Meanwhile in 2012 the USA sizzled in the heat...

So we here in the UK had a wet and grey 2012,  meanwhile over in the USA it was a bit warmer.

According to ClimateWatch Magazine:

'By a wide margin, 2012 was the United States’ warmest year on record

According to the latest statistics from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature for the contiguous United States for 2012 was 55.3° Fahrenheit, which was 3.2° Fahrenheit above the twentieth-century average and 1.0° Fahrenheit above the previous record from 1998. The year consisted of the fourth-warmest winter, a record-warm spring, the second-warmest summer, and a warmer-than-average autumn.The map above shows where the 2012 temperatures were different from the 1981–2010 average. Shades of red indicate temperatures up to 8° Fahrenheit warmer than average, and shades of blue indicate temperatures up to 8° Fahrenheit cooler than average—the darker the color, the larger the difference from average temperature.'

And the New York Times in a report on Tuesday 8 January says:  It’s Official: 2012 Was Hottest Year Ever in U.S.:

'......Last year’s weather in the United States began with an unusually warm winter, with relatively little snow across much of the country, followed by a March that was so hot that trees burst into bloom and swimming pools opened early. The soil dried out in the March heat, helping to set the stage for a drought that peaked during the warmest July on record.

The drought engulfed 61 percent of the nation, killed corn and soybean crops and sent prices spiraling. It was comparable to a severe drought in the 1950s, Mr. Crouch said, but not quite as severe as the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s, which was exacerbated by poor farming practices that allowed topsoil to blow away.

In addition to being the warmest year since extensive records for the contiguous United States became available in 1895, last year turned out to be the second worst on a measure called the Climate Extremes Index, surpassed only by 1998.

Experts are still counting, but so far 11 disasters in 2012 have exceeded a threshold of $1 billion in damages, including several tornado outbreaks; Hurricane Isaac, which hit the Gulf Coast in August; and, late in the year, Hurricane Sandy, which caused damage likely to exceed $60 billion in nearly half the states, primarily in the mid-Atlantic region......'

Flooding and lessons from USA

I know it's sad for those whom recently have lost possessions in the floods, but then again it's a simple fact - if you own a property near to a river or on a flood plain, even an old flood plain, then you have to expect that sometime in your lifetime your property may be flooded.

Not unsurprisingly every time a flooding incident occurs the politicians are out in force, talking of "shocking scenes of flooding"(copyright David Cameron). And demanding that more defenses be built to protect properties.

But is building more flood defenses the long term answer?

In the USA they have long realised that this is not the answer.

"Flooding remains the most common and one of the most costly categories of natural hazards in the United States. Historically, the United States has relied on structural mitigation, insurance, and disaster relief to mitigate the harm done by floods. However, experience has shown that structural mitigation and related policies can fail to protect lives and property while also contributing to the degradation of the riverine environment."

The above from River Ecology and Flood Hazard Mitigation.

As it seems likely due to 'global warming' we will see extreme weather more often, we need to get a grip of development within flood plains. First of all because of the environmental damage that is does, and secondly because of the high cost in the long term of doing so.

What we really need is a Environment Agency with real teeth, that can have the powers to stop damaging development in flood plains, or developments that would be likely to contribute to damage in flood plains.

But realistically that's not going to happen is it? - can you see any of the main stream parties with enough backbone to legislate for that?

As for existing properties, the answer is seems is to work with nature, and i.e. allow for controlled flooding, which is after all a natural occurrence, and allow low lying farm land to be flooded, with compensation to the farmer, in order to reduce the flow of the river. As the above paper says:

Given these features of flooding and the policy responses to floods, we recommend that federal agencies address flood hazards by using one or a combination of the following techniques, listed in descending order of desirability:

1. Avoid the risk.
2. Minimize impacts of risk.
3. Mitigate risks.
4. Indemnify or insure against loss; compensate.

Risk avoidance is at the heart of Executive Order 11988’s mandate; if this executive order were more effectively implemented, our recommendation would be implicitly adopted, with risk avoidance becoming the preferred tool. Currently, however, federal agencies seek primarily to mitigate and indemnify, not to avoid risks whenever possible.

Which is more or less the situation also in the UK.

Obama and the UK media

Oh for fuck sake, I used to like John Snow...he of Channel 4, but his apparent shock that Obama won is a bit sad and mad...and also rather pathetic....

Apparently and allegedly Obama won 'cause of immigrants, sorry but putting aside the native Americans...all Americans will be descended from immigrants.

The narrative it seems is 'how could Obama win with the USA in a recession' although technically speaking the USA is not in a recession.

If the USA is in recession or about to fall into recession with growth of 1.3 and 2 for the last two quarters...then we here in the UK must be really really fucked.

And whilst the rest of the world were looking towards the USA and the presidential elections, where was our PM David Cameron....yes selling fucking arms to the Arabs....you couldn't bloody make it up.

Don’t make Gaddafi a martyr

A report in today's Times says that Liam Fox, the British Defence Secretary, is to hold talks in the US over bombing of command control centres that could be sheltering Colonel Gaddafi.

In defending what is officially not official policy; the targeting of Colonel Gaddafi, Liam Fox said “All parts of command and control are always legitimate targets so long as they are attacking civilians” and “Those who are involved need to recognise we regard them as legitimate targets”

As the Times points out “Officially, the Nato air offensive attacks only physical structures rather than individuals, as an explicit assassination strategy could be ruled illegal under UN resolution 1973.”

Putting the above to one side, there are a number of problems with this non-official strategy. Colonel Gaddafi and his advisers know fully well the security risk, and I doubt you would find him within miles of a command and control centre, or any traceable means of communication, much better for him to be surrounded by as many civilians as possible.

Then we need to ask is he really still in charge - or is it his son and or tribal leaders who are really calling the shots?

I thought our country believed in the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and that a person had a right to a fair trial irrespective of how objectionable their crimes were. What started out as an humanitarian mission is quickly becoming in the eyes of many as imposition of rule by the West, especially if by killing Colonel Gaddafi all we do is turn him into a martyr and escalate the civil war that is occurring in Libya.

It's clear that Russia and Arab states object most strongly to any Nato or UN ground force in Libya.

It's clear that peace cannot be imposed by airpower alone, especially in a divided country made up of many opposing factions.

And rather than finding a peaceful solution to this conflict, by seeking out influential leaders within the ruling factions of Libya with a road map to peace, we seek vengeance and set out to kill their leader?

As Israel has found out, killing the leaders of a movement is never the answer as it only leads to anger and the radicalisation of others.

Competition in the Health Care Sector [in USA]

This is an extract from the book ‘Competition in the Health Care Sector: Ten Years Later’ edited by Warren Greenberg and published in 1988 and deals with the USA health care system.

Warren Greenberg, Ph.D. is a professor of health economics and health care sciences and a senior fellow with the Center for Health Policy Research at the George Washington University. He is also a scholar in residence at the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality.

The following extract is from the introduction by Warren Greenberg.

“It appears that competition has increased substantially among providers and among insures and health plans since 1977, perhaps more than anyone predicted or though possible. Economic theory would suggest that this increase in competition should have resulted in a more efficient allocation of health care services. The distribution of health care services is still markedly unequal, however. At least 37 million individuals are without health insurance (versus 27 million in 1977), and it appears to be increasingly difficult for someone who is chronically ill to obtain individual health insurance. As in other sectors of the economy, it is clear in the health care sector that a more efficient allocation of resources alone can never solve an equity concern.

The increase in competition has also been unsuccessful in containing health care costs. The rate of increase in health care costs continues to exceed the rate of increase in all consumer or producer prices. This is not surprising. An improved allocation of resources may result in a one time reduction in health care costs, but competitive industries are at least as prone as monopolistic industries to experience increases in cost over time. In addition, the increased development and diffusion of higher-cost health care technology appears to be immune to structure considerations.”

Read more of the book at Google Books