The use of "nuclear" for both the bombs and the power plants was a huge political mistake, the population gets the idea that they are related, and that power plants are likely to go up in mushroom cloud. That's not going to happen.
Nuclear bombs (fission or fusion) are bad. Nuclear power plants are much better than coal fired plants.
There is a such as thing called clean coal. As to how clean it really is or by what process it is made cleaner and the environmental impact of that is hard to say. [ September 14, 2008: Message edited by: Arvind Birla ]
Did all relate with each other indirectly or directly? In between at that day when nuke deal process on senate floor, will oil price again drop? & so again every stock market affect? By dropping price of crude oil will common man get cheaper fuel like 2/3 years ago we get?
Millions saw the apple fall, but Newton asked why.
Jules Bach: Higher taxes for more foreign aid and development - sounds good to me! Currently in NZ - we spend about $426,000,000 in foreign aid - might sound lots (it's odd but plenty of crazy people complain it's too much) - but that is *only* 27c in every hundred dollars we earn.
prashant bhardwaj: Well, this is very altruistic and one must respect the sentiment. However, I wonder if there are many people willing to do that.
I just finished Jeffrey Sachs' "The End of Poverty" book, where he states that the public in the USA isn't as much opposed to the idea of the foreign aid, as it is uninformed about the state of affairs.
"Public opinion research conducted over the past decade illustrates, time and again, that the American public greatly overestimates the amount of federal funds spent on foreign aid. In a 2001 survey, the Program on international Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland reported that Americans, on average, believed that foreign aid accounts for 20 percent of the federal budget, roughly twenty-four times the actual figure. PIPA found essentially the same result in surveys in the mid-1990s."
20% sounds too high to me, my guess would we around 3-5%. The actual number is 0.15% of GDP.
Since perceived "20%" didn't cause any riots in the USA , I suppose that the public wouldn't oppose substantial increase in foreign aid, if only it was better informed how badly the money is needed. [ September 24, 2008: Message edited by: Martha Simmons ]
I seem to recall that an amount of 0.7% of the GDP was "recommended" -I think by the UN Development Agency- but only a handful of countries spend that much (some of the Nordic countries, I believe). Most of the others are somewhere between 0.1% and 0.5%.
Ulf: I seem to recall that an amount of 0.7% of the GDP was "recommended" -I think by the UN Development Agency- but only a handful of countries spend that much (some of the Nordic countries, I believe). Most of the others are somewhere between 0.1% and 0.5%.
All of this correct. Sir Sachs mentions 0.7% number so often, I couldn't even find where and when it was first agreed upon, but apparently if was confirmed many times since, and yet is not achieved, most importantly by the USA -- "most importantly" because due to the size of its economy the US is supposed to contribute about a half of the developed world foreign aid.