People in Bolivia are going thirsty, and the New York Times blames it on climate change. But, in fact, the glaciers have been retreating for well over 100 years.
The real problem in Bolivia, as the Times admits well down the page, is that the government declared water to be a “human right” and took over the private water company. But because the government is inept, not to mention broke, it has failed to provide water to those who need it or to adjust to long-term changes in water flows.
If both of you will find something to begin working on together, it may boost the passion inside your relationship. viagra on line This drug leads for common side- effects that include headache, upset viagra uk sale stomach, blurred eye-vision and color confusion (confusion between green and blue color). Horny goat weed order generic levitra on sale here is a leafy herb producing red and yellow result due to the varnishing and rubberizing processes. Those things that with the help of natural treatment http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/11/29/tarihi-oylama-birlesmis-milletler-filistini-artik-devlet-olarak-tanidi/ soft viagra for erectile dysfunction.
Simply declaring something a human right doesn’t automatically mean everyone will get some. As Bremerton, Washington, blogger Keli Carender points out in the video above, someone has to pay for it.
Bolivia no doubt hopes that, by blaming the problem on climate change, it will guilt-trip wealthy nations into providing billions in foreign aid, thus compensating for its own ineptitude. If the United States nationalized health care, who are we going to guilt-trip to fund our future health costs?
The key issue here is mismanagement, not about some thing being private or public.
[Quoting the N.Y. Times article that The Antiplanner made reference to]
> But global warming alone cannot be blamed for the longstanding woes of this exotic but desperately
> poor landlocked country, where per capita income is around $1,000. Urban water supplies are also
> taxed by population growth as well as checkered management, in part because there is little money
> to manage anything, but also because the government nationalized the water company a few years ago,
> having declared water a human right. El Alto still does not employ a full-time water technician.
Very little in this world is “free,” even if a government declares it to be a human right.
Why doesn’t the left wing just declare that wealth, health and happiness is a “right”, and then everybody will live happily ever after?
Good idea. Maybe the Prez will add that to his State of the Union … and life will be perferct then!
Can we talk more about planning-planning instead of this AGW stuff?
Good point, prk166. I agree, as there are plenty of other places to debate AGW.
Not to worry. I watched a film documentary about this last year. They called in James Bond and he made sure the Bolivians got their water.
Bechtel price gouging in Bolivia causing them to get kicked out notwithstanding,
Randal purposely misleads about Bolivian Glacier Retreat*.
Why does Randal purposely mislead? The facts are easily checked. This is purposeful misleading. These facts have been known for years, why lie about them now?
What is the purpose of this misinformation when the facts are so easily checked? Is it to purposely continue to marginalize the small minority? Keep their fact-free ideology out of power, influence, and civil society??
DS
* “Data collected from tropical ice fields near the world’s highest capital, La Paz, show mass loss in the 1990s at rates 10 times greater than previous decades. “
Andy wrote:
> Why doesn’t the left wing just declare that wealth, health and happiness is a “rightâ€,
> and then everybody will live happily ever after?
I will not speak to wealth and happiness, but when it comes to health (or, more to the point, health care, that was decided a long time ago by the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by none other than Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Don’t take my word for it – you can read about Reagan’s EMTALA law here.
prk166 wrote:
> Can we talk more about planning-planning instead of this AGW stuff?
AGW/global climate change/global warming are (IMO) very relevant and on-topic here – mostly because certain groups are marketing mandated high-density land use and urban mass transit running on steel wheels on steel rails as the “solution” to such problems.
Bechtel price gouging in Bolivia causing them to get kicked out notwithstanding,
Again, the facts are easily checked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Cochabamba_protests
Yes, Aguas del Tunari (which included Bechtel as a partner) raised raised water rates when it took over the Cochabamba water system. It needed to finance a dam project that it began shortly after taking over the water supply system. It also was guaranteed a 16 percent rate of return under its contract. This was partly to undertake the capital improvements and system expansion spelled out in its contract, partly to retire the $30 million in debt left over from the previous, state-owned utility (SEMAPA), and partly to offset to compensate for the extreme regulatory risks that exist in a socialist state like Bolivia.
One often finds that accusations of “price gouging” are nothing more than grandstanding efforts by opportunistic, populist politicians. This case is no exception. The World Bank noted that prior to the contract with Aguas del Tunari, there was no metering system to allocate existing resources. Everyone paid a basic rate. The World Bank, which was then providing billions in loans to the Bolivian government, insisted that rate subsidies not be part of the concession contract, because they would accrue mostly to industrial users and non-poor households, groups that were the largest water consumers. User-side subsidies might have been helpful here, but try getting something like that passed under a socialist regime.
In the end the protestors and rebel leaders, like Morales, Olivera and Fernandez, got what the wanted. They became political leaders and the ownership of the water supply reverted back the state-owned SEMAPA. Unfortunately, about half of Cochabamba’s residents are still without water, and those who have it receive intermittent service. Rates reverted to pre-2000 (protest) levels, meaning revenues are insufficient to cover system costs, much less finance expansion.
Oscar Olivera, one of the protest leaders, has been quoted as saying:
“I would have to say we were not ready to build new alternatives.”
As the article points out, SEMAPA is still plagued by graft and inefficiency. Political pressures leave them unable to raise rates and no private entity in their right mind will offer them a loan. They are left to lie in the mess they have created.
Perhaps the greatest damage that has been done is the message this event has sent to would-be private investors in this country: “You are not welcome”. They are now going to have to hope that Chavez or any of their other fellow-travelers of the left will come to their rescue and offer them financing.
MJ:
Rates apparently increased 50%, with the average rate increasing 35% ($20). Some people were spending more on water than on food, according to your link. Even if it wasn’t “price gouging” by your definition, Bechtel’s subsidiary was at least trying to rapidly expand infrastructure too quickly in context of Bechtel’s economic framework in South America’s poorest country.
The issue isn’t private vs. public — it’s really the fact that idiots behind either system can create a mess.
ws,
The issue isn’t private vs. public — it’s really the fact that idiots behind either system can create a mess.
I see this as a disingenuous argument in favor of nationalized healthcare from the left, because they attempt to have it both ways: the principle is proven sound if we can cite an implementation that works well (Japan; Germany), or the principle is sound even though you can cite an implementation that works poorly (Canada; UK).
In neither case is the left willing to explore the possibility that the principle is unsound — that the working implementations work in spite of the inherent deficiencies of the scheme, and the suboptimal implementations are to be expected of such a stillborn boondoggle. To wit: Japan’s system and Germany’s system are very different from the UK’s NHS, while still considered to BE UHC politically. As an astute Wikipedian noted, the acid test of whether the bum living in a cardboard box gets free health care has the following results: Japan – no; Germany – no; Canada – yes; UK – yes; USA – no.
It should give the left pause that the broken hybrid of private and public market for health care in the USA reaches the same acid test conclusion as the models of UHC held up as optimal in Japan and Germany, and the opposite result of the known flawed implementations in Canada and the UK. Instead of recognizing this disconnect, the left simply repeats the mantra that the USA is “the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not guarantee free* health care to all its citizens.” (By the asterisk I note, of course, that the costs to provide services “free” at the point of service are hidden, shifted, and borne by other parties.) Yet the mantra is incorrect: Health care is NOT free at the point of charge in Japan or Germany either, and they are supposed to be the exemplars. In Japan, citizens have to pay 30% of the medical bill as cash up front and the public treasury covers the other 70%. In Germany they have to front cash to cover the ENTIRE bill and be reimbursed later! (I could be conflating or mixing up Germany and France on this; if that is the case, substitute proper nouns accordingly and reread.) The left’s ignorance of this and insistence upon bleating the mantra over and over is somewhere on the spectrum between cognitive dissonance and outright deception.
All of this is, of course, a consequence of taking a pragmatic measure of government intervention in an issue instead of a principled approach based on an objective epistemology requiring the inviolacy of individual rights. The U.S. health care market is broken, absolutely. It requires the complete and total excision of governmental wealth redistribution, a coercive force upon rights and a distortive force upon market pricing mechanisms, in order to be fixed. There it is.
Cue a typical “black is white!” reply from ws, the usual ad-hominem whargarrbl from Setty, some kind of snark involving the words “fetishize” or “dissembling” from Dan, complete incoherence as usual from THWM, and either silence or general agreement from everyone else. That’s all that ever happens around here anyway. I’m starting to think I’m on a message board with a bunch of bots. (shrug)
Knowing that you stated the health care market is broke, what exactly is the private industry doing to fix these issues? Specifically, what are they doing to reduce costs?
Despite the prolix comments, one cannot distract away from the basic fact that both:
o Bechtel got kicked out of Bolivia because they jacked up water prices and the poor revolted. This is basic knowledge.
o Randal tried to misinform his readers about Bolivia’s glaciers. Their melt rate has vastly increased in the last ~two decades, far above baseline. This is basic knowledge.
It is a real problem in S America and Asia wrt water from shrinking glaciers going to increasing populations. One can hand-flutter all they wish, but in the reality-based community, these are serious issues that need to be addressed. Serious people are addressing them.
DS
ws,
Since when did private industry have the power to enact coercive laws?
There is no “private industry” in health care/insurance; the system is corporatist. Want to drive down costs? Eliminate government-mandated HMOs and their insidious bureaucracy. Get rid of all middlemen and let customers demand higher quality and lower prices with their hard-earned dollars.
I partially agree with Dan in #15.
Regardless of the cause, South American glaciers are melting, which will contribute to water shortages, which–in order to avoid calamity–must be addressed.
It then becomes a question of which can better address the problem: freedom or coercion?
As usual, DS misrepresents AP’s argument, then fails even to deal with the misrepresented argument.
AP says that the glaciers have been in retreat for more than 100 years. He even cites WikiLeftieLiars, the article from which says “It has also been observed that Patagonian glaciers are receding at a faster rate than in any other world region.” which refers to the BBC, another nest of vipers, LeftieLiar-wise.
How is that misleading anyone?
DS, you need to buy a few pickles and fill up your jar.
Oh and DS, I would value your opinion on this:
” On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.”
Is the dataset from the Hadley bunch still sacrosanct? Is there any good reason to use 25% of the original dataset? Should the many, many, papers dependent on the Hadley stuff be declared ‘inoperative’? What should be done with peer reviewers too lazy or fraudulent to call the Russkis and ask for the original datasets?
Mike said: Cue a typical “black is white!†reply from ws, the usual ad-hominem whargarrbl from Setty, some kind of snark involving the words “fetishize†or “dissembling†from Dan, complete incoherence as usual from THWM, and either silence or general agreement from everyone else. That’s all that ever happens around here anyway. I’m starting to think I’m on a message board with a bunch of bots.
THWM: More like a grey zone, though you keep pushing your subjective objectivism.
blacquejacqueshellac:“How is that misleading anyone?”
ws:It’s misleading because Randall asserted the glaciers have been retreating for the last 100 years. To me (and Dan obviously) this comes off as a very passive refutation of AGW because glaciers were even retreating during times of small man-made GHG outputs 100 years ago. As Dan pointed out, much of the melting has been in recent years, which brings light to the fact that AGW could possibly be the main culprit.
For example, a glacier reduces in size 1 mm in 70 years, and then reduces 14 feet in the last 30 years; it would technically be accurate that overall it reduced in size the last 100 years. But it’s not telling of the situation at hand and is misleading. Was it intentional by ROT? Maybe, maybe not.
This is actually a huge issue I have with general climate change discussions. Usually someone who does not believe in AGW makes the statement that climates changed naturally in past climates years before — therefor climate change we’re experiencing now is 100% natural. That may be true, but past climates changing over a few thousands of years is much different than climates changing drastically over a few hundred years. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, a hundred years is a blip on the radar, let alone 15,000 years or so.
This relates to Dan’s issue of Randal’s link to a decline over the last 100 years of glaciers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAYYIpioqK4
Here’s some thing about water & China.
BTW, the Russian think-tank CruTem lie…erm…meme originated from a Cato Senior Fellow.
Funny how that all works together – there’s a willing market for the Doubt Product, and there are the Manufacturers of Doubt making a doubt product for the gullible. What will be the next meme for the consumers of the doubt product? China psychiatrist emeritus says we’re entering an ice age?
Whatever the new meme is, we can be sure that it will be fervently grasped and unquestioningly embraced by…um…”skeptics”.
————
ws wrote in 22:
Usually someone who does not believe in AGW makes the statement that climates changed naturally in past climates years before — therefor climate change we’re experiencing now is 100% natural.
Thank them for the 35 points and try to find someone with a grasp of reality who doesn’t parrot refuted talking points.
Nonetheless, speaking of coercion, one should watch the polluter lobbyists in DC, as they are starting to steer passage of ACES instead of putting up with EPA restrictions. There is much, much more profit off of gaming a trading system than in acceding to emissions restrictions.
DS
Mike said: Cue a typical “black is white!†reply from ws, the usual ad-hominem whargarrbl from Setty, some kind of snark involving the words “fetishize†or “dissembling†from Dan, complete incoherence as usual from THWM, and either silence or general agreement from everyone else. That’s all that ever happens around here anyway. I’m starting to think I’m on a message board with a bunch of bots.
THWM: More like a grey zone, though you keep pushing your subjective objectivism.
And the shot is up… and in. Swish!
Again, trying to mislead readers is a poor strategy when the facts are well-known [emphases added]:
DS
**This clarifies the obvious lie in the recent Indian document (‘no melting glaciers – it’s a limited number of measurements!’) that the denialists like to trumpet.
Bolivia no doubt hopes that, by blaming the problem on climate change, it will guilt-trip wealthy nations into providing billions in foreign aid, thus compensating for its own ineptitude
Yup. It’s all a scay-um to get money.
Sure.
Can it get more pathetic than this sort of weak assertion of scay-um, coercion, whatever dim-bulb assertion they throw out there today hoping something to stick?
DS
Great stuff on Himalayan glaciers:
BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
Himalayan glaciers melting deadline ‘a mistake’
Turns out the WWF study from 2005 was not peer reviewed. Oops, the IPCC did it again. AND the IPCC warmists have dyslexia apparently. Those glaciers aren’t predicted to vanish until 2350 NOT 2035. (And that’s quite some prediction. 350 years! Right.)
More good stuff:
No Sign Yet of Himalayan Meltdown, Indian Report Finds
Science 13 November 2009: 924-925
Sweet!
Small-minority denialist derides the lack of peer-review on one hand, yet supports their pathological ideology with a non-peer reviewed paper on the other hand!
Does it get more
pathetictypical than that (esp as the peer-reviewed literature disagrees** with the assertion)?BTW, the author cited in the Beeb is inconvenient to the pathological implicit assertion, as they are on the record as stating terrestrial mountain glaicers are mass wasting overall and contributing to sea-level rise. I guess they are in on the conspiracy too.
chuckle
DS
http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/download/Berthier_et_al_RSE_2007.pdf — note the strong altitude dependence.
Thanks. That last one caused my browser to crash.
I’m not a denialist, thank you very much, and I’ll politely ask you to refrain from such pejorative terms.
You didn’t touch the glaring IPCC 2035 error/fabrication/dyslexia. Nor should you.
The nails keep getting pounded into the coffin:
Black Carbon a Significant Factor in Melting of Himalayan Glaciers
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA
Columbia University/NASA GISS, New York, NY, USA
Indian Institute for Tropical Meteorology, Pune, India
Climate Analysis Section, CGD/NCAR, Boulder, CO, USA
Paper here
No mention of the bogus 2035 date the IPCC lifted from the non-peer-reviewed WWF report.