Climate Change

0 Kudos

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
MariaNiccola	Climate Change		Lead	[-]
Posts: 30 01/24/06 12:55:18 Hooked on Phonics	Tags : None According to the US EPA: Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities. It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. A warming trend of about 1F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground. Here is a link to the EPA report. Maria, I edited your link into a regular clicky so that the page wouldn't be distorted - G.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MariaNiccola	Re: Climate Change	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 30 01/24/06 13:00:37 Hooked on Phonics	Now, I'd be the first one to be skeptical of anything cited as "certain," but I've read a lot of basic science about the atmospheric changes of our planet and I will accept the above statement. What follows (the "what, if anything, do we do about it") is not as easy to discern. Part of me believes that the planet recovers from these climate shifts on a geologic time scale and while it might seem tragic over our short life spans, its really just a tiny blip on the universal level not to be concerned about. The other part wonders if the first part is crazy.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Climate Change	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 01/25/06 16:21:23 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Part of me believes that the planet recovers from these climate shifts on a geologic time scale and while it might seem tragic over our short life spans, its really just a tiny blip on the universal level not to be concerned about. Nothing to be concerned about for whom, is the question. I'm not terribly worried about the earth -- we'd have to try pretty darn hard to damage the planet itself. But life on earth may not be quite so resilient to far-ranging ecological change. Life itself may be capable of adapting, but particular species are bound to be affected by the changes in environmental pressures -- that's simple evolutionary theory -- and there's a distinct possibility that we'll be one of the species that's adversely affected.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MariaNiccola	Re: Climate Change	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 30 01/25/06 17:45:44 Hooked on Phonics	*Quote:* There's a distinct possibility that we'll be one of the species that's adversely affected. More than a possibility, as several small island nations in the pacific are already feeling the effects. Even though its our own asses on the line, people don't seem to care enough to do anything concrete about it on large scale. Because the combined plight of the cute-and-fuzzy animals and our own attractive selves isn't enough to motivate change, what do you think it will take?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Climate Change	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 01/25/06 21:00:48 Indisputable BookTalk Master	Even though its our own asses on the line, people don't seem to care enough to do anything concrete about it on large scale. Well, unless the adverse effects start building up at a much more rapid rate than anticipated, it's not really our asses on the line -- it's the asses of future generations. I'd say that most people find it difficult to see past their own convenience. But even if disaster were immanent to the point that we personally would bear the brunt of it, there's a good chance that the population would be divided between those who mobilized to avert the crisis, and those carried along by the inertia of the life they knew. The acquiescence of some parts of the Jewish population of Germany during the early days of the Final Solution demonstrate the capacity of humans for going along with their own destruction. Because the combined plight of the cute-and-fuzzy animals and our own attractive selves isn't enough to motivate change, what do you think it will take? Probably an accident of social change. What has precipitated the environmental change -- assuming that we're correct in hypothesizing that the observed environmental changes are caused by human activity -- are changes in our social structure that both allowed and encouraged certain modes of production, consumption -- in short, work. Barring the possibility of new technologies that allow us to work the same way and to the same extent without the adverse effects (I think that possibility is wildly implausible), the only way to halt the adverse changes is to reorganize work in our society. That would entail rather radical changes in the way that we consume goods and the way in which we provide the goods which we consume. And I don't think that's likely to happen as a result of conscience or foresight. What I know of history tells me that such changes more often take place when there is either a) an economic impetus, or b) a significant change in the circumstances that allowed the nascent economic system. In other words, our social order will change when it either becomes more profitable to work in another way or when it becomes impossible to profit in the way we currently do. It's possible that idealism will win out, but not likely.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Greg Neuman	Re: Climate Change	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 44 01/26/06 12:14:29 Hooked on Phonics	I don't think anyone will argue against the idea that global warming is happening; planetary tempratures are about 1 degree higher today than they were 100 years ago, and glacial melting is rather obvious. But what remains to be seen is 1) how much of it is directly attributable to human industrial activity, and 2) if drastically curbing that industrial activity wouldn't actually create more misery than global warming. What environmentalists will seldom (if ever) tell you is that the Earth's climate changes rather often. As scientifically-mined folks, most of us know that our planet was much warmer during the age of the dinosaurs - by about 5 degrees on average. We also know that it was roughly 5 degrees cooler during the ice age. But not many know that temprature fluctuations of nearly the same scale have happened during the past 3000 years. At the height of the Roman Empire (~200 BCE to ~50 CE) global tempratures were about 2 degrees higher than they are today. That temprature shift started around 1000 BCE, reached its peak around 100 BCE, and ended by about 200 CE. Then, in the middle of the 14th Century, the Earth entered what historians call "The Little Ice Age"; from ~1550 CE to ~1850 CE tempratures in Eurpoe (the only place they were reliably being measured) averaged between 2 degrees and 4 degrees cooler than present. Many scientists now think that climate changes like this happen about every 1,500 years or so. Since we've just exited a cool period in the last 150 years, one shouldn't be too surprised at rising tempratues. Secondly, exactly how much industry should we be willing to give up in order to prevent a 2 degree warming trend over the next century? Should we shut down all coal plants? Stop driving? Cease manufacturing? If so, how do we generate electricity to run computers and televisions (to say nothing of heaters and hospitals)? How will we get grain from Topeka to Chicago? How will we make surgical instruments and AIDs medication and magic markers for the left's endless supply of "No Blood for Oil!" protest signs? There is not one - *not one* - benefit of modern civilization that doesn't require dirty industry at some point. Plastics, which form the basis of our technology more than any other single product, produce millions of tons of pollution every year all by themselves. But they are absolutely essential to our information-age civilization. If environmentalists are so keen on curbing greenhouse gas emissions, I suggest they lead by example. They can be the first to go back to living in mud huts and dying of influenza at 35. As for me, I'm for finding a solution that allows us to keep vaccines and computers and KY Jelly. Which leads me to my final point: I disagree with MadArchitect. I think that better technology will solve - or at least seriously mitigate - our pollution problems. Industry is already far cleaner today than it was 100 years ago. During the next 100 years, hybrid engines and biodiesel - and eventually hydrogen fuel cells - will replace standard internal combustion engines. Nuclear plants will replace coal plants, and if the big brains over at ITER are right they'll be much safer and cleaner than the present-day fission variety. I see the industrial age as an unfortunate but necessary technological adolescence; we will use dirty techology to build cleaner technology, but the dirty-technology step is an essential one. You have to learn to drive at all before you learn to drive well (and, chances are, you're going to have a couple tickets and fender-benders along the way). There will be a price - I hate that extinction rates are on the rise as much as everyone else - but it will be technological progress, not technological retreat, that eventually brings environmental harmony. I know that sounds counter-intuitive at this point, but it is what my education and experience tell me is true. G "Dear Buddha: Please bring me a pony and a plastic rocket." - Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MadArchitect	Re: Climate Change	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3169 01/26/06 17:13:40 Indisputable BookTalk Master	I think that better technology will solve - or at least seriously mitigate - our pollution problems. You may very well be right. But that's a bet on future developments, and I don't think that the potential stakes -- and they're certainly not limited to a 2 degree increase over a century's time -- are slight enough to warrant betting everything on ingenuity. What I would like to see in the meantime are strategies that reduce current destructive practices. Once we've actually developed and tested the technologies that will mitigate the problems, then we can go back to our current levels of waste, consumption and industry. But it's absurd to go on as we are on the assumption that we'll eventually find a cleaner way to go about it -- particularly when so much of what's causing the problem is inessential. The energy we use on hospital care doesn't bother me quite so much as the vast expenditure of energy spent on, say, people watching "American Idol". Secondly, the choice is not one between the total modern technological situation and daub-and-wattle huts. There are degrees, of course, and the survival of civilization does not depend on the preservation of Hummers and electric refridgeration. It does, however, require restructuring society to some degree, and that's a very large part of why many less fervent environmentalists don't lead by example -- the structure of society makes it very difficult to get by unless you conform to the current model.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MariaNiccola	Re: Climate Change	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 30 01/26/06 18:16:55 Hooked on Phonics	I agree with MA. And to take it a step further: if technological advances are going to save us, then why has the internal combustion engine remained (essentially unchanged) our primary mode of transportation for the last 100 years? If GN's theory of technological salvation were correct, would we not have moved forward by this point? I will grant that past climate shifts may have been similar in scale to the current one, but our population (if you want to restrict consequences purely to ourselves) is so much larger and more vulnerable at this point than it may have been during the Middle Ages or Roman times. We are at a very large, dense, brink-of-starvation-and-epidemic stage , probably beyond our global carrying capacity. Therefore widespread drought and famine would be more tragic than any previous event.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
the bricoleur	Re: Climate Change	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13 02/01/06 07:30:01 Kinda New Still	let us not forget that the recent EPICA ice core data suggestes that CO2 leads temperature i.e. co2 cannot be the forcing agent! this may have something to do with it ... "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue". -- James Hansen, Natural Science, 200. "...working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based public support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have....Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest". -- Stephen Schnieder, Discover Magazine. 1989. the bricoleur
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
MisterG2120	Re: Climate Change	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 21 02/08/06 17:16:03 Totally Clueless	I've heard that temperature change, which has gone steadily and linearly upward for some time, is about to take a huge jump. Apparently the thawing in Siberia is different than in say Canada. While Canada is just going from permafrost to dirt, Siberia's permafrost is frozen PEAT. What that means is that when it all thaws, it'll release a ton of methane into the atmosphere. That will accelerate global warming rapidly. And we're almost there already, it's not really stoppable now. I think we'll all see drastic temperature and weather changes in our lifetimes. Katrina was only the start.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
The Mighty Sarcasmo	Re: Climate Change	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3 02/10/06 10:17:31 Brand Spankin' New	It amuses the cynic in me that anyone who displays all the hallmark signs of being an objective, intelligent person and also does not own a direct stake in the fossil fuel industry can somehow still attempt to either discredit or, in the very least, delay what is essentially a completely and utterly benign proposal. The most popular arguments, rehashed by herr Neuman (with a good peppering of political dogma to make it taste better) form the two-pronged attack of the skeptical: 1. Humanity may or may not even have anything to do with it. Yes, the world has experienced heating and cooling off periods in the past. But damn if they don't seem to be accelerating since good ol' Joe Human reared his ugly head. Of course this is all conjecture anyway, since we have no way of telling exactly what happened 2000, let alone 200,000 or 2 million years ago. So really, what's the point in debating it? We know for sure that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses that we put in the atmosphere isn't making things better (according to the past 150 years of industrialisation) ... so why not try the opposite? I mean, just for shts and giggles... If we're wrong, then we're probably no worse off than we were before. I think we've kicked the tires of this puppy enough... let's take her for a spin. 2. We would need to make significant changes to industry and our entire way of life would change at the fundamental level, causing and end to society as we know it. This is false. Completely and utterly so. And you present the reason yourself, Mr. Neuman: Biodeisel. Why does everyone talk about this stuff like it is some type of magical, enigmatic potion that only the most sage of theoretical scientists can comprehend, and something that will not be available for decades? Does the fact that it was invented in 1893 escape everyone? It is not new technology. It is very very old technology. It is just less profitable to a very specific and very influential commercial demographic that have a large interest in keeping petroleum as the primary source of fuel. Here is a quote from the almighty wikipedia, regarding biodeisel: "During the 1920s, diesel engine manufacturers altered their engines to utilize the lower viscosity of the fossil fuel* (petrodiesel) rather than vegetable oil, a biomass fuel. The petroleum industries were able to make inroads in fuel markets because their fuel was much cheaper to produce than the biomass alternatives." Please read the entire article, as it will demystify what is essentially one of the key ingredients in the solution to all our problems. Essentially, and to over simplify: A. Deisel engines can run on biodeisel, with little or no alteration to the existing parts. B. There are hundreds of brands of automobile that run via deisel engines, including all freight-class heavy vehicles (semis, etc.). C. Ergo, the impact of "a world without cars" is nullified. And here's the blood-boiler quote of the day (which was preceded by a nice little political jab, perhaps for distractionary purposes?): Greg said: "There is not one - *not one* - benefit of modern civilization that doesn't require dirty industry at some point." Aside from the fact that this "requirement" is largely self-perpetuating (because really, are there no alternatives?), the premise that NO benefits of modern civilisation could be obtained without "dirty industry" (i thought that was pr0n?) is absurd. The first petroleum-derived plastics were not put into practical use until the 1930s. Here is a list of things that were discovered, and in use before then that are still useful today. You may have heard of some of them: automobile airplane electric light bulb electric motor guns fax machine cement sewing machine elevator vacuum cleaner dynamite typewriter celluloid telephone color photography metal detector dishwasher ballpoint pens electric stove remote contol (particularly important, imho) radio washing machine jet propulsion air conditioning television antibiotics Honestly i could go on .. for a long long long time. Petrol-based plastics may make some of these things cheaper to produce, but that doesn't make it a requirement. So please stop the doomcrying. It is beneath you. I agree that some day internal combustion engines will be replaced. Just the other week I saw a prototype solar battery which was small enough to fit in a briefcase, and could power a laptop computer during the day, while still charging enough to run it for an additional 3 hours after the sun went down. While everyone loves to shine the spotlight on the importance of finding alternative fuels, the concept of storing the energy we produce doesnt really come up that often. It's as much about the batteries as it is about the generators. If we can master storing power, we'd be golden. So: Yes, please close all the coal plants. Please sell your normal car and buy a deisel powered one - it doesn't cost more. In fact: Chrysler owns these. Buy one. So let's cut through the rhetoric, please. Because with today's technology we can reduce the use of petroleum-based fuel sources by at least 70% - and with a bit of jiggery-pokery, probably 100%. Which really just leaves us with two problems: Number 1 - Finding high-quality, non-petroleum based plastics to replace the ones we use now. And again I bring you Wikipedia, destroyer of hearsay: Nanocarbons. A snippet (near the bottom of the article): "The most promising alternatives to plastic are graphene, carbon nanotube, and carbon nanofoam. All three of these are made of nanocarbons, products of the new nanotechnology. Nanocarbons are very cheap, 100 times stronger than steel, slicker than Teflon, lightweight, and can be made very thin, made to stretch, and built into any shape-all the things plastic can do. In addition, nanocarbon manufacturing is low to nonpolluting. Already, bowling balls, golf balls, sports equipment, and waterproof cotton balls have been made of nanocarbons." Nothing like using an important industry like bowling to pioneer green plastic alternatives. Number 2: Where the hell are we going to get enough vegetable oil to fuel all the cars in the States? I have an answer for this too. I like to call it a "farm." These "farms" would grow massive amounts of corn, soybeans, rapeseed, peanuts or whatever else we decide we want to derive our biodesiel from. The one drawback: We might have to let a few other countries join in on the whole "farming" concept, because i doubt the US has enough open farmland to produce the massive amounts of vegetable oil needed. But hey, there's always hydroponics, or floating, ocean-based farms. I think agro-technology could use a nice kick in the ass anyway. But this begs a new question: Do we really want farmers, farmers, to be in charge of our primary fuel source? I mean, can they be trusted? Wouldn't we rather it stay in the steady hands of that pillar of stability, the Middle East? Farmers already have us in a strangle hold when it comes to food production - They've been holding that particular gun to our heads for thousands of years. Do we give them another one? I say let's give Old MacDonald a chance... [edited to add a link i had forgotten]
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Dissident Heart	Re: Climate Change	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 02/10/06 13:21:19 Indisputable BookTalk Master	I don't think we can make sense of Climate Change without considering the dominant economic system and those underlying values that drive production and consumption. For instance, when considering Ownership the dominant economic system is heavily skewed so that appx. 1% of the population owns almost all productive property, another 19% or owns some, and 80% owns essentially none. This stratification is expressed along much the same lines via decision making in the workplace, as well as who gets what share of the profit. Furthermore, this skewing of power into the hands of a disproportionate few has major influence on the development and implementation of governmental policy and industrial regulation. Add to this the necessity for conflict, rewarding those who defeat, destroy, or consume their opponents in constant effort to expand and control markets and entire populations...with its attending need for governmental protections through military might, international trade agreements and the profound asymmetry of non-democratic control vested to the World Trade Organization. With this sort of economic system driving our production and consumption habits, why would we expect anything other than environmental destruction and devastation of the biosphere?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
The Mighty Sarcasmo	Re: Climate Change	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3 02/14/06 07:07:09 Brand Spankin' New	*Quote:* I don't think we can make sense of Climate Change without considering the dominant economic system and those underlying values that drive production and consumption. What? That's like saying you can't understand bullet wounds until you've studied the gun. Except that you are also making the enormous sociopolitical leap that climate change is a direct result of free market economy, which i don't necessarily agree with either. And when a patient comes stumbling into a hospital, bleeding from a couple holes in their chest, do the doctors refuse to treat that person until they get a good look at the rifle that caused the wounds? No, because that would be silly and the patient would most likely die. I'm tired of this endless confuting of the causes. Especially when it's just another person wishing to climb the "evils of capitalism" podium and turn this into a political row. While you sit there debating whether or not one economic system or another is to blame for creating the situation in which this has happened, the world is slowly submerging. What's it going to take to get you off your, torpid, dilatory, armchair-quarterbacking keysters? The entirety of Greenland melting into the sea? A tsunami hitting New York instead of some country on the other side of the world? The city of Phoenix spontaneously bursting into flames? Why is everyone so adamant about just waiting a little bit longer, running one more test, having one last fruitless debate? Even if we were to concede that capitalism is at the root of climate change, do you honestly think that it is feasible to completely change the political, social and economic policies of the majority of the world in less than 100 years, and probably a lot longer than that? And while we're trying to convince everyone that they should embrace altruism, be happy with having the exact same share as everyone else and just generally love thy neighbour, what do we do? Talk climate change into submission? These socialist flights of fancy don't even sound good on paper, let alone in a real-life scenario. There are more practical things to debate than this, folks. Things that are idealistic and don't mean my grandchildren may need to develop gills and UV factor 80 skin to survive. Regardless of whether it's a man-made problem or not, 100+ years of spewing filth into the sky hasn't stopped it. So why not try the opposite? Call it an experiment, if you want -- to rule out human causes. Let's give it a couple decades. And if cleaning up our act hasn't reversed, stopped, or even slowed down climate change, then you shall all be granted a temporary hunting license that allows you to kill one (1) vegan.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Meme Wars	Re: Climate Change	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 101 02/14/06 12:13:15 Senior	Unfortunately, it will take several disasters for us to 'change course' on consumption patterns. The best discussion on this calamity is the concept of 'Tragedy of the Commons' by Garrett Hardin - 1968. Please copy and paste the link below. dieoff.com/page95.htm Our huge task is to convince the stupid masses to either change their ways or convince them to vote for candidates who will propose policies that will curb the masses uncontrollable consumptive behavior, such as a carbon or energy tax. This could be made a bit more palatable by claiming that the government will not increase taxes overall but simply change the way revenue is collected. Income tax could be reduced in exchange for an energy 'sin' tax. If you want to avoid taxes, just use less energy and select products that took less energy to produce. That would be simple. Choose the product with the lowest cost, as high energy products would have the hidden energy tax already worked into its final price. But even with strong economic incentives as above, I believe we will not be able to avoid the effects of Global Warming. It is like a massive train which already has a great deal of unstoppable inertia. We may gradually slow it down through proper action but we're not going to be able to stop it in less than a century, if not two. In the meantime, the weather could non-linearly snap into dramatically different phases. Stronger agents for change will be social disruption due to resource shortages, especially energy. Most of the strife in the world will be for this single reason. The reasons given for military exercises such as Iraq are to blind us (including our leaders) to the basic instinctive drive for competitive cultural units called Nations to wrestle for access to shrinking pool of resources. That is why United States is in Iraq, and despite all the lies about how we got there, the lack of outrage of the common citizen is because subconsciously we all know why we are really there as we enjoy our massive S.U.V's and monster homes driven by our instinctive sexual Darwinian social status elevation behavior. In short, we are talking about trying to change human nature. I'm not sure that is doable and our test for selective fitness is proceeding to extinction of all large mammalian groups. The asteroids did in the dinosaurs. Unstoppable human intelligence with unalterable primitive desires will be the death blow to the reign of mammals. Social insects such as ants and termites will be the new dominant form of evolving life for phase 3 of life on Earth. Sad. Meme Wars (Monty Vonn)
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Dissident Heart	Re: Climate Change	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1868 02/14/06 12:47:54 Indisputable BookTalk Master	TMS: What? That's like saying you can't understand bullet wounds until you've studied the gun. If remedying the complex variables that create Climate Change were simply a matter of putting the damaged biosphere on the operating table, then I think your analogy would hold. Obviously, there is more to this equation than healing a bullet wound. We would want to know who fired the gun, what motives were involved, etc. Since this is not simply an issue for the ER, we call in the police and begin an investigation towards finding the culprit: and my post argues that the dominant economic system has powder burns all over itself. TMS: Especially when it's just another person wishing to climb the "evils of capitalism" podium and turn this into a political row. Are you suggesting that the ways we produce, consume, and rid ourselves of waste have nothing to do with politics? Or are you suggesting it has nothing to do with economics? I've said nothing about the "evils of capitalism", but instead I've offered a very brief analysis of some of the key economic structures that lead to disasterous decisions and behaviors as we relate to the ecosystem. Maybe you can make a case for why economics and politics should stay out of the discussion regarding climate change. TMS: While you sit there debating whether or not one economic system or another is to blame for creating the situation in which this has happened, the world is slowly submerging. I am making the (admittedly very cursory) case that our dominant economic system leads to decision making that makes it impossible for us to address the continental sink. If you want to stop behaviors that lead to such disasters, you need to understand the structures that encourage and reward them; as well as those structures which punish and silence the alternatives that might keep us afloat. TGS: Even if we were to concede that capitalism is at the root of climate change, do you honestly think that it is feasible to completely change the political, social and economic policies of the majority of the world in less than 100 years, and probably a lot longer than that? I am not arguing that the dominant economic system is at the root of our gurrent global crisis; I am arguing that its strucutres of decision making and power sharing make it impossible to take on the kinds of changes required to remedy the crisis. I don't know how long it would take to implement the required political and economic structural changes to fend off the disasters ahead of us. No one knows. I do know that the current system is unable and unwilling to make the necessary alterations; and these alterations are key to the ecological crisis you describe. Thus, my suggestion that we consider a different economic model. It may prove futile, and the damage is too far gone: such that even if we did change all of our defining economic values,political structures and industrial habits tomorrow....it would be too late. As for your experiment, do you expect the current economic structure to simply stop producing stuff? Do you expect the boards of trustees and CEOs of the petroleum, automobile, and airplane (to name a few behemoths) to simply abandon their quest for profits and expansion of markets to enage in your project? Do you expect their lobbyists and political henchmen to simply abandon their posts as legislative protectors?
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

About BookTalk.org

BookTalk.org NEWS

Climate Change

Climate Change