I'll say...
No, it became a cause to implement totalitarian socialism on earth.
I thought the Keystone pipeline project was cancelled because of a threat to ground water purity, not global warming.
Ping for later
Man made global warming can solved very easily. All it takes is the right liberal. One who can convince everyone who believes in it to stop personally adding CO2 to the world. If they all held their breath for just 10 minutes the problem would be over. HT Jim Jones.
I'll say...
So when the Suez Canal is shut down in the next war any day now, and gas prices go to completely unheard of levels, and a galon of milk costs about $20, we’ll see how long this green goo lasts.
Ping .................... FRegards
Scientists shall now be known as Politicists.
Such is the result of being whores.
NEWT in 2009 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related
He’s get that pipeline ‘on line
‘ quick -
Climate change is a golden goose for globalist eco-socialists. They have parlayed climate change into an urgent excuse to impose what is amounting to tyranny on rural communities and economies where wealth originates from natural resource use: http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/agenda21.htm
Every scientist in the world could do a complete 180 on the subject and it wouldn't begin to undo the damage.
Take DDT for example, it's long been exonerated from any wrongdoing, to birds or any other life form. But do you find it in use anywhere in significant quantities? Can you buy DDT to fog your back yard for mosquitoes?
AGW was first and foremost an economic weapon, and that particular bomb has already detonated.
That, and a whole generation of children has been raised to accept it as the gospel truth.
The damage is done, folks.
The Collectivist understands that with the help of the media, they can sell just about any remedy to any problem with a 'collectivist' approach- that puts the hurt on folks who produce stuff (individuals and companies) to the supposed benefit of those that don't (John Q.& Laquisha T. Lazyass).
What we have here is a failure to excommunicate. Those invested in our economy through business or taxation are being 'mobbed' at the polls by those who aren't. No better recipe for disaster ever existed. These people (at the Dems blessing) are voting to tie the hands of the Little Red Hen, throw her in the backseat of a squadcar, and take her downtown; all-the-while hoping that something that smells like cornbread and looks like cornbread will majically come out of the oven. It won't.
Color be biased. If you're not paying taxes on income, you shouldn't vote- period. If your liveliehood depends on some form of government largess (Jeffery Imelt and welfare recipients to the white courtesy phone, please) or if the word "government" is printed on any check you deposit, your services won't be needed at the polling place, either. Sorry, boys and girls, to do otherwise is economic suicide.
Of course, the radical nature of these suggestions indicates just how unlikely any corrections will take place in the near future. Little Red Hen is doing 10 to 20 in the statehouse, why? For making 200+k and joining the damned 'millionaires and billionares' club that Obama chastises daily. Here's the rub: Any idea what's coming out of that oven at the end of the day? Barry and Michelle will open it after a win in Nov. 2012. Betcha it ain't cornbread. Hope everybody likes it- well, the majority, anyway. Y'all come back now, ya hear!
As a Nobel Prize winning laureate, inventor of the Internet, and sometimes crazed sex poodle, I can tell you stupid Freepers that without question we will all perish unless we immediately deal with the tragedy caused by excessive cow farts!
A NEEDED BUMP
>> “and that it ended in 1998.” <<
.
Why can they not tell the difference between 1998 and 1934?
“Carbon trading” is only the tip of the iceberg. It pales in comparison with the concept of “public goods,” the “precautionary principle,” “polluter pays.” They are all part of the new economy and the “Great Transition” including: the Great Rebalancing - markets but where pricing reflects true social and environmental costs and benefits, and a broader definition of “public goods”; and the Great Economic Irrigation taxing environmental and social ‘bads’ such as pollution, consumption and short-term speculation. consumption taxes reflecting the social and environmental costs of goods. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/ecosystem_services.htm
Recently, I watched a webinar meeting of the California Water Plan Update. John Lowry of the Department of Conservation talked about Total Resource Management and ecosystem services. http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/meeting_materials/ac/06.29.11/4a-regionalplanning-doc-jl.pdf
Lowry indicated that the components of an ecosystem (hydrology, biology, geology and social systems) interact to create “ecosystem services.” These include: clean air and water; reducing the severity of floods, droughts, winds and waves; detoxification and decomposition of wastes; soil and soil fertility; pollination; control of agricultural pests; dispersal of seed; nutrient cycling; biodiversity; protection from ultraviolet rays; stabilization of climate change; moderation of temperature extremes; diverse human cultures; beauty and spiritual sustenance. Ecosystems must be managed for diversity and resilience to allow them to respond to change and continue to provide ecosystem services to humans and other populations over the long term.
The new management approach will have greater public involvement, emphasize “inclusiveness” and integrate federal, state, tribal, regional and local goals. According to Lowry, integration of management efforts will incrementally become more commonly used as “traditional methods fail to achieve anticipated results” causing a collapse of the old management system. Further work will be done to define specific ecosystem services of benefit to the public and to determine the management strategies that need to be in place to sustainably produce those services.
Michael Perrone from the Water Plan team talked about the new finance strategy to pay for restoration and to protect natural lands from human impact in order to provide ecosystem services. It is possible to valuate the benefits of restoration/protection by calculating the “avoided costs” of conflicts or by calculating the price it costs to provide what we need artificially. For instance, one can calculate the costs of the loss of “nature’s goods “ such as fish production, erosion control through floodplains, clean water through wetland filtration, groundwater recharge from open land and carbon sequestration from forests by looking at the costs to construct hatcheries, levees, and water treatment plants. http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/meeting_materials/ac/06.29.11/4b-EcoServices-ACmeeting-jun11-mp+kc.pdf
Additional research indicates that there are already worldwide markets trading in compensatory offsets (mitigation banking) for impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services. http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/documents/acrobat/sbdmr.pdf
Like carbon credit trading, the scheme requires that human impacts be offset in a no net loss (or full mitigation.) This is accomplished by purchasing shares in a fund that will be used to protect or restore land. (In my opinion, this is a scheme by wealthy environmental brokers such as Mr. Gore to grow even wealthier.) Unfortunately, this can mean that rural lands are increasingly “protected” from human use, which can mean leaving rural communities without access to or use of the natural resources that form their economic base. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/ecosystem_services.htm
