Display:

who is totally incompetent


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 06:31:16 AM EST
Jerome,

She struck me as not knowing her facts and having an incompetent way about expressing her economic policies. The 'totally incomptent' phrase was what I gathered would be the extreme impression people would have from the debate. Her finest moment was taking Sarkozy to task over his duplicitous use of the handicapped school issue. Her worst moment was her arrogance in thinking nuclear only produced 17% of electricity when it is the source of 70%, even greater than Sarkozy's stated 50%

by An American in London on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 06:36:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bilan énergétique 2006 (pdf) - p.17

Electricity is 23% of final energy demand
Thus nuclear, 78% of that (p.9 above), is 18% of primary energy consumption.

(She did say electricity in the debate, but her assertion is correct as far as "energy" is concerned)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 06:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think what struck me was her arrogance in stating it even if she actually meant energy consumption. Hopefully it won't effect people's impressions of her like what happened to Ford in the Ford/Carter debate when he stated Poland was free and not part of Russian dominated Eastern Europe in 1976.

Splitting hairs and I hope she is elected but wouldn't be shocked if the neocons working in tandem with the Muiti nationals were able to elect Sarkozy.

by An American in London on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 06:58:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
how Sarkozy is "knowledgeable" and she's "arrogant".

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 07:18:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome,
Who is right here?
Nuclear power in France:
50%--Sarko
17%--Royal
80%--International Herald Tribune (today)

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 06:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends on percentage of what. See Jerome's comment above:

Nuclear is (about) 80% of French electricity production;

and about 18% of total energy use.

Royal should have said 17% of energy, not of electricity, but she was a lot righter than Sarkozy who appears to have picked his number on a sort of 50-50 basis, like, I've got half a chance of being right and half of being wrong.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 07:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
seems weird to me that neither candidate knew the answer to this.  both energy and the environment are basic issues, and they can't answer this question?
by wchurchill on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 12:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
She had the right information. She just said "electricity" instead of energy, with the right number.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 12:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also, she succeeded in making nuclear energy less important in the eyes of the public.  This is a solid effort.  The difference between energy/electricity is probably beyond the capacity of most anyhow and certainly beyond the interest of the vast majority.

I've been particularly fond of Royal's bold efforts against nuclear power.  This is something the French actually did right, has major international implications (her position vis-a-vis Iran) and yet she is willing to oppose, from an ecological standpoint, in order to encourage renewables.

Whatever happened to nuclear waste, anyway?

by paving on Thu May 3rd, 2007 at 03:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series