Dave,
I find it amazing that people (Republicans, in general) refuse to accept the fact that our environment is suffering, and declining at an absolutely catastrophic rate.................. mercury ..... We're drilling our last few Edens ...... alt fuels .... Kyoto treaty .... sky is falling ..... enjoy the beauty, but your grandchildren won't .... I'm just rambling
There are some unpleasant side effect from the earth population being what it is, and from the fact that some are so poor that they are going to cut down the last tree and use it for firewood.
As far as the "rich" world is concerned, the environmental situation inside the rich countries has been improving for 2, maybe even 3 decades, IMO. I would actually like to examine some data, and deal with hard facts, rather than emotions, which is the norm on this thread.
If the poor countries can be brought to the standard of living of the first world, there would hardly be any deterioration anywhere. A byproduct of being wealthy is that the wealthy women generally have 2 to 3 children, rather than 9 - 13.
Now what do you think will bring about more positive, Kyoto treaty that is going to cut planetary GDP growth, or no Kyoto treaty?
There is one thing that can never be changed, and that is that people want stuff. Is the stuff is produced using clean technologies and clean processes (= expensive), the effect on the environment is going to be affected less. If you spend money on something like Kyoto agreements, which will make everyone poorer, there will be so much less money for cleaner way of life, and for research required to make things even cleaner.
And especially that loser Robert. Who the f*ck cares if it's 50% or 10% or 90% or where it came from. It is a unanimously accepted medical fact that sperm count is down. Get a life.
The number of sperm is not the issue. The issue is if you want operate in reality, or in make believe and lie. Apparently you ar not concrned about quality of the "data" that Scumbria is making up as long as he is arguing points consistent with your political philosophy.
You can be on the left and still retain some intellectual honesty. For example Daniel Shuh, Dan3, combjelly and others.
Joe |
