Posted on 05/06/2009 8:39:00 PM PDT by reaganaut1
Yep , they have to make sure to get rid of the middle class to gain complete control.
They will own they mega farms and everything else that produces... this is all about having complete control. The little people (non elites) will be kept busy by working on their plantations or standing in line daily to get their rationed food .
green = communism easily sold to a morally corrupt society
This has all been done before to bad people don’t study history.
Power plants could greatly reduce their CO2 tax by bubbling their output gasses through water, which takes out much of the CO2 and creates carbonated water.
The carbonated water could then be piped to living green plants, where it can be proven that the plants thrive and grow faster[1], and with better drought resistance[2] due to the CO2 absorption through their roots.
[1]EFFECTS OF CARBON DIOXIDE ENRICHED IRRIGATION ON YIELD...
http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=559_32
[2]Water demand varies inversely with CO2 concentration in soil.
http://www.geocities.com/profadrian/CO2RootAbsorption.html
“Small Emitters”
You mean like noses?
These insane idiots are going to destroy the economy of this country right down to the mom and pop level.
This needs to be fought tooth and nail. Businesses should get together and start suing the EPA/government wholesale. Jam them up in litigation from every direction.
“Under the Obama administration, the EPA is moving forward to declare greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health and welfare, which will trigger new rules once finalized. The EPA says that only around 13,000 of the largest emitters, such as refiners, smelters and cement plants would likely be regulated. “
PING - reminder that we are in comment period for this. We need to send the EPA a message: CO2 is NOT a pollutant!
PING for great use of CO2 in water.
If, for the purposes of discussion, one might suspend disbelief long enough to think human created CO2 sources had a sufficient impact on the global climate to cause global warming (otherwise, the greenhouse effect would not be an issue), just who has provided data that a little warming is a bad thing?
Certainly there is enough sub arctic landmass to, as climate zones shift, replace the current temperate zones in land area and food production. So, aside from flushing out a few nearshore rat warrens, what's the problem?
“If, for the purposes of discussion, one might suspend disbelief long enough to think human created CO2 sources had a sufficient impact on the global climate to cause global warming (otherwise, the greenhouse effect would not be an issue), just who has provided data that a little warming is a bad thing? “
There have been different studies, which the IPCC cherry-picks to assume the worst-case.
“Certainly there is enough sub arctic landmass to, as climate zones shift, replace the current temperate zones in land area and food production. So, aside from flushing out a few nearshore rat warrens, what’s the problem?”
It’s not credible to assume the birds and animals can shift with it, and farmers can be hit. Then again, the whole “change=bad” is an interesting one-sided assumption.
Reality is more balanced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.