Printable View
Actually, it is only "ok" to defend yourself or others against someone with a weapon if that person gives an indication that they are going to use that weapon to harm another human being. Simply possessing elements that could cause greater harm to another is not enough. Many of us probably already possess weapons that can wipe out quite a few people (i.e. cars), that doesn't mean that it will result in greater harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
I'd say check with me when it happens, but our great-great grandchildren MIGHT maybe start to be worried about that.Quote:
And when we run out of coal?....
Point taken. If there are no other alternatives, including cleaner ones (that don't need scrubbers - how much energy do scrubbers use? Those suckers ain't tiny!) by then, coal power is gonna get more expensive as time goes on, and possibly quite unaffordable before great-grandchildren come along.Quote:
I'd say check with me when it happens, but our great-great grandchildren MIGHT maybe start to be worried about that.
As the election plods on here, everything from a punitive 'carbon tax' for 'cap and trade' is being bandied about. There are pretty good environmental standards for the manufacturing industry in the USA - which is why a lot of companies moved work to Mexico, where there are no standards. Too bad the money involved in building coal plants and lowering standards in places like Mexico couldn't be put towards research and implementation of green technology.
Would be nice if it was against the law to pollute. An interesting concept, that's all.
yes but that is self defense.... by the wording of this law you would be murdering them because they are polluting the earth... and that would be OK. I mean that is a pretty extreme situation but if you really think of it a "good" lawyer would probably be able to say "Hey... they killed them to prevent greater damage... they didn't recycle and drove a gas guzzling SUV and wasted water so they were a danger to the earth so they had to be disposed of"Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
and just what exactly did this vandalism stop? Did it prevent greater damage? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I wonder if their spray paint and what not gave off hazardous fumes.... I wonder what kind of cleaner will need to be used to clean it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
Errrr?
and how exactly would that be enforced? They coudln't drive out to arrest you because their cars cause pollution.
You recycle? that causes pollution.
Do you wash your hair? that likely causes some kind of pollution on it's own... not to mention when you dispose of the empty bottles.
Scrubbers for stacks?
They don't use a heck of a lot of energy at all, they're mainly electrostatic filters that pull the ash and other pollutants out of the smoke.
There are alternative, and given a couple hundred years of research probably cleaner alternatives.
What I'm saying about coal is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is possible to burn coal in a clean manner.
If people keep letting emotion and assumptions rule how they think (and therefore vote) on energy issues, we're in a world of hurt.
sparks19, I should have made it clearer in my post - I was referring to industrial polluting.
At the other end of this are some people who think that individuals don't need to do anything at all - it is the 'big companies' who should. But - 'big companies' are run by and employ individuals...there might a lot to be said for the ripple effect.
And you're right - everything we do will have an impact on the environment. I think that is why the term 'environmental footprint' was coined. Creating a smaller footprint that gives Mother Nature enough time to 'clean up after us' is what that is after.
I take out far less garbage than I used to. When I do, I now put it in kitchen-size compostable bags. I use the same kind of bags (doggy poop scoop bags) to clean out the cat box. One bag lasts me 2 - 3 cleans. That gets thrown out too.
Before, I used regular plastic grocery bags. They take 100 years to break down. These compostable ones break down in less than a year, and do so completely, not just into wee bits. Some break down in less than 40 days (BioBag - haven't found those in my area yet). There's even a warning to tell you to use the bags within a certain time period!
Getting to where we hoomins can live comfortably and still let Mom Nature room and time to clean up I think is a realistic goal. Balance.
THAT is not homicide. That is self defence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
I see where you are going. I am more than prepared for what you propose. Are you?
Quote:
And when we run out of coal?....
Given current and predicted future consumption rates, the US alone has 300 years of supply.
:)
Hi, PS...this thread progressed a little in conversation since you last posted. Care to comment on the latest changes in it instead of going back to the earlier posts?
I am all for living in a way that is kind to nature. Really. It is the undisciplined MORONS of the type that were aquitted in the OP article that scare, no, worry me. Further, people who believe the enviroMENTAList extremist point of view are a, IMHO, direct threat to our way of life. Really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catty1
Look at how fast the human race has advanced in the last 200 years. WHY? The energy produced by fossil fuels. The end goal of the extremist is to have us living like the 18th century. And, personally, I would have no problem with that. I can grow my own food, hunt my own food, build shelter and survive/thrive in such an environment. But what of the masses of urbanites? What of the extremists themselves? I doubt any of those people even consider that. What will they do when there is no supermarket and Starbucks?
I believe in the ability of humanity to overcome. We can figure out how to live in balance without sacrificing our way of life. We just gotta stop catering things to the lowest common denominator.