oh, larissa

“Peaty wetlands emit about 1.3 billion tonnes of CO2 a year as a result of human activity that drains them and thus exposes them to the oxidative effect of the atmosphere. This figure does not include the effect of fire on dried-up bogs, which can double the amount. That, at least, is the conclusion of a report published by Wetlands International, a lobby group, this week. Drained peat occupies 0.3% of the world’s land surface, but is responsible for 6% of man-made CO2 emissions. Indonesia is the biggest emitter, but richer countries are guilty too. However, the report’s findings contrast with the conclusions of a paper on deforestation also published this week in Nature Geoscience. The conventional figure is that tree-felling causes 20% of man-made CO2 emissions, but the new paper puts that figure at closer to 12%. Together, both studies suggest a change of emphasis may be needed, and that efforts should be made to preserve not just forests, but also bogs. (source)”

Whenever Norway’s extensive social welfare system and high standard of living is discussed, conservatives like to say that they can only afford it because they are sitting on so much oil.

If that’s the case, then why does Sweden have a nearly identical system and standard of living, without much oil at all?

(click to enlarge; via axinomancy)

“In its annual “World Development Report” published on Tuesday September 15th, the World Bank notes that they accounted for 64% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels between 1850 and 2005. In 2005 itself, however, this share had fallen to 50%, and middle-income countries such as India and China (now the world’s biggest emitter) accounted for almost half of CO2 emissions and more than half of wider greenhouse-gas emissions. But rich countries’ 1 billion people emit far more on a per person basis compared with the 4.2 billion people who live in middle-income countries.”

onepointofview:(via creatively-challenged)

Despite appearances regarding Canada’s 1st place spot, it is interesting to note that:

• “Canada’s net taxation was 33.4% of GDP in the last year there is data for, while the US’s was 28.2%, both significantly lower than the mid 40%’s to 50%’s common in Europe.
• Government spending in Canada was 39.3% of GDP in Canada and 36.7% of GDP in the US. This smaller difference than revenues indicates that the US government operates further in the red, which is true. Canada has had a federal surplus every year since the 1990s, while the US has had a surplus in 2 years (1999 and 2000) since 1968. (sources: 1, 2)”

I don’t have data on hand, but it would be interesting to compare with Germany — which is sitting just below the OECD average, and also with Sweden and Australia against Canadian or American figures and factors.

Look at where RBC sits.  No surprise there (at my own expense).

Europe’s democracy deficit from The Economist

“Britain and the Netherlands kicked off the four-day process of electing members for the European Parliament on Thursday June 4th. It is one of the biggest democratic exercises in the world, with over 375m voters in 27 countries. But some voters lack enthusiasm. As the European Union has expanded, turnout has dwindled: from 62% at the first election in 1979 to 45% in 2004. Some blame a general decline in democratic engagement but, aside from countries with compulsory voting such as Belgium, the difference in turnout for national and European parliaments is substantial. And worryingly for Europhiles, turnout is worst in many of the newest members of the club, in eastern Europe.”

The government debt of the ten richest countries attending the G20 summits will hit 114% of GDP by 2014, up from 78% in 2007, according to a new IMF study. To measure how much fiscal pain would be required to bring gross debt ratios to a sustainable level, the IMF looked at demographic pressures and assumed that long-term interest rates exceed economic growth rates by a percentage point (the long-term pre-crisis average) and then calculated by how much primary budget balances would have to improve. The economists define this level as 60% or, for Japan, half of today’s figure (ie, 85%). Their results suggest that Ireland and Japan have most to do. Both would need to boost their primary balances by more than 12% of GDP, compared with what is forecast for 2014. Britain would need an improvement of close to 6%. The gap in America is 3.5% and in Germany just under 2%. (The Economist via sabine)

katanne:hxg:

In study after study of men and women who get paid more and promoted faster, the quality of “action orientation” stands out as the most observable and consistent behavior they demonstrate. They launch directly into their major tasks and then discipline themselves to work steadily and single-mindedly until those tasks are complete.

You can actually develop a “positive addiction” to endorphins and to the feeling of enhanced clarity, confidence and competence that they trigger. When you develop this “addiction,” almost without thinking you begin to organize your life in such a way that you are continually starting and completing ever more important tasks and projects. You actually become addicted to success and contribution.

You must think constantly about the rewards and benefits of being an action-oriented, fast-moving, focused person. See yourself as the kind of person who gets important jobs done quickly and on a consistent basis.

- Eat That Frog (via spaceships)

May 30, 2009, 11:35am

Catherine Rampell over at the NYT Economix blog, created this graph of the average time spent eating in various countries, measured against the country’s obesity rate. She noticed originally that the French seemed to have a low obesity rate, despite the fact that they spent a lot of time eating. I’ve always been a horrendously slow eater, but I actually think, for whatever reason, it’s been good for my health. Something about eating slow limits the amount of food you eat, and makes you savor what you do eat.

(via ninakix)

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else’s cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

(via myownprivate)

May 10, 2009, 1:38pm