Our host country is going through an election next week. I suspect some amount of discussion, and certainly government-forming will still be occuring when we are there. Politics in Germany, and Europe, are significantly different from the issues we discuss/debate/debase here. There is also some inversion of words - words that are "loaded" here to mean one thing, mean something entirely different there. The word 'liberal' for example has an emotional load here; but in Germany means something entirely different. To become more 'liberal' means something like to become more like the U.S. and the U.K. The idea is that our markets are more liberal, meaning more open, less regulated, less taxed, than theirs, and that is either to be feared, or desired depending on who you talk to there.
If you want a background on the election, and the various issues being debated, your political reporter offers this somewhat basic series of reports (mostly neutral;) this more comprehensive (in German and conservative); and this decent roundup from Der Spiegel (in English and from the left.)
11 comments:
Yes, in some ways (like economic topics) our most left wing zealots would seem conservative in some respects and our right wingers would seem liberal.
However, in social issues and environmental issues, the left and right sides have similar meanings.
Agreed. In social and environmental issues, the meanings are the same, but the starting places are different. The Greun (Green, spelling?) party there is way more left than almost anything our more responsible environmentalists would endorse. On social issues even their conservatives are for a more extensive "social safety net" than our conservatives.
Yes, the Greens in Europe are a little too left even for me.
I wouldn't join their party, since I found that the soy clothing they make you wear tends to break down too fast here in SoCal. ;-)
Barleyman saying "too far left, even for me" [snort] [cough] [sniffle] 'scuse me. Got beer in my nose.
I said "little too left"
There you go, misquoting and distrorting again.
Talking about liberals, left winged greens or right conservatives (isn't that double ?), I have to say that we in Europe at least are in sync adopting the Kyoto protocol. The US refused to sign the treaty, arguing that its economic interests would be threatened. The US also opposed the Bonn refinement of Kyoto because of the cost to US business of Kyoto's prescriptions on the reduction of environmentally harmful emissions which contribute to climate change.
So who is more liberal?
Well, true. U.S. refused to approve, sign, endorse, or follow the Kyoto pact. They did so before Bush, during Bush, and will do so after Bush. Europe signed, approved, and talks about the pact. However, the targeted levels of emmisions are already being missed by Europe. It is mostly talk and no action on behalf of Europe.
On the other hand, the more recent pact between Japan, China, India, and the U.S. (all missed in Kyoto)is more realistic, and actually targets those most likely to contribute additional greenhouse gases, through a program of technology exhange that actually helps economy, not penalizes those with technology.
You are right Dave. Oops. Sorry. You are correct Dave. I misquoted, and in the process substantially um made no difference um in the meaning of the words.
The Kyoto targets, by country, with in brackets the 2003 achievement. The Eastern countries show improvement, mostly by modernizing, not by policy changes.
EU-15 total -- Kyoto: -8% (2003; -1.7%)
Austria -- Kyoto: -13.0% (2003: +16.6%)
Belgium -- Kyoto: -7.5% (2003: +0.6%)
Denmark -- Kyoto: -21.0% (2003: +6.3%)
Finland -- Kyoto: +/-0.0% (2003: +21.5%)
France -- Kyoto: +/-0.0% (2003: -1.9%)
Germany -- Kyoto: -21.0% (2003: -18.5%)
Greece -- Kyoto: +25.0% (2003: +23.2%)
Ireland -- Kyoto: +13.0% (2003: +25.2%)
Italy -- Kyoto: -6.5% (2003: +11.6%)
Luxembourg -- Kyoto: -28.0% (2003: -11.5%)
Netherlands -- Kyoto: -6.0% (2003: +0.8%)
Portugal -- Kyoto: +27.0% (2003: +36.7%)
Spain -- Kyoto: +15.0% (2003: +40.6%)
Sweden -- Kyoto: +4.0% (2003: -2.4%)
United Kingdom -- Kyoto: -12.5% (2003: -13.3%)
New Member States
Cyprus -- no Kyoto target (2003: +72.2%)
Czech Republic -- Kyoto: -8.0% (2003: -23.4%)
Estonia -- Kyoto: -8.0% (2003: -50.8%)
Hungary -- Kyoto: -6.0% (2003: -31.5%)
Latvia -- Kyoto: -8.0% (2003: -58.5%)
Lithuania -- Kyoto: -8.0% (2003: -66.2%)
Malta -- no Kyoto target (2003: -+29.1%)
Poland -- Kyoto: -6.0% (2003: -32.1%)
Slovakia -- Kyoto: -8.0% (2003: -27.9%)
Slovenia -- Kyoto: -8.0% (2003: -2.9%)
Source: http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/newsreleases/ghg_inventory_report-en
On the developed industrial countries, I would guess there is a correlation between economic growth of the country and the increase (or lower decrease) of the emmisions. Thus, Germany, France both down in emissions, simultaneously, down in industrial output, down in economic conditions.
Can't wait until we pull out of the UN, close all all embassies, and create combat drones to war in distant countries... hehehehe
Of course, my issue is that we have an administration beholden to oil interests. We need to expand our non-fossil fuel energy production and transportation. It's not going to happen overnight, and most of the cronies in power now will be retired by then.
Bush would be a great president (you heard it here first) if he would launch an initiative to get us off of OIL, ala Reagan's Star Wars. Spur private industry, but kick in the ass too.
Post a Comment