Greetings Kim >Greetings Keith, > >I had to read you reply several times, for it to sink in.
I don't think it did sink in very well. >I am having trouble believing that you could equate the comments >being made about New Orleans with people in Bangledesh. I didn't equate them, I compared them. >As you point out later in your message, New Orleans is in one of the >richest countries in the world, where no one has to live in a >dangerous area if they choose not to. We have the wealth to move >around, even the poorest of us, given enough time. We have plenty >of ways of being warned of a coming disaster, we have so many things >that the people of Bangledesh don't have, that I don't see the two >as equal. First you say "equate the comments being made" then you say "see the two as equal". I doubt anyone sees them as equal. I provided data showing some of the ways in which they are not equal. >As far as I have been able to find out, there were no long lines of >hitchhikers trying to leave New Orleans. And yes, I have talked to >people that got out. Katrina did visit me, but I was on the fringe >so no damage, just much need moisture. > >If the richest countries do such a poor job of protecting their >people, especially their children, then what kind of example do we >set? This kind of example, to be kind about it? Posted yesterday: >2) Three decades of shortfalls in promised annual official aid to >poor countries is made worse by the diluted definition of aid. It >is some 35 years since developed countries promised and were >obligated to deliver 0.7% of their gross national income as foreign >assistance. It was agreed to deliver on this by the mid 1970s. >There been a large annual shortfall each year since. The European >Union, for example are aiming to reach 0.7% as a whole by 2015, some >40 years after it was meant to be delivered! Furthermore, the >definition of what constitutes foreign aid has changed to include >items not related to the original goal of long term development, >thus diluting aid effectiveness even further. More information on >the history and the diluted definition of aid was added to >this page http://globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp I'm surprised that you still talk about the US and the rich countries setting an example. >I have been through natural disasters in other places, but I have >never been angry with the people before. While I was in New >Orleans, the people told us about the city being a giant bath tub >that would fill with water, and laughed about it. The city was >growing, not shrinking even though they knew they were a disaster >waiting to happen. There are many factors that make this disaster >very different from others. All disasters are different from others, and every community has its rats. About 17 million people live their lives and go about their daily business in Los Angeles despite the earthquake risk, 35 million people in Tokyo go about their lives with probably an even worse earthquake risk, are they being irresponsible? >The human race needs to be much more responsible for their actions. >The wealthy among us need to be held even more responsible, since we >have a choice. And looking at it from a global view point, that is >every person in Canada and the US. Huh? Sorry, you lost me there with the last bit. Anyway, how about being responsible not only for your actions but for their consequences too, especially when they land on other people? Which brings us back to Bangladesh. Why wasn't there as much discussion of that as there is of this? If what you say about being held responsible is true, then why do the wealthy among us pay so much more attention to their own disasters than to those they help bring upon others? Hakan said: "When media show the desperation among the Iraqi people, it is not many who cares, maybe Orleans will create more of compassion for the country that US occupy". But I don't see many signs of that in this discussion, do you? The world's mass media are Western-dominated, and everywhere they're controlled by elites (with many honorable exceptions). Coverage of disasters depends on, first, obviously, proximity of the disaster to the readership, fair enough, the scale of the disaster, also fair enough, and the wealth and influence of the victim community, which is not fair enough. It's not fair enough here either, nor is it representative. Not enough "Think globally", and without it the local focus risks being narrow and parochial. I do wish the large list membership in the global South would be a little more vocal, really I do, though I do understand some of the reasons they're not. Best wishes Keith >Bright Blessings, >Kim > > >snip replace: >>Taryn, >> >>You must admit that he killed many more in Iraq for the money, >>he is responsible for those death also, maybe he call that >>efficiency instead. More killed for the money. I can guarantee >>that the pictures of devastated people that we now see from >>Orleans, have been going on for many years in Iraq. So it is >>not only Bush fault, he only raised the bar and achieved much >>more in shorter time frame. >> >>When media show the desperation among the Iraqi people, it >>is not many who cares, maybe Orleans will create more of >>compassion for the country that US occupy. The homes that >>are destroyed and people killed in Iraq, are 100's times more >>than Orleans. >> >>Hakan > >Ah, Hakan, thankyou for saying so, I agree, I believe many others >here do too though they haven't said so. > >Maybe we're now in danger of being accused of "not caring" about New >Orleans, like you can still get accused of not caring about the >victims of 9/11 if you try to put it in perspective (especially in >the perspective of Iraq and Afghanistan!). > >We could do other counts. We could count the messages about New >Orleans and Katrina so far and compare them with the number of >messages in the archives about the Asian tsunami, correlate it with >death and damage data, and I could add that there are at least as >many Asians here as Americans. But we all know what the answer would >be. > >We could search the archives for discussion of the floods in >Bangladesh that displaced 30 million of the world's poorest people >last year. I wonder if we'd find any. I could find quite a few >Bangladeshi list members though. > resume: >Maybe the Bangladeshi victims shouldn't have moved there in the >first >place, they only have themselves to blame? Maybe better planning >would have helped them. Actually it wouldn't have told them that the >mega-floods which come every ten years would be three years early >this time and it wouldn't have helped them prevent it either, since >much of the cause was that global warming had brought increased >monsoon rainfall and sped up the melting of the Himalayan snows, >which drain into Bangladesh. The main cause of that of course lies >even further out of reach of Bangladeshi planners than the snows of >the Himalayas do. > >Bangladesh doesn't feature among the world's Top 10 greenhouse gas >producers. There's no figure that I can find for the number of >Bangladeshis per motor vehicle, probably because it's a meaninglessly >large figure. It's right up there with Nepal at 200-plus or >something, 200 plus any number you like. Bangladesh accounts for less >than a fifth of its per-capita share of world energy consumption. >Bangladeshis are responsible for 40 kg of CO2 emissions each per >year, quite sustainable, like the rest of their eco-footprint. Most >of the list members now following the Katrina/New Orleans threads are >responsible for 5.5 tonnes of CO2 emissions each per year, wildly >unsustainable like most of the rest of their eco-footprint and 137.5 >times as much as those of a Bangladeshi, while some of them, with >computers, affordable Internet connections and time to spare, seem to >be claiming they're not among the privileged and are at bottom of the >heap. > >Yes, it's fair enough to discuss emergency plans, but that hasn't >really counted for much, while Bede's post and Terry Dyck's are among >the few that have offered anything further, IMHO. > >Think globally, act locally? It's a global list, with a worldwide and >very diverse membership, and many list members have said how much >they value both that and the kind of input that results from it. > >So thankyou for a much-needed dose of reality and perspective, Hakan. > >Best wishes > >Keith _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
