Charlie Rose

smilingpilgrim  10/07/2011 12:07 PM Report

This is written by a Canadian. I listened to professor Sachs on your program, but please note that I did not read the book yet.

I am concerned about the absence of civic virtue and the consequences of that, but I was disappointed to not hear the good professor speak to the other insatiable maw whose greed is suffocating us from Europe to North America: the Public Servant Class.

In Canada, public sector unions have erased any sense of pride in personal achievement from their 3.5 million members' minds. Public servants retire as early as 55 with full benefits, and demand ever more to be paid in taxes by their productive private sector counterparts whose wages and hopes for retirement keep falling. (Canada's population is 35 million - do the math).

In government run institutions, union doctrine replaced civic virtue with political correctness, while Big Brother informants snoop around for any sign of a reactionary slip.

As to professor Sachs, his book has little value IF he failed to addressed the greed of public unions. They, too, are destroying the fiber of our society. While crafty business characters, especially those on Wall Street, have captured the political class for their own benefit, the other insatiable maw - the public sector - is just as damaging in that it creates little and wants to take everything. Canadian health care is in shambles, our students are poorly educated, our government bureaucrats rule, incompetent teachers cannot be fired, and nurses whine.

In response to the book, Paul Ryan drew a parallel to Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Does he not realize? If he is correct, then the guillotines are coming soon and we all know which of the two insatiable maws Mr. Ryan represents.

History does not repeat itself but it surely rhymes. BOTH insatiable maws will have to be stopped somehow. We are civilized people, so we will cut the heads off through default and political process. We will bring back sensible regulation, and we will break the monopoly of public unions.

Let’s not waste this wonderful Great Crisis.

Benthames  03/31/2009 11:39 AM Report

It´s sad to see that the idea about “overpopulation“ still exist among professors.

To say that the world can´t feed all of us has never been proven and is a theory that basically has caused a lot of death and poverty.

The problem is the systems that are causing poverty and ruining the atmosphere and not overpopulation.

KDStephens  07/01/2008 12:18 AM Report

We have developed and then killed the efficient GM electric car...we have a 3sq mile NM solar farm in progress for a 2011 startup to powering 240,000 homes...we can and do have wind gen farms...so whats the talk all about? What we need is action in breakup the power structues blocking a strong "green" American job market that is ready and able to be sustainable.

Kyle  04/23/2008 11:12 AM Report

Wake up, people. Climate change may be real, but it's being to conduct disaster capitalism around the world. Gee, don't you want to help the poor Malawians who suffer from drought, malnutrition and preventable disease? Of course you do. Now let the Gates and Rockefeller foundations pave the way for Western agribusiness to addict the entire African continent to genetically modified seeds and petroleum-based fertilizer/pesticide cocktails. Malawi's arable land is dominated (77% of land) by estate farming, which grows water-intensive export crops like tobacco, tea and sugar. If we're actually interested in addressing African malnutrition, we'd help countries fight corruption, conduct fair policies on land ownership, and be open to the possibility of subsistence and local market farming that doesn't give us a return on our "investment". Sachs' "3 years of production increase by nitrogen fertilizer" story is totally misleading. Let's see what it looks like in 5 years when the natural fertility and disease resistance of crops is destroyed. Take a look at rural India for a preview of coming attractions.

Uncle Ron  04/21/2008 11:12 PM Report

Re: Kyoto Protocol. The truth is that the Kyoto Protocol has failed in Europe just as predicted by David Victor in his book "The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol" and his follow-up book "Debating Climate Change." He is no skeptic, is associated with the Council on Foreign Relations and is a professor at Stanford. Climatologist Tom Karl, no skeptic, said if all signers of the Kyoto Treaty met all their goals, the resulting reduction in CO2 would be "undetectable" because it would not reduce global temperatures by any more than their "natural variation." The only real "massive" solution to CO2 reduction is widespread use of nuclear power but the radical environmental groups still oppose its development. Yet the technology of nuclear plants has developed tremendously, 98% of the waste can and is being recycled and the remaining small amount of waste is virtually harmless after about 75-100 years not thousands. It is amazing to me that the public isn't outraged at these same radical groups for not only stopping nuclear power but preventing more drilling for oil over the decades (ANWR in the past, for example, and the Alaskan Chuckchi Sea today) - blame them for your escalating gas prices. Blame them also for allowing forest fires to burn out of control killing millions of acres of CO2 absorbing trees (remember Yellowstone?).

Roy Fassel  04/21/2008 09:30 AM Report

Dear Chris,

You make a very good point. After reviewing these â??countless articles and papers discussing the climate changes on Mars and countless papers disputing them,â?? it is clear that all these articles discuss one report from NASA and none of these â??countless articles and papersâ?? contains the original data. That is a very valid point and hats off to you for pointing that out. I appreciate that. No one can dispute or agree with anything unless they have the data of the study.

All the best.

Roy

chris  04/20/2008 08:36 PM Report

"As to the Mars issue, I have read countless articles and papers discussing the climate changes on Mars and countless papers disputing it. "

Dear Roy,

Can you tell me where I can find one of these articles that contains the original data?

Chris

commonsense  04/19/2008 03:39 PM Report

Jeffrey Sachs is another smart guy repeating what we already know, while the world population is increasing in number but food production is decreasing due to wars and political strife. Look at Eritrea and Ethiopia, Eritreans are working day-in day-out in doubling their food production while Ethiopia's population has doubled in the last 30 years and their food production has stagnated on that 30-years ago level. Two mouths are fighting for one bite in Ethiopia, but the wars, invading other nations, and man made droughts are helping multiply the problems by many folds and now five mouths are fighting for the same one bite of food. What does the States Department do? they offer more weapons and more money to Ethiopia's staggering minority regime to hold on to power by force even though the regime has been voted out just like they are doing in Kenya. State Department is doing this without considering the consequences of their action. They are also complicating the Darfur issue, instead of helping the people come together they are making sure the disputing parties remain further apart promising them false hope. One wonders why is this administration doing what it is doing? like many questions there is no answer to this question as well. Instead of giving the Ethiopian regime more food aid, they should send more tractors and packages of fertilizer. The people will have the resources and the tools to produce rather than wait for donated grains. I am surprised it takes a brilliant economist write a book to tell such basic facts. The problem is much like the Malawi story no one will listen to the suggestions.

Roy Fassel  04/19/2008 02:54 PM Report

Sachs is totally disingenuous. He states that Bush 41 signed a climate agreement in 1992 and his son did nothing to implement that. How bazaar. Al Gore negotiated the Kyoto Accords in 1997 and Bill Clinton signed it. He never sent it to the Senate for approval. The Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto concept in 1997. Clinton didnâ??t even bother to get the treaty ratified, since such a treaty requires 2/3 approval in the Senate. Sachs had to audacity to suggest this was all due to George Bush, who was the governor in Texas at the time. The Left has been entirely dishonest in the debate about emissions and the Bush Administration. America signed an agreement with most of the major Asian countries a few years ago that would require sharing technology in combating emissions globally. Sachs even realizes that it is technology that is needed. No nation on the planet earth is going to unilaterally commit economic suicide to cut emissions at the expense of jobs and economic activity. Jeffrey Sachs is and always has been disingenuous. But it sells for the gullible. Kyoto would not have been ratified even if Gore had won the election in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Kyoto is a seriously flawed concept and everyone knows it and the countries who did sign up will not even come close to meeting their requirements. 95 to zero in 1997 said it all. But blaming Bush for a flawed concept is not the answer. It makes people feel important and with it.

Roy Fassel  04/19/2008 02:50 PM Report

Dear Chris,

I am not a skeptic of global warming. It is real. The data is in. However, to me, correlations are not causes and that is what some are trying to do regarding global warming and causes. I believe that climate changes are primarily caused by sunspot activities. What I think is irrelevant.

I began with all of this, not to defend Bush, but to set the record straight. It had to do with the Jeffrey Sachs presentation of facts regarding the Kyoto Accords and the forgotten history of this. Bush has been blamed for America not being in the Kyoto Accords. This is nonsense. He, as Clinton, would have needed Senate approval because of the treaty status. Neither, Clinton, Bush, Gore or Kerry could have gotten the Kyoto Accords ratified in the Senate when they voted unanimously against the concept in 1997. If you read this resolution, you will see why Bush could not have obligated America to the Kyoto Accords. The Accords clearly exempt developing nations and the US Senate in 1997 rejected that concept unanimously.

On July 25, 1997, the United States Senate expressed its views on the Kyoto Accords when it voted 95-0 to reject the Accords as negotiated by Al Gore and signed by Bill Clinton. (105th CONGRESS S.RES.98)

Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

As to the Mars issue, I have read countless articles and papers discussing the climate changes on Mars and countless papers disputing it. It is unimportant to me. I donâ??t live on Mars.

However, I do have this view about climate change and, again, what I think does not matter. It seems that it takes about 800,000 years or so to convert decayed fish, animal and plant matter, under water, to crude oil. If this is correct, then it is clear that much of the Persian Gulf area, much of Texas and other areas were under water for eons. It seems to me that this would be impossible if the Poles were covered with ice. It seems to me that the climate on earth has had major climate changes long before human activity. I find it interesting that many scientific reports come along with studies that indicate that either this is the hottest years since X thousands of years ago, or even X millions of years ago. How can that be? That is before human activity.

Sorry for the time wasted. What I think is not the issue. Opinions are worthless, but facts are priceless.

Karin Howard  04/19/2008 02:45 PM Report

Thank you for an evening that gave me hope, just as Bloomberg and Ted Turner did on previous talks. If only these guys could run things...I have recently been very depressed about the state of affairs in our world and the US in particular, we sit around the dinner table and get drunk saying it's too late. But his vision for America as a high-tech leader was a bright light of encouragement. We need more. I am particularly glad that his book includes population questions, which are sorely missing in all of the Gore hoopla, actually so many people consider it a hot iron while it is at the bottom of all of our problems. I hope you will address this particular problem in the future.

Your loyal viewer, had such a good laugh about the Pope discussion last night, Abacele, what a wonderful character!

Karin Howard

chris  04/19/2008 01:15 PM Report

Dear Roy,

As an observer of this global warming debate for some time, I've been interested in the evolution of the skeptic's arguments. The latest version of their position, as you allude to, involves Mars. This line of thought appears to be about six months old. I wonder if you could tell me where this first sprung up? The version I heard recently was that Mars is currently waming, while you claim it is cooling. So clearly, the skpetics need to get their story straight. But my question is, what is the data set that people are getting these ideas from? Is it data from one of the Mar rovers, is it hubble telescope pictures, is it some other satelite data? Franky, I would be surprised if anyone would have reliable measurements of global temperatures on Mars. After all, until recently it wasn't possible to measure global temperatures here on Earth, and even today earth measurements are quite noisy. So any background information on how someone could be measuring temperatures on Mars would be appreciated.

Thanks, Chris

Roy Fassel  04/18/2008 01:47 PM Report

Sam, you might review the â??Asian-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate announced in 2005.

This is not to defend Bush with his enviornmental record, but he been addressing the issue in a rational manner. Kyoto is a farce. At least Bush got Asia on board. Bush in a speech given in 2001 recongnized that global warming has some human causes. He just said that at this time, we do not know what amount is due to human acitivities. My view, which really doesnâ??t matter, is that climate change is totally due to changes in sun spot activities which change all the time and that is beyond human control. Why was Mars also warming up? Sun spot activities. Why is Mar now cooling down? Sun spot activity changes.

Global warming and emissions are two entirely different issues. The warmest year on record, to date, is 1998. Emissions have increased quite a bit since then, due entirely because of Asian development. Americaâ??s emissions increases are substancially less than Europeâ??s increases since they signed on the Kyoto Accords. Sam, you can blame Bush all you want if it makes you feel better but we would be at the same place had Gore won in 2000 or had Kerry won in 2004. Kyoto was operative and the new agreement being negoiated now would replace Kyoto in 2012.

The bottom line is that emissions and climate changes are a global issue which is why the Senate rejected the Kyoto Accords concept 95 to zero. Bush has not been dithering. China and India were and are the key to any solution to this global problem. Kyoto was totally flawed in this manner. With the exception of a few countries, the great majority of the 33 countries who have treaty obligations with Kyoto will meet those obligations. Most will â??opt outâ?? before 2012.

But if it makes you feel better, Sam, Bush is to blame for all the worldâ??s problems. Human nature never changes.

All the best to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia-Pacific_Partnership_for_Clean_Development_and_Climate

American Expat  04/18/2008 12:51 PM Report

So many people from fat cats to the man in the street in the US say they won't participate in Kyoto unless China and India have binding targets. Having lived in Asia for 10 years, its hard to understand why an Asian from a poor country (not Japan, Singapore, etc), who produces only about ten percent of our carbon emission of an American (per capita) should be asked to reduce? Since there may be a problem grappling with the math - here is an analogy. I sit at the table eating my turkey, stuffing, potatoes, salad, and drinking wine. A beggar sits outside with bread crumbs. I tell the beggar, I will loose weight once you stop eating so much.

That this is the ultimate arrogance is completely lost on Americans. However, to the world, we look downright ugly and self serving.

By the way, most people don't know that under Kyoto, there is something called Clean Development Mechanism that promotes quantitative emissions reductions in countries with no hard targets. The CDM projects are very successful and have resulted in considerable reductions in emissions compared with what would have been released without Kyoto.

sam  04/18/2008 11:35 AM Report

Certainly the blame must be shared - but Bush has had ample opportunity during his reign to face the facts, to accept the scientific data, and if not do something directly then "lead" his people to do something; and if not embrace a flawed Kyoto plan then to come up with a viable alternative (such as one might expect from the "greatest" nation on earth)- but this is a man who would have creationism taught in every American school and who, based on that weak and unconvincing speech, likely still believes that global warming is nothing but left-wing hyperbole/hysteria. Furthermore, at some point one has to stop pointing the finger at Clinton who (may I remind Mr. Fassel) has been out of office for eight or so years. Bush is the leader of record and under HIS watch and leadership America has become twisted, bizarre, and irrational - partisan politics aside.

carla  04/18/2008 11:14 AM Report

People who read and keep up with the mess in Washington know that Bush didn't get us into the kyoto failure but he sure as h--- kept the USA in a position where the rest of the world hates us and even we are suffering. The worst is yet to come.

Bush/Cheney have every possibility to right wrongs but they seem to be the worst in history for accomplishing anything of the sort.

Roy Fassel  04/18/2008 09:30 AM Report

If I may, Sam,

I am not a blathering Bush defender. I am saying that the Kyoto Accord concept was rejected by the US Senate by a vote of 95 to zero in 1997. The Kyoto Accords needed a 2/3rd majority approval from the US Senate for ratification. Blaming Bush for this is deflecting blame to where it belongs. 1997 was the Clinton-Gore era. It is a myth the blame Bush that America is not part of the Kyoto Accords. Clinton had two years ask the Senate to ratify the treaty he signed. He did not even bother. The 95-zero votes against the Accords concept in 1997 has nothing to do with Bush.

Of course there is a global emissions problem. It can only be addressed with advanced technology. The Kyoto Accords only took effect in 2008 and end in 2012. Higher car mileage standards could never have passed Congress until recently because those laws would have had to go through Chairman John Dingleâ??s committee. Dingle is from Michigan and is a Democrat. That has nothing to do with Bush. Dingle was protecting the Detroit auto companies because it was likely that higher mileage standards earlier likely would have bankrupted all three auto companies.

The global emissions standards would not be any different had Gore won in 2000 or Kerry won in 2004. That has nothing at all to do with Bush. The Senate vote required for ratification of Kyoto decided the Kyoto Accords and Congressional laws decide environmental standards.

sam  04/18/2008 09:01 AM Report

Astonishing to read the blathering of Bush defenders, even now. It's that preposterous, unrealistic, even fantastic partisan stand that has led America to its present predicament - which inches ever closer to the abyss. The truth is that Bush, judging from his unconvincing mumbling speech, still doesn't believe there exists a problem, and he's backed up by his foolish chorus, vide Bush apologists and defenders like Mr. Fassel.

Roy Fassel  04/18/2008 04:58 AM Report

Sachs is totally disingenuous. He states that Bush 41 signed a climate agreement in 1992 and his son did nothing to implement that. How bazaar. Al Gore negotiated the Kyoto Accords in 1997 and Bill Clinton signed it. He never sent it to the Senate for approval. The Senate voted 95-0 against the Kyoto concept in 1997. Clinton didnâ??t even bother to get the treaty ratified, since such a treaty requires 2/3 approval in the Senate. Sachs had to audacity to suggest this was all due to George Bush, who was the governor in Texas at the time. The Left has been entirely dishonest in the debate about emissions and the Bush Administration. America signed an agreement with most of the major Asian countries a few years ago that would require sharing technology in combating emissions globally. Sachs even realizes that it is technology that is needed. No nation on the planet earth is going to unilaterally commit economic suicide to cut emissions at the expense of jobs and economic activity. Jeffrey Sachs is and always has been disingenuous. But it sells for the gullible. Kyoto would not have been ratified even if Gore had won the election in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Kyoto is a seriously flawed concept and everyone knows it and the countries who did sign up will not even come close to meeting their requirements. 95 to zero in 1997 said it all. But blaming Bush for a flawed concept is not the answer. It makes people feel important and with it.

Allan Ramesh  04/17/2008 09:04 PM Report

The American public is so clueless about the issues discussed here there is little hope for change - short of a cultural revolution. Today, McCain has promised to lift the paltry $0.18 tax on gasoline. Rather than imposing a stiff gas tax that would generate revenues to address climate change and other international problems discussed here, McCain wants to reduce the cost of gasoline, keeping us on this addiction track. He promises 100 years in Iraq and talks about bombing Iran. Instead, we should be curbing demand with plug-in hybrids and mass transport. Which politician has the courage to tell it like it is to the public?

stephen miller  04/17/2008 12:27 PM Report

Thanks Charlie for this very timely interview with Jeffrey Sachs.

There is no doubt we have the brains and means to deal with these urgent threats; but will we? As one who tried to watch the ABC's pathetic and shameful farce of a "debate" last night, I think it would take a miracle. And I'm hoping for one.

Ricardo Amaral  04/17/2008 03:58 AM Report

On my article besides food production, and the global freshwater crisis, I also cover the development of the nuclear power plant energy in Brazil.

http://chinadirectinvestmentinbrazil.blogspot.com/

Ricardo Amaral  04/17/2008 03:52 AM Report

I did enjoy the discussion with Jeffrey Sacks.

But if you want to learn why Brazil is going to play a major role in the coming years regarding food production, the energy field and so on. My article also cover in detail the global freshwater crisis that is under way.

Right now Brazzil magazine is having technical difficulties and they are in the process of fixing the problems and very soon all the articles will be online again, but in the meantime you can read the article about food production and the global freshwater crisis at: http://chinadirectinvestmentinbrazil.blogspot.com/

More than 5,000 people took the time to read this article about such an important subject.

If you are interested in Brazil and China then you should read the following articles and join the discussions and comments following the articles.

These investments should be viewed from China's perspective not just as another investment to maximize its returns on invested amounts. It should be viewed by China as a matter of national security and long-term survival for its people.

I wrote a 4-part series of articles detailing a plan for Chinaâ??s $ 200 billion dollars investment in Brazil. Among the topics that we discuss on this article are food production and the global freshwater crisis.

The Smartest Thing China Could Do Right Now: Invest US$ 200 Billion in Brazil - Written by Ricardo C. Amaral

Monday, 01 October 2007 - Part 1 of 4

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9977/80/

Friday, 05 October 2007 - Part 2 of 4

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9979/80/

Thursday, 11 October 2007 - Part 3 of 4

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9983/80/

Tuesday, 16 October 2007 - Part 4 of 4

http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9985/80/

Note: So far there are over 850 comments from the readers following these articles. Please feel free to join the discussion.

.

Richard Hoyt  04/17/2008 03:45 AM Report

Since we seem to no longer have the capability to do it in a timely manner. Maybe we should have the French build some nuclear power plants for us if they still have the capability.

amilius  04/17/2008 02:57 AM Report

No amount of half-hearted protesting by Mr. Sachs papers over Mr. Sachs' crimes recounted by Naomi Wolfe in "Shock Doctrine". Charlie Rose is a wretched platform for reforming reputation, Mr. Sachs. Ask Henry Kissinger or Richard Pearle.

Joyce Harant  04/17/2008 12:59 AM Report

Mr. Sachs--

I listened with agreement and learning this evening of 4/16 regarding the challenges we face as a world over energy, water etc.-- but I must confess frustration that the need for honest, accessible and affordable family planning services was only indirectly mentioned in your discussion with Charlie Rose in a general statement about population reduction.

I am also disappointed that Mr. Rose did not ask about this directly. Population control, planned and wanted pregnancies are essential to controlling energy and pollution. I am glad that you mentioned that population would decline if food and other issues were addressed. The status of women in developing countries was however not discussed.

Given the assault from the Bush administration against family planning and honest and factual sexuality education worldwide-- I hope that you will see the need to include a more direct discussion in your converations.

I understand that in a short period of time that it is not possible to cover every parameter that impacts on pollution, energy use and water supply. Even given this- I hope that you will make a greater effort to explain the broader complexity-- when you have the public stage.

Thank you.

go green  04/17/2008 12:41 AM Report

SACHS FOR PRESIDENT! COHERENCE INDEED. WE OUGHTA TRY IT IN SOME FOUR TO EIGHT YEAR INCREMENT. WATER SHORTAGE, FOOD SHORTAGE, FUEL SHORTAGE, INNOVATION SHORTAGE AND A SURFEIT OF REPUBLICANS AND CHAOS. ALACK AND ALAS!