4 ms·

And by the way, I'm pretty sure you meant $2.3 trillion. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/06/16/1149964738204.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/06/16

And by the way, I'm pretty sure you meant $2.3 trillion. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/06/16/1149964738204.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/06/16/1149964738204.html But I don't really mind that you were off by an order of magnitude, because I honestly think it's a valid criticism. Sometimes governments spend a lot of money with nothing to show for it, or end up making things worse. That does happen. So, you either believe that there's some standard a government should have to reach before it decides to spend money on things... what standard? Or you believe government should never get involved. But, if you believe government shouldn't get involved, I bet you think there's a valid way for people to organize themselves about issues they care about... And what would you recommend to them, if they care about Climate Change, think it's a real threat, and want to do something? And, again, what metric should they use, to determine that scientists should be listened to, when they describe threats?

SixSigma 13y ago
Yes sorry, it is $2.3 trillion. In domestic politics the recipients of the democracy get to vote on the govt. if it is doing a good job. Aid recipients don't have any say, they just get whatever comes and the feedback that makes markets work is missing. The suppliers and recipients are disconnected, and there's possibly a corrupt tyrant in between to make things worse. There's no accountability. The Western donors (we taxpayers) are told "something is being done" and we see news with grain being unloaded and given to hungry people with pots in their hands. Good source material would be William Easterly's "The White Man's Burden". If you think Climate Change is where the focus should be, you're going to have to persuade a billion Indians and a billion Chinese that they don't need fossil fuels and access to plentiful energy supplies in the near future. Telling an Indian he can't have air conditioning from while you are sat in an air conditioned office is going to be a bit one sided.

SixSigma 13y ago

Yes sorry, it is $2.3 trillion. In domestic politics the recipients of the democracy get to vote on the govt. if it is doing a good job. Aid recipients don't have any say, they just get whatever comes and the feedback that makes markets work is missing. The suppliers and recipients are disconnected, and there's possibly a corrupt tyrant in between to make things worse. There's no accountability. The Western donors (we taxpayers) are told "something is being done" and we see news with grain being unloaded and given to hungry people with pots in their hands. Good source material would be William Easterly's "The White Man's Burden". If you think Climate Change is where the focus should be, you're going to have to persuade a billion Indians and a billion Chinese that they don't need fossil fuels and access to plentiful energy supplies in the near future. Telling an Indian he can't have air conditioning from while you are sat in an air conditioned office is going to be a bit one sided.