OK, Greig, you have your own thread. Please post all of your comments here. And everyone else, please post any responses to Greig here. The blog software does not allow me to move comments to another thread, so I will delete comments that don't obey these rules and it will be up to you to repost them.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Thanks to everyone who participated in the unscientific survey on commenting. The results are back, and I'd like to share them with you.
As many of you have noticed, we've been talking about comments a lot here lately, both at BioE and on Sb in general. There's also a big session on online civility…
So I've been offline a lot the last few weeks - as you know we had 10 kids in our house for a couple of days the week before Thanksgiving, and I was out of town until yesterday. While a few posts have gone up, I've spent absolutely no time on anything other than absolute necessities online.
So…
Last year Steve McIntyre insinuated that Gavin Schmidt was dishonest after one of McIntyre's comments was held up in moderation: (link in quote is mine)
Posting at realclimate is a little thing. I was once involved in trying to detect a business fraud many years ago. A friend told me that to look…
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
Throwing subsidies at it won't make renewable energy economical. Technological development, time and good fortune are the determining factors.
sorry, just had to quote this claim again, for the sheer stupidity of it.
so subsidies (yes, that thing that according to Greig helps coal when it has problems) will have no effect on renewable energy?
just luck can make it cheaper?
or doing nothing, somehow time will help?
those "Technological developments" have no connection what so ever to subsidies? and this coming from Greig, who in some earlier post was forced to admit that "economic problems" and "technical problems are rather interchangeable:
These are technical problems. However they can be overcome by spending money, which is an economic issue.
(Greig on #282)
Are you following, Greig, or do I need to explain this to you again?
You don't have to answer this, Greig. It's a rhetorical question.
Greig said:
What a load of codswallop.
You "can see" what Jeff and I gives second thoughts to far less than we can see what the relative contributions of 'natural' versus anthropogenic climate forcings might be that are driving the current phenological changes observed by ecologists around the world.
And this is a true statement, because:
a) I (and I know Jeff to do so as well) spend a great deal of time researching and learning about the "negative economic and social implications of attempting to reduce CO2 emissions", because we balance this with understanding what will happen to the biosphere if we do not reduce emissions. We understand the ecological implications of non-reduction very well, and we both understand that human economic and social cultures are irrevocably tied to the ecological health of the planet.
b) as a corollary to (a), the cost of emissions is something that Jeff and I (and many others) "give a second thought to" â and then a third thought, and a fourth...
If anything is to be challenged it is your apparent cavalier assumption that all will be well with the world if we only avoid reducing our polluting emissions.
Your area of expertise cannot possibly allow you to reach that conclusion regarding Jeff's expertise.
You obviously have no idea what phenology is, or why an ecologist's understanding of such (and of evolutionary processes) gives rather a good understanding of the significance to paleoclimate change, and the causes and rates thereof.
Erm, see above, and [previous posts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/grieg_thread.php#comment-1705947) on this matter.
And then pause and think for a few minutes. It might sink in...
Jeff said:
Greig said:
So why are you concluding "on that"?
Oh, and did you forget so quickly that an understanding of "temperature change" is integral to an ecologist's grasp of phenological processes?
Exactly why are you "saying" this? And why is it a matter of investing in one impact versus another?
There are many ecologists - most, in fact - who have grave concerns that AGW will seriously exacerbate the range of other impact that humans have on biodiversity. Even if we manage to solve the other problems, if we have taken our collective eyes off the AGW ball, it will still be there to bite our bums after the solution of the "other problems".
It will only happen sooner and harder if we don't address the other issues first.
Jeff said:
Greig said:
Oh, puh-lease!
It is not just the engineers and the business owners of the world who fund science, and it is not only (or even mostly) scientists who benefit from science. Who do you think develops the technology that is the basis for most of the business enterprises and for just about all of the engineering that is available to humanity at present?
I doubt that you have ever visited the "ivory towers" of many scientists, because believe me, they are less isolated from the facts of life than I know the haunts of my engineering friends to be.
Get a grip.
In all of your 'expert' assessment of fields of science in which you have no training, you have consistently claimed to know better than the fields' professionals themselves and, furthermore, that the essential wisdom can apparently be distilled simply from the experiences of 'rational engineers and business folk. Interestingly, a [report of a recent study](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227127.200-can-university-subje…) on predicting what groups of people might subscribe to fundamentalist thinking had this to say in its penultimate sentence:
Hmmm, is it just me, or are we witnessing an example of such on this thread?
Lee said:
Greig said:
Um, so what you are saying is that even roaringly profitable industries need assistance in order to attend to public interest actions? This appear to be the same as saying that the free market doesn't work to protect the common good.
Following your logic, why should every enterprise that needs to expend money to repair its negative impacts not be subsidised by the public purse? This sounds like the sort of welfare that folk like those at Marohasy's bog despise so much when it applies to the least fortunate in our society.
Exactly what sort of business do you run? Do you accept subsidies? If so, what are the justifications for your acceptance of such, whilst still apparently complaining about the right and the necessity for starting technologies, with huge potential for future benefits to the planet, to have access to the same?
Assuming that you have a business where you don't require subsidies, why should a vastly more profitable and mature industry nevertheless hold its hand out for public money? As others have said, why is it that the public needs to bear the cost of the coal industry's negative impacts, where all my small-business friends and relatives have to pay for the same out of their own pockets?
Greig said:
Leaving aside your nonsense about "guilt complexes" and "leftist notions", capitalism is not the reason that "some people are rich". Rather, it is more accurate to say that it is a tool used by some to become rich; it is not the only way, but it is a very effective way, especially because of the smoothing of social dynamics that it permits.
Conversely, it is wrong to say that capitalism "is not the reason so many are poor", because, being an imperfect tool, it is exactly why so many are poor.
Just ask millions of home owners and stockholders in the US and in many other countries if you have any doubts.
Jeff said:
Greig said:
Ah, the myth of technological salvation of the environment.
I would be very interested to see how many environmental problems you are able to list that have been solved, or even significantly mitigated, by the application of technology.
There are a few, but less than the dewy-eyed technophile might imagine.
And as an interesting aside, for every success that you list, please account for the embodied energy expenditure, and extrapolate to the total energetic/economic cost to attain a global solution for that exemplified problem. It would also be instructive to note how many 'downstream' problems might have arisen now, or may arise in the future, as a consequence of the technological solution.
Jeff said:
Oh, I see â irony again...
Jeff said:
Greig said:
No, it is you who is being disingenuous, because Jeff's point relates to the ecological footprint of countries, as you well know, and as has been pointed out to you by others.
Jeff's point is entirely valid, and if you address it in your consideration of trade, you would have to acknowledge that there are almost always - if not actually always - significant 'ecological trade-imbalances', even where there are no 'fair-trade-imbalances'.
Greig said:
and
So, remind me again why the coal industry should benefit where so many others don't? And what of 'free' trade? I smell the stink of double standards.
But then, the pong has lingered here from the outset, coming from the pile of manure in the narrow-interest barrow that you have been so enthusiastically pushing over the top of balanced science.
There is a spectre haunting Greig.
Jeff: I am giving up here. Greig clearly hasn't read very much.
Grieg: [Groan] And there we go again, with an another âI am so learned, and you are notâ type arguments from authority. How on Earth do you know how much I have read on this subject?
Jeff, Grieg has a point - he may have done a lot of reading...
Otto: Don't call me stupid.
Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
Jeff Harvey: *Resolutions 678 and 687 are ancient history and had nothing to do with GW2.*
[Somebody of note disagrees with you on that point]( http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/FCO/uk-fco-legal-031803.htm)
*When you write, "GW2 was about maintaining stable world trade and establishing political stability in the Middle East" you are speaking utter bollocks*
OK, it appears that you are of the opinion that matters would be better if Saddam and his boys were still in charge of Iraq. So we will have to agree to disagree.
*As for overpopulation, what do you know about its causes or ecological consequences?*
Yes, that is why I am highlighting it as a fundamental issue. And Iâm sure you know its causes or ecological consequences too. Yet you keep running away from the issue. You have yet to outline your plan for stemming overpopulation, instead deferring the issue as one of âsocial justiceâ and the responsibility of politicians.
*If we are to deal with the destruction of our global ecological life-support systems, we have to find the political will to create social justice over much more of the world than there is now, as well as equity.*
What do you mean by social justice? Perhaps you imagine the enforced transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor? Who exactly should be the arbiter of this social justice? Do you imagine some kind of altruistic world government? If not, how do you convince Westerners to forego wealth and prosperity, and/or how do you convince the developing world not to pursue a higher standard of living?
Jeff, your thesis for ecological deficit appears to be rooted in the theory forwarded by [The Club of Rome - Limits to Growth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth). I remind you that the ideas presented by the Club of Rome have been roundly crticised, and largely demonstrated to be wrong. Predictions of a future of resource scarcity has proven to be a matter of the goalposts constantly receding as technology is improved at an ever increasing rate. Therefore, on the basis of this experience, I would argue that it is possible to reduce the ecological footprint of humans through the application of technology, whilst simultaneously improving living standards in the developing world in order to avert overpopulation. Indeed I would argue that it is the ONLY solution to avoiding a certain catastrophe for humans and the planet.
Now apply this logic to climate change. The key is not to set targets and reduce living standards through unilateral action in the West, but for all nations to embrace new technology wherever and when ever it is available, and to do so in the most economically frugal manner possible to avoid waste. Donât pick winners and skew markets. Expand renewable energy, by all means, but recognise its limitations. Embrace nuclear power or the potential of CCS. All will play their part.
[Bernard:] *There are many ecologists - most, in fact - who have grave concerns that AGW will seriously exacerbate the range of other impact that humans have on biodiversity. Even if we manage to solve the other problems, if we have taken our collective eyes off the AGW ball, it will still be there to bite our bums after the solution of the "other problems.*
There you go again, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At no point have I suggested that we ignore climate change. My point is that there are other issues that deserve consideration too, and they require resources to resolve. We do not have the luxury of wasting resources on deploying solar power, when it is less wasteful, and more cost effective, to deploy nuclear power.
And I note that neither you nor Jeff are willing to commit to a position on how to stem overpopulation. I suspect that you realise that raising the developing world out of poverty is the only practical answer, yet you seem unwilling to face the dilemma that presents to your argument about humans have an unsustainable ecological footprint.
I will address the rest of your lengthy post at a later time.
Greig is losing ground faster. now he has to move the goal posts even further and change subjects more quickly..
why not stick to one of the old subjects?
like this claim you made:
These are technical problems. However they can be overcome by spending money, which is an economic issue.
why don t you explain to us, why this is not true for renewables?
while Greig is struggling for an answer, and moving one goal post to Iran, here is my take on it:
Greig is having problems with consistency, because he is inventing the stuff while he is writing it. it is no surprise, that he can typically not remember what he wrote 3 posts ago (he just made it up), and these contradictions in his posts are the consequence of a basic lack of knowledge and understanding of the topic.
even a few minutes of research, will show, that in contradiction to what Greig says, there are no massive technological problems in alternative energy.
the basics of the technology are well understood. solar, wind and the grid do not pose unsolvable problems.
the biggest problem is about energy storage, but even on that the path is clear and multiple options exist.
there is no technical problem in renewable energy, that can not be overcome with some additional support (subsidies and research money, laws)
the "green car" is possibly the best example of this. multiple options are known for a long time. (high mileage, hydrogen, hybrids, and electric cars all exist)
the problem with renewable energy is (little) market penetration, no mass production, old technologies lobbying against them (and externalising costs) and a lack of start up support!
on the other hand, the complete opposite is happening with the "solutions" that Greig is supporting instead. there are real problems with nuclear technology. the link to nuclear weapons for example. the possibility of accidents (or terrorist attacks) threatening the existence of whole nations. and there is no technical solution to nuclear waste.
nuclear energy does include technological problems, that can not be fixed by money alone.
no (realistic) amount of subsidies will solve those problems, simply because there isn t even a starting point.
the same is true for the coal solution. there is no technological solution to removing CO2 from the atmosphere. and subsidies cant change that, in the near or medium future.
so as always, Greig is wrong on everything. when you read his opinion, the opposite of what he says is typically the truth.
Greig writes:
Greig can you provide the evidence that "largely demonstrated" the Limits to Growth were wrong? I can provide evidence that we are [on track](http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf) with the LTG projections.
Greig writes:
Greig can you cite the evidence for this claim about Jeff's beliefs?
Greig do you know who supported Saddam Hussein in power? Do you know what the US response was when Hussein used chemical weapons to massacre Kurdish Iraqis? Or the response when He used WMD to poison Iranians?
Greig can you inform us how many "Gulf" nations were involved in the Iraq invasion and Occupation?
Greig writes:
I imagine that Jeff, with his Marxist (or "neo-progressive" or whatever he calls it) views would prefer not to think about overpopulation at all, since Marxists never viewed it as a problem. They have the ghost of an argument in that the demographic transition really does lower reproduction rates, so you can reduce population growth by bringing up the standard of living of a poor country.
However, you can also reduce population growth in a poor country without waiting for the demographic transition, with contraception projects that address women on a local level and use government propaganda and subsidies rather than coercion. This approach has actually been working very well in the Third World in recent decades. It has worked signally well in Bangladesh, which was once written off as a hopeless population basket case. Fertility per woman in Bangladesh has dropped from seven in 1970 to about three now, and is still dropping.
Of course, if we don't mitigate and try to reverse climate change fast, Bangladesh will be under water in about a century.
[MAB:] *What you are describing is the situation where this mature industry cannot or does not internalise all these costs, and depends on subsidies instead. It cannot cleanup after itself, it cannot stop its air pollution and it cannot export without being on the teat. And this is even before factoring in carbon costs.*
MAB,
As I have explained several times now, the coal industry CAN internalise these costs, however the coal export industry would then not be competitive with overseas exporters who are not paying these internalised costs.
And so the government pays these costs through subsidies (we pay them through taxes), since the benfits involved are essentially for the public good. The other benefit is that we have a viable and competitive coal export industry that maintains jobs and prosperity in Australia.
A ten year old can understand this. Why can't you? I suspect it is because you WANT the Australian coal export industry to be destroyed, along with the jobs and properity it brings. Of course, this will not reduce global coal use, and will only harm Australia's economy for no net benefit to the environment.
Greig said: *Again, ecologists are no more qualified to conclude on that [natural vs anthropogenic changes] than engineers.*
Bernard replied: *So why are you concluding "on that"?*
I am expressing my opinion, derived from my reading of the scientific literature. I am entitled to my opinion, and it is no less valid than your opinion. I am just as qualified to have my opinion, as you are. You are no more knowledgeable than I am on this subject. I suggest you would do well to check the smug arrogance that pervades your responses on this subject, and show some respect and humility.
*Oh, and did you forget so quickly that an understanding of "temperature change" is integral to an ecologist's grasp of phenological processes?*
Not at all. I do not doubt for millisecond that you have a very strong grasp on understanding the impact of temperature change. However, you are no more qualified to conclude on the cause of that change than I am.
[Greig:] *What I am saying is: climate change is not the only human activity which will impact on biodiversity, and it is not the most worthy of investing human resources into resolving.*
[Bernard:] *Exactly why are you "saying" this? And why is it a matter of investing in one impact versus another?*
We all agree, there is no use in tackling climate change and ignoring the other impacts on biodiversity. I am not saying we should be aware that we also need to invest resources in addressing overpopulation and habitat loss too. We do not have the luxury of spending huge resources on climate change, they are needed elsewhere. Our response to climate change needs to be frugal.
[Bernard:] *Who do you think develops the technology that is the basis for most of the business enterprises and for just about all of the engineering that is available to humanity at present?*
[laughing] Actually engineers âdevelop the technologyâ. I can assure you of this, I am a trained and experienced R&D engineer, and have worked for years in such a role. Scientists are involved in the process of innovation, but typically do not have the skills to prove practical and commercial technology development. Engineers typically regard scientists as dreamers. (Hmmm, is it just me, or are we witnessing an example of such on this thread?)
*I doubt that you have ever visited the "ivory towers" of many scientists, because believe me, they are less isolated from the facts of life than I know the haunts of my engineering friends to be.*
Of course you are blissfully unaware of the activities of privately funded R&D outside of academia, where scientists are rarities, and engineers run the show. [- whilst they are not engaging in terrorism :-)](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227127.200-can-university-subje…)
*Um, so what you are saying is that even roaringly profitable industries need assistance in order to attend to public interest actions? This appear to be the same as saying that the free market doesn't work to protect the common good.*
Firstly, the coal industry is not necessarily âroaringly profitableâ, it certainly wouldnât be if it was losing business to foreign exporters. And of course, the free market doesnât necessarily work to protect the common good, humans cannot always be relied upon to be altruistic. That is why we have democracy and legislation, that is why we have government regulation. And on the other hand, governments are notoriously inefficient at running business and industry, that is why we have a free market.
*Following your logic, why should every enterprise that needs to expend money to repair its negative impacts not be subsidised by the public purse?*
I would argue that this is precisely the correct approach. However, if the costs in subsidies of repairing that negative impact are prohibitive, then government would legislate against the enterprise entirely. This is exactly what I would propose regarding building coal-fired power stations in Australia. They should be banned (by legislation) unless built with CCS.
*⦠whilst still apparently complaining about the right and the necessity for starting technologies, with huge potential for future benefits to the planet, to have access to the same?*
âStarting technologiesâ (like renewable energy) do not necessarily have a âhuge potential for future benefits to the planetâ, that is a prejudice of yours (and many others in this thread) that I fundamentally disagree with. The problem is, you have picked the winner based on ideology, not technical nor economic pragmatism. And you have determined that subsidising your favourite solution using somebody elseâs money will somehow make it viable in the long term. This is WRONG.
There are other âstarting technologiesâ such as [IFRs]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor) which have the potential to produce reliable low emissions power for millennia. But we should not spend subsidies on building commercial facilities based on this technology before its time. Instead we should allocate funding to R&D until the technology can provide commercially viable solution relative to existing technologies. The same with renewable energy, eg solar thermal power. Get it?
[Bernard:] *Ah, the myth of technological salvation of the environment. I would be very interested to see how many environmental problems you are able to list that have been solved, or even significantly mitigated, by the application of technology. There are a few, but less than the dewy-eyed technophile might imagine. And as an interesting aside, for every success that you list, please account for the embodied energy expenditure, and extrapolate to the total energetic/economic cost to attain a global solution for that exemplified problem. It would also be instructive to note how many 'downstream' problems might have arisen now, or may arise in the future, as a consequence of the technological solution.*
OK, so what you are arguing here is that technology cannot solve the worldâs environmental problems. So what will? Do you harbour a romantic vision of a return to subsistence living and a dramatic reduction in human population? The problem with this is that subsistence romanticists do not see themselves dying to effect the solution, or living in a cave or dying at a pitifully young age due to lack of modern health services. You are comfortable with tipping a bucket on technological progress, but do not recognise the somewhat negative implications that your opinion casts upon the future of humanity.
I admit I have a strong opinion which favours the use of technology to resolve the worldâs ills. I do not believe that technological salvation of the environment is a myth. Technology has upsides and downsides, always has and always will. But what characterises successful application of technology is that it provides more benefits than not. And that the downside of technology cannot possibly be worse than your apocalyptic vision (for humans and the Earth) of the world transitioning to a few million humans returning to a subsistence lifestyle.
*if you address it in your consideration of trade, you would have to acknowledge that there are almost always - if not actually always - significant 'ecological trade-imbalances', even where there are no 'fair-trade-imbalances'.*
I do not acknowledge that AT ALL. On this point, you and Jeff are engaging in argument by assertion. The whole concept of âecological trade imbalanceâ arises from your unsupported assumption that humans MUST destroy natural resources in order to maintain their living standards. Whilst I acknowledge that this is certainly happening now, I believe the imbalance can be corrected by application of sustainable practices.
Greig @512
As Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world you argument looks flimsy at best (30% of global coal exports).
Your argument becomes totally redundant in light of where much of the subsidies are spent. The pubic provides discounted diesel fuel for coal mining and fund transport infrastructure of coal exports to reduce the cost of coal.
So we perversely encourage more use of diesel and more transportation. Hardly improving environmental outcomes.
Coal is not internalising these costs because of political power. Tax payers are paying the externalised costs.
And this is before we count the costs of CO2e.
BPL writes,
Barton, its good to see that there are diverse views on the the side that takes climate science seriously (those who can articulate what the evidence is in its context).
My reading was that sod and Jeff didn't specifically address population because of the large number of distortions of Greig that they were busy with.
My interpretation is that this diversion from the science of AGW began as Grieg was reaching around for excuses to justify a slow (feeble) response to CO2e mitigation following his argument that there is no net harm from climate change.
It's interesting that you put Jeff in the box you did. Would it be misrepresenting you to say that you seem to have decided on Jeff's argument before hearing it. What box do you put yourself in?
[Barton:] *However, you can also reduce population growth in a poor country without waiting for the demographic transition, with contraception projects that address women on a local level and use government propaganda and subsidies rather than coercion.*
Yes. However this does not resolve the fundamental reason why the poor choose to have large families - to ensure that they are looked after in their old age. The transition to a universally higher living standard is fundamental to stabilizing global population levels, for both practical and ethical reasons.
I will not guess, as you do Barton, at Jeff's underlying ideological prejudice. However, it is clear that he and Bernard are unable to incorporate addressing overpopulation into their argument for environmental protection.
*Of course, if we don't mitigate and try to reverse climate change fast, Bangladesh will be under water in about a century.*
Should the world absorb the massive costs of quickly transitioning away from fossil fuels as a precaution against possible sea level rise impacting Bangladesh? That depends on many factors. For example, what would be the relative cost of [mitigating the impact of sea level rise by adapting?](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/world/asia/20bangla.html)
Consider also, that sea level rise is only one potential climate change that may impact Bangladesh. [There are many,](http://saarc-sdmc.nic.in/pdf/workshops/goa/bangladesh/Climate%20change%…) that have nothing to do with CO2, nor even to do with "overconsumption in the West".
I would argue that, rather than concentrating on CO2 emissions targets, reducing poverty in Bangladesh, and instigation of a program of works to resolve the multifacetted causes of change, would have greater overall positive results humans and the environment.
[MAB:] *My reading was that sod and Jeff didn't specifically address population because of the large number of distortions of Greig that they were busy with.*
I am not the one distorting the argument. eg you seem determined to argue with me about Iraq.
*Greig do you know who supported Saddam Hussein in power? Do you know what the US response was when Hussein used chemical weapons to massacre Kurdish Iraqis? Or the response when He used WMD to poison Iranians?*
I am well aware of the history of US-Iraq relations. In the early 1980s, the US supported Saddam since he provided a useful alliance against Soviet communism during the Cold War. (you remember the Cold War, right?). And the US provided some support to both sides during the [Iran-Iraq war](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War), tending to favour the side that was losing which in the latter part of the war was [Iraq](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqgate). However Saddam's chemical attack in Halabja was a turning point, and the US ended all friendly relations thereafter. The US was determined to remove Saddam from power from the day he [attacked Kuwait in 1990](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War), yet could not establish support for this in via the UN, initially due to the well-founded fear of failing to successfully occupy Baghdad, and later due to [corruption](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_Food_program).
Gulf War II and the subsequent occupation was poorly executed by the US and very costly. However I maintain that ultimately Iraq and the world is better off with Saddam no longer in control of Iraq. I cannot see the point in discussing the matter further.
Greig you repeat the fantasy of Gulf War II. The Iraq Invasion was no more a "Gulf War" than the annexation of Texas was a "Gulf War".
The USA could have taken Iraq in the Gulf War, but chose instead to keep Saddam to balance the power of the less secular ME states.
The response of the US to Saddam's use of WMD against Kurds and Iranians was to [increase their aid](http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2784) to to Saddam.
i guess i have destroyed your claims too often? you prefer to reply to others? those who allow you to keep moving those goal posts?
As I have explained several times now, the coal industry CAN internalise these costs, however the coal export industry would then not be competitive with overseas exporters who are not paying these internalised costs.
it is very interesting, that you insisted in calculating subsidies on a "$ per MWh delivered" basis, when we were comparing coal and renewables.
that calculation makes absolutely no sense for an export subsidy. you have caught making things up again, just to fit your views both ways...
Yes. However this does not resolve the fundamental reason why the poor choose to have large families - to ensure that they are looked after in their old age. The transition to a universally higher living standard is fundamental to stabilizing global population levels, for both practical and ethical reasons.
this is utterly false. social change comes before economic change.
educate yourself. watch the [prefect statistics presentation by Hans Rosling.](http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_…)
your claim is based on statistics of about the year 1960. children per woman is down to 2.6 and still decreasing.
Should the world absorb the massive costs of quickly transitioning away from fossil fuels as a precaution against possible sea level rise impacting Bangladesh? That depends on many factors. For example, what would be the relative cost of mitigating the impact of sea level rise by adapting?
so please tell us: what have you personally given and invested into dams to protect Bangladesh from Cyclones? how much are you willing to give, to protect Bangladesh from Category 5 cyclones?
people in western countries are willing to pay for CO2 reduction, because it will help themselves (and even more in Bangladesh). they are willing to pay, because they understand, that it is their lifestyle that is causing the problem and their responsibility to act.
people in the west will be less inclined on building dams in Bangladesh, even IF this would be cheaper. fact.
ps: your proposals to help other countries economic development are in complete contradiction to your support for coal export subsidies in Australia. but keeping an argument coherent just is NOT among your abilities...
Greig you have made many destortions, as pointed to by many of the posters in this site. Such as your claims about no net harm from AGW.
The issue of Iraq is in part of a broader rebuttle to the claim that (in short hand) I describe as the argument that BAU economics is preferable to post autistic economics that puts a cost on damaging activity - such as stealing land.
MAB,
You appear intent on proving to me that the US was wrong to prosecute the Iraq War. I assure you, I don't care what you think about the US, and I care less for your attempts at rewriting the history of the Gulf War. I believe the world is now a better place without Saddam, and that is what matters now.
*it is very interesting, that you insisted in calculating subsidies on a "$ per MWh delivered" basis, when we were comparing coal and renewables.*
Actually, I was responding to the claim that coal gets more subsidies than renewables. But since you mention it, in fact the subsidies that coal receives, not only goes toward environmental projects in relation to mining and power production, but ALSO toward the export industry. And it still receives far less than renewables relative to the benefit received by Australians.
Thanks for pointing that out.
[Greig:] *The transition to a universally higher living standard is fundamental to stabilizing global population levels, for both practical and ethical reasons.*
[MAB:] *this is utterly false. social change comes before economic change.*
No, it is not "utterly false" You have not understood what Hans Rosling has presented. Large families (overpopulation) is still a problem in countries that have entrenched poverty (low income) and high infant mortality, eg primarily sub Saharan African countries, some Arab countries, and within the borders of poorly governed (though wealthy) countries. The means to resolve this is twofold. It requires
1. a social program which usually arises from a stable non corrupt central government, and
2. access to trade in a free market, which typically leads to higher average incomes.
Both of the above factors contribute to a higher standard of living and smaller familes, and higher average wealth is a consequence of higher living standard and smaller families, not visa versa. So the answer to overpopulation has nothing to do with reducing or transferring wealth in OECD countries, or the disparity in wealth. It lies in encouraging the above two factors in countries with poorly established central government and a lack of trade facilities.
In other words providing subsidies to encourage successful trade (eg in coal) is what we need more of, not less of.
*what have you personally given and invested into dams to protect Bangladesh from Cyclones?*
This isn't about charity, which is about transferring of wealth. The answer lies in encouraging investment of private capital in productive industry. This has far greater potential for improving conditions for humans and the environment than crippling industry in OECD countries by artifically making electricity expensive.
*people in western countries are willing to pay for CO2 reduction*
Not true. The statistics on [the take up of "green electricity"](http://www.greenpower.gov.au/admin/file/content13/c6/ComplianceReport00…) proves it. People say they want their government to take action, and many say they are willing to pay a small price, but there are few people willing to pay the full price of low emissions energy.
On the other hand if private investment in dams in Bangladesh show a return, "mum and dad investors" will flock to it.
*ps: your proposals to help other countries economic development are in complete contradiction to your support for coal export subsidies in Australia. but keeping an argument coherent just is NOT among your abilities...*
From the sublime (assumptions) to the ridiculous (conclusions).
I got my attributions above mixed up between MAB and sod. Apologies for that.
Greig writes:
In fact Greig, I am only correcting your claims about Iraq. So as long as you cease writing falsehoods I'll have nothing to correct.
You only care that Saddam is removed. That is clear, and a variation on the theme of the-ends-justifies-the-means. Likely a philosophy essential to the US support for Saddam while he deployed WMD against uprising Kurdish Iraqis.
And perhaps there is a link between your lack of concern for the process that resulted in hundreds of thousands massacred in Iraq with your callous claim of no net harm from AGW. Both require a blindness to the damage we promote. A blindness similar to that at the heart of current autistic forms of economic accounting.
[MAB:] *a variation on the theme of the-ends-justifies-the-means.*
Apparently in your world, its OK for Saddam to still be in charge in Iraq. It isn't OK to achieve a greater positive outcome if we have to accept some pain and compromise to achieve the best outcome in the end.
Looks like Greig is intent misrepresenting me as well as Jeff on this point. Greig I am concerned with the process. That's why I've taken the time to learn about the background, and why I thought about the errors made by the USA in their support for Saddam. You only want to look at one point.
Just because you are only interested in weather or not Saddam is in power, does not mean that I am not interested working to a more sustainable process through a means that can actually produce sustainable results.
Quick fixes that produce the deaths of hundreds of thousands are not successful, and we have yet to even achieve sustainable peace in Iraq. So your marker of success if just a way marker.
And in case you missed my point, I see a possible link
Greig writes:
Mitigate poverty all you want in Bangladesh, but if the whole country is covered by six inches of seawater, it won't really help.
Greig, The US would still be supporting Saddam (as it did for Suharto up unitl the last minute of his horrible rule) if he'd not become a liability to US interests in the region and had 'followed orders' as is expected of all client regimes (the Russaions and Chinese and other powers are no different in that respect). The fact is that the US, with its minions in the UK, Italy and Spain, initiated a war of agression that violated international law (the UN Charter, as well as more than 80% of public opinion in the war party countries) and thus constitutes the 'supreme international crime' according to the words of Robert Jackson and Telford Taylor, prosecuting attorneys reperesenting thr United States at the Nuremburg tribunals. Although Jackson and Taylor were aiming their words at the Nazi regime and its wrteched hierarchy, they stated bluntly that any future wars of aggression, no matter who led them, should be treated similarly. The fact is that the war in Iraq has devastated the country, resulted in perhaps a million deaths, and, according to Nir Rosen, an expert on the region, may have created a situation that is irrepairable. In 2008 he wote, "Iraq has been destroyed, never to riose again". This has nothing to do with Saddam, but with internationbal law. It wouldn't even have mattered if the invasion was legal according to U.S. constitutional law (it wasn't), because the Germans used this defence at Nuremburg: that Poland and Czecholslovakia represented threats to Germany (complete hogwash, just as Iraq wasn't even a threat to Kuwait by 2003) and was legal under German law.
Finally, the kind of humanitarian imperialism you have proposed has been deconstructed by many pundits. The invasion was based on WMD (complete and utter lies), and not under any other pretext. The crap about 'democracy promotion' that came later was a desperate plea to sway public opinion in the West (what Iraqi's thought never entered into it). That is because only 1% of Iraqi's polled in 2005 thought that the war was about brining democracy to Iraq. More than 60% thought it was about controlling Iraq's resources (CORRECT!) and almost 70% thought that even if the U.S. allowed democracy in Iraq, they would do so only if it was a government that they could control.
The fact is that while the western MSM dumbs us all down, the people getting bashed with the stick knowl exactly what the agendas are that drive the policies of the invaders and occupiers. The Russian media said that same nonsense about their resaons for invading Afghanistan as do our media now.
No, it is not "utterly false" You have not understood what Hans Rosling has presented.
i did not only fully understand Rosling, i also did not make up that claim: social change comes before economic change
this is a direct QUOTE of Rosling! (about 6 min into the [video.](http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_…) will you admit you were wrong?)
what part of "vietnam has the same family size as the USA" have you not understood?
Large families (overpopulation) is still a problem in countries that have entrenched poverty (low income) and high infant mortality, eg primarily sub Saharan African countries, some Arab countries, and within the borders of poorly governed (though wealthy) countries.
ah, another cherrypick. of course, there are no "poor" on our planet, beyond sub-saharan Africa.
Not true. The statistics on the take up of "green electricity" proves it. People say they want their government to take action, and many say they are willing to pay a small price, but there are few people willing to pay the full price of low emissions energy.
your own source seems to contradict you.
Growth in demand for Green Power has increased significantly with total sales of Green
Power at 454,505 MWh (see Figure 2.2 and 2.3), up from 290,355 MWh in 1999/2000 (see
Figure 2.3). Total Green Power purchases were 1,046,000 MWh (as per Table 2.2). (page 10. why you chose a source from 2001 is beyond me, btw)
On the other hand if private investment in dams in Bangladesh show a return, "mum and dad investors" will flock to it.
Greig: *The transition to a universally higher living standard is fundamental to stabilizing global population levels, for both practical and ethical reasons.*
Sod: *this is utterly false.*
Wrong, what I have said above is correct and precisely what Hans Rosling presented.
*social change comes before economic change.*
Correct, and my statement above DOES NOT CONTRADICT that.
You have failed to understand what Rosling is saying, which is: To address overpopulation and poverty, it requires
1. a social program which usually arises from a stable non corrupt central government, and
2. access to trade in a free market, which typically leads to higher average incomes.
Both of the above factors contribute to a higher standard of living, which reduces overpopulation.
Now, **will you admit you were wrong?**
Sod: *ah, another cherrypick. of course, there are no "poor" on our planet, beyond sub-saharan Africa.*
That isn't what I said at all, you are fabricating. Anybody reading this thread need only look above to see that you are fabricating. Now, **will you admit you were wrong?**
Sod: *your own source* [re green power] *seems to contradict you.*
No, the reference doesn't contradict me at all. Check the price gap between what people pay for Green Power, and what it costs the utilities to buy the power. The utilities are passing on the loss to all consumers, which is one of the reasons why there has been a universal hike in electricity prices around Australia.
Now, **will you admit you were wrong?**
Sod, a key distortion made by Greig here is his assertion that the take up of Greenpower represents what people want in term of the pricing of carbon. I donât want individuals who do the right thing to pay more. I want people to be rewarded for doing the right thing. That is why post-autistic economics in necessary.
A price on carbon rewards efficiency and more sustainable practice. A price on carbon combined with revenue neutral 100% redistribution means low emitters receive a net gain from high emitters. In effect high emitters are paying low emitters for the service of forgoing emissions and keeping the climate safe. Asking individuals to voluntary pay for the gross consumption of others (by buy greenpower) is a perverse tax on concern, it will never work. What is required is an economic system that provides incentives.
Jeff Harvey: *The fact is that the US, with its minions in the UK, Italy and Spain, initiated a war of agression that violated international law (the UN Charter, as well as more than 80% of public opinion in the war party countries)*
This is what the mainstream media has been propagating, but anyone knowledgable with the passage of UN Security Council Resolutions between 1990 and 2003 would know that what you say above is wrong, and [demonstrated here](http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/UK/FCO/uk-fco-legal-031803.htm).
*The invasion was based on WMD (complete and utter lies), and not under any other pretext.*
Again, it is generally accepted (as presented by the MSM) that no WMDs were found in Iraq, and yet the truth is (of course) not so straight forward. From David Kay's [Interrim Report from the ISG](http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/david_kay_statement.htm):
*1. Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to either restart CW production or make available chemical weapons.
2. In the delivery systems area there were already well advanced, but undeclared, on-going activities that, if OIF had not intervened, would have resulted in the production of missiles with ranges at least up to 1000 km, well in excess of the UN permitted range of 150 km. These missile activities were supported by a serious clandestine procurement program about which we have much still to learn.
3. In the chemical and biological weapons area we have confidence that there were at a minimum clandestine on-going research and development activities that were embedded in the Iraqi Intelligence Service. While we have much yet to learn about the exact work programs and capabilities of these activities, it is already apparent that these undeclared activities would have at a minimum facilitated chemical and biological weapons activities and provided a technically trained cadre.*
Jeff,
You seem determined to try to convince me that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. But what you do not seem to understand that the logical extension of that argument is that you are saying that it would be better if Saddam was still in control of Iraq.
In the same way you argue addressing climate change, but refuse to acknowledge that the logical extension of that argument is that we impoverish the world by expending resources that might otherwise be used to address issues like overpopulation, deforestation and promotion of sustainable agricultural practises.
Every policy has a plus and a minus. By taking an extreme position, failing to address both sides of the coin, you thereby fail to acknowledge that balance and equity is required in every policy.
There are positive and negatives in climate change. There are positives and negatives in EVERYTHING.
Same dismal misrepresentation by Greig on Jeff's postitin towards Saddam. 'Only Greig's and Bush's path of lies and killing could have worked to remove Saddam'. What baseless rot.
Then we get this beauty from Greig:
Indeed, even the Holcaust provided employment for guards and manufactures of Zyklon B. "There are positives and negatives in everything"
Greig, I found [someone else]( http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm) who agrees with you and Tony Blair's AT on the issue of legality on the Iraq Massacre.
Though a [couple]( http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm) of others [disagree]( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm) with [you and Bush.]( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6917.htm)
MAB: *A price on carbon ...*
The idea of putting a price on carbon is that encourages people to conserve and employ alternatives. But it necessarily entails everyone paying more.
This is like motivating a ships crew by the captain declaring that everyone will get 10 lashes a day, except for those who perform their duties better, they will receive only 5 lashes a day.
The problem that you are not acknowledging here is that everyone wants to pay the lowest available price for energy. And for those that wish to voluntarily contribute, the cost of a low carbon solution is still much higher than the price that people are prepared to pay to be green.
There is no way around it. Low emissions means 10 lashes a day.
Greig writes:
What chutzpah!
Infact, with a carbon dividend, one can gain net income by being less wastefull(eg gaining the same enegy benifit with less energy consumption).
So not lashes for me when I replaced the seal on my fridge nor when people replace worn out hotwater service with solar. No lashes when I insulate my house. No lashes when I when I preheat my fuel. No lashes when I fit an electrical filter to stop vampire leakage.
Infact there is a whole army of jobs awaiting any of those who would help others employ these "no-lashing" solutions. Its just part of post-autistic economics.
And lets not forget the lashes we'd be getting if we followed your path of autistic-economics. We have a slower reduction in CO2 and hence greater lashes to the most vulnerable.
And with a feeble and delayed response to mitigation, we'd have greater lashes in the form of mega fires, drought, flood, disease, famine, dislocation, and resulting wars.
Greig: "But it necessarily entails everyone paying more."
Well, no. Future generations will be forced to pay less in the form of less environmental damage.
For example 10-15 million people in the lowlands of Bangla Desh might avoid paying the cost of moving to Siberia, including the cost of fighting a war with the Siberians for the privilege of not drowning.
The idea that a higher carbon price now means energy costs will always be higher than they otherwise would have been (even given unlimited supply of coal and oil at current production cost) is not necessarily true, either.
[Greig] *The idea of putting a price on carbon is that encourages people to conserve and employ alternatives. But it necessarily entails everyone paying more.*
*So not lashes for me when I replaced the seal on my fridge nor when people replace worn out hotwater service with solar. No lashes when I insulate my house. No lashes when I when I preheat my fuel. No lashes when I fit an electrical filter to stop vampire leakage.*
Each once of these actions has a cost, and so each represents a "lash". People should take the lash now, because it means less lashes in the long term. But there is no way of getting around the fact that everyone have to bend over and take it.
*In fact there is a whole army of jobs awaiting any of those who would help others employ these "no-lashing" solutions. Its just part of post-autistic economics.*
Ah yes. There are wonderful jobs for all. But who pays the wages?
*We have a slower reduction in CO2 and hence greater lashes to the most vulnerable. And with a feeble and delayed response to mitigation, we'd have greater lashes in the form of mega fires, drought, flood, disease, famine, dislocation, and resulting wars.*
Yes, but we still have to take the lashes now to avoid the lashes later. And good luck with convincing the general public to take this voluntarily. Everyone wants someone else to take the lash in their place. And few are prepared to pay the full price. As Garnaut says, it is a âdiabolicalâ policy dilemma.
MAB: *Same dismal misrepresentation by Greig on Jeff's position towards Saddam. 'Only Greig's and Bush's path of lies and killing could have worked to remove Saddam'. What baseless rot.*
Ah yes, the old, "the sanction were working" and "the people were going to overthrow Saddam" fabrications, whilst [all evidence](http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005728) proves the contrary. What "baseless rot" indeed.
If you oppose the COWs decision to engage in Gulf War 2, then you are arguing that one of the most brutal and unrepentant dictators of the 20th century should still be in power in Iraq today.
Greig,
My view of the GW2 has nothing to do with the benefits of removing Saddam. The guy was a monster, anyone with half a brain ackowledges that. But this was a monster who committed his worst crimes under full US/UK economic and diplomatic support. At the same time, the US and UK governments supported Suharto - "Our kind of guy" according to a Clinton official in 1996 - right up until the gig was up and through the worst of his crimes in East Timor and Irian Jaya.
Furthermore, removing Saddam was not aimed at creating a just society in Iraq but at controlling an area that is vital to controlling the global economy (the lies over WMD should never be forgotten). I've quoted senior US planners and the US State Department to this effect. The agenda should be obvious. Moreover, it is up to countries themselves to depose their own dictators. You might recall George H.W. Bush calling on the Shia to revolt in 1991, after GW I, which they did, only for the Bush administration to panic and to actively interfere with the Shia gaining access to munitions sites etc. Once Saddam and the Republican Guard had regrouped (while US forces watched and did nothing), there was the inevitable massacre. Brent Scowcroft famously said that "There's no way we are going to let them [the Shia] take over". At the same time, Thomas Friedman remarked that the best option for the US would be to have an "iron fisted junta" under US control - a kind of 'Saddam lite'.
Given the penchant of the US and UK for supporting abhorrent dictators, what I am saying is that human rights never entered into the war. Given the fact that the war has left perhaps a million dead, 4 million internally displaced refugees, and the Shia in charge (the worst nightmare for the neocons - can you imagine that they had envisaged this when they were backing Chalbi back in 2002?) I would say that Iraq - in addaiton to being an illegal war - has been a disaster. Only die hard right wingers and humanitarian imperialists appear to disagree.
As for the jibes by BPL of being a 'Marxist', I do not take these seriously. When one has to resort to this kind of childish riposte, they have lost the argument. Call it whatever you like, but I believe in social justice. I also believe that many of the world's most serious environmental problems stem from inequity between north and south and overconsumption in the north. The fact that western societies maintain large ecological deficits that have been exacerbated through economic globalisation and its attendant free market absolutism is evidence of this. The FAO reported recently that the number of people starving in the world is increasing again and exceeds 1 billion - one in six of humanity. Bjorn Lomborg's 2001 vision is already dated. Half of the world exists on less than 2 dollars a day. So-called 'free trade' which is certainly not free has seen capital flows from the poor to rich nations increase over the past 25 years. The development model that has constantly been proposed to eliminate poverty has clearly not worked - Africa's share of the global economy actually decreased between 1983 and 2003, from an already puny 4% to less than 2%. In countries like Chile, Brazil, El Salvador and Guatemala, 60% of the wealth is controlled by 2% of the population. The wealth gap is growing in the west too. These are all recipes for environmental disaster.
Creating social justice on a global scale should be at the heart of any political moves to protect the environment and create a sustainable future for everyone. As I have said many times, the solutions to ecological destruction are political and not scientific. Or to put it another way, the science is locked up in political expediency.
Jeff, and you seem rather intent on your view that the US is fundamentally evil. I'm not disagreeing, but it is a vacuous argument since you could apply the same argument to the past policies of Russia, China, Japan, Germany, France , the UK, in fact every nation. Its called international politics. Its not pretty.
Jeff: *"The fact that western societies maintain large ecological deficits that have been exacerbated through economic globalisation and its attendant free market absolutism is evidence of this."*
Bollocks. You claim, (all evidence to the contrary) the current plan to implement social change and free trade around the world is not working, trotting out the same old misleading statistics. Here's the big hint, Jeff. The gap between poor and rich is increasing because the rich are getting richer, not because the poor are getting poorer.
Jeff: *"Call it whatever you like, but I believe in social justice... Only die hard right wingers and humanitarian imperialists appear to disagree."*
You are also not to shy about finding labels for those who disagree with your view.
Jeff: *"Creating social justice on a global scale should be at the heart of any political moves to protect the environment"*
The mother of all motherhood statements. Who arbitrates on social justice? You? Is your plan to enforce the transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor? By any chance, do you see yourself as excluded from the application of your social justice?
Jeff, you remind of the old saying, sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill: "If, when you at uni, you are not left wing - you haven't got a heart. If you are in the workforce, and you are not right wing - you haven't got a brain."
*you seem rather intent on your view that the US is fundamentally evil*
I never said that. Again, this is a typical refrain of those cornered - to smear their opponents as being fundamentally "anti-American". I believe that the political system in the US ostensibly a plutocracy and is corrupt and unjust. I also believe that the US global economic model that has become prominent in the world over the past 30 years has in large measure been disastrous for the poor and for the environment. I would also like to note that most of the most strident critics of US foreign policy are themselves Americans. Does this mean that they *hate* their country? It is interesting that critics of Nazi Germany were called anti-German back in the 1930s. This includes many German citizens. Its the oldest - and most discredited - cliche in the book.
*Bollocks. You claim, (all evidence to the contrary) the current plan to implement social change and free trade around the world is not working, trotting out the same old misleading statistics. Here's the big hint, Jeff. The gap between poor and rich is increasing because the rich are getting richer, not because the poor are getting poorer*.
You shot yourself in the foot on this one, Greig. Where is there evidenceof a grand plan tom implemtn social change in the world? Via free market absolutism? Neoliberal economic prgrams that are neither free nor liberal? Why has the wealth not percolated down to the poorest, given that the world's economy has grown by a factor of 14 since 1950? The fact is that wealth is being concentrated more and more into the hands (or should I say pockets) of fewer and fewer people. The stististic I *trot out*, as you snidely claim, show that the kind of policies forced onto many societies - those that lead to a resource grab by the rich and the concentration of wealth amongst commerical elites are driving environmental destruction. The rich world is getting richer alright, at the expense of the poor. Our ecological deficits are growingh all of the time. This explains why most marine fisheries are at or beyond the brink, deep rich agricutlural soils are being degraded rapidly, groundwater supplies are being sucked dry and biodiversity is being vanquished. The rich are not getting richer sustainably. You've basically made the same point that I did earlier.
I never claimed that I can institute social justice but here's a fact: if we don't find the political will to create some form of social justice in the world in which half of the planet's population do not live in gfrinding poverty then we are headed towards environmental catastophe. I am certainly not optimistic because I think corporate and government planners do not tend to think 20, 10 or even 5 yerars down the road. Their job is to purise economic "growth", a term that in itself shows just how beholden we are to a sick economic system. Growth invariably means the increase of production, consumption and waste production - all in a world in which humans are already living in ecological deficit (the developed world alone consumes more than the planet can sustainably produce). It's the age old disease that plagues capitalism and free enterprise. The 'free market' model you also mention is hardly free. It is weighted towards the economic interests of the quad, as I said before. Moreover, since our wonderful economic system began hemorraghing last year, perhaps you might have a rethink about the efficiency and fairness of the so-called 'free market'. Lastly, perhaps we should ask people living in absolute poverty what they think they feel about social justice. You can dismiss it as much as you like but the fact is that we are the beneficiaries of the current global economic system. How about trying to look at things from the other side for once? Or is that not to be allowed because if they aspire to the same lifestyles that we enjoy we'll require another 4 or 5 Earth-like planets? The problem is, Greig, Earth-like planets are hard to find these days. We have but one. If everyone on Earth lived like the average American or European then our global ecological systems would be utterfly destroyed in only a few decades (or less). So what do you suggest we do about the problem? Keep plundering the resources from the south but be ready to bomb these countries out of existence if they resist? That appears to be in part the model Kissinger proposed back in 1974, along with several other high ranking politicians; Kennan in Planning Document 223 in 1948 argued that the aim of western policy should to be to maintain the disparity (in per capita wealth and consumption between the United States and Asia) without threat to their national security. To do this, he claimed, the US would have to abondon notions like altruism and democracy promotion in foreign policy and thin in terms of 'power concepts'. Smedley Butler claimed in 1936 that, as a decorated General in the Marine Corps, he 'helped in the rape of half a dozen central American republics for the benfits of Wall Street'. He claimed that he was a 'rackateer, a ganster for capitalism'. Read the book by Stroup on the Council of Foreing Relations how it relates to US foreign policy, and the 'Grand Area Strategy'.
I am also sayting that the foregin policy agendas of Russia, China, Britain and other powerful western and Asian states are not much different for that of the United States. Why do you think China is making such inroads into Afica? Because it wants to expand its culture there? No, because it needs resoruces to finance its bloating economy. The entire history of colonialism is based on plunder and exploitation. Samir Amina, one of Africa's leading economists, speaking at the World Social Forum at Peurto Alegre in Brazil in 2003 said that the reason western nations are interested in Africa is notr to export their cultures, but aim "Only at looting their resources". Why is this so hard to understand?
I strongly suggest that you read some of the material I have mentioed in earlier posts (Bond, Athanasiou, Escobar). Give it a shot. I'd like to knbow what you read so I can check it out. Besides, I really don't think much of what I have said here is controversial - that you consider it to be shows how much you appear to swallow the stuff you see on TV and read in your newspaper. Your arguments with respect to Iraq and climate change are similarly one-dimensional as far as I am concerned. Just too simple.
Jeff writes:
Yeah, Spain really just follows the US slavishly. Come to think of it, so does Italy. And look how popular the US is in Britain now.
Why don't you email the Iraqi embassy and let them know that?
Greig writes:
Fallacy of composition. Paying more for one commodity doesn't mean you have to pay more for all other commodities. It just means people will spend more on energy and less on other things -- which will motivate them to use less carbon.
Since the utilities and car manufacturers and so on will be the first to be hit by a carbon tax, they will have the most incentive to control their carbon emissions -- which is what we want and what the world needs.
A utility company that emits no carbon pays no carbon tax.
Jeff writes:
Is it possible that has more to do with the several major wars waged in Africa in that time, and mismanagement by African governments ranging from the anarchy in Somalia to the massively self-destructive Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe, than by some kind of exploitation by the United States?
Jeff writes:
It's not a zero-sum game. We're growing our economies. They're not. If they had reasonable government policies, and bureaucracies that were not hopelessly corrupt, and weren't plagued by constant wars, they'd be growing, too. China did it. South Korea and Taiwan did it. Even India's doing it.
Right, so the truth is not so straightfoward which means telling the truth will put us in an awkward position. Solution: Lie. Don't worry that that means treating the public with utter contempt.
Jeff: *"Where is there evidence of a grand plan to implement social change in the world?"*
There doesn't need to be a "grand plan" instigated by some world authority, that is your prejudice. Social change (through stable central government) and the embracing of free trade is happening everywhere in the world because it is common knowledge that it results in prosperity.
Rather, it is common knowledge to most people, but not all.
*The rich world is getting richer alright*
Correct.
*at the expense of the poor.*
Incorrect. The worlds poor are so because their governments do not provide them with education, welfare and social programs to address their needs, and there is no trade to stimulate jobs. They are not poor because evil westerners steal their resources.
*the reason western nations are interested in Africa is notr to export their cultures, but aim "Only at looting their resources". Why is this so hard to understand?*
Because it is wrong. The OECD trades resources amongst itself at a a far higher rate than it does with sub Saharan African countries. Your argument is utterly false.
*So what do you suggest we do about the problem?*
I have already told you. More of the same, faster, universally applied. Promote stable government. And latest appropriate technology universally applied to agriculture and energy production.
*I really don't think much of what I have said here is controversial*
Far from it, it is the kind of nonsense I would expect 1st year pol-sci undergraduates to produce before they flunk.
[Barton:] *Paying more for one commodity doesn't mean you have to pay more for all other commodities.*
In the case of energy prices, you do.
Nearly everything has a component of energy in it. So if energy is more expensive, everything is more expensive.
*A utility company that emits no carbon pays no carbon tax.*
However, the technology they use to produce power with no carbon emissions is more expensive, and they will pass that price on to consumers. Which part of "we will all have to pay more" don't you understand? Surely it is obvious!
I find it very disturbing that otherwise educated people are apparently unaware that an ETS will have a universally negative impact on the price of goods.
*Right, so the truth is not so straightfoward which means telling the truth will put us in an awkward position. Solution: Lie. Don't worry that that means treating the public with utter contempt.*
Chris, surely you realise that prior to GW2, there were some good reasons to believe Saddam had chemical and biological WMDs. The intelligence agencies all concluded that he did, as evidenced by subsequent Senate inquiries.
And in retrospect, the intel agencies were at least partially right. Saddam's programs were a potential threat, were certainly in breach of UN requirements, and so justified his removal from power under the existing UN resolutions.
And I completely disagree that the public were treated with contempt. The arguments that Saddam should be removed because he was a brutal dictator, and was a potential threat to future peace in the ME, [were clearly articulated](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s905538.htm).
Downer: *"Having said that in relation to the legality of this issue, I also think that the world is a very much better place and the Iraqis are very much better off for the passage of that most brutal and barbaric of regimes in Iraq. I don't have any doubt about that. I actually, unlike some of our critics from the parts of, not all of the political left, am absolutely delighted to see the end of Saddam Hussein and his vile regime.*
If you truly think this is true, Greig: *The worlds poor are so because their governments do not provide them with education, welfare and social programs to address their needs, and there is no trade to stimulate jobs. They are not poor because evil westerners steal their resources* then I am debating someone way out of my depth. Not just a little bit. WAY, WAY OUT. Its clear that you haven't read a whole lot around this area and are defending yourself on the thinnest of intellectual bases. But then again you have been doiung this with climate change: your arguments lack empirical support but you cling rigidly to your thin empirical base.
You write with such assurance when you say , "Incorrect", but, quite frankly, don't have a clue what you are writing about. Completely clueless. That some people actually think what you said might be true just shows how little we know of what is really happening in the world. No wonder I have met people in Europe who think our wealth was built (and maintained) primarily on our own land bases and that our societies are even now sustainable. This is grade school level analysis. Who controls most of the wealth in Africa? Western corporations, that's who. Who props up corrupt regimes that usually represent local elites and that maintain poverty in the south? We do, that's who. Look at Cameroon. Their leader spends 360 days of the year in France. The countries rerspources have been looted for years by European nations. I mentioned the situation in Congo the other day. Mbutu Sesu Seku, one of the most abhorrent dictators in African in Zaire was supported by the US for years. Sotuh America is even more symptomatic of the plundering Amin referred to (I take Samir Amin's words over yours, I am afraid. Same for Tom Athanasiou, whose book I read while I was in Brazil).
The fact is that our economies could not survive on the resources we contain in our own land masses. This has been known for years. EWhy doi you think important government and corporate planners have coveted reseources in Asia, Afirca and South America for more than a century? What the hell do you think colonialism in Asia and Africa (by European powers) and in South America (by the US) was and is all about? Wake up man! Why do you think the Edward Herman found that the US provided 'aid' disporportionately to countries that had appalling human rights records? It wasn't because the US liked to see human rights violated; its just that countries that torture priests, murder trade unionists and environmental campaigners, and have subhuman working conditions are good for business investment and profit repatriation. This explains that outright hostility to leaders like Chavez, Morales and Correa: these guys are pursuing policies that are eroding at the wealth concentration in the south and are thus threatening investors profit margins in the north.
I have much better things to do than to lower the recourse of debate to the level you lowered it in your last post. How many third world nations have you visited Greig? If so, did you open your eyes? I've been across much of South America over the past 10 years, as well as in central and southern Africa. It was easy to see what is happening. Instead of coming at me with your simplisitc views, I would like to know your sources. I've presented a load of mine. I've read countless planninbg documents where western policy in places like Africa, South America and the Middle East is laid bare. Kissinger summed it up with his infamous 1974 remark. We need cheap raw materials, Greig. And we cannot get them in our own countries. So we get them through a form of economic looting. Its simple. Nothing complicated at all about it.
Greig writes:
Yes, minor costs that under a revenue neutral carbon price will be rewarded. And pink batts for the people mean smaller costs as well.
People who produce proportionately more CO2e will subsidies those who are more efficient or seek out and support low carbon (less damaging) energy.
The âpublicâ (including me) do not want to lump the burden on those who would voluntary make reduction at their own cost. Thatâs why we need post-autistic pricing so those doing the right thing get rewarded, those doing most damage get charged for that.
More b*s from Greig: "The intelligence agencies all concluded that he did, as evidenced by subsequent Senate inquiries". Yeh, we can sure trust Senate enquiries. Lies, lies and more lies, all for public consumption. 'Directed' intelligence.
Yes, we now know that US policy in the Middle East were driven by the neocons who were desperate to control a region vital to US primacy in the world (PNAS, 1998-2000). Scott Ritter, senior UNSCOM inspector, said that Iraq was "90-95% clean" of chemical and biological weapons by 1998. The MSM ignored him. Others questioned how Iraq, stricken by 12 years of sanctions that resembled a medievel siege, could have maintained a chemical arsenal. It would have been useless sludge by 1995.
The aim of course was regime change, even Wolfowitz admits this, but that WMD was a convenient argument that would garner public opinion. The US would not have attacked Iraq if they had thought that it was even remotely capable of defending itself. Iraq fit three important criteria for the invasion: (1) It had to be worth the trouble. Controlling an area with potentially the world's second biggest oil reserves was certainly worth the trouble as far as the neocons were concerned. (2) It had to be defenseless. The US knew this as far back as the mid 1990s when the sanctions were killing thousands of children every month. Nothing could get into the country - ping pong balls, tennis rackets, you name it. (3) There must have been a way of convincing the US publ;ic that the country was an important threrat to our survival. Again, easy. Following 9/11, the Bush regime engaged in one of the most mendacious propaganda campaigns in history in which Iraq was made to appear as the biggest threat to our very survival.
All of this paved the way for an ilegal war of aggression that has devastated the country. And there are a lot of unidicted war criminals still at large (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair and their assorted cronies).
The big question is: why do I respond to such drivel?
MAB: Same dismal misrepresentation by Greig on Jeff's position towards Saddam. 'Only Greig's and Bush's path of lies and killing could have worked to remove Saddam'. What baseless rot.
There you go again Greig, making stuff up. Where did you get the idea that I supported relying on sanctions , the very sanction that solidified Saddamâs position of power by making all resources go through a central point. The sanction that resulted in great burden of suffering on the innocent while Saddam lived in wealth. The sanctions that suppressed resistance and opposition in Iraq.
Your argument so far relies on making up my position and then saying opposition to the process of lies about WMD and the process of the massacre of hundreds of thousands means I support Saddam in power. It also relies on ignoring the point that Saddam was supported in power by US aid then perverse sanctions.
My position starts with setting a goal with more meaning than removing, at great and terrible costs, the guy we supported during his use of WMD. As I have pointed out your goal, your only test of success is whether Saddam is in Power. This is not an ends, it is a way-marker. A way-maker that could be attained through [numerous means]( http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_IraqCrisis_Amidon.html) which did not include an illegal invasion, lies about WMD and the massacre of hundreds of thousands nor the dislocation of millions. The ends is sustainable peace. You seem to forget that in setting such a short term way-marker as you ultimate goal.
Sustained success means addressing the root cause. The root cause is the suppression of opposition and civil process. A situation worsened by US support for Saddam who murdered political opponents, and supported him during his worst acts of terror against Iraqis.
The [sustainable process]( http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/pa_Blufton.shtml) might seem like the long game, but its only longer if you can sustain the illusion that the quick massacre Shock and Awe actually brings the sustainable peace.
The way the invasion and occupation has been carried out means sustained peace in no closer. Iraq is no safer than under Saddam, and the lives of far, far to many have been destroyed. The message taken by Iran and North Korean was get a nuke quick, or youâll get the same treatment. This make s the world a more dangerous place.
MAB: Very thoughtful comment, and one that demolishes Greig's silly riposte.
Greig digs out the old (and discredited) 'the end justifies the means' argument. As I said yesterday, had Saddam not become an unreliable dictator the US would probably still be supporting him today, much as they armed, aided and abetted him during the period he committed his worst crimes. Similarly, the US helped Suharto's rise to power, and continued to supply arms and diplomatic cover for the tyrant over the next 36 years and only pulled the plug at the 11th hour when external pressure on Suharto's regime meant he had to go. Paul Wolfowitz still regretted the ousting of Suharto several years later, yet here was one of the 20th century's biggest torturers and mass murderers who was probably responsible for many more deaths than even Saddam was. Blair's government in Britain was selling Suharto fighter aircraft under the cover of the official secrets act between 1997 and 2002 in full knowledge they were being used to slaughter people in Dili and elsewhere in East Timor. But they didn't care. Indonesia was aclient regime under Suharto and so long as he did what he was told he could slaughter with impunity.
The fact is that our western governments care no more about the 'sanctity of human life' than many of our offical enemies do. Barbarism and mass murder are standard practices on 'our side' - only the technology is different. As wretched as Saddam's regime was, the standard of living in Iraq now is a fraction of what it was in the 1980s, even during the Iraq-Iran war. The country had some of the best universities in the world and the per-capita income in Baghdad was about 3,000 dollars - now it is less than 300 hundred. Infant mortality rates remain astronomically high and the country is considered second from bottom in the world in terms of living standards. The illegal war caused all of this. The streets are filled with sewage and excrement, people are living in tarpaulin tents and reports in Falluja even reveal that many depserate Iraqis have had to construct shleters using demolished air-conditioners. It is hell on Earth, and all of this is - or should be - the responsibility of the illegal invaders and occupiers who have essentially destroyed the country.
It's easy for Greig to say what he thinks is best for Iraq when the vast majority of Iraqi's disagree and do so vehemently. It is no surprise that the US and the UK are loathed in the Middle East, especially as they prop up Israel and care little about the promotion of democracy in client states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. As Reagan planner Thomas Carrothers admitted a few years ago, the US supports democracy if and only if it is in line with US interests. If it isn't it is downplayed or ignored altogether. When the pressure for political reform is strong, the US reluctantly supports limited top-down forms of democracy that do not risk upsetting traditional structures of power with which the US has long been allied.
"You seem determined to try to convince me that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. But what you do not seem to understand that the logical extension of that argument is that you are saying that it would be better if Saddam was still in control of Iraq."
Logic is obviously not your strong suite, Grieg.
If you condemn the 9/11 attacks, are you "by extension" defending the architectural value of the WTC? I thought they were an eyesore. The 9/11 attacks got rid of them. Does that make me a supporter of the 9/11 attacks "by extension"?
Reducing the equation to the removal of Sadam and ignoring the 100s of 1000s of dead, crippled, psychologically ruined, or displaced people is grossly dishonest.
Technology alone, or even in large part, will not solve the world's environmental problems.
It might be a tool in the box, but it will be secondary to political, economic and cultural approaches. The trouble is, these all require the concerted will of societies, and humans have shown a significant recalcitrance to working for the collective benefit when the 'collective' is dispersed in space and time.
I harbour no romantic notions at all about the trials of subsistence living, especially as I try to grow as much of my family's food as I can and know how bloody hard it can be. You put words into my mouth with your subsequent commentary in this regard, and with respect to my opinions on human population size.
And for what it is worth, the time passed decades ago for 'science' to advise on how to painlessly reduce population, contraceptives (such as they work) aside. The matter is now in the same basket as the other of the planets ills â it will be determined by political, economic and cultural efforts, only with much less capacity for science to contribute toward than the other environmental challenges have.
The simple matter of it is that our morality removes 'science' from advising the most effective options. We cannot (and as moral beings, nor should we) countenance culling, mass sterilisation, or biological control (which is effectively diametrically opposite to some of the central tenets of medicine).
Make no mistake about however. Given the trajectories of human population growth, and of the various indicators of biospheric health, there will come a time when the number of humans overtly does not equate with the contemporary capacity of the biosphere to sustain them. Even with the best of aid and education programs, the inertia in the population is greater than any action could probably be to counter, in the conflict between numbers and available planetary resources. At this point war, famine, anarchy and/or tyranny will become greater agents of population control than they are now.
And of course disease will eventually be an agent of human population control, if the 'horsemen' of the preceding paragraph do not have their wicked ways with us first. Human numbers are effectively a delicious monoculture just ripe for the infecting, and at some point even our wonderful medical technologies will not effectively shield us. And I say this as one who spent over a decade working in public and private laboratories on cures for several diseases.
If you doubt this consider:
The next "Great Epidemic" will not wipe humans out, but it might be the single biggest agent in centuries, or even in millennia, for reducing our numbers.
As an ecologist I have a solid understanding of the pressures that the human population of the planet is putting on the biosphere, and on the potential (or rather, the lack thereof) of future generations to live as we do. As a parent myself I have an emotional response to my scientific understanding, both in terms of the ethics of having children in the first place, and for their wellbeing. And of course I wish the best for my children and their descendants: they and the rest of the planet's future occupants are going to need it.
However, I do not see that there will be a pleasant, cuddly, 'scientific' way of managing population. The only way any scientific understanding, or any currently available technology, might mediate population reduction is through dictatorial intervention, and to repeat, this isn't really 'science' at all.
Oh, I am "able". In fora where I discuss the ecological health of the planet, I consistently argue for population management to the ethical limit than might be possible. However, I am also pragmatic, and moral, and understand that until most of the nations of the world actually confront the issue (and in a better way than China has tried), there are more fruitful avenues for me to advocate on behalf of.
We have already dropped the ball with respect to the population issue. It seems that we are about to fumble the climate ball as well, and with coaching from the likes of you it'd be a medicine ball, and it would collect our metaphorical goolies on the way past.
So, speaking of technology, I am still waiting for you to explain how technology has so far solved any of the planet's great environmental challenges, and which problems might be technologically solved in the near future. As I have already said, there are some examples, but I am curious to see what you consider to be the success stories.
Given that, without mitigation, the underlying problem remains operant for centuries or millennia, the question is better phrased as "For example, what would be the relative cost of mitigating the impact of sea level rise [and other AGW sequelæ] by ongoing and continuous adapting [sic]?"
If addressed honestly the answer would put mitigation above adaptation.
Oh, and provide jobs for whole flocks of engineers.
A question â further damage to the planet aside, where will all the energy come from to fuel a planet's worth of 'adaptation', on top of bringing the bottom 80% of the population up to Western standards of living?
Actually, don't put the "further damage to the planet aside"; I'm interested in understanding how you believe that adaptive, as opposed to mitigating, responses will impact on the ecology of the planet...
Chris, surely you realise that prior to GW2, there were some good reasons to believe Saddam had chemical and biological WMDs.
Lie.
The intelligence agencies all concluded that he did, as evidenced by subsequent Senate inquiries.
Lie.
And in retrospect, the intel agencies were at least partially right.
Lie.
Saddam's programs were a potential threat,
What programs?
were certainly in breach of UN requirements,
Sure, if they existed.
and so justified his removal from power under the existing UN resolutions.
Sure, if they existed.
Stu is right in every point or Iraq, and Greig as always wrong. i am slowly getting tired of correcting him. he is simply throwing out garbage faster than it can be debunked. common denialist tactic.
on Iraq, you would want to look at the new british ["fake UN spy plane memo"](http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/21/iraq-inquiry-tony-blair-…)
The memo, written on 31 January 2003, almost two months before the invasion and seen by the Observer, confirms that as the two men became increasingly aware UN inspectors would fail to find weapons of mass destruction (WMD) they had to contemplate alternative scenarios that might trigger a second resolution legitimising military action.
when Iraq breaks apart, the full blame will rest on the West.
It never ceases to amaze me, how wedded people become to ideological notions. Whether absolute belief in impending climate change and ecological disaster, or in the firm belief that Iraq was all a conspiracy to steal oil (and based entirely on the WMD fabrication)
Typically the adherent cannot comprehend the complexity of the issue, or that there are two sides to the topic, and argues with monosyllable responses and no attempt to back up asssertions with an argument. Stu and Sod provide a perfect case.
*surely you realise that prior to GW2, there were some good reasons to believe Saddam had chemical and biological WMDs. ⦠Lie.*
Well, then why did the UN position weapons inspectors in Iraq after GW1, and why did the UN Security Council issue 17 consecutive breaches of Iraqâs obligations regarding WMDs? Who was lying about that? The UN?
*The intelligence agencies all concluded that he did, as evidenced by subsequent Senate inquiries. ⦠Lie*
Well, then how come the [Flood]( http://www.dpmc.gov.au/publications/intelligence_inquiry/index.htm) , [Butler]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Review), and [US Senate]( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3890961.stm) inquiries all come to the same conclusion: the international intel agencies all believed that Saddam had WMDs, and officially advised their governments of such. So who was lying? The intel agencies? Why would they do that?
*And in retrospect, the intel agencies were at least partially right. ⦠Lie*
Well then, you should explain that to the UN and the Iraq Survey Group who discovered numerous cases of Saddam breaching UN weapons guidelines. So who was lying. The UN? David Kay? Who?
Saddam's programs were a potential threat,.. Which program?
[These programs](http://merln.ndu.edu/merln/pfiraq/archive/wh/kay-20031008.pdf)
*were certainly in breach of UN requirements,⦠Sure, if they existed.*
Quote: âthe ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.â
*and so justified his removal from power under the existing UN resolutions⦠Sure, if they existed.*
They existed. And the UN knows that the removal of Saddam was justified by the findings of the ISG, which is why they have provided continued support for the occupation.
[Sod:] *Stu is right in every point or Iraq, and Greig as always wrong. i am slowly getting tired of correcting him. he is simply throwing out garbage faster than it can be debunked. common denialist tactic.*
Hilarious argument by assertion, quoting a completely ridiculous Guardian article which introduces the âscandalâ that Bush and Blair discussed plans for GWII a whole 2 months before the invasion started (shock horror).
Bernard,
You have not provided any answers to resolving the issue of overpopluation, but rather presented your personal view that it really can't be done, and we are all doomed. Thanks, Bernard, but although I agree that a pandemic is inevitable, I am still going to TRY to mitigate against disaster.
*If addressed honestly the answer would put mitigation above adaptation.*
On that one pont, we completely disagree. The answer does not lie wholly in mitigatin or adaptation, but in a compromise between the two. Anyone who advocates one over the other is an extremist. The pragmatist quantifies all of the positive and negatives to arrive at the optimum solution.
*A question â further damage to the planet aside, where will all the energy come from to fuel a planet's worth of 'adaptation', on top of bringing the bottom 80% of the population up to Western standards of living?*
IFRs and gen 4 nuclear fission reactors. Can provide vast amounts of energy for 1000s of years, with little ecological impact. Refer to Barry Brook's blog for more information.
*Actually, don't put the "further damage to the planet aside"; I'm interested in understanding how you believe that adaptive, as opposed to mitigating, responses will impact on the ecology of the planet...*
Adaptive behaviour will have ecological impacts. So will mitigation. We must seek the balance between the two.
Lenny wrote: *Reducing the equation to the removal of Sadam and ignoring the 100s of 1000s of dead, crippled, psychologically ruined, or displaced people is grossly dishonest.*
I am not ignoring anything. War is bad, it causes great harm, and GW2 was no exception. And leaving Saddam in power would also have caused great harm.
The question is: which action produces the best net outcome.
1. Removing Saddam, and the consequences of GW2.
2. Not removing Saddam, and the consequences of his continued brutal dictatorship
Consider this. WW2 was tragic, and the prosecution of the war killed millions of civilians. If you only considered their plight, then you would conclude that it was wrong to fight Hitler. But we know it was right to defeat Hitler, on balance it would have been far worse to have allowed him to succeed. It was worth millions of civilian deaths, to ensure Hitler failed.
Now do you see my point? If you want to argue against the removal of Saddam, you have to prove that leaving him in power would not have been as bad as the outcome of GW2. So who here is brave enough to argue that Saddam wasn't such a bad guy, that he was repentant, or that the UN (the US and Britain) could have maintained sanctions against him indefinitely? Who here is going to step up to that mark?
Jeff: *We need cheap raw materials, Greig. And we cannot get them in our own countries.*
Yes, that is why trade improves our lives.
*So we get them through a form of economic looting. Its simple. Nothing complicated at all about it.*
And you call my argument simplistic?
So, in order to achieve "social justice", all we need to do is bring down the evil corporations that thrive on the inequity in the world, and end overconsumption in the West. Good luck with that.
In the meantime the living standards of most of the world will continue to rise, thriving on social change and trade. Technology will continue to improve our lives, and provide solutions to reducing human impact on biodiversity. And if, as you say, the whole world is naively embracing policies that will lead to the destruction of the natural world, and us with it, then I will see you in hell. Because neither you nor I have the power to stop it.
In the meantime I will continue to argue an end to poverty through social change and trade, and the application of the maximum use of technology to reduce human impact on the environment.
I don't care what you do, but if you are happier being a doomsayer, so be it.
MAB: *Where did you get the idea that I supported relying on sanctions*
Oh, OK, so not only do you argue that the US and Britain should not have removed Saddam from power, you argue that the means they used that suppressed him from attacking his neighbours be removed too.
In your world view, MAB, Saddam would have by now reconstituted his WMDs and would be looting Kuwait and lobbing missiles at Tel Aviv again.
And, of course, in that case it would have been all the fault of the US foreign policy for failing to stop him earlier. Right?
Hilarious argument by assertion, quoting a completely ridiculous Guardian article which introduces the âscandalâ that Bush and Blair discussed plans for GWII a whole 2 months before the invasion started (shock horror).
Greig, you did NOT read the [article.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jun/21/iraq-inquiry-tony-blair-…) again.
the problem is with the TYPE OF PLAN, that they were discussing:
Bush told Blair the US had drawn up a provocative plan "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover". Bush said that if Saddam fired at the planes this would put the Iraqi leader in breach of UN resolutions.
you also missed the part about them knowing 2 months ahead, that they would NOT find WMD.
Typically the adherent cannot comprehend the complexity of the issue, or that there are two sides to the topic, and argues with monosyllable responses and no attempt to back up asssertions with an argument. Stu and Sod provide a perfect case.
there are no two sides of the Iraq war story. the truth is out by now. no WMDs were found. end of discussion.
my "monosyllable" response above included a link to the latest discovery about the secret memos to fake reasons for the war. you were unable to read it, though.
Well, then how come the Flood , Butler, and US Senate inquiries all come to the same conclusion: the international intel agencies all believed that Saddam had WMDs, and officially advised their governments of such. So who was lying? The intel agencies? Why would they do that?
because Bush told them to lie? false information was passed on, the right information suppressed.
These programs
there were no programs: Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995.
âthe ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War.â
sorry, this is complete nonsense. you can NOT legitimate the war, with a thing that would have happened AFTER the war.
Consider this. WW2 was tragic, and the prosecution of the war killed millions of civilians. If you only considered their plight, then you would conclude that it was wrong to fight Hitler. But we know it was right to defeat Hitler, on balance it would have been far worse to have allowed him to succeed. It was worth millions of civilian deaths, to ensure Hitler failed.
the comparison to WW2 is idiotic. who started WW2?
PS: the safety of nuclear reactors against a terrorist attack has been demonstrated this week by Greenpeace in Germany. no safety.
http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/greenpeaceaktion100.html
Greig writes:
I find it even more disturbing that people like you who claim to be educated upbraid people for being right about something.
"Cost-push inflation" is a fallacy. You cannot increase overall prices unless you A) increase the money supply, B) increase the velocity of money, or C) decrease production, or some combination of the effects thereof:
MV = PQ
Raising the price of one commodity does none of the above.
Jeff writes:
Why were the children dying, Jeff, in view of the oil-for-food program?
Could it be that Saddam was spending the money on arms instead of on food?
You're against invading Iraq. You're against sanctions. Imagine it's 1993. What measures would you take to do something about the Saddam Hussein regime?
Let me guess--none at all? Live and let live? If he wants to massacre Shi'ites and Kurds, torture people by holding their feet in industrial machinery, and have his kids pick up whatever women they want, rape them, and kill them afterward, it's okay? It's their culture and we shouldn't interfere?
Jeff writes:
Does the insurgency bear any responsibility? How about Al Qaeda in Iraq? The ethnic cleansers? I'm not disputing that the US and Coalition bear responsibility, but do the actual murderers bear ANY of the responsibility, in your view?
*the comparison to WW2 is idiotic. who started WW2?*
In 1939 Hitler's Nazis invaded Poland, starting WW2. In 1945 the allied forces ended the war in Europe by removing the Nazis from power.
In 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait starting the Gulf War. In 1991, a cease-fire was negotiated under UNSCR 687. After 12 years and 17 consecutive failed resolutions, UNSCR 1441 reinvoked use of force authorised in UNSCR 678, and the Gulf War was completed by removing the Baath regime from power.
Greig:
Shifting the goal posts. Doesn't change the original point about a huge lie being told.
I'm sure the stacked Senate inquiries would say that.
That's what they had inspectors for.
It never ceases to amaze me, how wedded you become to ideological notions.
In 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait starting the Gulf War. In 1991, a cease-fire was negotiated under UNSCR 687. After 12 years and 17 consecutive failed resolutions, UNSCR 1441 reinvoked use of force authorised in UNSCR 678, and the Gulf War was completed by removing the Baath regime from power.
exactly like in WW2. are you kidding?
i doubt that Greig has read [UNSCR 678](http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm). it does not declare war against Iraq, but allows cooperation with Kuwait. a reason for war, while Kuwait was occupied in 1990. no reason for war in 2003.
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
[UNSCR 687](http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf…) is affirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq in the second paragraph. the war was a violation of 687.
and on [UNSCR 1441](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR20050…) even the british attorney general disagrees with you!
In the original opinion, which Blair released Thursday after key portions were leaked to Channel Four News here, Goldsmith told Blair that the language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 to bring new pressure on Iraq, was ambiguous on the question of war. "I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorize the use of force," he wrote. Without such a new resolution, Goldsmith added, Blair would need "strong factual grounds" and "hard evidence" that Iraq had failed to comply with previous resolutions requiring it to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction and allow stringent monitoring by U.N. weapons inspectors.
Greig, basically no one who was not directly involved in the decision to go to war supports your [legal opinion.](http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm)
like all your opinions, it is not based on facts.
"The question is: which action produces the best net outcome."
No it wasn't, but nice try moving the goalposts, as you've done throughout this thread. This was your claim I was responding too:
"You seem determined to try to convince me that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. But what you do not seem to understand that the logical extension of that argument is that you are saying that it would be better if Saddam was still in control of Iraq."
A claim which is obviously bullshit.
You might think your tactic of changing the terms of discussion every time one of your frauds is caught out is clever, but you're obviously not fooling anyone here. You're only serving to demonstrate the utter dishonesty of yet another denier.
Sod wrote:
*i doubt that Greig has read UNSCR 678. it does not declare war against Iraq,*
Actually, it does. And it is the underlying basis for Gulf War 1, and nobody questioned the legality of that war. The statement "use all necessary means to ... restore international peace and security in the area" is a statement of war.
*UNSCR 687 is affirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq in the second paragraph.*
[UNSCR 687](http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm) is basically a cease-fire agreement, and states that it is beholden upon Iraq to disarm in cooperation with weapons inspections, **which it did not do**, as evidenced by [the ISG's findings](http://merln.ndu.edu/merln/pfiraq/archive/wh/kay-20031008.pdf).
*the war was a violation of 687.*
[Not correct](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution…) because of UNSCR 1441:
*Resolution 1441 **stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687**. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but also **the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation**. "*
Goldsmith was concerned that UNSCR 1441 required proof that Iraq was violating its obligations under UNSCR 687, so advised Blair that it was a legal risk. Later it was discovered that Iraq **WAS VIOLATING** its obligations, and so the matter is closed, as evidenced by the fact that the US and Britain have never been challenged legally within the UN over their actions. The UN continues to support the occupation.
Everybody within the UN knows this, however there are many people in the general public who do not. Sod is one of many who remain ignorant of the facts, and who continue to state that the war was illegal. It wasn't.
Greig wrote:
*"You seem determined to try to convince me that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. But what you do not seem to understand that the logical extension of that argument is that you are saying that it would be better if Saddam was still in control of Iraq."*
Lenny wrote:
*A claim which is obviously bullshit.*
Ok, so are you saying that it wasn't wrong for the US to remove Saddam from power?
Or are you saying that the US was wrong for removing Saddam from power and also would have been wrong if they had left Saddam in power?
Make up your mind.
Greig, Argument by [False Dichotomy](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy) is [fallacious.](http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html)
It is fallacious to argue that the only alternative to Saddam's injustice (or the injustice of any of the other numerous tyrants) is to conduct the Iraq invasion in the manner it was conducted. That is to:
1)fabricate and distort evidence;
2)ignore the most competent advice;
3)then wage war in a manner that kills hundreds of thousands and leaves Iraq no safer.
So, Observa, you don't actually object to the US removing Saddam via GW2. It is the way the war was conducted that you object to. Is that correct? YES/NO.
If YES, then (with hindsight) I would be inclined to agree. The US certainly could have handled the PR and the strategies against the insurgency far better than it did.
Actually, it does. And it is the underlying basis for Gulf War 1, and nobody questioned the legality of that war. The statement "use all necessary means to ... restore international peace and security in the area" is a statement of war.
[UNSCR 678](http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm) WAS a statement of war, while Kuwait was occupied. "cooperating with Kuwait" to "restore peace" made sense, while Kuwait was occupied. it simply did not have the same meaning in 2003.
but i understand how such a fine distinction is beyond someone, who things that the war against Iraq was similar to world war 2.
Goldsmith was concerned that UNSCR 1441 required proof that Iraq was violating its obligations under UNSCR 687, so advised Blair that it was a legal risk. Later it was discovered that Iraq WAS VIOLATING its obligations, and so the matter is closed,
again: you need that evidence BEFORE the war! because you need a reason to go to war BEFORE you start the war. ALWAYS!
you simply can NOT argue the legality of the war, by using evidence that you found afterwards. or did you move the goalpost from legality to "it was an ok thing to do anyway" already?
as evidenced by the fact that the US and Britain have never been challenged legally within the UN over their actions. The UN continues to support the occupation.
google security council and veto power.
the UN is supporting the occupation, because it didn t have any alternative.
as we were talking about fallacies, what you wrote in that paragraph is "absence of evidence".
Everybody within the UN knows this, however there are many people in the general public who do not. Sod is one of many who remain ignorant of the facts, and who continue to state that the war was illegal. It wasn't.
look, my laymen opinion on the legality of the war does indeed not matter. but i gave you above about [40 links](http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm) to legal opinions by experts, who basically all consider the war illegal.
let us look at an [analysis of 1441 in more detail](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php)
Resolution 1441 provides no new authorization for using force. It states in paragraph 12 that a meeting of the Security Council will be the first step upon a report by inspectors that Iraq has obstructed their activities. Consequences will follow a meeting. Syria has confirmed that it received a letter from US Secretary of State Colin Powell "in which he stressed that there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq."[6] Thus, if and when a meeting is called, Security Council members will have an opportunity to state their assessment of whether serious consequences are called for or not.
your "legal" opinion is a clear minority. it is shared by (some of!!!) those who were involved in making the decision to go to war and a handful of extreme right wing pundits. everybody apart from said knows that the war was illegal.
"GW2" (COW invasion) is "the way the war was conducted" and hence includes what I (and so many) "object to".
As a first response I support non-passive (non-violent) civil disobedience as [cited by MAB](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/grieg_thread.php#comment-1726038). I also support UN defence measures and creation of safe-havens for civilians (non-violent) opposition.
The COW race to war cut off many opportunities for less damaging transitons of power. Support for civil mechanism (such as are underway in Iran) has the immense advantage of empowering civil (non-violent) opposition rather than disempowering civil mechanisms as the COW invasion did.
If a Tyrants response to this oppositon is disproportionate violence, I would support a different type of war to the that waged under the COW. It simply takes a willingness to look at the array of alternatives to the way the COW was conducted.
I also support a [similar response](http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/06/hansen_arrested_in_coal_m…) (non-violent, non-passive civil disobedience) against those that have captured the political process in otherwise democratic nations.
Greig writes:
Instead of using methods which: were based on lies, cost too many lives, were illegal, and made Iraqis no safer. The US and Britain should have instead focused on the more meaningful goal of supporting Iraqis to develop a peaceful alternative to Tyrannical rule. The US and Britain should have helped those striving for peaceful transition of power as described by Observa.
The sanctions were employed in a manner that concentrated power in Saddamâs hands. They strengthened Saddamâs control over Iraqis rather than weakened it. The Sanctions also put a great burden of the innocent, including preventing the most effective treatment for disease. Hence these sanctions should have been changed.
Saddam ceased to be a great threat after the US removed their support for him and the UN weapons inspections forced him to destroy his WMD. These should have been allowed to continue, rather then the US forcing inspectors to retreat.
The Bush-Greig doctrine has instead given impetuous for other states to develop nuclear weapons, and radicalized tens of thousands, driving them into the arms of their ideological Doppelgängers
*If a Tyrants response to this oppositon is disproportionate violence,*
I remind you that in the case of Iraq, Saddam was tried and hanged by his peers for his "disproportionate violence" against civil disobedience.
*"I would support a different type of war to the that waged under the COW. It simply takes a willingness to look at the array of alternatives to the way the COW was conducted."*
Such as...?
*UNSCR 678 WAS a statement of war, while Kuwait was occupied. "cooperating with Kuwait" to "restore peace" made sense, while Kuwait was occupied. it simply did not have the same meaning in 2003.*
Nonsense. It had precisely the same meaning in 2003 as evidenced by 17 consecutive UNSCR breaches.
And by that argument, you would have supported the allies beating the Nazis back to their border, yet allow Hitler to remain in power.
*you simply can NOT argue the legality of the war, by using evidence that you found afterwards.*
Yes, you can. If the war is found to be unjustified, then you can state that it was illegal. In this case it was justified under UNSC resolutions, and so it is legal.
And you seem to be forgetting the fact that Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors, and openly refused to assist, etc etc. He was being deliberately belligerent in an attempt to confound the UN. Yet his belligerence was in itself a breach of UN requirements.
*security council and veto power ... the UN is supporting the occupation, because it didn t have any alternative.*
You have that back to front. If the Russians, French or Chinese did not agree to support the occupation (eg because the war was illegal), it would not happen. Why would the UN Security Council overtly support the occupation if they thought the war had been illegal.
*i gave you above about 40 links to legal opinions*
I can give you 40 links that proves that the moon landings were a hoax.
*"The US and Britain should have instead focused on the more meaningful goal of supporting Iraqis to develop a peaceful alternative to Tyrannical rule. The US and Britain should have helped those striving for peaceful transition of power as described by Observa."*
Let them eat cake!
You are showing a flippant disregard to the fear and danger under which the Iraqi citizens lived while under Saddam's rule. There was no "peaceful transition of power" imminent in Iraq in 2003. Saddam was not about to be unseated by the rally call of flower children.
I remind you that I care about and take issue with the lies, fabrications, the illegal invasion, the hundreds of thousands of deaths the millions dislocated and the fact that Iraqis are no safer than under Saddam.
I also remind you that Iraq is still under occupation, any court process is or any political process is not that of a sovereign nation. Sovereignty may be many years away and cost many more lives.
Such as military force to protect civilians under immediate threat. As would be the case if there were an attack on a UN safe-haven.
Can I also remind you that Saddam was killed for the atrocities he conducted while [supported by the US.]( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4294). He was also hung before a full conviction of his major atrocities, thus sparing further [embarrassing exposure.]( http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0106-28.htm)
*Such as military force to protect civilians under immediate threat. As would be the case if there were an attack on a UN safe-haven.*
So you think that the UN could have occupied Iraq with a potent defence force whilst Sadam was still in power and controlling the military in Iraq, and could have done so whilst the citizens of Iraq "peacefully" unseated the Baath party from power. You are kidding, right?
And after I have proven categorically that GW2 was legal, that it has been judged as legal by the ultimate arbiter (the UN), yet still you are in denial.
Note how Greig claims that the invasion was legitimate using the old humanitarian canard. Try telling that to the vast majority of Iraq's who opposed the invasion, the up to one million dead as a result of it and the 4 million internally displaced refugees. Try also telling that to the countless victims of vile regimes aided, abetted and supported by the US around the world, many of which they helped into power or else provided full support for during their rule.
Let us reverse the situation. Given that the U.S., U.K., and their proxies have been responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the deaths of literally millions of people around the world over the past century or so (let's start with the slaughter in the Phillipines, which left up to 600,000 dead between 1899 and 1902; forarys across Latin America which devastated entire societies, wars in Viet Nam and Korea which left perhaps 4 million more dead, Cambodian carpet bombing under Nixon, support for Suharto, Montt, Marcos, Pinochet, the Shah, the Duvaliers, Mobutu, South Africa under apartheid, Equatorial Guinea, not to say Egypt and saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan under Karimov (until he switched to Russia), it borders on the hysterical to cite a humanitarian agenda given this record and the catastrophixc outcome of the war. Besides, the list above is endless, and reveals the utter hypocrisy of citing Iraq as a war with an humanitarian agenda. A large number of known human rights violaters and terrorists live in the U.S. right now with full impunity: Constant, Avril, Garcia, Bosch, Prieth, Carriles, and many more vile rogues. The US has refused to hand over Avril to Haitian authorities for years despite repeated requests to hand him over for crimes committed under full US support between 1990 and 1994. So Greig, given this vile record, how on Earth can anyone - at least with half a brain - use the humanitarian canard to defend an illegal war of aggression? Why was Iraq singled out, considering the long and sordid history of US support for criminals every bit as vile as Saddam?
Your crocodile tears about 'flippant regard for civilans under Saddam's rule' mught as well be translated into the 'flippant regard' the US, UK and their proxies have had for human life in any number of countries with vile regimes they have supported. To suggest that the war had a humanitarian motive takes stupidity to the highest level, given the US and UK have consistently shown a disregard for human lives and human rights when these have conflicted with the interests of economic policy. Heck, the Bush regime apparantly didn't even care much about their own citizens drowning in New Orleans after Katrina hit in 2005.
As for UN breaches, international law attorney Michael Mandel has demolished the US case for war based on resolutions leading up to the 2003 invasion in his book, "How the U.S. Gets Away with Murder". The US and UK knew damn well that they didn't have the backing of the temporary UN security council leading up to the invasion. They tried vainly to bribe, bully and coerce the 15 countries in the council, but it was likely they were only going to get the backing of 3 at most, despite all kinds of diplomatic arm twisting and bullying. They did not have a mandate to attack Iraq. They knew it, and were scared to death that Hans Blix would soon report on what they and we all knew: that Iraq was essentially defenseless. So they launched their illegal preventive war. Sod has already deconstructed this argument above, anyway.
Besides, why are UN resolutions only valid against Iraq? What about the much larger number on the statutes against Israel? I don't see any evidence of a multinational UN force invading Israel to topple their government any time soon.
To be honest, I don't know why I even waste my breath on Greig's nincompoop arguments. They've been throroughly demolished time and time again. I've never seen so much cherry picking in my life to support a position. Moreover, note how Greig ignores the historical context, which shows his arguments to be utterly hypocritical claptrap.
Since this is 'his thread', I will be glad when it - and he - goes away.
Nonsense. It had precisely the same meaning in 2003 as evidenced by 17 consecutive UNSCR breaches.
here is the text of [678](http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm) again:
2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;
the cooperation with Kuwait made sense, while it was occupied. RESTORING peace made sense, while Kuwait was occupied. the claim that this sentence had the same meaning in 2003 is idiotic.
And by that argument, you would have supported the allies beating the Nazis back to their border, yet allow Hitler to remain in power.
could you please stop this moronic comparisons to WW2?!?
the two cases are extremely different.
Yes, you can. If the war is found to be unjustified, then you can state that it was illegal.
nice attempt to turn around the burden of proof. again:you can NOT legitimize a war with evidence found AFTER the war.
In this case it was justified under UNSC resolutions, and so it is legal.
as i showed above, basically everybody disagrees with your point of view.
You have that back to front. If the Russians, French or Chinese did not agree to support the occupation (eg because the war was illegal), it would not happen.
completely wrong again. if the war was obviously legal, why didn t the US get the required decision of the security council? it would have left no room for discussion.
the position of the UN on the matter is 100% clear:
On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."[1]
Why would the UN Security Council overtly support the occupation if they thought the war had been illegal.
because opposing the occupation would have caused even more chaos.
I can give you 40 links that proves that the moon landings were a hoax.
i am looking forward to that list of links! just make sure, that they are basically all written (or based on statements) by PROFESSORS in a relevant field and published in reputable journals, like the JURIST in my case. you would want your list to be [comparable,](http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm) don t you?
Saddam was a bully whoâd lost his greatest force once he lost the support of the USA. The UN is as powerful as we make it. The UN, if we chose can impose overwhelming moral as well as military force. And the weight of this force (moral and physical) would usually be enough to make bullies like Saddam back down, and thus rarely needs full exersion.
Sorry, I read Kofi Anan and Hans Blix stating the invasion was illegal, along with the overwhelming assessment of [legal opinion.]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/grieg_thread.php#comment-1725591) UN resolution 1483 did not claim to make the COW invasion legal. It was a pragmatic resolution to remove sanctions and commence rebuilding. Not only did UNR 1483 not claim the invasion was legal, it could not make it legal after the fact. Resolution 1483 was made after the COW invasion.
I believe youâll find that your âcategoricalâ proof is in your imagination.
*to restore international peace and security in the area;*
... made just as much sense in 2003 as it did on 1990.
*could you please stop this moronic comparisons to WW2?!?*
Why? The analogy is quite accurate:
1. ... attacked and looted a neighbouring country, unprovoked
2. ... was committing genocide on minorities within its own population
3. ... was unrepentent in its aim to be a dominant power in the region
4. ... fired missiles at distant civilian populations
5. ... was overwhelmed by a coalition of forces from around the world combining to restore peace in the region
etc
etc
etc
The removal of Saddam had a precedent in WW2 that nearly everyone accepts. Yet with Iraq, it was different. Why? Because the UN was mired in [corruption](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme) that was forcing an end to sanctions, and was crippling the unanimity of the UN Security Council.
No Greig, You are showing flippant disregard for the hundreds of thousands massacred and the millions dislocated, and survivors who are in greater fear than under Saddam. And disregard for the those who suffer as a result of the ensuing radicalised terrorist recruits. And disregard for those who will suffer as others state gain impetus to gain nuclear weapons. And disregard for those who will continue suffer before Iraqis gains sustainable stable sovereignty.
â
Forget the rhetorical trick of your "flower children", that won't cut with me nor distract serious strategy. Iâd trust the [judgement of others]( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2772409.stm) on the question of internal uprising and resistance. Youâve proved to be a poor judge to-date. And this bubbling of resistance even after The US had supported Saddam while he murdered the opposition and establish tyrannical regime of fear. That shows real resilience.
Here's Michael Mandel's piece below (written a few days before the US and UK committed the 'supreme international crime') which puts to bed any notion that the Iraq War was legal. It violated Charter 51 of the UN. Even the angel of death himself, the neocon Richard Perle, admitted that the was was illegal in November of 2003 but claimed that it was 'necessary'. Here, Mandel deconstructs every mute point made by Greig. Even most international law attorney's that supported the invasion in 2003 had to find all kinds of flimsy arguments to do so (few used the UN resolutions because they knew they were standing on thin ice). Few brazenly said that resolution 1441 gave the invasion any sort of authenticity. The fact was Iraq was crippled, defenseless, but an economic prize and the Bush regime and the neocons in it knew this beforehand. Clinging to UN
The U.N.'s Crucial Role
An immoral and unjust war on Iraq is no less one because the Security Council caves in to pressure from the U.S. and authorizes
by Michael Mandel
"It is necessary to insist that a U.N.-backed war would be as immoral and unjust as the one being plotted in the Pentagon â because it will be the same war."
Those are the words of Tariq Ali from a recent article in the British newspaper The Guardian, in which he recounts the history of failure by the United Nations, and by the League of Nations before it, to fulfil the cardinal mission of preventing aggressive war.
Ali is right. An immoral and unjust war is no less one because the Security Council caves in to pressure from the United States and authorizes it.
But this does not mean that Security Council authorization is a matter of indifference.
An immoral and unjust war against Iraq fought with Security Council authorization would still constitute the Nuremberg Tribunal's "supreme international crime," but it would then wear a mantle of false legitimacy that it would otherwise lack.
That means, above all, that such a war would be more likely to be fought.
With Security Council authorization, people would be torn between their allegiance to the institutions set up to realize the pacifist principles of the U.N. Charter and the principles themselves. With it, there would be a false impression that the world was behind the war and even that the whole thing was legal.
That's why all the opinion polls have such radically different results depending on whether this "same war" has U.N. approval or not.
And that's why it is necessary to insist that this war does not have U.N. approval.
Resolution 1441 makes a lot of demands on Iraq, many completely unreasonable, but it doesn't say or even imply that any state or group of states can attack the country for failing to comply with them.
It says that it is the responsibility of the Security Council as a body to decide whether and to what extent there has been compliance and what to do about it â and the Security Council can only lawfully act when nine of the 15 members vote in favor and none of the five permanent members exercises its veto.
Those are the rules the Americans agreed to by signing the U.N. Charter and if they don't like them, they can withdraw from the U.N. But in fact they usually seem to like them just fine.
America exercises the veto more than all the other Security Council members put together.
Without the American veto, Israel would have been sanctioned long ago for violating dozens of Security Council resolutions over its 36 years of occupation of the Palestinian territories. Without the American veto, Boutros Boutros-Ghali would not have been replaced by the more U.S.-friendly Kofi Annan as secretary general.
If anything is and should be subject to the veto, it is the power to make war.
If you want to know what a specific authorization for war by the Security Council looks like, you need look no further than the one that launched the other Gulf War, Resolution 678 of Nov. 29, 1990, which specifically said that it "Authorizes member states ... to use all necessary means" to enforce the Council's resolutions on Kuwait.
This is the huge, missing ingredient from Resolution 1441, and it was no slip.
It is also missing from the draft resolution circulated by the U.S. last week, a highly misleading list of recitals â in which weapons inspections are not mentioned even once â followed by one melodramatic operative paragraph, which would seem more in place at the end of a soap opera episode than at the end of a legal document: "(The Security Council) Decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441 (2002)."
So, we might ask, what is the Security Council proposing to do about it?
Because it's the Security Council's job, under Resolution 1441 and under the Charter, to deal with Iraq's "failure."
The idea behind this draft resolution is clearly to rack up as many votes as possible by making it easier for members to vote for it and harder for them to vote against it, but that's only because it is totally non-committal.
Here we have not euphemism but innuendo, of the sort Colin Powell used at the Security Council on Feb. 5, to a well-deserved chorus of derision.
But with tens of thousands of lives at stake, the law rightly demands that these people have the integrity to ask explicitly for what they want to claim the authority to do.
The Americans have no legal or moral right to make this war on Iraq. What they are planning is legal and moral murder.
Ali is right that it would be the same war even if they had Security Council authority, because such authority â let's be frank, such appeasement â would amount to a breach of the U.N. Charter so grave and so open as to mark the end of the Security Council as a body with any authority at all.
But the Americans do not have Security Council authority, and the peace movement should value that precious fact, which is, after all, the peace movements own achievement.
Now is not the time to hedge our bets with cynicism about the Security Council.
Now is not the time to help warmongers trash the Charter of the United Nations yet again.
Now is the time to hold the nations to their legally and morally binding pledges, found in the very first words of the Charter itself, to save the generations from the scourge of war.
Wow, the 'Greig Thread' continues.......but now it's about Iraq.
Greg is nothing if not voluminous in his drivel.
"to restore international peace and security in the area;" ... made just as much sense in 2003 as it did on 1990.
i don t think so and most people would see the difference between an occupied Kuwait and a situation without any occupation (at least in Kuwait..).
in 2003, if your plan was "restore international peace and security in the area", Iraq was the wrong target. fact.
Why? The analogy is quite accurate: 1. ... attacked and looted a neighbouring country, unprovoked 2. ... was committing genocide on minorities within its own population 3. ... was unrepentent in its aim to be a dominant power in the region 4. ... fired missiles at distant civilian populations 5. ... was overwhelmed by a coalition of forces from around the world combining to restore peace in the region etc etc etc
again: the comparison to WW2 is idiotic.
1. in the case of Iraq, the attack happened 12 years back. in WW2, it was just happening in that moment.
2. see No. 1. the atrocities happened 12 to 15 years earlier, and were not going on at the moment. apart from that, there are serious doubts that the genocide had any effects on starting WW2.
3. let me see, what other countries are trying to be dominant in their region? (and how many other wars were fought over regional dominance? surprise, ALL wars are similar to WW2 and the iraq war!!!)
4. missiles are fired at civil population since the technology is available. funny, tanks were used in both wars as well! and guns!
5. a comparison between the coalition of the (bribed and pressured) willing and the allies of WW2 is another completely false analogy
The removal of Saddam had a precedent in WW2 that nearly everyone accepts.
you forgot to mention some differences. like germany starting WW2. being an IMMINENT threat. and being a real threat to other world powers at that time.
Yet with Iraq, it was different. Why? Because the UN was mired in corruption that was forcing an end to sanctions, and was crippling the unanimity of the UN Security Council.
a conspiracy theory, if ever there was one. but i will go along: the oil for food program totalled US$65 billion. the war on Iraq is running at a cost of [US$670 billion](http://costofwar.com/)
looks to me like corruption in this war is exceeding the total of money that has changed hands during the food for oil program....
Michael: *Wow, the 'Greig Thread' continues.......but now it's about Iraq. Greg is nothing if not voluminous in his drivel.*
I wasn't the one who changed the subject.
But now that you mention it, I'm not sure why I let Jeff and Sod draw me into this - this is a pretty pointless discussion. Iraq has happened already. Time to move on.
Jeff posts that the US supported:
When was this? How did we support them? That certainly wasn't my impression.
BPL,
Here you go. Here are a list of U.S. vetos at the U.N. Check the resolutions on South Africa.
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm
These include:
1982: Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
Check out some of the others. They are remarkable. Bear in mind that many of the vetos include those aimed at protecting the poor and the environment, development and human rights. Its a sad list, really.
i think it is rather funny, to simply compare rather random statements by Greig.
like this one:
Goldsmith was concerned that UNSCR 1441 required proof that Iraq was violating its obligations under UNSCR 687, so advised Blair that it was a legal risk. Later it was discovered that Iraq WAS VIOLATING its obligations, and so the matter is closed,
Greig argues, that the legality of a war can be shown AFTER the war. (no serious person will agree with this, but hey...)
and this one:
this is a pretty pointless discussion. Iraq has happened already. Time to move on.
let us just forget the problems in the past. (a rather common view among criminals and those who made major errors..)
the combination of the two opinions, of course has a pretty funny effect on international law and order:
either hindsight shows, that the war was legal, or it is the past and we move on! legality no longer is a problem...
Sod, what we have done is hammered Greig on the topic of the illegality of the Iraq war. Of course it was illegal - even Perle admitted that. UN Charter 51 was explicitly aimed at eliminating the 'scourge of war'. When it was written up after WW II it was recognized that the new superpowers might like to flex their military muscles in order to pursue strategic and economic agendas. The frank truth is that Charter 51 was aimed, more or less - at the United States, because after WW II the country held unrivalled power in the world. In spite of that, the US became a serial violator of international law, abiding by UN resolutions when they were expedient and completely ignoring them when they weren't. But its certain that, as Dmitri Simes recently said, once of the great benefits of the dissolution of the Soviet Union was that it freed the US to pursue military adventures that they wouldn't have even remotely considered during the height of the cold war. Forays into Serbia, Iraq (Mk. 2) and Panama would have been unthinkable between 1950 and 1980 (or, at least until Gorbachov showed up on the scene). The U.S no longer has global economic primacy, so they have relied on militarism to promote their economic agenda. After all, the US controls about 70% of the world's arms trade, US corporations are the leading suppliers of military hardware in 20 of the 27 biggest conflict zones in the world, and the US maintains about 1,000 miltary bases in 140-150 countries (e.g. gunboat diplomacy in action).
As for the illegality of the Iraq invasion, the US required a supporting vote from 9 out of 15 temporary members of the security council combined with no vetos from the permanent members. In spite of a wekk of bullying, bribing and coercing, and a pitiful display by Colin Powell at the UN, it was certain they'd have gotten no more than 3 affirmative votes from the 15 countries, and Russia and China would certainly have vetoed any action amongst permanent members. So the US did what it normally does: ignore intrernational law and commit aggression. Iraq was just too much of an economic prize and a vital strategic cog that would give the US critical leverage over the global economy. All of the other crap about helping the Iraqi's by ousting a brutal dictator is merely window dressing, especially as the only original argument to be documented (WMD) was baseless and proven to be nothing more than lies. Moreover, given US history in supporting a veritable gallery of rogues who do their bidding, it is also brazenly hypocritical.
Basically, Greig had no ground to stand on to begin with with respect to this issue, and then came a futile attempt at defending the indefensible, finally leading him to 'bail out'.
Given that he's been vanquished on all of the topics he's discussed here, there's not much room for anything new left. Hey, perhaps we can agree on the Cavs acquisition of Shaquille O'Neal to help King James or the inevitable march of the Bosox to the World Series.
*then came a futile attempt at defending the indefensible, finally leading him to 'bail out'.*
Nonsense, I didn't "bail out", I just got sick of you and Sod posting bullshit gleaned from Left Weekly, and anti-American "its-all-about-oil" crap which is entirely ignorant of the fundamental objectives of US foreign policy. I don't have time to educate you, and you are such dyed in the wool spoiled middle class nitwits wrapped in a cotton wool blanket of academia, you wouldn't listen or understand anyway, so it isn't worth the effort.
And BTW, the links I posted to the ISG finding concrete evidence of Saddam's WMD programs is a slam dunk on proving that Iraq was indeed in material breach of UN resolutions - hence the war was legal without a requirement for an 18th resolution, end of discussion. If you are both too stupid to undertstand that, you are welcome to your ignorance.
Time to move on.
Greig, You lose. Get over it. The war was illegal. Even Perle admitted it. Resolution 1441 did not give the US the right to invade Iraq. They did not get support from 9 of 15 members of the temproary security council nor from the 5 permanent members. Not in a million years did this give the war party a green light. Using your dumb logic, Israel should have been invaded and disarmed years ago. Iraq had no WMD. It was devastated by 12 years of sanctions. The US knew that, or else they wouldn't have invaded.
Moroever, given that the US is in breach of just about every international arms treaty (and shelters known terrorists and human rights violaters), as well as being perhaps the most beligerrent nation on Earth over the past 40 years, your dumb logic would have a multinational force invade the US unless it complies with these treaties and hands over the knwon terrorists and criminals it harbors. But the fact is that you appear to buy into the logic that the strong can attack the weak with impunity, but any notion that the weak can retaliate does not enter into your lexicon. Just look at what the US did to Nicaragua and elsewhere in Latin America during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Hundreds of thousands dead, as death squads armed, aided and abetted by the US battled independent nationalism across the vast region. The US invasion of Panama in 1989 was wholly illegal. As many people (3,000) may have died in the slums and barrios of Panama City in 1989 from US bombardment as died in Kuwait when Saddam invaded in 1990. The invasion was condemned by the UN General Assembly and the Organization of American States, but the US did what it always does: yawned, ignored the condemnation and installed their own puppet (a businessman who was shunned by the OAS). The aim of that forgotten war? To oust a regional thug (Manuel Noriega) who committed most of his crimes while on the CIA payroll. And the US terrorist war against Nicaragua - similarly condemned at the UN and World Court, and which left tens of thousands dead and the country ruined - was also ignored largely by westerm media sources, as well as by the Reagan and Bush I adminstrations, who actually increased their support for vile gangs of killers (the Contras) in response to the criticism. So your arguments on the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion are mute. Utter bilge.
And of course the war was about oil. You must be living in some cuckooland of your own making to think otherwise. I've provided reams of evidence from influential bodies (Council on Foreign Relation, State Department) and planners (Brezinski, Kennan) to recent writings from the neocons themselves (e.g. Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Project for a New American Century). Youy've countered these vital sources with precisely zero but your own shallow opinions.
Lastly, in 1958, Eisenhower commissioned a study by the CIA to examine why people in the middle east held such antipathy to the United States. The answer was returned quite quickly: they hate our policies. Simple. The Arabs and Persians were angry that the US suppressed 'indigenous nationalism' coveted their resources (OIL & NATURAL GAS) and supported vile regimes. The CIA's recommendation? Don't change anything. Maintain a business-as-usual policy. In 1980 President Carter said that any country(he meant Russia in Afghanistan) that made a significant move towards the Middle East would be seen as a 'threat to the national security and interests of the United States' and that the US would react accordingly. This is what became known as the Carter Doctrine. Of course it was about oil and geopolitics.
All Greig can do is - without a shred of evidence - claim that the sources I read come from the far left. More drivel. I read a lot, Greig. Far more than you can imagine. I read many declassified planning documents that are freely available in books and libraries. I read books from the likes of Andrew Bacevich, James Carroll, Aantol Lieven, Chalmers Johnson, Jean Bricmont, Mark Curtis, and many, many other contemporary writers and historians. Sure, my politics are not 'right wing'. But I believe in social democracy. You just do not have many facts to back you up, and you totally ignore the historical context, much like our MSM do.
That sums-up and caps-off a Master Class in Greig's argument technique. Always interesting to see what passes as âslam dunkâ or categorical proof in Griegâs view. Reminiscent of what Barry Brook observed about Greigâs climate science.
And a nice touch of the Greig familiar retreat to ideological name calling in the first paragraph. Reading Greig I'm beginning to see that must be helpful crutch in the face of facts that don't fit with a preferred world view.
Jeff,
I've been checking out some of the sources you quote. Very interesting. Much appreciated, I'll spend some time taking it in.
Greig, you twit, I have never said that I had "answers" for overpopulation, or that I was going to "provide" such.
I [mentioned](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/grieg_thread.php#comment-1726559) several strategies that would theoretically work (culling, mass sterilisation, or biological control), and I indicated that as a moral species we cannot countenance these. Perhaps this will change in the future, but as it currently stands genocide and involuntary contraception are generally considered a little distasteful to Western sensibilities...
Aid and education provided to the Third World are not, unfortunately, having sufficient impact on their qualities of life that there is a significantly large impact on population numbers. There are many reasons for this, including the facts that:
Does this mean that we should not promote aid and education? Of course not, but no matter the scale of resources that might be given to the task, it will be several generations at least before there is an appreciable slowing of the global human population growth rate occurring via this route. In other words, it is really just tinkering at the edges.
What is the answer? If humanitarian considerations are included, the best we can do is to tinker with providing the above-mentioned aid and education, and to ensure that the qualities of life in the Third World are raised to a sufficient standard that children are no longer required as an economic resource (and given the large starting base for the populations, this is a somewhat logically circular process). Women should be given equality of opportunity and education, but again there is the countering issue of cultural imperialism, whether perceived or real...
Following these avenues it might one day eventuate that the Third World joins the First, and thus that their populations might consider the luxury of contraception, but by that time the planet will be even more sucked dry of its non-renewable resources (including lost biodiversity and ecosystem functions) than it is now â so again we are confronted with the numbers versus resources paradox.
Realistically, it is likely that the "answers" will be imposed upon humanity against its will by any or all of: warfare over resources, collapse of ecosystem functions (provision of fertile soils, viable, fisheries, and adequate water topping the list), or by emerging diseases waiting in the wings.
In the end these realistic "answers" will result in indescribable suffering far worse than might have occurred if humanity had acted with sufficient foresight. That would never have happened though, because of the disjoint that is inherent between human perceptions of their impact on the planet, and the actual impact that is occurring or which will occur.
To put it simply, we had to screw the planet too much before we were rich enough to realise that we were screwing the planet too much for the numbers of us that there are.
The payback is in the system whether we like it or not, and if not us then our descendants will have to wear the consequences. How much we might ameliorate it for them depends on how much we restrain ourselves now, and we a not a species that knows any appreciable amount of restraint.
No, we're not all doomed, at least (as a species) not for a good few centuries, but a goodly chunk of the 21st/22nd century global population will feel a boot in the metaphorical groin. And of course we should try to mitigate against disaster â this has been my point all along...
Speaking of which, I said:
and Greig said:
I have never " advocate[d] one over the other". However, without substantial effort to mitigate our impacts, any effort to adapt to them is a Red Queen exercise where one step forward would result in two step being taken back. It would be just another arms race.
I said:
and Greig said:
Oh, I've been following Barry's thread. What I still haven't seen is the budgeting/accounting of monetary, infrastructure and skill resources that shows how the radioisotopes will be mined, processed for energy, and delivered to the global population, especially in any realistically useful period of time. If you have an executive summary that shows how nuclear-derived energy will be delivered in order to replace the current global fossil- fuel energy demand I would be most interested to see it. I am even more interested in the accounting that describes how a successful provision of abundant energy to the global human population will not then impose ever more strain on the non-fuel resources of the planet, including the already buckling biological resources.
And speaking of technology, I am still waiting for those examples of how technology has so far solved any of the planet's great environmental challenges, and which problems might be technologically solved in the near future. As I have already said twice now, there are some examples, but I am curious to see what you consider to be the success stories...
And to repeat another question, this time in response to your comment:
How do you reconcile this with the expectation of subsidy for the enormously profitable coal industry, and its ilk?
Aren't those subsidies "10 lashes a day"?