NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Despite denouncing America's reliance on oil-fired electricity generating plants, and crowing about the Eurpoean efforts to cut emissions, it seems that many European countries are using coal to generate electricity despite its higher emissions. I'm sure there will be some on here who get upset about this thread, saying that it's just an attempt to make Europeans look bad. But the truth will out.


Europe's Image Clashes With Reliance on Coal (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/business/worldbusiness/20eurocoal.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)


By MARK LANDLER
Published: June 20, 2006
SCHWARZE PUMPE, Germany — In the shadow of two hulking boilers, which spew 10 million tons of carbon dioxide a year into the air, the Swedish owners of this coal-fired power station recently broke ground on what is to be the world's first carbon-free plant fueled by coal. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, presided over the ceremony.

"We accept the problem of climate change," said Reinhardt Hassa, a senior executive at Vattenfall, which operates the plant. "If we want a future for coal, we have to adopt new technologies. It is not enough just to make incremental improvements."

But the new plant, which will be just a demonstration model, pales next to the eight coal-fired power stations Germany plans to build for commercial use between from now to 2011 — none of them carbon-free.

"That is really a disappointing track record," said Stephan Singer, the director of climate and energy policy at the World Wide Fund for Nature in Brussels. "Just replacing old coal plants with new coal plants won't enable Germany to meet stricter carbon emission targets."

Europe likes to think of itself as a place that has moved beyond its sooty industrial past, with energy that comes from the windmills that dot the Dutch countryside and the Danish coastline or the carbon-free nuclear plants that dominate France's power industry.

But with oil prices soaring and worries rising about the reliability of gas piped from Russia, Europe must depend heavily on that great industrial-age relic, coal: a cheap, plentiful fuel, but one that emits twice the carbon dioxide of natural gas. Coal-fired plants generated half the power in Germany and Britain during the chilly winter just past.

While Europeans stand out for their commitment to controlling global warming gases, some of their largest energy companies are reluctant to invest in technologies that could further protect the environment, like equipment in the demonstration plant here that will trap carbon dioxide and pump it into underground storage areas. Only a handful of carbon-free plants are planned in the European Union.

There is another downside to coal, evident barely a mile from the plant here. Bulldozers have begun demolishing a 450-year-old mill town, which blocks the path of the open-pit mine that supplies coal to the plant. The last residents are being forced to pack their belongings and abandon their homes for a new settlement nearby.

Such uprooting is an unavoidable cost of Europe's hunger for coal, executives here say. They also say the technology to capture carbon dioxide is too costly, at a time when they are already spending billions of euros to replace Europe's aging power plants. Finding places to store the carbon dioxide is a headache in countries like Germany, which are densely populated and have a history of protesting against the storage of more troublesome pollutants like nuclear waste.

In Europe, where power companies say they have cleaned up the visible pollutants — like sulfur dioxide -- from their coal plants more diligently than their American counterparts, some executives are suspicious of current proposals to convert to "clean coal" technology.

They describe them as mainly public relations ploys championed by the Bush administration and American power companies, even as only a few plants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide are actually planned for the United States. They suspect the Americans are trying to circumvent mandatory cuts in carbon emissions and avoid making steady improvements in the efficiency of their plants.

"There's a lot of media-driven talk," said Alfred Tacke, chief executive of Steag, Germany's fifth-largest power generator, which has eight coal plants scattered in the Rhine, Ruhr and Saar regions.

"In the United States, you defer all investments, because in the future maybe you have the perfect solution," said Mr. Tacke, who was deputy economics minister under the previous German chancellor, Gerhard Schröder. "I would prefer a solution that improves the situation now."

By that, Mr. Tacke means using existing technology like raising the temperature or pressure of the steam that turns the turbine, to make conventional coal plants more efficient. Steag is building such a plant in the Ruhr city of Duisburg — a $1 billion project that, he says, will be more efficient than any rival in the United States.

The debate over coal in the European Union has to be seen within the context of the Kyoto Protocol, a global climate-control agreement that commits Germany and 34 other nations to measurable reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and several other greenhouse gases.

With a legal imperative to cut emissions by up to a fifth within the next six years, power companies here face a clearer challenge than those in non-Kyoto countries, like the United States or China.

[ This article is 3 pages long. Read the entire article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/business/worldbusiness/20eurocoal.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th). ]

Stupid Europeans. How do you like them apples?

Stupid Europeans. How do you like them apples?
LOL! Now, now. Let's not get completely carried away! :headbang:

A correction, Eut: The US uses almost no oil for electricity; half comes from coal and only 3% from petroleum.

Even so, we have to realize an important difference between the US and Europe. They are being forced to use coal because they are not fortunate enough to have abundant natural gas either in their own nations or from allied suppliers. Europe is forced to buy most of its gas from the Russian company Gazprom, who has a near monopoly and who is controlled by the Russian government. The Russian government is using natural gas to threaten Europe, most concerningly involving Gazprom's purchase of European companies; what they said was if Europe tried to intervene in Gazprom's mergers on anticompetitive grounds, they would cut off their gas much like they did in the Ukraine situation a few months ago.

They are using natural gas as a weapon, and that is frightening European governments; emissions aren't quite as important as keeping the lights on and the homes heated. At the same time, Europe is the largest installer and provider of alternative energy. Their use of coal is motivated more by temporary necessity than by a long-term plan; I don't think it is so much an example of hypocrisy as a necessity. It's more important to secure energy first to keep the lights on and then deal with the emissions. It's a good thing though, because the clean coal technology will be useful in the US as an alternative to natural gas.

Germany =/= Europe.

Europe =/= Germany.


Stupid USians.

Let's have a look at, say, France. They produce 78% of their power from Nuclear.

Why not take them and call them "Europe"?

Oh yeah...the "Europe is bad" agenda. Silly me.

Wait. Didn't we fight two wars to decide that Germany didn't represent Europe? Or did we lose and my history books are wrong?

LOL! Now, now. Let's not get completely carried away! :headbang:

You're right. I'm sorry. They are after all, Family.

Come here cousin!:fluffle:

Good post on the European Coal Power Plant. You know it's ironic, several countries entered the Kato agreement, and yet, the USA (who stayed out of it) actually has lower emissions than the countries that are in the KATO agreement. Hmm, I guess having the government force you to do things doesn't work. Hmm, intresting.

Wait. Didn't we fight two wars to decide that Germany didn't represent Europe? Or did we lose and my history books are wrong?

No, your right. France is the image that generally represents Europe for US.

Emasculated, sissy, wussy people whom we have to come and save every couple of decades. It's very tiring.

Britain is different, on the other hand. Generally, we like the people of the British Isles. And also the funky Scandanavians. And the neutral Swiss. Other than that, yeah, you're all like France...or evil Russians.

Luv ya:fluffle:

Germany =/= Europe.

Europe =/= Germany.


Stupid USians.
Lol, Good retort!

Let's have a look at, say, France. They produce 75% of their power from Nuclear.

Why not take them and call them "Europe"?

Oh yeah...the "Europe is bad" agenda. Silly me.
What do usians have to say about the Kyoto agreement?

Plan to use. Not actually use, Things can change and they well might depending on future pressure. Not to mention the article mentions significant increases in the use of natural gas and carbon-free power plants, so one may offset the other. As long as they stay within Kyoto then I'm not overly bothered.

Good post on the European Coal Power Plant. You know it's ironic, several countries entered the Kato agreement, and yet, the USA (who stayed out of it) actually has lower emissions than the countries that are in the KATO agreement. Hmm, I guess having the government force you to do things doesn't work. Hmm, intresting.

The KATO agreement?

I don't know what that is, or what its relevancy is to emissions.

Perhaps you mean the Kyoto Protocols?

Good post on the European Coal Power Plant. You know it's ironic, several countries entered the Kato agreement, and yet, the USA (who stayed out of it) actually has lower emissions than the countries that are in the KATO agreement. Hmm, I guess having the government force you to do things doesn't work. Hmm, intresting.
examples, sources, proof ?

Good post on the European Coal Power Plant. You know it's ironic, several countries entered the Kato agreement, and yet, the USA (who stayed out of it) actually has lower emissions than the countries that are in the KATO agreement. Hmm, I guess having the government force you to do things doesn't work. Hmm, intresting.

Oddly enough, you don't have the Russians trying to blackmail your government into using their gas in something that is practically extortion. Thus, coal is the unfortunate side-effect of trying to be tied down by the Russians.

What do usians have to say about the Kyoto agreement?

Another stupid treaty so the world can try and screw US over again. We save the world 3 times (WWI, WWII, Cold War) and are currently in the process of saving your sorry butts again (War on Terrorism), and all you do is mitch an' boan about everything under the sun. Lazy $#!%'s.

The KATO agreement?

I don't know what that is, or what its relevancy is to emissions.

Perhaps you mean the Kyoto Protocols?

yea that's it. sorry lol

No, your right. France is the image that generally represents Europe for US.

Emasculated, sissy, wussy people whom we have to come and save every couple of decades. It's very tiring.

Britain is different, on the other hand. Generally, we like the people of the British Isles. And also the funky Scandanavians. And the neutral Swiss. Other than that, yeah, you're all like France...or evil Russians.

Luv ya:fluffle:

Yay! French bashing! Yes, damned dirty frogs. Just like you fat, inbred american rednecks. Am I right?

Another stupid treaty so the world can try and screw US over again. We save the world 3 times (WWI, WWII, Cold War) and are currently in the process of saving your sorry butts again (War on Terrorism), and all you do is mitch an' boan about everything under the sun. Lazy $#!%'s.
Oh, to laugh.

SCHWARZE PUMPE, Germany — In the shadow of two hulking boilers, which spew 10 million tons of carbon dioxide a year into the air, the Swedish owners of this coal-fired power station recently broke ground on what is to be the world's first carbon-free plant fueled by coal. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, presided over the ceremony.Well whadya know... :p

Another stupid treaty so the world can try and screw US over again. We save the world 3 times (WWI, WWII, Cold War) and are currently in the process of saving your sorry butts again (War on Terrorism), and all you do is mitch an' boan about everything under the sun. Lazy $#!%'s.

Dear god I hope you aren't being serious. You couldn't possibly have that poor an understanding history.

Oh...wait...US education. There we go.

Yay! French bashing! Yes, damned dirty frogs. Just like you fat, inbred american rednecks. Am I right?

Close... but no cigar.;)

Dear god I hope you aren't being serious. You couldn't possibly have that poor an understanding history.

Oh...wait...US education. There we go.

Fine then. Enlighten me. *gag*

You know, I'd be very OK with US withdrawing from the rest of the world, living in our own isolationist lives, and let rest of you go to pot. But that's not going to happen because we currently have pigs (Demoncats, Demicans, and Republicrats) running D.C. and we have been without a decent government for 30 years (or 150, depending on how you look at things). They are hell-bent on globalization. I'd be happy to pack up and go home and leave you all alone. Good riddence!

Fine then. Enlighten me. *gag*

This is neither the time nor the place for debates on US foreign policy in the twentieth century, or on whether or not the world needed "saved" in WW1 or the Cold War.

Fine then. Enlighten me. *gag*
I'd sooner enlighten a dank cave.

I'd sooner enlighten a dank cave.

Then please do and save me the trouble.

Fine then. Enlighten me. *gag*

Whilst it is true that US troops were more than welcome in the end years of WWI, they had a minimal effect on the war, only helping to slow down the last remnants of the German 1918 offensives. Allied troops could have eventually contained and repelled the attacks as they petered out by themselves. US supplies, much like the next war, were of far more importance.

In WWII, US production and economic status was vital to the war effort, as were the troops your country provided. However, you were not the 'Saviour' of the Allies. All countries did their bit in the war, mostly Soviet Russia, who lost roughly ten times the casualties of the other Allied armies combined, and who tied up the majority of the Wehrmacht.

The Cold War is more difficult to judge. As there was no major conflict and only a series of smaller, proxy wars, the effect of each country is difficult to judge. Of course, as a superpower the US led the anti-Soviet effort and provided funds to retain the European powers, but other countries like Great Britain, France, West Germany and Spain were also important in ending the war.

All in all, no-one is doubting the effectiveness of the United States in these conflcts. However, the US was not the 'Saviour' and end-all that you paint it to be.

This is neither the time nor the place for debates on US foreign policy in the twentieth century, or on whether or not the world needed "saved" in WW1 or the Cold War.

Ooops. Heh...sorry. Never can pass up a good history debate. Especially against people like this.

Whilst it is true that US troops were more than welcome in the end years of WWI, they had a minimal effect on the war, only helping to slow down the last remnants of the German 1918 offensives. Allied troops could have eventually contained and repelled the attacks as they petered out by themselves. US supplies, much like the next war, were of far more importance.

In WWII, US production and economic status was vital to the war effort, as were the troops your country provided. However, you were not the 'Saviour' of the Allies. All countries did their bit in the war, mostly Soviet Russia, who lost roughly ten times the casualties of the other Allied armies combined, and who tied up the majority of the Wehrmacht.

The Cold War is more difficult to judge. As there was no major conflict and only a series of smaller, proxy wars, the effect of each country is difficult to judge. Of course, as a superpower the US led the anti-Soviet effort and provided funds to retain the European powers, but other countries like Great Britain, France, West Germany and Spain were also important in ending the war.

All in all, no-one is doubting the effectiveness of the United States in these conflcts. However, the US was not the 'Saviour' and end-all that you paint it to be.


*Yawn*

Now then, if you'll excuse me...

And you know what? It's not so much that I hate the rest of you- I'm just sick of the rest of you hating US. Since when have we been the horrible awful bad guy. We have our moments the same as anyone else, but I'm damned tired of being bantered.

No, your right. France is the image that generally represents Europe for US.

Emasculated, sissy, wussy people whom we have to come and save every couple of decades. It's very tiring.
They are as patriotic as you people, as xenophobic, as nationalist, as pro-military and as consumerist. Furthermore, they are a patriarchal society with not even 13% of women in their Parliament. If anything, they are the opposite of what you described. I don't like their attitude, but I like yours even less...

Oh, and as for the whole military thing, they saved you from the UK when you were having your little rebellion...it's not their fault that post-Napoleon the glorious French military record fell to shambles.

*Yawn*

Now then, if you'll excuse me...

And you know what? It's not so much that I hate the rest of you- I'm just sick of the rest of you hating US. Since when have we been the horrible awful bad guy. We have our moments the same as anyone else, but I'm damned tired of being bantered.

See, that's the funny thing.

Nobody hates you (apart from some nutjobs in the Middle East).

It's entirely down to a US inferiority and persecution complex. Possibly something to do with age...the young kid at the grown-ups table, desperate for constant compliments and attention, and when it doesn't get it, it assumes the grown-ups don't like it.

Pity, really. And rather pathetic.

*Yawn*

Now then, if you'll excuse me...

And you know what? It's not so much that I hate the rest of you- I'm just sick of the rest of you hating US. Since when have we been the horrible awful bad guy. We have our moments the same as anyone else, but I'm damned tired of being bantered.
He just disproved all your arguments; this is not a hate thing. It is the fact that you are so bloody ignorant.

They are as patriotic as you people, as xenophobic, as nationalist, as pro-military and as consumerist. Furthermore, they are a patriarchal society with not even 13% of women in their Parliament. If anything, they are the opposite of what you described. I don't like their attitude, but I like yours even less...

Oh, and as for the whole military thing, they saved you from the UK when you were having your little rebellion...it's not their fault that post-Napoleon the glorious French military record fell to shambles.

I concede. What you say is true. But somebody's gotta be the scapegoat of ridicule.

*Yawn*

Now then, if you'll excuse me...

And you know what? It's not so much that I hate the rest of you- I'm just sick of the rest of you hating US. Since when have we been the horrible awful bad guy. We have our moments the same as anyone else, but I'm damned tired of being bantered.

How is this anti-US rhetoric or sentiment? I gave a fairly balanced and as non-biased view as I could on the effects of the United States in the three conflicts that you mentioned. In no way have I 'bashed' the United States or degraded its efforts in each war. I have simply given a more level view that that which you gave in the beginning.

Another stupid treaty so the world can try and screw US over again. We save the world 3 times (WWI, WWII, Cold War) and are currently in the process of saving your sorry butts again (War on Terrorism), and all you do is mitch an' boan about everything under the sun. Lazy $#!%'s.I think you are in the wrong thread, you should be in the one about changing history via time travel.

In WW1, it was the combined efforts of the British and French who defeated the Austro/Germanic alliance, the usians, were johhny come latelys.

In WW2, it was primarliy, the Soviets who defeated the Germans, the usians were again, johnny come latelys.

In the cold war, it was the soviet peoples who dismembered the soviet apparatus, after falling for the glib promises (which never really materialised) from the usians and the rest of Europe.

In the war on Terrorism, that's a separate debate on who are the real Terrorists, I know who I think they are and they don't follow Islam.

I concede. What you say is true. But somebody's gotta be the scapegoat of ridicule.
:rolleyes: Why?

He just disproved all your arguments; this is not a hate thing. It is the fact that you are so bloody ignorant.

I'm actually more informed than I usually let on. I know more than most people in these sorts of areas. I'm just highly nationalistic. And my devotion to this country wins over information. My priorities are different than most of the "educated elite".

I'm actually more informed than I usually let on. I know more than most people in these sorts of areas. I'm just highly nationalistic. And my devotion to this country wins over information. My priorities are different than most of the "educated elite".
I am a Euro-nationalist...and yet I don't let that take over my brain functions. Why would you let the sight of a flag be a signal to turn off your brain?

I'm actually more informed than I usually let on. I know more than most people in these sorts of areas. I'm just highly nationalistic. And my devotion to this country wins over information. My priorities are different than most of the "educated elite".

So, I give a balanced view of the US's contribution to these conflicts...and you ignore it because it somehow offends your nationalistic principles?

Germany =/= Europe.

Europe =/= Germany.


Stupid USians.

Let's have a look at, say, France. They produce 78% of their power from Nuclear.

Why not take them and call them "Europe"?

Oh yeah...the "Europe is bad" agenda. Silly me.

Funny...the article repeatedly pointed out specific situations in other nations (such as France's widespread use of nuclear power), and used this specific example of a German power-plant issue to highlight an underlying issue that does indeed affect all of Europe.

Did you bother to read the article?

Another stupid treaty so the world can try and screw US over again. We save the world 3 times (WWI, WWII, Cold War) and are currently in the process of saving your sorry butts again (War on Terrorism), and all you do is mitch an' boan about everything under the sun. Lazy $#!%'s.

Dear god I hope you aren't being serious. You couldn't possibly have that poor an understanding history.

Oh...wait...US education. There we go.

Good job...responding to a troll with a flame...:rolleyes:

Not disputing the obvious factual errors of his statements, but honestly...why send things down that well-worn downward spiral?

So, I give a balanced view of the US's contribution to these conflicts...and you ignore it because it somehow offends your nationalistic principles?

Basically, yes. Call it what you will. But yes.

:rolleyes: Why?

Because if there were to be no scapegoat people would actually have to think and consider the pros and cons of international actions. With a scapegoat this intellectual effort is unnecessary as it is automatically obvious who is wrong.

:rolleyes:

Funny...the article repeatedly pointed out specific situations in other nations (such as France's widespread use of nuclear power), and used this specific example of a German power-plant issue to highlight an underlying issue that does indeed affect all of Europe.

Did you bother to read the article?

Unfortunately.



Good job...responding to a troll with a flame...:rolleyes:

Not disputing the obvious factual errors of his statements, but honestly...why send things down that well-worn downward spiral?

Because I'm bored?

Because if there were to be no scapegoat people would actually have to think and consider the pros and cons of international actions. With a scapegoat this intellectual effort is unnecessary as it is automatically obvious who is wrong.

:rolleyes:

That hits the nail on the head. But really, the majority of US, at least in my area (which also happens to be the "leprous" "Red" state, aka UTAH) we really do care what happens. And we realize there are consequences to every action. There are pros and cons. Americans really do have a concience. We just don't always show it.

Unfortunately.

Because I'm bored?

WOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!!!!




That was the point...flying over your head.

That hits the nail on the head. But really, the majority of US, at least in my area (which also happens to be the "leprous" "Red" state, aka UTAH) we really do care what happens. And we realize there are consequences to every action. There are pros and cons. Americans really do have a concience. We just don't always show it.

I, for one, have never accused US citizens in general of having no conscience. What they normally do have is a very local perspective. What happens in their town matters a lot, what happens in the county matters, what happens in the State is of some interest, what happens in the USA could have some effect on them, what happens in the world is unimportant, mostly.

As such, they are easily led into scapegoat patterns of thinking by the administration, press, internet etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the local perspective, provided that the USA does not then presume to tell the rest of the world how to behave. It is the combination of the two that is wrong.

I, for one, have never accused US citizens in general of having no conscience. What they normally do have is a very local perspective. What happens in their town matters a lot, what happens in the county matters, what happens in the State is of some interest, what happens in the USA could have some effect on them, what happens in the world is unimportant, mostly.

As such, they are easily led into scapegoat patterns of thinking by the administration, press, internet etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the local perspective, provided that the USA does not then presume to tell the rest of the world how to behave. It is the combination of the two that is wrong.

Very True. We don't care about the rest of the world much. Like I said, I, and a great deal many other people, would be happy to not get involved. Look at our history. We have always been more proned to isolation- oceans on both sides. We'd be very content to go back to being that way.

I think you are in the wrong thread, you should be in the one about changing history via time travel.

In WW1, it was the combined efforts of the British and French who defeated the Austro/Germanic alliance, the usians, were johhny come latelys.

In WW2, it was primarliy, the Soviets who defeated the Germans, the usians were again, johnny come latelys.

In the cold war, it was the soviet peoples who dismembered the soviet apparatus, after falling for the glib promises (which never really materialised) from the usians and the rest of Europe.

In the war on Terrorism, that's a separate debate on who are the real Terrorists, I know who I think they are and they don't follow Islam.
Your use of "usians" ( not even capitalized, btw ) betrays your true intent and purpose. You can safely be ignored.

Your use of "usians" ( not even capitalized, btw ) betrays your true intent and purpose. You can safely be ignored.
Despite the fact that he made a series of good points? I think your ignoring him based on that betrays your true intent and purpose.

Your use of "usians" ( not even capitalized, btw ) betrays your true intent and purpose. You can safely be ignored.

Ahhh. Did the nasty poster call Eutrusca-wusca a nasty name? Poor little Euty. :p

WOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!!!!




That was the point...flying over your head.

Oh, I got the point alright. I just couldn't care less.

Despite the fact that he made a series of good points? I think your ignoring him based on that betrays your true intent and purpose.The way usians was being used was pretty audacious. Besides, it's not like the Soviets were fighting the Germans from beginning on in WWII...

Your use of "usians" ( not even capitalized, btw ) betrays your true intent and purpose. You can safely be ignored.

That's a good way to deal with things you don't like but can't argue with. Pick one word used and try and use it to discredit the whole post without having to actually make a point.

Congratulations. You fail.

Despite the fact that he made a series of good points? I think your ignoring him based on that betrays your true intent and purpose.
"Good points?" Where? [ glances all around ]

"Good points?" Where? [ glances all around ]
Ah, I see. Voluntary "blindness". Excellent. You purport that you are a more balanced "Centrist". Prove it then. Show the balance in your nationalism, rather than the bigotry.

"Good points?" Where? [ glances all around ]

Well, I know good points aren't something you like to associate yourself with, but he was right about most of his post.

I've found this to be true

Even if you do have good points- If you cannot spell, articulate, or speak correctly, you are dismissed as someone without a valid case. Whereas, someone who can articulate, and spell, and speak correctly can say something nonsensical and be passed off as "intellectual".

The way usians was being used was pretty audacious. Besides, it's not like the Soviets were fighting the Germans from beginning on in WWII...
I find USians to be an idiotic term myself. Though to dismiss his good points post hoc, ergo propter hoc is awfully smug in my view.

Can you blame Germany at all? They signed the Kyoto protocols before Russia decided to start playing political games with Europe's supplies of natural gas and then you have the sky rocketing prices of oil. Europe is suddenly shit scared about energy security in the immediate future. Add this that there are still huge amounts of unmined coal in europe is it any wonder many countries want to build coal plants... and quickly at that.

I would also hasten to add that European coal plants as they are, are cleaner than their US counterparts. With Sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and dust being removed from the emissions.

So yes, Europe as whole, may be building coal plants, but at least it is attempting to cut it's emissions (such as car emissions)and doesn't deny global warming such as President Bush does (or at least the last time I checked). So, on the whole I think the Europe checks out alright, considering that new car emissions dropped by 12% between 1995 and 2003. I can't find a source, but as I remember transport is the biggest generator of carbon dioxide.

http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=2639&icid=I033-1142108-148A

Your use of "usians" ( not even capitalized, btw ) betrays your true intent and purpose. You can safely be ignored.If you read my message closely, you will see that I made the same error with the soviets. Does that also betray my true purpose, or does it highlight your desperate attempt at point scoring?

On a side note, I think it's rather nifty that I can see the Schwarze Pumpe from where I sit. :D

You all realize the monster we know as Germany was the result of the Allies harshness and unfair placement of blame of WWI on them. Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Third Reich would never have come into being if so much crap hadn't been heaped on it after WWI. WWI wasn't mostly or initially their fault. It was over the assassination of an "Arch Duck" and crumbling royal family of Europe went beserk in an all out family feud. Very pathetic war.

Yeah, France wanted revenge on Germany for some earlier defeats against them and really screwed them over, which allowed Hitler to gain control. Then again, if you trace it back, if Austria-Hungary had immediately invaded Serbia instead of stalling and talking and wasting valuable time for a month, WWI might not have started in the first place.

Yeah, France wanted revenge on Germany for some earlier defeats against them and really screwed them over, which allowed Hitler to gain control. Then again, if you trace it back, if Austria-Hungary had immediately invaded Serbia instead of stalling and talking and wasting valuable time for a month, WWI might not have started in the first place.

Pretty much.

Yeah, France wanted revenge on Germany for some earlier defeats against them and really screwed them over, which allowed Hitler to gain control. Then again, if you trace it back, if Austria-Hungary had immediately invaded Serbia instead of stalling and talking and wasting valuable time for a month, WWI might not have started in the first place.
It was a complex affair, but I concur. Defeat in the war shifted too much of the onus of blame on to Germany and brought about a political regime the Germans -quite frankly- were not ready for yet (and may have never chosen to implement had they won). Hindenburg and his "stab in the back" theory helped make matters worse. The Treaty of Versailles -in formal terms- was excessive. In application? No one bothered enforcing it. That didn't stop Hitler from manipulating what was in writing though...Had Germany won WW I, or achieved a compromise, or even had the Allies been softer, WW II might've been avoided altogether. This is something for another thread though.

It was a complex affair, but I concur. Defeat in the war shifted too much of the onus of blame on to Germany and brought about a political regime the Germans -quite frankly- were not ready for yet. Hindenburg and his "stab in the back" theory helped make matters worse. The Treaty of Versailles -in formal terms- was excessive. In application? No one bothered enforcing it. That didn't stop Hitler from manipulating what was in writing though...Had Germany won WW I, or achieved a compromise, or even had the Allies been softer, WW II might've been avoided altogether. This is something for another thread though.
Fine. Moving on.

It was a complex affair, but I concur. Defeat in the war shifted too much of the onus of blame on to Germany and brought about a political regime the Germans -quite frankly- were not ready for yet (and may have never chosen to implement had they won). Hindenburg and his "stab in the back" theory helped make matters worse. The Treaty of Versailles -in formal terms- was excessive. In application? No one bothered enforcing it. That didn't stop Hitler from manipulating what was in writing though...Had Germany won WW I, or achieved a compromise, or even had the Allies been softer, WW II might've been avoided altogether. This is something for another thread though.A little known fact is that the German reparation demands on Soviet russia was equally excessive. However, that didn't stop the Soviets from cosying up to the germans until the invasion of Poland.

A little known fact is that the German reparation demands on Soviet russia was equally excessive. However, that didn't stop the Soviets from cosying up to the germans until the invasion of Poland.

Ahem... trying to work with Europa...moving on...

Not to mention the French, taking advantage of Germany's lack of a military, invaded and occupied the valuable Ruhr valley in 1922. A blatant act of war and against the rules of the League of Nations - but what does that matter? It was entirely Germany’s fault.

But this thread isnt about the cause of WW2 (which of course President Wilson pointed out was the likely outcome of the treatment of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles - but being an American was dismissed because what do American's know?).

This article was not an attack against anyone - but it does point out that the holier than thou comments from Europeans about American carbon emissions is a bit hypocritical.

Nobody is perfect and every politician has to make compromises between short-term expediency and long-term goals. Making a big deal out of one ‘clean coal’ plant when you are building a lot of traditional coal plants is blatantly just a self-serving PR exercise.

Let's face it. There are hypocrites on all sides. It is irksome though to have others get on their high horse, then go do the thing they told you not to do, or something worse. Not that it is any excuse for the other side to do something bad. Never use other's actions to justify your own.

wat the heck happened here we went from DISCUSSING Europes use of coal over other things to fighting about who did the most in the world wars

wat the heck happened here we went from DISCUSSING Europes use of coal over other things to fighting about who did the most in the world wars

Yep. Just go with the flow... or redirect it if possible.

I'm actually more informed than I usually let on. I know more than most people in these sorts of areas. I'm just highly nationalistic. And my devotion to this country wins over information. My priorities are different than most of the "educated elite".

:eek:

That's pretty damn disgusting. Facts are more important than your political bias, no matter what your bias is. That kind of outright bias is what allows governments to do terrible things unchecked by their people.

Good post on the European Coal Power Plant. You know it's ironic, several countries entered the Kato agreement, and yet, the USA (who stayed out of it) actually has lower emissions than the countries that are in the KATO agreement. Hmm, I guess having the government force you to do things doesn't work. Hmm, intresting.
Where the Hell did you get that idea? The US's emissions dwarf those of every other nation - per capita and in total.

Okay, I feel the need to chime in here.
I have just read several pages of America-bashing- some of it deserved- yet none of my fellow Americans on this page have done such a hot job of defending our national spirit on this thread.
Most often I use what I call the Turnstile theory to demonstrate why America is so cool.
If you could put turnstiles on the borders of every country in the world with a counting device attached to each one. And, if you could somehow fix it so that even people crossing borders illegally would still somehow be counted. I promise you that you would see more people entering America than any other country on the planet and far fewer leaving.
As for that ill-advised dig on our education system, I would point out that the international studies Europeans uphold as evidence that their system is better than ours focus only on the American public education system which is, yes, lousy. But a huge percentage of Americans, myself included, attend private schools where the quality of education is better. Those schools and their performance results, however, almost never get included in those studies. Europeans have a lot to be proud of when it comes to education but the notion they're smarter than Americans isn't one of them.
Let's go back to that other comment about the "child at the adults" table mentality of U.S. foriegn policy makers. Hmmmmm......nope. As much as I like Europeans, I see this elitist attitude as the result of one cold, hard fact that none of them have seemed to absorb yet. Europe doesn't run the world anymore. You had your centuries of empire, your glorious colonies and your economic power. That is, you had it until the 20th century. Now, a new power has taken over, namely, America. Think about it. The very internet we're talking through now is an American invention. We produce most of the airplanes in the sky. We supply more food to more nations than any other country in the world. We're also, believe it or not, the largest donor of foreign aide money in the world. Child at the adults table? Please. It's more like we're the youngest person at a table of crotchety senior citizens who never stop complaining. You had your turn to run the show. It's our turn now. Sorry to be blunt but after everything I just read, I'm a little pissed.
The U.S. may have strayed from it's values in the last few years, I agree, but if Europe thinks it has any right to condemn us (after its legacy of men like Hitler, Napoleon, Mussolini, etc, etc, etc) it has another thing coming. Bite me.

Let's have a look at, say, France. They produce 78% of their power from Nuclear.

Why not take them and call them "Europe"?

Oh yeah...the "Europe is bad" agenda. Silly me.
For the purposes of many discussions, especially relating to Iraq, France = Europe in American eyes.

In WW1, it was the combined efforts of the British and French who defeated the Austro/Germanic alliance, the usians, were johhny come latelys.

In WW2, it was primarliy, the Soviets who defeated the Germans, the usians were again, johnny come latelys.

In the cold war, it was the soviet peoples who dismembered the soviet apparatus, after falling for the glib promises (which never really materialised) from the usians and the rest of Europe.

In the war on Terrorism, that's a separate debate on who are the real Terrorists, I know who I think they are and they don't follow Islam.
While I do agree with you on World War 2, (The Commies did more than we did, though we did much more than the Brits), I disagree on the others.
Imperial Germany had been giving the Allies a pounding for almost the entire war. The only reason the final offensive collapsed was because of the Americans. The Brits and Frenchies wouldn't have stopped it.
The Cold War was largely an American victory, and yes, we are saving your asses in this war on Islamo-Fascism (I hate the term "War on Terror". What BS)

COMMENTARY: Despite denouncing America's reliance on oil-fired electricity generating plants, and crowing about the Eurpoean efforts to cut emissions, it seems that many European countries are using coal to generate electricity despite its higher emissions. I'm sure there will be some on here who get upset about this thread, saying that it's just an attempt to make Europeans look bad. But the truth will out.
Germany is not representative of Europe in this regard. You see, it has done two things.

1) Refuse to build nuclear.

2) Refuse to kneel before the might of Russian natural gas, choosing to bow instead and claim it retains some dignity.

The rest of Europe has done either 1) or 2), and some are going to do 2) right after they have done 1), when they realise they started too late.

All apart from France, which as usual steals the march on everyone and wins the greatest post- Cold War strategy game, twenty years ago.

We are taking this thread to Cuba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q5b6jrk4JQ&search=cuba%2C%20hijacking)

We are taking this thread to Cuba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q5b6jrk4JQ&search=cuba%2C%20hijacking)
Why? The guy looks Libyan. :confused:

We are taking this thread to Cuba (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q5b6jrk4JQ&search=cuba%2C%20hijacking)
Yay, I'm not the only one to make that joke!

I'm actually more informed than I usually let on. I know more than most people in these sorts of areas. I'm just highly nationalistic. And my devotion to this country wins over information. My priorities are different than most of the "educated elite".
So, I give a balanced view of the US's contribution to these conflicts...and you ignore it because it somehow offends your nationalistic principles?
Basically, yes. Call it what you will. But yes.
Proclaiming that you're happy to ignore reality is not exactly a debate-winner.

Britain is different, on the other hand. Generally, we like the people of the British Isles.
The people of Ireland are one of the most anti-war in Europe, so why do you like us so much?

I concede. What you say is true. But somebody's gotta be the scapegoat of ridicule.
Why not pick on Germany then? They were just as much anti-war as France, and their military record is spectacularly bad. (started the biggest wars in history and lost them both.)

I, for one, have never accused US citizens in general of having no conscience. What they normally do have is a very local perspective. What happens in their town matters a lot, what happens in the county matters, what happens in the State is of some interest, what happens in the USA could have some effect on them, what happens in the world is unimportant, mostly.

If Americans think that events in the world are unimportant, why are they so damned interventionist?

Why? The guy looks Libyan. :confused:
The guy is American. He may have gone by Roachsylvania here a long time ago, but he's since migrated to PB.

Okay, I feel the need to chime in here.
snip
The U.S. may have strayed from it's values in the last few years, I agree, but if Europe thinks it has any right to condemn us (after its legacy of men like Hitler, Napoleon, Mussolini, etc, etc, etc) it has another thing coming. Bite me.
I wish you'd make yor mind up. Are you treating Europe as one big bloc or as separate countries? Because as it is you want to treat Europe as separate countries to measure foreign aid and immigration yet you want for example Britain to feel ashamed of Napoleon, although why anyone needs to feel ashamed of Napoleon I've no idea.

Wait. Didn't we fight two wars to decide that Germany didn't represent Europe? Or did we lose and my history books are wrong?

Owned.

And Francis Street raises a good point, even if he did double post.

US /= UN

The people of Ireland are one of the most anti-war in Europe, so why do you like us so much?


Because we're ickle.

That and half of Americans are Oirish in some way or another.

Because we're ickle.

That and half of Americans are Oirish in some way or another.
An awful lot of us did go over there during the famine and build things. I dare say we slept around quite a bit too. :fluffle:

While I do agree with you on World War 2, (The Commies did more than we did, though we did much more than the Brits), I disagree on the others.
Imperial Germany had been giving the Allies a pounding for almost the entire war. The only reason the final offensive collapsed was because of the Americans. The Brits and Frenchies wouldn't have stopped it.
Actually, the Germans were fast running out on their resources...food, munitions, the support of the Germans themselves. A lack of supplies in most of the needed raw materials would have exhausted the german economy and military resolve. The fact that America got involved is comepletely incidental. Yes Germany was giving the allied powers the pounding you say but you forget, this was a war of attrition, Britain and France were doing likewise to Germany. Thats why the war was so stupid. Too many young men (on both sides) died for a few acres of bombed out wasteland
The Cold War was largely an American victory, and yes, we are saving your asses in this war on Islamo-Fascism (I hate the term "War on Terror". What BS)The cold war was a capitalist victory of greed over ethics. If America wants to take credit for that then please be my guest. The harsh facts are that there is still too much poverty in most of the former soviet countries. The much vaunted capitalist (American) dream has failed to materialise (no surprises there).

As for saving my/our arses. You may not understand this but it is actually the invasion and continuing terror activities of the coalition that has raised the possibility of further terrorist atrocities around the globe. Why did the coalition invade Afghanistan and Iraq, when the real home of Al Quida was in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which as we all know is one of America's "friends".

By America's continuing meddling with other countries policies and structures, in South America, Asia, Europe and Africa, is it any surprise that extremists brought terror home to the USA?

There are war criminals within the Islamic world and 2 main war criminals in the USA and the UK. Need I say who those two people are?

:eek:

That's pretty damn disgusting. Facts are more important than your political bias, no matter what your bias is. That kind of outright bias is what allows governments to do terrible things unchecked by their people.

Everyone has a bias. Everyone uses whatever "Facts" they need to support that bias. Your damn bias is disgusting to me. So get off your high horse, and get back in the mud where you came from and wallow with the rest of us.

Okay, I feel the need to chime in here.
I have just read several pages of America-bashing- some of it deserved- yet none of my fellow Americans on this page have done such a hot job of defending our national spirit on this thread.
Most often I use what I call the Turnstile theory to demonstrate why America is so cool.
If you could put turnstiles on the borders of every country in the world with a counting device attached to each one. And, if you could somehow fix it so that even people crossing borders illegally would still somehow be counted. I promise you that you would see more people entering America than any other country on the planet and far fewer leaving.
As for that ill-advised dig on our education system, I would point out that the international studies Europeans uphold as evidence that their system is better than ours focus only on the American public education system which is, yes, lousy. But a huge percentage of Americans, myself included, attend private schools where the quality of education is better. Those schools and their performance results, however, almost never get included in those studies. Europeans have a lot to be proud of when it comes to education but the notion they're smarter than Americans isn't one of them.
Let's go back to that other comment about the "child at the adults" table mentality of U.S. foriegn policy makers. Hmmmmm......nope. As much as I like Europeans, I see this elitist attitude as the result of one cold, hard fact that none of them have seemed to absorb yet. Europe doesn't run the world anymore. You had your centuries of empire, your glorious colonies and your economic power. That is, you had it until the 20th century. Now, a new power has taken over, namely, America. Think about it. The very internet we're talking through now is an American invention. We produce most of the airplanes in the sky. We supply more food to more nations than any other country in the world. We're also, believe it or not, the largest donor of foreign aide money in the world. Child at the adults table? Please. It's more like we're the youngest person at a table of crotchety senior citizens who never stop complaining. You had your turn to run the show. It's our turn now. Sorry to be blunt but after everything I just read, I'm a little pissed.
The U.S. may have strayed from it's values in the last few years, I agree, but if Europe thinks it has any right to condemn us (after its legacy of men like Hitler, Napoleon, Mussolini, etc, etc, etc) it has another thing coming. Bite me.

Thank You.

Everyone has a bias. Everyone uses whatever "Facts" they need to support that bias. Your damn bias is disgusting to me. So get off your high horse, and get back in the mud where you came from and wallow with the rest of us.
Please read (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:p1PsDmvqZSIJ:my.opera.com/Jaybro/homes/blog/On%2520Bullshit.pdf+%22on+bullshit%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18&client=firefox-a)

Please read (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:p1PsDmvqZSIJ:my.opera.com/Jaybro/homes/blog/On%2520Bullshit.pdf+%22on+bullshit%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=18&client=firefox-a)

I don't have all day to read that. I read some of it. Could you condense what you're trying to say into several sentences please.

If Americans think that events in the world are unimportant, why are they so damned interventionist?

Stop confusing US citizens with the US administraton. The connection between the two is very tenuous indeed.

The US administration likes to meddle in foreign affairs to distract the media from internal problems. The US citizenry, in general is concerned with living their own lives, and they look at foreign affairs in much the same way as they look at a soap opera. Perhaps entertaining, a distraction for a while, but nothing that really makes any difference in the end.

(Until the oil prices keep going up that is.)

I don't have all day to read that. I read some of it. Could you condense what you're trying to say into several sentences please.
It's an article on the relative harm and erosion of the discourse caused by bullshit, which you seem evidently proud of embracing, that it is in fact more distructive than lying becuase the liar places a value on truth even while he avoids it but a bullshiter doesn't care about truth but rather the advancment of whatever idea he is arguing.

In short, it's not a good thing.

It's an article on the relative harm and erosion of the discourse caused by bullshit, which you seem evidently proud of embracing, that it is in fact more distructive than lying becuase the liar places a value on truth even while he avoids it but a bullshiter doesn't care about truth but rather the advancment of whatever idea he is arguing.

In short, it's not a good thing.

Who's to say what's good and right?

It's all relative. There are no absolutes, and anything goes. You may not like my crap, but it's mine, and I like it, and you can't tell me it's bad or wrong- who died and made you judge and jury? Not me.

Who's to say what's good and right?

It's all relative. There are no absolutes, and anything goes. You may not like my crap, but it's mine, and I like it, and you can't tell me it's bad or wrong- who died and made you judge and jury? Not me.

So go read "On Bullshit". Then you will be entitled to criticise it. Until you do, you cannot have an opinion on what it has to say, can you?

Oh, and it is not all relative - we are all humans and we all have the same basic desires and aversions - like it or not.

So go read "On Bullshit". Then you will be entitled to criticise it. Until you do, you cannot have an opinion on what it has to say, can you?

Oh, and it is not all relative - we are all humans and we all have the same basic desires and aversions - like it or not.

I know this is a dumb question, because it is so overly used and innaccurate- but do you consider yourself more liberal or conservative. That way I know how to talk to you- friendly like, or with disdain.

I know this is a dumb question, because it is so overly used and innaccurate- but do you consider yourself more liberal or conservative. That way I know how to talk to you- friendly like, or with disdain.

I am not a US citizen, so the question makes no sense. Additionally I am a person, not a political ideal, so talk to me as a person or don't bother at all.

I am not a US citizen, so the question makes no sense. Additionally I am a person, not a political ideal, so talk to me as a person or don't bother at all.

Never mind...