Giant coal-fired power plant gets green subsidies
Oh, b.....less.
How long ago was the excellent ST Magazine expose of this government's oversight of our nation's green talk at home vs. our murky walking overseas?
Junkk.com promotes fun, reward-based e-practices, sharing oodles of info in objective, balanced ways. But we do have personal opinions, too! Hence this slightly ‘off of site, top of mind' blog by Junkk Male Peter. Hopefully still more ‘concerned mates’ than 'do this... or else' nannies, with critiques seen as constructive or of a more eyebrow-twitching ‘Oh, really?!' variety. Little that’s green can be viewed only in black and white.
Showing posts with label WORLD BANK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WORLD BANK. Show all posts
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Monday, October 29, 2007
Painting into corners before building the room
I just saw this and saw red: More heat than light
We cannot allow institutions like the World Bank to impose ill-conceived carbon-based energy reforms on developing nations.
Not so much with what was being said, but the presumption of the way it was laid out, and how that played with me and hence mmight with others... such as those who may well need to be persuaded to rethink.
Whatever the merits (or not) of the subsequent piece and its arguments, I would have to opine that anything that starts 'We cannot allow...' rather sets up a few issues of sensible negotiation practice.
Such as who the heck is 'we'? And who put 'you/(or is it presuming...)us' in charge? And in what way are 'we' in a position to 'allow' anything? And doesn't it all rather suggest a mindset that is 'our way is the only way' which doesn't establish a very helpful basis to effect change?
I'll go read it now.
We cannot allow institutions like the World Bank to impose ill-conceived carbon-based energy reforms on developing nations.
Not so much with what was being said, but the presumption of the way it was laid out, and how that played with me and hence mmight with others... such as those who may well need to be persuaded to rethink.
Whatever the merits (or not) of the subsequent piece and its arguments, I would have to opine that anything that starts 'We cannot allow...' rather sets up a few issues of sensible negotiation practice.
Such as who the heck is 'we'? And who put 'you/(or is it presuming...)us' in charge? And in what way are 'we' in a position to 'allow' anything? And doesn't it all rather suggest a mindset that is 'our way is the only way' which doesn't establish a very helpful basis to effect change?
I'll go read it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)