Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How to sustain a massive agriculture program without hydrocarbons?
If they had power they would stop cutting down their trees for charcol . cutting down their trees is causing more drought in East Africa, thus making it harder to farm. I spent a little time in East Africa they sell charcol everywhere from cut trees... its also a way for a lot of them to make a living
In the U.S. we commit 39 million acres of land for the sole purpose of growing ethanol-bound corn. IF we planted those same acres in trees the benefit to the environment would reap exponential dividends.
Denier kooks pretending to care about Africa? Nobody is dumb enough to believe that, or fall for the idiot logic. That is, that there's some nefarious plot to stop Africa from modernizing.
Why do you hate Africans?Denier kooks pretending to care about Africa? Nobody is dumb enough to believe that, or fall for the idiot logic. That is, that there's some nefarious plot to stop Africa from modernizing.
The admiral hates all black and brown people.
You mean the malaria policies that banned DDT and consigned millions to death?You're right. They need infrastructure! Lets build them a landline network! Oh wait. That's not necessary. Cell phones.
But let's build a vast fossil fuel infrastructure just as the fossil fuels run out! Yeah, that's an intelligent use of resources. Just as smart as building landlines.
Westwall, are you still in favor of the malaria policies that would have killed millions in Africa, or has your lust for genocide finally subsided? Did you embrace that evil just out of a general love of killing, or did you specifically wish to kill Africans? Anyways, it's truly fortunate that the powers that be weren't influenced by butchers such as Westwall, and instead chose to save lives in Africa.
Westwall, I don't have patience with those so proudly stupid that they'd kill millions just because they're emotionally stunted manchildren who can't admit being wrong. Look up "banality of evil" in the dictionary, and you see Westwall's picture. Taken to destructive extremes, ignorance crosses the line into evil, and Westwall's policies qualify.
I agree, food aid is destroying that continent. Solar aid? What's wrong with hydrocarbons again?
And don't fucking teach them OUR farming practices. Agriculture is the single largest polluter and raper of environments.... PERIOD.
How to feed a billion people without agriculture?
How to sustain a massive agriculture program without hydrocarbons?
I agree and the same people who would deny Africa fossil fuels for power are flying around on their private jets instead of commercial like everyone else and you can bet they dont drive smart cars.
Or if it does affect them, they can well afford it.of course they justify that because they think they are saving the world, but the bottom line about those people is they pass laws and restrictions that will affect every one else but them.
Yep the left wanted to end industrialization even before they discovered global warming ... dont think they would ever be tempted to sqew the statistics do ya ?
You mean the malaria policies that banned DDT and consigned millions to death?
You mean the malaria policies that banned DDT and consigned millions to death?
Dave, the shame and rage you feel over your shortcomings does not give you justification to murder millions by way of malaria.
You, Dave, also illustrate the banality of evil. Instead of simply admitting how you've been played for a fool by your political cult, you instead choose to still push policies of mass death. Just how many thousands of corpses is your pride worth?
Now, you can cry about you're not allowed to implement your genocidal policies, and you will. But nobody has to pay any attention. You've been relegated to the shithole of history. Proud of yourself?
What makes you think the corruption can't be stopped? I think what Africa needs is more democracy.
You mean the malaria policies that banned DDT and consigned millions to death?
Dave, the shame and rage you feel over your shortcomings does not give you justification to murder millions by way of malaria.
You, Dave, also illustrate the banality of evil. Instead of simply admitting how you've been played for a fool by your political cult, you instead choose to still push policies of mass death. Just how many thousands of corpses is your pride worth?
Now, you can cry about you're not allowed to implement your genocidal policies, and you will. But nobody has to pay any attention. You've been relegated to the shithole of history. Proud of yourself?
No, I'm saying that he wants to kill millions, by implementing policies that would cause such deaths. Fortunately, the sane people won't go along with him.
Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change
I've spent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of Iraq. I have headed a group trying to block U.S. arms and training for "friendly" dictators, and I have written books about how U.S. policy in the developing world is neocolonial.
But I oppose my allies' well-meaning campaign for "climate justice." More than 230 organizations, including Africa Action and Oxfam, want industrialized countries to pay "reparations" to African governments for droughts, rising sea levels and other alleged results of what Ugandan strongman Yoweri Museveni calls "climate aggression." And I oppose the campaign even more for trying to deny to Africans the reliable electricityand thus the economic development and extended years of lifethat fossil fuels can bring.
The left wants to stop industrializationeven if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that "even if the mercury weren't rising" we should bring "the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner." He sees the "climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction."
I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.
Then, as now, the computer models simply built in the assumption that fossil fuels are the culprit when temperatures rise, even though a similar warming took place from 1900 to 1940, before fossil fuels could have caused it. The IPCC also claims that the warming, whatever its cause, has slightly increased the length of droughts, the frequency of floods, the intensity of storms, and the rising of sea levels, projecting that these impacts will accelerate disastrously. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that the average global temperature today remains unchanged since 2000, and did not rise one degree as the models predicted.
But it is as an Africanist, rather than a statistician, that I object most strongly to "climate justice." Where is the justice for Africans when universities divest from energy companies and thus weaken their ability to explore for resources in Africa? Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a "global warming" tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods? Even if the wildest claims about the current impact of fossil fuels on the environment and the models predicting the future impact all prove true and accurate, Africa should be exempted from global restraints as it seeks to modernize.
--
According to the World Bank, 24% of Africans have access to electricity and the typical business loses power for 56 days each year. Faced with unreliable power, businesses turn to diesel generators, which are three times as expensive as the electricity grid. Diesel also produces black soot, a respiratory health hazard. By comparison, bringing more-reliable electricity to more Africans would power the cleaning of water in villages, where much of the population still lives, and replace wood and dung fires as the source of heat and lighting in shacks and huts, removing major sources of disease and death. In the cities, reliable electricity would encourage businesses to invest and reinvest rather than send their profits abroad.
Mindful of the benefits, the Obama administration's Power Africa proposal and the World Bank are trying to double African access to electricity. But they have been hamstrung by the opposition of their political base to fossil fuelseven though off-grid and renewable power from the sun, tides and wind is still too unreliable, too hard to transmit, and way too expensive for Africa to build and maintain as its primary source of power.
In 2010 the left tried to block a World Bank loan for a new coal-fired plant in South Africa. Fortunately, the loan was approved (with the U.S. abstaining). The drive to provide electricity for the poor has been perhaps the greatest achievement of South Africa's post-apartheid governments.
You know how the left says they care about people?
They're lying. They don't want Africans to enjoy the same benefits of technology they do -- like clean water.
I agree and the same people who would deny Africa fossil fuels for power are flying around on their private jets instead of commercial like everyone else and you can bet they dont drive smart cars.
No can do. The eco-nazis demand we turn food into fuel (at a net energy loss). Poisoning the Gulf of Mexico is just breaking eggs to make an omelet.How to sustain a massive agriculture program without hydrocarbons?
If they had power they would stop cutting down their trees for charcol . cutting down their trees is causing more drought in East Africa, thus making it harder to farm. I spent a little time in East Africa they sell charcol everywhere from cut trees... its also a way for a lot of them to make a living
In the U.S. we commit 39 million acres of land for the sole purpose of growing ethanol-bound corn. IF we planted those same acres in trees the benefit to the environment would reap exponential dividends.
