“The cost of decommissioning Britain’s 19 ageing nuclear plants has jumped from £61bn to £73bn in two years and could land the taxpayer with even higher bills in the future, a report by the National Audit Office reveals today.”What? How? Why? Is the cost to the taxpayer of the nuclear industry figured into the real costs of this energy source. Put another way, this kind of cost differential when its not exactly a moving target, is £12bn. So, the cost of decommisioning goes up by 10% per annum. The UK had better get cracking before they can not afford to do it.
Industrialization and globalisation have some unremarkable consequences. Empowering rebellion is going to be a risk when profiteering companies harvest cheap human labour.
The terrorism crisis is partly down to the greed popularly contested for by our Western multinationals. Not to be outdone, watch out for similarly lumbering bests from the East.
Ask Al Qaeda
Medicinal plants facing extinction
This insane economy that has failed to grow since 2000 has basically lived on borrowed money with a hope that things may get better but the end result is much worse.
The whole point of releasing the top 1% to invest is productivity. Instead we have increased risk with sub-prime madness. Why lend to those who can never repay? How is that going to work?
Oh it is easy Mr Treasury. We flood the market with tax cuts at the top end and raise speculation through the roof. This gambling with the financial stability of our grandchildren undertaken primarily by the Bush administration and the cowboys running the big banks has resulted in wiping out the capital base of many huge financial institutions. The return of slavery is probably next.
Each field of candidates in the USA Presidential primaries have established two leading voices. In Iowa, the moral aspirations of each side prevailed but in New Hampshire a harsher reality was reflected. Obama and Hukerbee appear to share commitment and charm. They appear to represent the more optimistic side of things.
Clinton and McCain reassure those who still feel security is paramount. This is the pessimistic side. The “realists”. They enter office believing America is under threat and continue losing much money with military adventures to “protect Americans”.
The trouble with an apologist following a monster is the actions the monster took are not reversed but diluted – they continue to rust away the foundations of security, albeit in more rationale doses. Until eventually it becomes too expensive, and then they stop. It is the money involved that makes change a more likely democratic solution.
Change only usually occurs by doing something different. It is not that there are singular right answers to the problems the new president will face in 2009. Bush and Cheney have until them to continue to excercise their beliefs; ergo, an impeachment hearing may not just defeat such efforts, but it would turn US politics on its head. But for good reason. Impeaching Bill Clinton was political. Would impeaching Dick Cheney could help Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama be more evenly matched and thus give Americans a better democratic choice?