Iran specifically had infrastructure in place to help manage the water for Tehran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat). The Ayatollahs not only _destroyed_ that infrastructure and the system of humans needed to maintain it, but they also encouraged pumping of water from local aquifers, among other obviously stupid water management techniques: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/khomeini...
So, you are right, but in Iran's case, the current regime pretty much did the opposite of anything you should have done, while also chopping of their hands to do anything more.
This equals about 1.7 Million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per day, which is an increase of 120% since year 2000 and corresponds to about 2% of the global CO2 emissions.
No nation on earth like Iran, save perhaps for China and Norway, is in such a unique position of power, both economically, socially, and with the engineering knowhow) and political ability to actually do something to prevent climate damage. Instead they are making the situation more difficult.
> I forgot that it’s much better to let your people starve
It's actually the US making the Iranian people starve on account of their (US's) economic war against Iran, and the same goes for Cuba and the Cubans living in Cuba. Saying that the Iranians should embrace with full arms the same Westerners that are making them starve right at this moment has to be a bit.
The closest semi-Westernized country to Iran in the same region is Turkey:
* Highly educated population.
* Remnant of an ancient non-Arab Islamic empire.
* Almost precisely the same population count.
And people don't starve in Turkey. Why would they starve in a Western-aligned Iran? The main problem in the richer half of the world is already obesity.
Iran is an ancient and developed civilization, though. One of the oldest in the world. There is no reason why it should develop into the next South Sudan.
And some African countries are, in fact, developing as well. I don't think that an average Kenyan starves either.
Climate change is actually a strong reason for better management. The same is true everywhere. More floods? You need to provide better drainage. Drier climate risking more forest fires? You need to manage forests better.
In many cases governments are cutting back on spending on dealing with these sorts of problems because they can avoid blame by saying it is a result of climate change and few people ask why they did not act to mitigate the effects.
What gets me is that the same politicians in the US sat things med to be managed better but also that we always need to be spending less. It’s basically “not my problem, someone else can take care of that.”
> Other than Orban being corrupt and unpopular because the same applies to most politicians at EU level especially Ursula vs Leyen.
I am so tired of these "they are all bad anyway" stances. AFAIK, Ursula van der Leyen is not actively supporting a country who invaded a EU neighbour some years ago or routinely performs assassinations on EU territory. Also, I do not think she is actively criticizing the EU whenever she has the opportunity while pocketing as much money from it as she can. Maybe we could talk about Orban stance wrt democracy and people rights.
I don't especially like Ursula van der Leyen, I think she is the usual misdirected pro-market believer the kind we had too much in EU so far. But she is not that bad.
I guess they are the same anyway.
All that said, Ireland action is bad but not that bad.
I agree van der Leyen is a corrupt, lobby friendly politician with some strange ideas (in my opinion).
But she isn't "evil" or someone who would commit treason or anything like that.
She also isn't incompetent in the way a lot of media in German loves to paint here. Actually she even seem quite competent wrt. some of the core skills of politicians. This doesn't mean I don't think a lot of here decisions are supper misguided, but that is a clash of beliefs and ideals which is not the same as incompetence.
> "evil" or someone who would commit treason or anything like that
is a really low bar
and do you really think you become President of the European Commission by being severely incompetent? If she where as severely incompetent as some media likes to picture she would at best have been complimented away to some mostly irrelevant position, not one of the highest position in the EU organs.
I asked you to point out her achievements and you just glazed her further on the basis that "you can't possibly fail upwards to a high level leadership position" when a lot of people in recently history have, and in her position it's not even that hard to do when business interests use their money and influence to guarantee that their preferred puppet sorry I meant candidate gets there, especially that the process for the position she's in is appointed by committee selection and not by direct election by the people.
And maybe some of the media portray her as incompetent because it's their job to investigate politics and they notice more of her fuckups than you do, especially given your lack of positive examples for her.
my point is that calling someone a "Leyen is a corrupt, lobby friendly politician" while putting a relative low bar of "not evil" on here moral standard and that she isn't completely incompetent is not glazing. I have no intend to discuss any detailed politics on HN.
>I am so tired of these "they are all bad anyway" stances.
What evidence do you have they are not all bad? I can't think of too many major high level EU leaders that people would consider to be a net positive.
>Hungary suspected of spying for Russia
Are you aware that former German and Austrian politicians are on the payroll of Russian oil and gas companies and Putin even came to the wedding s of some of them? Are you aware Austrian banks still operate in Russia profiting?
Yet I never hear anyone blaming Austrian every 5 minutes the same way they do Hungary.
Why the double standards where all the blame in on Hungary yet other EU members fly under the radar for much more pro-Russia cooperation and profiteering?
>Also, I do not think she is actively criticizing the EU whenever she has the opportunity while pocketing as much money from it as she can.
Then why did she delete her messages with Pfizer? You're right, she's not profiteering, she's just helping her puppet masters profiteer. Big difference.
> What evidence do you have they are not all bad? I can't think of too many major high level EU leaders that people would consider to be a net positive.
A net positive compared to what? To have nobody at the head of the state and have anarchy? Or compared to the next one who wants the job?
Let's be concrete. I live in France, which currently is not going to give anyone lessons about governance. Current president is Macron. Is he evil bad, super corrupt? I do not think so. He is a bad mix of arrogance, naivety and brilliance in some domains. In the end, his run will end with average results as best, but not for lack of trying. It does not make him evil bad.
Previous one, Hollande was nice guy out of his league. Mediocre at best. But not evil or corrupt.
Previous one, Sarkozy, was brilliant and corrupt. He is going to jail next month. Still nowhere as bad as Orban on the civil rights front.
Regardless, all of them are better than having Le Pen (far right) as president. Who is already known to be corrupt populist and a Russian puppet.
I am afraid this is another of these "perfect is the enemy of the good" conversation.
Same with Van der Leyen. Fair enough she may have taken money from Pfizer and whatnot. But you are comparing that to someone who literally suggests violent action against people of his own country. I am sorry but things are not white and black.
I find it funny that most people on HN despise politicians but on the other hand are very happy to keep their cosy job for ad-tech/vc-fueled/well-paid companies instead of doing their part.
Try running for mayor of a small/medium city and see how well you respond for corruption after a few years of constant harassment.
>But you are comparing that to someone who literally suggests violent action against people of his own country.
What's worse? Suggesting violence against someone, or actions of corruption that loose taxpayers shit tones of money, which if it wasn't stolen by politicians would have gone to things like healthcare to keep people alive? If only there was a way to quantify money lost from corruption to deaths from underfunded healthcare, it would start to sink in for you, but you care more about optics than about actual harm done.
Same for Austrian and German politicians being in bed with Putin to tie Europe's energy security to Russian oil and gas but noooo, Orban is the real evil because he said hurty things.
>Fair enough she may have taken money from Pfizer and whatnot.
When massive corruption leading to deaths is just "and what not" to you, then I can't argue anymore with you. The problem isn't she taking Pfizer money, its she selling out the taxpayer's money every step of the way in her political career. Pfizer's money comes with strings attached, same for every other lobbyist.
>but on the other hand are very happy to keep their cosy job for ad-tech/vc-fueled/well-paid companies instead of doing their part.
Is that a self report? Because I don't have any of those.
Citizens elect politicians, then pay them to run a city/country as their main job, they don't have time to be a politician beyond their regular jobs that put food on their table.
> Are you aware that former German and Austrian politicians are on the payroll of Russian oil and gas companies and Putin even came to the wedding s of some of them? Are you aware Austrian banks still operate in Russia profiting?
Source?
> Why the double standards where all the blame in on Hungary yet other EU members fly under the radar for much more pro-Russia cooperation and profiteering?
There are no double standards. Besides Orban and Fico, there are no EU ministers or governments going to Minsk, Belarus, or Russia, to meet with Putin.
When the war started, MOL, the state-owned petrol company of Hungary, said it would take about 3 years for them to shift all their refineries to move away from Russian oil. It's 2025, and they are still heavily-dependent on Russian oil. They did nothing to end this dependence [0].
Orban settled a deal with Russia to buy gas and oil, whose terms are confidential and will probably be so for the next decades. What every Hungarian news portal reported was essentially Hungary was being scammed, as it would be much cheaper to buy the same oil/gas from the Dutch stock exchange [1].
Regarding Austrian banks, Raiffeisen was just on the news this month because they are still operating in Russia. So, no, I wouldn't say it's a double standard. Besides, the Austrian politicians are certainly not making a fuss and blocking or vetoing any decision regarding Ukraine or Russian sanctions because of that [2]. Meanwhile, we have Hungary who keeps creating excuses to apply their vetos on such decisions, and Fico, who's doing the same, because the EU (von der Leyen) showed the world anyone can blackmail the EU and get away with it.
Given the US government is actually defunding major universities because "reasons", I find your comment laughable. Problem with arguing about "freedoms" is usaians still believe their constitution applies. Also, Colbert show, etc.
Your take about French censorship is equally ridiculous. I would gather that 90% of French press would not survive a month in the US before being pressured/defunded or worse. What happened to Charlie Hebdo would have happened in the US, by "patriots" instead of islamists.
And let's not even start about the separation of church and state...
As a French, being passed by the right by Italian drivers on the highway really makes me feel the superiority of Southern Europeans judgment over my puny habit of blindly following rules. Or does it?
But yes, I do the same. I just do not come here to pretend this is virtue.
The rules in France are probably different but passing on the right is legal on Italian highways, in one circumstance: if one keeps driving on the lane on the right and somebody slower happens to be driving on the lane on the left. The rationale is that it normally happens when traffic is packed, so it's ok even if there is little traffic. Everybody keep driving straight and there is no danger.
It's not legal if somebody is following the slower car on the left and steers to the right to pass. However some drivers stick to the left at a speed slower than the limit and if they don't yield what happens is that eventually they get passed on the right.
The two cases have different names. The normal pass is "sorpasso", the other one (passing by not steering) is "superamento", which is odd but they had to find a word for it.
Not sure if it is a virtue, but standing as a pedestrians in an empty street at 3 AM waiting for a traffic light to turn green doesn't make much sense either, it isn't as if a ghost car is coming out of nowhere.
It should be a matter of judgement and not following rules just because.
I kind of agree. The rules for safety should be simple, straightforward, and protect you in the "edge cases", i.e. following while not paying 100% of attention, protect you with a malicious actor in mind aka reckless driver, etc. Ideally, in a system like that it should be a difficult and intentional behavior if one wanted to break the rules rather than to follow them.
I agree. I mostly mean that it is good to strive towards a system of rules that will be easy to follow and difficult to break by default. That is an ideal case. In reality, it is never that simple.
