사진 출처: 인터넷에서 골라왔습니다. 저작권 침해의 의사가 없으니 양해바랍니다.
---------------------------------------------------------
문제가 되고 있는 미세먼지는 중국에서 대부분 날아오지만, 우리 자체의 문제도 있다. 아래 글은 작년에 내가 썼던 글이다.
런던의 더러운 비밀
자유의남신 | 2016-03-19
유럽 20개 도시의 시장(市長)들이 디젤(경유) 자동차의 배출가스 규제 방안 개선을 촉구하는 집단행동에 나섰다. 프랑스 파리, 덴마크 코펜하겐 등 20개 도시 시장들은 16일(현지 시각) 프랑스 일간 르몽드에 보낸 특별 기고문에서 "유럽연합(EU)의 허술한 배출가스 규제가 시민 건강을 위협하고 있다"고 주장했다.
디젤차가 도로를 주행할 때 인증 조건을 초과하는 질소산화물(NOx)을 배출한다는 조사 결과가 수년 전부터 잇따라 제시되자, 최근 EU는 디젤차의 주행 시 질소산화물 배출 기준을 현재 정차 시 인증 기준(1㎞당 80㎎)의 2.1배인 168㎎까지 허용하는 법안을 통과시켰다. 하지만 이 시장단은 "시민의 건강을 대가로 자동차 업계가 환경을 오염할 수 있도록 허가했다"며 자동차업계와 EU 결정을 비판하고 나선 것이다. (조선닷컴 발췌)
런던의 더러운 비밀: 북경보다 오염이 심하다(London’s Dirty Secret: Pollution Worse Than Beijing’s) 라는 글에서 알렉스 모랄레스는 잘못된 정책으로 런던 도심의 이산화질소 오염이 유럽에서 최고이고, 이는 도시의 스모그 때문에 에어포칼립스airpocalypse라고 부르는 북경의 오염보다 심하다고 썼다. 일이 이렇게 된 원인은 온난화를 저지한다며 개솔린 차에 비해 이산화탄소를 조금 덜 배출하는 디젤차를 허용하고 선호했기 때문이다.
우리나라도 디젤차가 많이 팔리고 있다. 이에 대한 대책도 세워야 할 것이다.
---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
[출처] 대한민국은 이미 망하는 코스로 접어 들었다.
레카의 구속영장 청구?
정상적인 법치국가라면 놀라운 일지만
법치가 무너진 지금의 대한민국에서는
별로 놀라운 일도 아니다.
레카가 대법원에서 사형판결을 받는다 해도 하나도 놀라지 않을 것 같다.
법원, 검찰, 국회, 언론, 지자체, 학교, 행정기관 좌파가 점령하지 않은 곳이 있나?
그런데 말이다.
좌파가 점령하고 있는 곳은 전부 세금 뜯어먹고 사는 족속들이다.
부가가치를 창출하는 인간들이 아니란 말이다.
즉, 편안하게 철밥통 차고 세금 축내는 인간들이 다 좌파들이다.
다시말해 지돈 들여서 부가가치 창출하고 고용창출 해본적이 없는 넘들이다.
그래서 좌파세상이 되면 대한민국은 망한다.
우파가 아무리 발버둥쳐도 이미 망하는 코스에 접어 들었다.
우짜겠노?
"대한민국이 아래서 망했습니다." 하는 교훈이 필요한 때라고 본다.
-----------------------------------------------------
참 희한한 대한민국의 자살 또는 타살
이번 촛불 난동의 끝은 박 대통령의 구속과 한국 사회의 사회주의화로 종결될 가능성이 날마다 커지고 있다. 홍준표 지사는 대통령의 구속이 한국의 어느 한 사람의 의지에 달려 있다고 말했지만, 내 생각엔 그보다도 북한의 개정은의 의지가 담긴 것 같다.
한국이 사회주의화 된다면 이는 역사에 아주 드문 사례로 기록될 것이다. 20세기에 많은 좌파 혁명가들이 허황된 유토피아를 좇아 혁명을 했지만, 그들 국가는 후에 거의 모두 경제적으로 파산했고, 좌파 사상가들은 현란했던 환상에서 깨어났다.
그런데 선진국의 진입을 문앞에 둔 21세기의 한국에서, 일단의 좌파 혁신가들이 다시 헛수고로 끝난 사회주의화를 다시 시도하려는 것이다. 이는 지금까지의 역사에 없던 일이다. 훗날의 역사가는 이 비극적 코메디를 어떻게 기록할까?
-------------------------------------------------------------
러시아에서 푸틴 정부에 저항하는 반(反)부패 집회가 열려 경찰과 충돌했다.
출처: abc 뉴스
ian bremmer
Biggest protests in Russia since 2012. You wouldn't know it from their state media.
2012년 이후로 러시아에서 가장 큰 시위였다. 국영 언론사에서는 이 사건을 보도하지 않았다.
---> 인터넷에서도 이 시위를 검색할 수 없게 했다고 함.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Roberts (자유주의 경제학자) 트윗
People assume health care market can't work b/c demand is inelastic. Demand for food is inelastic. Market works fine.
사람들은 의료 시장의 수요가 고정적이기 때문에 의료 시장은 작동하지 않을 거라고 생각한다. 하지만 식품에 대한 수요 역시 고정적이지만 시장은 잘 작동되고 있다.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Roberts 가 주장하는 의료 개혁 방법
1. Repeal Obamacare, Medicaid, & Medicare.
2. End deductibility of employer-provided insurance.
3. Break AMA's control of licensure
4. Get rid of health insurance mandates
5. End barriers to interstate health insurance companies
6. Remind foundations they can subsidize insurance for catastrophic care/pre-existing conditions especially for poor people.
7. Watch prices fall.
8. Move on.
----------------------------
미국과 중국은 전쟁의 길로 들어섰는가?
Graham Allison 교수의 책이 그 문제에 대한 해답을 내놓는다
Are America And China Destined For War?
Authored by Harry Kazianis via The Stratgeic Culture Foundation,
In his recent book The Improbable War, professor Christopher Coker explains that it is “of vital importance that the possibility of a conflict between China and the United States continues to be discussed.” Coker’s rationale for this is simple: “If the United States and China continue to convince themselves that war is too ‘improbable’ to take seriously, it is not they but the rest of the world that may ultimately pay the price.”
It would seem the good professor’s wish is about to be granted. We are about to be treated to what surely will be a media blitz over what can only be described as the most comprehensive book to ever tackle the question of not only whether a US-China war is possible, but what steps Washington and Beijing can take to avoid such a calamity.
Written by one of the world’s most prominent political scientists and strategic thinkers of the day, director of Harvard University’s Belfer Center, Graham Allison, anyone who has been following China in recent years likely guessed such an effort was in the works. The book is hooked on Allison’s popular “Thucydides Trap” concept. The trap, as Allison described in a prominent piece for the Atlantic in 2015, is “the attendant dangers when a rising power rivals a ruling power — as Athens challenged Sparta in ancient Greece, or as Germany did Britain a century ago.” Allison goes on to warn that in 12 of 16 cases he has studied throughout history, when such a situation takes place, war has been the result.
US and China: A relationship in dangerous flux
So what happens in case study number 17? Knowing the odds history has given us, is war between China and America unstoppable?
To answer such questions, we first need to understand the complexity that is the US-China relationship. In fact, there are two US-China relationships.
The first, is the economic relationship. At least until the election of Donald Trump, many scholars and Asia hands would argue that both sides prospered from their deep economic ties. US-China bilateral trade in goods and services has skyrocketed since the two nation’s opened their doors to each other in 1971 and is now more than US$600 billion per year. Trade between both Washington and Beijing has made both countries wealthier with millions of jobs created on both sides of the Pacific.
The second part is the strategic relationship — something that was bound to become strained after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the real threat that brought America and China together. Without a common foe, tensions on both sides have begun to grow. Washington and Beijing now face off in various parts of the Asia-Pacific with no letup in sight.
Such an odd, dual-sided relationship, filled with equal promise and peril, made sense for decades. When times got tough — look no further than the 1995-1996 Taiwan Crisis, the 1999 Chinese Embassy bombing, the 2001 EP-3 Crisis and many other smaller incidents — the dangers of severing the economic relationship always seemed to smooth out any talk of a rupture. But with Trump and advisers such as Death by China author Peter Navarro calling into question the economic benefits of trade with Beijing, the one thing that always seemed to anchor relations in times of trouble seems to be at an end.
Why Destined for War is a must read:
To be fair, there are many great articles, long-form pieces and books that detail the dangers of a US-China military clash and how to avoid it. So why read this one?
I offer three reasons: Comprehensiveness, readability and telling hard truths most Asia experts here in Washington won’t want to hear.
In the interests of full disclosure, I have published Allison’s works on many occasions as Executive Editor of the National Interest, but Allison’s efforts in Destined for War will surely be praised, and for good reasons.
Any Asia hand will quickly be floored by the level of detail and research the manuscript includes. With a grounding in history, Allison takes his readers on a journey through many similar cases in the past where a rising nation challenged a status-quo power, detailing where things went wrong, and, in some instances, how war was avoided. This is all done in a style that makes the book a real page turner, written in a prose that is easy to understand, never getting bogged down in often pointless jargon, tables, graphs or pie-charts. Allison’s ideas flow easily, no matter how frightening they are.
But some will likely have a problem with some of what the work offers. For example, he compares Xi Jinping and Donald Trump as two men who have similar goals: to make their nations great again. At the same time, Allison boldly, and quite correctly, couches China’s quest for primacy in Asia as something like what the United States did when it rose to power almost a century ago. While clearly stating that China has not acted as aggressively as America did in the past, especially back around the turn of century during the time of President Theodore Roosevelt, Allison skillfully hints at what could occur if China were to take such a step — and embark on a real path to war.
Reasons for hope:
While I don’t want to offer any spoilers, Allison offers four key ways to mitigate the possibility of conflict. One of my favorites, clarifying vital interests, is worth spoiling. What are America’s vital interests in the Asia-Pacific region? What are we willing to fight for? What are we willing to die for? And, perhaps, most importantly, what are we not willing to fight for? To this day, I would challenge any past Obama administration official to be able to explain that with clarity — they likely can’t, beyond mentioning the word pivot or rebalance — terms that are rightly relegated to the past. The Trump administration will need to take up this challenge fast, considering Xi and Obama have a big summit set for early next month.
While many will sing the praises of Allison’s work, there is a much simpler reason why the good professor’s effort should be commended: it stands to reason a flood of op-eds, blogs, editorials and podcasts will flood the media as this books nears its release. We are finally about to have a real public debate about the very distinct possibility of a war between the US and China — and that itself might be the real accomplishment
--------------------------------------------------------
트럼프는 푸틴의 국방비를 본받아야 한다.
미국이 직면한 최대의 위협은 중국이나 러시아 또는 북한이 아니다. 그것은 국가 부채이다.
Trump Should Follow Putin on Military Spending
Tho Bishop
Last week was a tale of two cities.
In Washington President Trump followed through on his plans to escalate US military spending, proposing a budget that included $639 billion for the Pentagon — a $54 billion budget increase. Meanwhile, in Moscow, the Russian government has announced a 25% reduction in defense spending, the sharpest cut since the 1990s. This brings Russia’s total military budget for the year to around $50 billion dollars, less than Trump’s proposed increase..........
Regardless of the reasoning for Putin’s cuts to Russia’s military budget, America would be better off if Trump followed his example. While Republicans usually prefer taking a blind eye to Pentagon spending, the same waste, fraud, and abuse haunt the Pentagon as any other government agency. Particularly, as we can clearly see, there is no other country that poses a serious threat to military capabilities.
Now that he is president, Trump likes to tout the fact he’s listening to America’s generals. Perhaps he needs to talk to General Mike Millen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Perhaps then he would see that the greatest threat America faces isn’t from China, Russia, or North Korea — it is from the national debt. Until Trump reverses course on military spending, and gets tough on entitlements, his “America First” budget will only make the US worse off.
--------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기