OT: Environmentalists

Tom Kunich

Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is saying that
all we need to combat global warming is for every American family to be
taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.

Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the plate
and pay his share starting right now.

Tom Kunich

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:timmcn-EA9F32.14153506062008@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>> now.
>>
>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>
> So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you have
> some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you depending on
> some miraculous divine intervention?

If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

A Muzi

>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>> now.
>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>>> plate and pay his share starting right now.

> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote
>> So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you have
>> some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you depending on
>> some miraculous divine intervention?

Tom Kunich wrote:
> If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

Ah, "nature". You must mean bloody claw and fang.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Tom Kunich wrote:

>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>> now.

>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
>>> the plate and pay his share starting right now.

>> So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you
>> have some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you
>> depending on some miraculous divine intervention?

> If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

In that line, the earth has about 10x the human population than what
it can endure long term. If you want to see the power humans have
extracted from fossiles and blown away into earth atmosphere, this web
site give an indication how uch of the habitable land is under
enormous stress.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/im...ts_dmsp_big.jpg

Do-gooders are working hard to bring African population density up to
the brighter places on this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin

Jobst Brandt

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Tom Kunich wrote:

>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>> now.

>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
>>> the plate and pay his share starting right now.

>> So, what, Tom, do you think we should "stay the course?" Did you
>> have some other planet to move to at some point? Or are you
>> depending on some miraculous divine intervention?

> If it weren't for man this planet would be a paradise.

In that line, the earth has about 10x the human population than
support long term. For a view of the power humans have extracted from
fossils and blown away into earth atmosphere, this web site gives an
indication how much of the habitable land is under population stress.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/im...ts_dmsp_big.jpg

Do-gooders are working hard to bring African population density up to
the brighter places on this map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin

Jobst Brandt

Luke

In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:

> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is saying that
> all we need to combat global warming is for every American family to be
> taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>
> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the plate
> and pay his share starting right now.
>

Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the expense
to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this time there's
no passing the buck.

Bill Sornson

Luke wrote:
> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom
> Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>
>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>> now.
>>
>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
>> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>>
>
> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
> time there's no passing the buck.

Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
(paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
agenda in play.)

HTH (BKIW)

DI

"Luke" <lucasiragusa@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:070620080948330912%lucasiragusa@rogers.com...
> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>
>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is saying
>> that
>> all we need to combat global warming is for every American family to be
>> taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For now.
>>

As soon as France pays off their WW2 war depts., that would probably be
$600,000 per person in France by now.

Jay Beattie

On Jun 7, 8:43*am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> Luke wrote:
> > In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@earthlink.com>, Tom
> > Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>
> >> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
> >> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
> >> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
> >> now.
>
> >> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
> >> plate and pay his share starting right now.
>
> > Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
> > expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
> > time there's no passing the buck.
>
> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. *China and India ain't playing
> (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
> thing. *(Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
> agenda in play.)

Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
better off economically and environmentally. We need something like a
Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
do for under 45 trillion, maybe. Come up with a highly efficient
solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt. Sure, this
would be government in the private sector -- but that worked fine for
the TVA and BPA and other energy production efforts. Investing in
infrastructure creates jobs and would also stimulate the economy --
more than a bogus $150 tax rebate. -- Jay Beattie.

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 08:43:09 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
>agenda in play.)

Cripple? Ha.

Luke

In article <484aac7f$0$31727$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Bill Sornson
<askme@ask.me> wrote:

> Luke wrote:
> > In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@earthlink.com>, Tom
> > Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
> >> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
> >> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
> >> now.
> >>
> >> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to the
> >> plate and pay his share starting right now.
> >>
> >
> > Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
> > expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
> > time there's no passing the buck.
>
> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't playing
> (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it won't solve a
> thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course, which is the REAL
> agenda in play.)
>
> HTH (BKIW)

Why fault the "developing" world for flattering the West by imitation?
Really they're complimenting the Industrialized World by embracing the
same methods and sensibilities that served us so well as we embarked
down the road to prosperity.

That's their real crime: they're acting like us.



They want what we do; and are using our methods to get it. That it's
not feasible r
>
>

Bill Sornson

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:43 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Luke wrote:
>>> In article <tcudnTNvRtKV2dTVnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@earthlink.com>, Tom
>>> Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.> wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, a report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency is
>>>> saying that all we need to combat global warming is for every
>>>> American family to be taxed $600,000 and that will be enough. For
>>>> now.
>>
>>>> Hopefully EVERY American environmentalist will gladly step up to
>>>> the plate and pay his share starting right now.
>>
>>> Of course, the American Way is to buy a solution and charge the
>>> expense to someone else. Regardless the free ride's over nda this
>>> time there's no passing the buck.
>>
>> Of course, you've got it completely wrong. China and India ain't
>> playing (paying), so even the US coughs up the $45 /trillion/ it
>> won't solve a thing. (Except to cripple the US economy, of course,
>> which is the REAL agenda in play.)
>
> Reliance on fossil fuels has crippled our economy. If we had reduced
> our reliance on oil and petrochemicals fifty years ago, we would be
> better off economically and environmentally.

You left out the word "foreign", repeatedly. If the US had explored,
drilled, extracted, and refined its /own/ oil resources -- while also
looking to create/invent alternative technologies -- AND built clean, green
and safe nuclear plants -- then not only would our economy not be "crippled"
(which it's not now even with all the efforts to make it so), it would be
BOOMING. It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
to meet its needs for energy.

> We need something like a
> Manhattan Project to develop new energy technology -- which we could
> do for under 45 trillion, maybe.

The 45 tril isn't intended for that; it's intended to line the pockets of
U.N.-like frauds and scammers. (Hint: check into Al Gore's interests in
these "carbon credits and offsets" companies. He's making millions, and
soon it will be billions.)

> Come up with a highly efficient
> solar cell and license the technology to pay off the debt. Sure, this
> would be government in the private sector -- but that worked fine for
> the TVA and BPA and other energy production efforts. Investing in
> infrastructure creates jobs and would also stimulate the economy --
> more than a bogus $150 tax rebate. -- Jay Beattie.

When there's promise, investors and entrepreneurs will /flood/ new sectors
with money. True of energy, bio-tech, pharmaceutical, you name it.
Government will just regulate it to death and keep it from ever emerging
full scale.

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
>to meet its needs for energy.

You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
little you read and *what* you read..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/e...orts-net-of-use

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:07:40 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 12:05:47 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>wrote:
>
>>It's the only country on earth that's not using its own resources
>>to meet its needs for energy.
>
>You're very mistaken about this. Not surprising considering how
>little you read and *what* you read..
>
>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/e...orts-net-of-use

PS - I actually agree with Bill's sentiment that the US should be
looking to reduce it's reliance on energy imports. Though not is
desire that we trash the environment to do so.