+1, yes that's how things work, even the Federal Reserve committed TRILLIONS (read that TRILLIONS) in the last financial crises, and not TARP which was voted on, Federal Reserve money. But I don't think that is typical of what the Federal Reserve does, that is bail out the whole world, however the World Bank, IMF, etc. - it IS what they do all the time, commit money without congress at anytime, it's how the world works.Originally Posted by Gregg
#2 too cynical, I think it will do some good, but not enough good. Some may be lost to graft and corruption but that's the way the world works. I mean think of a percentage lost to this as the cost of doing business or what have you (like a retailer does "shrinkage" - that is shoplifting), but put controls in place to minimize it whenever possible of course. The perfect world where none is lost to this doesn't exist (sometimes I think maybe "corrupt" is the most fundamental description of what human society at least post agriculture has always been - it's been violent and even unfathomably malevolent sometimes, but corrupt consistently). But they should do what they can to make sure it is spent wisely, controls like I say (of course I have no direct control over this).
#3 that is a good point, since a few countries are the major sources of fossil fuel use (U.S., China, India, Europe etc.), improvements in them will do a world of good. So yes I don't know what analysis this was based on and I hope it did compare the relative benefits of spending it to reduce U.S. fossil fuel use etc.
The thing is global temperature rise much beyond what they are even trying to prevent will make life miserable indeed and some may very well make most life on earth impossible.
Reply With Quote