funded by the new zealand government has an interest in not come here but the study found in great britain it may actually more sense energy lies in terms of energy efficiency it made more sense to purchase your land from new zealand environmentally than it did to purchase your land locally in the u.k.. and hugo haag is that possible? that can't be possible because traveling across the world. transportation doesn't matter compared to the fact that the land that is produced in new zealand is produced under natural conditions. if it is grass that land and england the land they were comparing it to was produced under confined animal feed lot conditions and industrial conditions. the energies in clause in the form of production. it wasn't in the distance of the land troubled. another example involves tomatoes. if you what local hothouse tomatoes, tomato is to grow with input of heat and under artificial conditions and we bought those locally, it would actually be ten times more energy inefficient than if you got tomatoes grown naturally on the other side of the world. and, you know, these exam

britain is somewhere in the relegation places of the world league table of physical activity. for me there's no reason for that and it actually doesn't cost any public money to lift britain from its current place closer to the levels of activity in netherlands, germany, and scandinavia. in my department, the interest in my department will absolutely be foursquare with interest a rat department. there is no differentiation here. there is no conflict team and it's really starting to align government and really using all of its way around those same object is where they could make the transfer system flow more quickly. we can get people healthier and then we can encourage people to reduce their carbon. government has got to get a bit better at that, a bit more focused on how it is doing. we just bought a cycle to work scheme. we all came together and when the combined power of government departments get together you can begin to make significant change and leave some behavior change. that it does make that kind of conservative action taken on both in the past we have not enough.

britain is somewhere in the relegation places of the world table of physical activity. for me there's no reason for that. and it actually doesn't cost any public money to lift britain from its current place closer to the levels of physical activity in the netherlands, in germany, in scandinavia. so that, for me, where the interest of my department lie absolutely four square with the interests of ed miliband's department. there is no differentiation here, there's no conflicting incentives, and it's really starting to align government and really using all of its weight around those same objectives where they can both make the system flow more quickly, we can get people healthier, and then we can encourage people to reduce their carbon, and government's got to get a bit more focused on how it's doing it. we've just launched a cycle to work scheme, but we all came together, and it's been the combined power of government departments, the three together. you really can begin to make significant change and lead some behavior change, but it does need that kind of concerted acti

britain is somewhere in the relegation places of the world league table of physical activity. for me there is no reason for that and it does not cost any public money to lift britain from its current place closer to the levels of physical activity in the netherlands, germany and scandinavia so that for me it's an area where the interest of my department like absolutely foursquare with the interest of the department. there is no differentiation here. there is no conflict in incentives and it is starting to line and all of its weight around the same objectives where they can make the transport system flow more quickly, we can get people healthier and encourage people to reduce their carbon. the government has got to get a bit more focused on how it is doing. we just launched a cycle to work scheme but we all came together and it is when the combined power of the government departments, the three together you can begin to make significant change in lead to some behavior change but it does need that concerted action. ki-taek-- we have not done enough but clearly it is now. >> a lo

to protect torturers, threatening the government of great britain, cutting off any intelligence sharing if they reveal anything about torture, claiming that phone companies when it comes to protecting secrets from the public, are a part of the executive branch of our government here outrageous plans. why would someone keep such secrets on behalf of the other team? doesn't make any sense. unless one team is the people with all the power and the other team is all of us. then it starts to make a little bit of sense. and the power to torture, this is the one that we think we have sat behind us, without prosecuting any of the torturers, without taking any steps to deter torture going forward. and yet, the director of the cia, leon panetta, and david azariah, an adviser to the president have both made crystal clear, televised interviews, and panetta's case testimony, before confirmation hearing, that the president maintains the power to torture. he is just choosing not to use it at the moment. now if torture is a policy choice and the democrats are going to torture except they are going to re

think about that, france, germany, great britain, japan, every other major industrialized country has figured out a way to provide health insurance for every one of their citizens. it is time for america to do the same. that is just moral issue. that is not just a financial issue. it is a moral issue. what kind of country are we going to be? this is a letter that i received from a constituent in september and i wanted to share it with my colleagues. dear senator conrad, i'm 51-years-old, have never given much thought to writing a senator until now. three days ago we received some of the worst news a person can get. my husband has been diagnosed with bladder cancer. he does not have health insurance. we are self-employed. our income is low but we do owned some property which makes us ineligible for most assistance programs. a few years ago we both dropped out or blue cross blue shield coverage because the premiums were too high. i reapplied and got my insurance back but my husband was denied due to his weight. he quit smoking four years ago and put on weight gradually since then. we ar

woman had lived in, say, japan, the world's second-richest nation, or germany, the third-richest, or britain, france, italy, spain, canada, et cetera, the health care systems there would have give enher the standard treatment for lupus and she could have lived a normal life span. but nicky white wrasse a citizen of the -- was a citizen of the world's richest country, the united states of america. once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. like tens of millions of her fellow americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare but too little money to pay for the drugs and the doctors she needed to stay alive. she spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters and filling out forms," mr. president, "pleading for help. when she died, nicky white was 32 years old." that is a story that should move every one of us, move every one of us, to action. look, we've spent years studying and analyzing what's working in our health care system and what's not working. what it comes down to is this: too many of our fellow citizens are suffering because of the b