development stratergies, they are so long and there as so many of them.

You increase infrastucture.. you increase mobility. Look at China. At one point in time it was stupid to think that you could travel, but once the government loosened up regs on everything and the price of the car was in reach of the middle class.. BOOM! China is exploding with economic development.. And guess what? They need more fuel..

So sure, I'd rather see wind farms then these big factories, but with our current mindset it won't work. And yes, it is still expensive.



I don't think so.. Looks at the population statistics for most European and Asian countries. Heres a quote from an article on VanityFair...



As you can see, less is not a good thing. In fact we should reward people for having children and taking care of them. I r sycko!

And why is lower population in these developed nations a bad thing? It causes a few problems for welfare programs where the working support the non-working (i.e. Social Security) but this is mainly a problem of accounting--the primary reason for the problem is politics. But declining population is good for the Earth--if developing nations reduced their reproductive rates (by incentives, not force--I hope) the world would be in much better shape. If global average reproduction was 2 children per family population would decline and eventually stabilize at a healthier number. The European nations (esp. France and Germany, I think) worry about declining population because Muslim immigrants are moving in and making up a larger proportion of the population, changing long-established cultures. And it may be a legitimate worry, but I think they're just making it worse by demanding either absolute assimilation or total separation. There's a reason all those folks rioted around Paris--they don't feel welcome, and they don't have jobs. The two are related, I think.