See: Cake, having and eating

I just caught Bono and Al Gore on a panel at the World Economic Forum on C-SPAN.  Bono said we need to help with third world development, and Al Gore said we need strong action against carbon dioxide emissions.  They acted as if the two of them presented a unified front; the crowd cheered for both.

The inconvenient truth is that third world economic development will involve more CO2 emissions from third world countries.  Maybe this can be offset by reduced emissions in developed countries—indeed, we expect that there is a "pollution peak" in a country's development after which pollution decreases.  But what if developed countries don't leave enough slack?  Which side of the line do you stand on?

Share this

I am on the side of Bono and

I am on the side of Bono and Al Gore stopping breathing to prevent further CO2 emissions or at least shutting up to avoid releasing hot air :)
In their mind, I am not sure third world development implies production.Since they tend to see the economy as a zero-sum game, production is not that important it's only a matter of distribution.

This metaphor has always

This metaphor has always confused me, if I had a piece of cake would I not want to eat it too?

See: Lothar of the Hill People

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9-9cD_9UmZo

Indeed. It gets even more

Indeed. It gets even more confusing when you consider that have can also mean eat.

The French idiomatism says you can't have the butter and the money for the butter (sometimes: and the dairywoman's smile).

Once you've eaten it, you

Once you've eaten it, you don't have it available to eat anymore. The meaning is exactly expressed by the French saying.

I get it--and yes, the

I get it--and yes, the French phrase is much better--but I just wanted some way to reference that Lothar of the Hill People sketch.