Super Genius
Posts: 1,274 
August 23rd, 2006, 12:52 PM
There have been two major environmental successes in our time - the stabilising of the size of the Ozone Hole, and the reduction of Acid Rain.
Those were both achieved by reducing those pollutants that CAUSED the problems. It was found that CFCs [refrigerants and sprays] were causing the depletion of ozone, so we banned them. As for acid rain, the sulphur from industrial processes was the culprit and reducing it solved the problem.
Currently, there are three major issues - global warming, smog, and toxic pollution that causes cancer and other illensses. These have been argued to death, denied to the hilt, and finally accepted as obviously evident. Thats they typical way of finding truth eh?
The CAUSE of all three is fossil fuels emissions - greenhouse gases of CO2 and methane are causing the global temperature to rise, and smog from vehicle emissions in large cities, and toxins from industrial use of fossil fuels AND [this is important] the petrochemicals that are used in making many, most, or all our consumer goods - shampoos, laundry detergants,fire retardants, pharmaceuticals [pills made from various chemicals that typically come from petrochemical sources] etc etc.
Under the Tory Green Plan, details to be revealed next month, I predict that there will be NO REDUCTION IN FOSSIL FUEL USEAGE by Canadians, and that therefore there will be NO REDUCTION IN SMOG, TOXIC POLLUTANTS, and most troubling, no help to reduce the greatest threat to our way of life and life in fact for many species - GLOBAL WARMING.
Harper will also ensure that there are no serious reductions by STALLING. This is an favorite tactic of the fossil fuel industry - STALLING regulations and programs that would actually reduce our carbon emissions.... They did it for years with fake science about gloabl warming, allways paid for by the fossil fools corporations, esp Exxon. Nobody is being charged with treason for that fake science, despite the threat to our way of life.
There will be some very green sounding proposals, but with a long time line, and ways to avoid changes like emissions trading [where you can spew more than you should by using special "accounting proceedures"].
These proposals are all going to be hot air, just pandering to voters without any serious thoughts to actual envirnmental problems..."[Harper] gets that the environment is key to middle-class voters in the centre of the political spectrum, where elections are won". Thats all he wants, no real solutions... more Harpocracy.
The one thing that will be missing is the phrase "we must reduce our use of fossil fuels", depite fossil fuels being the primary CAUSE of all three areas of concern [smog, toxins, global warming].
Here is one opinion of the Tory Green Plan, scroll down to Climate Change section [my highlights] :
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/01/20/HardOnNature/
There have been two major environmental successes in our time - the stabilising of the size of the Ozone Hole, and the reduction of Acid Rain.
Those were both achieved by reducing those pollutants that CAUSED the problems. It was found that CFCs [refrigerants and sprays] were causing the depletion of ozone, so we banned them. As for acid rain, the sulphur from industrial processes was the culprit and reducing it solved the problem.
Currently, there are three major issues - global warming, smog, and toxic pollution that causes cancer and other illensses. These have been argued to death, denied to the hilt, and finally accepted as obviously evident. Thats they typical way of finding truth eh?
The CAUSE of all three is fossil fuels emissions - greenhouse gases of CO2 and methane are causing the global temperature to rise, and smog from vehicle emissions in large cities, and toxins from industrial use of fossil fuels AND [this is important] the petrochemicals that are used in making many, most, or all our consumer goods - shampoos, laundry detergants,fire retardants, pharmaceuticals [pills made from various chemicals that typically come from petrochemical sources] etc etc.
Under the Tory Green Plan, details to be revealed next month, I predict that there will be NO REDUCTION IN FOSSIL FUEL USEAGE by Canadians, and that therefore there will be NO REDUCTION IN SMOG, TOXIC POLLUTANTS, and most troubling, no help to reduce the greatest threat to our way of life and life in fact for many species - GLOBAL WARMING.
Harper will also ensure that there are no serious reductions by STALLING. This is an favorite tactic of the fossil fuel industry - STALLING regulations and programs that would actually reduce our carbon emissions.... They did it for years with fake science about gloabl warming, allways paid for by the fossil fools corporations, esp Exxon. Nobody is being charged with treason for that fake science, despite the threat to our way of life.
There will be some very green sounding proposals, but with a long time line, and ways to avoid changes like emissions trading [where you can spew more than you should by using special "accounting proceedures"].
These proposals are all going to be hot air, just pandering to voters without any serious thoughts to actual envirnmental problems..."[Harper] gets that the environment is key to middle-class voters in the centre of the political spectrum, where elections are won". Thats all he wants, no real solutions... more Harpocracy.
The one thing that will be missing is the phrase "we must reduce our use of fossil fuels", depite fossil fuels being the primary CAUSE of all three areas of concern [smog, toxins, global warming].
Here is one opinion of the Tory Green Plan, scroll down to Climate Change section [my highlights] :
Quote:
Climate change
Harper has said that he will "address the issue [of climate change]…with a made-in-Canada plan, emphasizing new technologies, developed in concert with the provinces and in coordination with other major industrial countries." He also told Radio Canada this month that the Kyoto protocol is "not the right approach" to combat climate change.
This coded message is music to the ears of oil executives everywhere, and is clearly the type of shameful retreat from mandatory emissions targets that has taken root south of the border.
The science behind climate change is clear and becoming more worrisome almost every day. Every additional delay will make future solutions more difficult.
Fiscal conservatives like Stephen Harper should understand the simple principle of living within our means. His apparent retreat on mandatory emission reductions would damn future generations of Canadians to deal with the environmental deficits we are recklessly racking up today, while wasting time looking for technological fixes to our oil addiction.
Harper has said that he will "address the issue [of climate change]…with a made-in-Canada plan, emphasizing new technologies, developed in concert with the provinces and in coordination with other major industrial countries." He also told Radio Canada this month that the Kyoto protocol is "not the right approach" to combat climate change.
This coded message is music to the ears of oil executives everywhere, and is clearly the type of shameful retreat from mandatory emissions targets that has taken root south of the border.
The science behind climate change is clear and becoming more worrisome almost every day. Every additional delay will make future solutions more difficult.
Fiscal conservatives like Stephen Harper should understand the simple principle of living within our means. His apparent retreat on mandatory emission reductions would damn future generations of Canadians to deal with the environmental deficits we are recklessly racking up today, while wasting time looking for technological fixes to our oil addiction.
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/01/20/HardOnNature/
Genius
Posts: 998
Location: Was Victoria, now Ottawa
Location: Was Victoria, now Ottawa
August 23rd, 2006, 03:42 PM
Harper doesn't have a green plan. He wants out of Kyoto, which would be a shame even though Kyoto doesn't go far enough. A made in Canada plan? I dont think so. Kyoto was great because for the first time ever major governments agreed that climate change was scientefic fact and we should do something. Now neo-cons want to destroy that. They dont give a ****e.
Harper doesn't have a green plan. He wants out of Kyoto, which would be a shame even though Kyoto doesn't go far enough. A made in Canada plan? I dont think so. Kyoto was great because for the first time ever major governments agreed that climate change was scientefic fact and we should do something. Now neo-cons want to destroy that. They dont give a ****e.
Bright Spark
Posts: 337
August 23rd, 2006, 03:58 PM
Both smog and pollutants are substances which can be measured directly and we can say this matter is in the air, it had to come from somewhere, where as global warming is not a substance and can therefore not be measured and corrolated in the same way.
It just isn't as obvious that CO2 is the cause of the problem, or if there really is a problem! the Ozone was obvious, hell we even know the chemistry to explain exactly why CFC's were putting holes in the ozone. (btw the ozone layer has not only stabalized its holes are actually shrinking)
Quote:
it is foolish to lump global warming with smog and pollution when talking about their causes.
global warming, smog, and toxic pollution
Both smog and pollutants are substances which can be measured directly and we can say this matter is in the air, it had to come from somewhere, where as global warming is not a substance and can therefore not be measured and corrolated in the same way.
It just isn't as obvious that CO2 is the cause of the problem, or if there really is a problem! the Ozone was obvious, hell we even know the chemistry to explain exactly why CFC's were putting holes in the ozone. (btw the ozone layer has not only stabalized its holes are actually shrinking)
Bright Spark
Posts: 337
August 23rd, 2006, 05:57 PM
Global warming COULD very well be a major issue even if we have nothing to do with it! Kind of like how the tsunami in Sri Lanka is a major issue, or katrina.
What I am saying is that the statement below is very fallacious and weasel worded:
Global warming COULD very well be a major issue even if we have nothing to do with it! Kind of like how the tsunami in Sri Lanka is a major issue, or katrina.
What I am saying is that the statement below is very fallacious and weasel worded:
Quote:
I am not saying the statement is 100% false, but for instance, I don't think anyone really argues or has ever really argued that toxic substances don't cause cancer.
Currently, there are three major issues - global warming, smog, and toxic pollution that causes cancer and other illensses. These have been argued to death, denied to the hilt, and finally accepted as obviously evident. Thats they typical way of finding truth eh?
The CAUSE of all three is fossil fuels emissions
The CAUSE of all three is fossil fuels emissions
Clever Clogs
Posts: 674
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
August 23rd, 2006, 07:02 PM
It can be measured. Just take a long ruler to the glaciers and measure from where they use to be.
Also Global Warming has been accepted as occurring with alarming future concerns by the scientific community. Scientist like the ones in NASA for instance who's whole career is understanding climate for the future welfare of the USA.
Quoting
Both smog and pollutants are substances which can be measured directly and we can say this matter is in the air, it had to come from somewhere, where as global warming is not a substance and can therefore not be measured and corrolated in the same way.
It can be measured. Just take a long ruler to the glaciers and measure from where they use to be.
Also Global Warming has been accepted as occurring with alarming future concerns by the scientific community. Scientist like the ones in NASA for instance who's whole career is understanding climate for the future welfare of the USA.
Bright Spark
Posts: 337
August 23rd, 2006, 08:21 PM
maybe you are being facetious, but I am not denying it is warmer now than it was over the past few hundred years (at least), that just isn't what I said, elevennevele, you must understand what I meant by that statement, it wasn't denying anything it was simply saying that global warming itself and whether or not it is human caused, cannot be measured in the same way as air pollutants or ozone layer depletion.
"Alarming future conerns" is with the assumption that it will continue rising (or accelerate) for at least the next 20 years.
Here are some quotes from scientists who are not so confident in human caused global warming. (wiki)
The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago… [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future..." . He has also said "Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: "At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."
The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes
Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes may be more to blame than human activities.
William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." Mr. Gray, who has worked in the field for 50 years, has labeled global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [5][6]
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." [7]
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". [8] In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." [9]
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." [10]
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [11]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [12] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it." [13].
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." [14]
Tim Patterson [15], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [16]
Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [17])
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [18])
maybe you are being facetious, but I am not denying it is warmer now than it was over the past few hundred years (at least), that just isn't what I said, elevennevele, you must understand what I meant by that statement, it wasn't denying anything it was simply saying that global warming itself and whether or not it is human caused, cannot be measured in the same way as air pollutants or ozone layer depletion.
Quote:
Like I said I am not denying it is warmer now than it has been in recent history, and I don't think there is any scientist who does.
Global Warming has been accepted as occurring with alarming future concerns by the scientific community. Scientist like the ones in NASA for instance who's whole career is understanding climate for the future welfare of the USA.
"Alarming future conerns" is with the assumption that it will continue rising (or accelerate) for at least the next 20 years.
Here are some quotes from scientists who are not so confident in human caused global warming. (wiki)
The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident that [the] global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago… [but] we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future..." . He has also said "Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: "At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models."
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind."
The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes
Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes may be more to blame than human activities.
William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." Mr. Gray, who has worked in the field for 50 years, has labeled global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [5][6]
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." [7]
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". [8] In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." [9]
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." [10]
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [11]
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [12] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it." [13].
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." [14]
Tim Patterson [15], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [16]
Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [17])
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [18])
Bright Spark
Posts: 319
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
August 23rd, 2006, 08:58 PM
Harper: You are going to cause a chaos....The temperature in Toronto are rising every summer....the iceburgs in the Arctic as we speak....we will one day be living like what happened in the movie "The day after tomorrow"
Harper: You are going to cause a chaos....The temperature in Toronto are rising every summer....the iceburgs in the Arctic as we speak....we will one day be living like what happened in the movie "The day after tomorrow"
Super Genius
Posts: 1,274
August 26th, 2006, 06:30 PM
Graeme Said:
it is foolish to lump global warming with smog and pollution when talking about their causes
No it isn't!! Exactly what my point was!!
Fossil fuels use is causing ALL these problems, from toxins to global warming to smog.
Reduce fossil fuel use to save ourselves. Its a very clear message and it is written in the sky. It is not foolish to lump them together, it is foolish to ignore the causes of our biggest threats.
Graeme Said:
it is foolish to lump global warming with smog and pollution when talking about their causes
No it isn't!! Exactly what my point was!!
Fossil fuels use is causing ALL these problems, from toxins to global warming to smog.
Reduce fossil fuel use to save ourselves. Its a very clear message and it is written in the sky. It is not foolish to lump them together, it is foolish to ignore the causes of our biggest threats.
Bright Spark
Posts: 313
August 26th, 2006, 08:39 PM
i'm sure the NDP and Liberals condemned the announcemnet of a new muscle car production (Camaro) this week. Of course the environment means crap when up against union jobs.
When push comes to shove the Libs and Dippers are all talk and no action. At least the Conservatives don't spout phony crap. I voted Green in the last 2 elections and will vote either Green or Conservative in the next. The Conservatives will at least do what they promise and Green at a minimum puts the enviro issue front and center.
i'm sure the NDP and Liberals condemned the announcemnet of a new muscle car production (Camaro) this week.
Of course the environment means crap when up against union jobs. When push comes to shove the Libs and Dippers are all talk and no action. At least the Conservatives don't spout phony crap. I voted Green in the last 2 elections and will vote either Green or Conservative in the next. The Conservatives will at least do what they promise and Green at a minimum puts the enviro issue front and center.
Bright Spark
Posts: 277
August 27th, 2006, 11:09 AM
Quoting
i'm sure the NDP and Liberals condemned the announcemnet of a new muscle car production (Camaro) this week. Of course the environment means crap when up against union jobs.
QR77 a local phone-in radio show tried to line up the NDP energy point man on this one but he was off on vacation. Bet he didn't ride his bicycle. They got hold of some other NDP spokesman and she tapped danced around the questions like an idiot. No one from the Liberals would come on for a comment.
i'm sure the NDP and Liberals condemned the announcemnet of a new muscle car production (Camaro) this week.
Of course the environment means crap when up against union jobs.
I had Dorothy
Posts: 1,068 
Location: not in Kansas anymore
Location: not in Kansas anymore
August 27th, 2006, 11:49 AM
Kyoto for dummies;My yard needs cleaning.I send a guy with a cleaner yard money and feel good about myself. It does nothing about my yard.Would it not make sense to spend the money at home? Maybe a made in Canada plan.
Kyoto for dummies;My yard needs cleaning.I send a guy with a cleaner yard money and feel good about myself. It does nothing about my yard.Would it not make sense to spend the money at home? Maybe a made in Canada plan.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,274
August 27th, 2006, 12:58 PM
Ya, that Camaro Muscle car announcment really made me shiver. Those engines will be spewing their fossil fuels emissions for the next 20 years, taking us up to 2026, well past the point where global warming becomes possible to control anymore.
At present, we have the opportunity to slow the damaging effects by reducing emissions... And since it is going to impact me and my family directly, it might be justifyable for me to destroy that automaking plant, out of self-defense.
If I had the support of a petition with a milion names on it when I went to destroy that plant that is producing the method of my destruction, what court would find me guilty? Has it come to this?
Ya, that Camaro Muscle car announcment really made me shiver. Those engines will be spewing their fossil fuels emissions for the next 20 years, taking us up to 2026, well past the point where global warming becomes possible to control anymore.
At present, we have the opportunity to slow the damaging effects by reducing emissions... And since it is going to impact me and my family directly, it might be justifyable for me to destroy that automaking plant, out of self-defense.
If I had the support of a petition with a milion names on it when I went to destroy that plant that is producing the method of my destruction, what court would find me guilty? Has it come to this?
