^That's actually a big theme here.

There are these ridiculously poor countries with plenty of people that consume very little. We shouldn't be looking to live like that just so we can be in proportion.

1/18/2007 1:37:39 AM

^^^ hahaha

not it at all, but whatever

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 2:11 AM. Reason : ...]

1/18/2007 1:43:21 AM

Quote :

"^^Poor people owing you rent money? Come on, dude, that's lame. "

I'll stipulate that was more of a joke than anything else. It was just a jab at the hate and envy for upper class folks in this country.

1/18/2007 1:48:14 AM

Eh, to each his own. But your picture of me appears to be equally screwed.

Point made. Disregard my shit-talking on page 1.


[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 2:15 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 1:53:52 AM

really, thats pretty cool

and congratulations on the success of your kids, thats always good news


btw, you still no little of my life...

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 2:04 AM. Reason : irl]

1/18/2007 2:02:24 AM

Well theres 1.6 billion people in china that are up and coming and guess who they want to be just like when they grow up? you. and when they are somethings gonna give because theres are simply not enough resources or clean air to go around at this rate. Many resources are going to plain run out in the future and the world is gonna go to complete shit unless major changes are made. We don't want to end up in a situation where numbers win and thats where we're headed.

Take care of air pollution and co2

Find more responsible efficient ways to do everything

Properly dispose of toxic waste

1/18/2007 2:17:53 AM

Quote :

"Well theres 1.6 billion people in china that are up and coming and guess who they want to be just like when they grow up? you."

Well they better get to workin hard ASAP then.

1/18/2007 2:35:47 AM

Ok, so, America consumes a disproportionate share of the resources. But, at the same time, we produce a disproportionate share of the resources. The vast majority of everything we consume was mined/drilled/harvested in America. So, territory wise, these are our resources, is it not right that we use them? Similarly, what we do import we pay for. Is it not right that they use their resources as they see fit?

Sure, if a country is being raped by thugs then it should be stopped. But what about Australia and Canada? These two countries are major exporters of raw materials, is that a problem? They export oil, grain, meat, metals, and get consumer goods in exchange. If they did not then most of Asia would have to make do with very little. Most U.S. raw material imports come from Canada, does this mean Canada is being raped in this exchange?

Of course, "resources" in general is a silly term to talk about. The only resource that is in question is oil, which is getting quite cheap right now (I'm sure you can look up various peak-oil disaster debunking discussions). Even when we think about it along generational lines, do we really have a problem? Well, the last generation consumed vast swaths of resources: much of New England was deforested in the 19th century, America's copper reserves are almost gone, our oil reserves are half gone. But our ancestors were invariably poorer than we are, yet they undeniably had more resources available, the difference between us being technological. So, do you really resent the use of these resources to make the lives of your grand-parents better? I don't, my grand-parents had a harsh life compared to me. Well, my grand-children are likely to think the same of me. Compared to them my life will appear primitive in ways I have not imagined. Their generation will be richer and more capable than mine, do you think they will really resent our resource use? They may not even value the resources we used.

And I must protest to the idea that we are shitting all over the planet. In both North America and Europe both our air and water are the cleanest they have been in 200 years. You can now both swim and fish in New York's East River, a practice that has not been safe for man or beast since the tanning industry took off 300 years ago.

So, we are not polluting the planet with really anything but CO2, everything else just pollutes America, and global warming is a separate issue. If other countries are polluting, for whatever reason, then they should stop. But suggesting it is some-way our fault China is polluting its environment is lunacy. Would you have our military invade China to prevent their insufficient toxic waste disposal? Surely open warfare would be even more destructive to China's environment. And since even the worst pollution tends to be localized, should America really assert the right to stop the Chinese from damaging China? Is it not just such interventionist thought that got us in trouble in Iraq?

1/18/2007 3:44:47 AM

What happens 50 yeas from now when our resources are not around any more?? We are spoiled in this country. Wait till America becomes like all other past super powers eventually the power ends.

1/18/2007 8:25:57 AM

I'm not sure if Bridget is being serious or not, but I'll just respond the way I feel about the subject.

People should reduce, reuse, and recycle, but only when it makes sense. The only item that currently should be recycled is aluminum cans (and some things on the industrial level). That's because it takes more resources to recycle everything else than it does to create them new, from scratch. Thus, it it BAD for the environment to recycle those other items.

When supplies of what we need to make SUVs, computers, TVs, etc. start to look finite (they are finite, but there is so much of them that they don't appear it), the price of those components will increase to the point that it becomes worthwhile not to toss them out at will. Until then though, there is no point in giving a crap. Sure, if you go to the Netherlands, they'll recycle a car completely, rather than chunking it. But to them, it is slightly more worth it because they don't have vast quantities of open land as we do here. Even still, they are wasting resources on recycling those vehicles and they only do it for some sense of being helpful to the environment. Not only are they sadly mistaken about how helpful they are being, but they could waste the resources on something more useful to society. But alas, if they get enough utility on wasting resources recycling, then they ought to recycle. Unfortunately, they are mandated to waste the resources by the government, so they have no say in the matter (except to the extent that they can petition the government).

Quote :

"Many resources are going to plain run out in the future and the world is gonna go to complete shit unless major changes are made."

HAHAHAHAHA, Incorrect. Well, partially incorrect. First, we won't consume at the current rate due to the pricing system. Why do people try to carpool more when gas is $5 a gallon then when it is $1 a gallon? Also, it is laughable that people still think this way. People said the exact same things (albeit not on an internet forum) about the supply of whale-oil, which was used prior to the discovery of the refining process for crude oil. Guess what will happen when we really look like we'll run out of gas. You'll see more efficient vehicles or you'll see vehicles that use an alternative energy source. Have some faith, and stop sounding like a Malthusian.


[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 8:40 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 8:36:29 AM

Here's an idea: How about these pompous professors--on both sides of the aisle--stop the bait-and-switch routine and stick to the fucking course descriptions? I submit that they should do that or change the descriptions to accurately reflect what they are "teaching" in their courses. Regardless of your political flavor, I think an accurate course description is a reasonable expectation for students, professors, and hiring officials.

1/18/2007 9:57:23 AM

Quote :

"his opinions were so fucking boring and liberal and superficial and blah that, by the end, I was sick of him and myself"

Ahh yes, thank you. Too many people (on both sides) are content to believe that spitting hyperboles and accusing the other side of hating America is actually progress and that they are superior human's for the mere sake of believing what they believe, unlike you people.

Quote :

"What happens 50 yeas from now when our resources are not around any more?? We are spoiled in this country. Wait till America becomes like all other past super powers eventually the power ends."

This is what I'm talking about. While I do agree that we are spoiled and far too few middle class American's appreciate what they've got, you sound like a 12 year old who just slammed his door and screamed "you'll all miss me when I'm dead"

1/18/2007 10:15:42 AM

In 20 years or less, the US will be the #3 economic power behind China and India. Turns out the outsourcing of our manufacturing infrastructure and technology jobs will be the end of us.

1/18/2007 3:22:27 PM

Scuba, how is being #3 in economic world power "the end of us?"

Even if you were correct in your assessment that we will lag 2 countries in economic power (which, I assume wouldn't pass us in /capita economic power for a century), how is that such a big deal?

1/18/2007 3:39:41 PM

I agree. In today's world, is it really so bad to live in Canada? They are the 12th economic power in the world, I bet their people are starving.

1/18/2007 3:52:22 PM

Quote :

"No, it's not responsible. But I think we need to stop talking about it because it's never gonna change. The only way they'll get us to stop wasting is if they tax the shit out of shit. And we won't let that happen because we won't vote for someone who wants to tax us four times over for washing our clothes too often."

Is Bridgette applying for membership in the Pigou Club - http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html

also

Quote :

"I still wanna legalize drugs, prostitution, and gambling. And put free condoms in middle schools and prisons. Start public daycare and public pre-school. And all sorts of other crazy liberal shit."

Actually those sound more like Classically Liberal proposals, to me. There was a time when we called that conservative.

Check out - http://miltonfriedman.blogspot.com/

And welcome to the fold.

1/18/2007 4:21:15 PM

^

Some might question how public daycare and preschool are Conservative.

First, it would almost certainly be done through a voucher system, so its a great way to test out vouchers without taking funds from public schools.

Second, talk about a supply-side proposal. I doubt if tax cuts seriously encourage labor supply. But you could bet your ass free day care would.

1/18/2007 4:23:32 PM

Quote :

"The only resource that is in question is oil"

lmao oil can be substituted for but icecaps and clean air/water cannot.

Quote :

"Well, my grand-children are likely to think the same of me."

our grandkids are going to HATE us at some point in their lifetime.

Quote :

"Their generation will be richer"

Its almost a fact that they won't be. They will have to invest into fixing many things we messed up and adapting to life on a new planet. Like I said, The distribution of wealth gap is splreading exponentially(think about constantly adding balls to the top and bottom of a snowball). The eight wealthy western countries make up 4% of the worlds population while 80 % of the world is in poverty. 7 of those 8 countries are losing population very fast because the average wealthy woman is having about 1 kid (less than 2 is a decreasing pop) meanwhile the average poor family is having 4 or 5 kids. what does this all mean? From generation to generation the ammount of wealthy people will decrease and there will be more and more poor people. The change this will cause is uncertain but one thing for sure is that there will certainly be major change in the world.

Quote :

"So, we are not polluting the planet with really anything but CO2, everything else just pollutes America, and global warming is a separate issue."

ummm....4 megatons of non degradable objects (like old computers, tvs) are shipped out of the port of wilmington alone each year. we are shipping this stuff to africa and asia because its waaaay to expensive to destroy it properly. The toxons aren't gonna go anywhere by themselves either. When this stuff is left in a junkyard it allows all the hazardous materials to break down and seap into the ground. The people that live there are able to take some of the things of value to gather a few cents and get daily meals but what we don't want them to know is that these people are going to have generations of cancer and other bad things from poisonous water and land. That my friend, is domination.

Global warming is a direct issue of "wasteful americans", "wasteful europeans" and wasteful people in general.

1/18/2007 10:21:14 PM

I'm shocked at just how little of what you said was accurate.

Of course, I already explain how the air and water are getting cleaner every year.

Quote :

"our grandkids are going to HATE us at some point in their lifetime."

Once again I must ask, did you HATE your grandparents at some point in your lifetime? Trust me, they consumed every resource they could find as quickly as they could and it doesn't seem to have hurt us very much. Many of the resources they so prized we no longer care about.

Quote :

"From generation to generation the ammount of wealthy people will decrease and there will be more and more poor people."

Where the hell did you get that idea? Capitalism is on the march! In another decade Mexico will need to be re-classified as a first world country, the same goes for many other historically poor countries. Especially the largest population on the planet, China, which will soon have a middle class larger than the whole of the western world. Economic Liberty is on the march and with it comes prosperity, resources are irrelevant.

Quote :

"Global warming is a direct issue of "wasteful americans", "wasteful europeans" and wasteful people in general."

Global Warming is a direct issue of making a big deal out of very little. The most likely case involves the oceans rising a few feet, slightly shifted weather patterns, slightly warmer winters, and an increase in plant productivity. All in all, these problems are minor for any modern industrial society. Thank God so many countries will soon be modern industrial societies.

For the purpose of seeming callous, this might even be good for mankind. If Global Warming is really severe then only advanced functional societies will be able to cope, the rest will fail and their population will emigrate to the modern industrial societies, thus helping to weed out poor societal traits such as collectivism and totalitarianism.

1/18/2007 11:45:38 PM

Quote :

"Capitalism is on the march! In another decade Mexico will need to be re-classified as a first world country, the same goes for many other historically poor countries. Especially the largest population on the planet, China, which will soon have a middle class larger than the whole of the western world. Economic Liberty is on the march and with it comes prosperity, resources are irrelevant."

is this sarcasm?

1/18/2007 11:48:22 PM

A bit over the top, probably. But I can honestly defend each of those statements. Was there one sentence in particular you had a problem with?

1/18/2007 11:50:42 PM

^you need to get a clue man.

I guess you could start by watching Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"

1/24/2007 12:39:21 AM

damn, dude, try suggesting something thats a little less politicized and you might save some credibility.

1/24/2007 12:42:59 AM

As I posted above, in 20 years, the GDP of China and India will both be larger than the US, making us the world's #3 economic power. The people may have less per capita income, but the sheer size of these countries (3-4 times the size of the US) coupled with double digit economic growth in each means that the US will become much less influential in the world's economic affairs in our lifetimes.

[Edited on January 24, 2007 at 1:02 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2007 12:49:45 AM

Quote :

"Global Warming is a direct issue of making a big deal out of very little. The most likely case involves the oceans rising a few feet, slightly shifted weather patterns, slightly warmer winters, and an increase in plant productivity. All in all, these problems are minor for any modern industrial society. Thank God so many countries will soon be modern industrial societies."

You have no idea of what you are talking about. A few feet can submerge millions of square miles of coastal land, perhaps the habitat of over 1 billion people. It changes global weather patterns, increases the desertification of land, turns arable land infertile, meaning there will be increased pestilence, starvation and wars over scant resources. Even industrial nations will expend trillions in attempting to mitigate property loss. Perhaps you should look at things a bit more comprehensively.

Quote :

"Of course, I already explain how the air and water are getting cleaner every year."

funny how that chart shows emissions being reduced from 1970 on, the beginning of the clean air act. Many coal burning plants were forced to remove sulfur and other pollutants from their emissions, which required plants to retrofit existing plants. There was also a partial shift towards nuclear and renewable energy The chart is deceptive because it is showing the amount of miles traveled and the emissions reducing, even though these are not related at all since carbon emissions are dramatically increasing and are not regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Global warming deniers are no different in kind to holocaust deniers. When faced with overwhelming and almost universally accepted evidence, they make up bullshit claims and use false charts to deflect their criticism. I suggest you study global warming with a more open mind and re-evaluate your rather disturbing ideological and values structure.

[Edited on January 24, 2007 at 1:27 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2007 12:58:50 AM

You presume too much. That chart was meant to show what it shows, we are not poisoning the planet. If you know anything you would know that CO2 is not a poison, it is food for plants.

Also, as for the 1970 myth about the clean air act, you like everyone else fail to notice just how straight that line is. Air pollution had been falling fairly consistently since the 1920s. You see, like all the other worshippers at the altar of the Federal Government, you know nothing about the adept and very successful work of cities, counties, and states to fight pollution. Oddly enough, if you check the records the Clean Air Act was lobbied for by power plant and factory owners... Odd, isn't it? Not after you read the Clean Air Act: it exempts existing businesses and usurps states rights to regulate these businesses.

Now, the clean air act did two things: it introduced pollution controls in states that did not care about air pollution such as the South. The South did not care about air pollution because it had none to speak of, what industry it had was so spread out the effects were not life threatening. Secondly, it protected dirty Northern industries from regulation by clamoring Northern States faced with very high respiratory death rates. So, why was this done? Simple, a lot of very rich people owned facilities up north that put out a lot of very deadly pollution. Since there was so many, the pollution up north was sometimes deadly. Because of this, until the 1970s, State Regulators had been increasing the cost of doing businesses with pollution controls, meanwhile competitors from the South had been stepping up competition. Northern polluters were under threat of bankruptcy and losing all their investment and the only way to save their fabulous wealth was to get the Federal Government to protect them from further local regulation while at the same time inflicting such regulation on all new competitors, particularly those from the South. So, as a society, instead of spreading our polluting industries apart by moving some of them south and forcing them all to adhere to the same standards, we kept them all crammed in the North East without any new regulation.

So, trust me, the clean air act as written had little to do with clean air and everything to do with protecting a bunch of rich fat-cats from competition; and killing thousands from respiratory illness in the process.

Quote :

"A few feet can submerge millions of square miles of coastal land"

Can, that's why mankind is here. You know about 1/3rd of Holland is below sea level, right?

[Edited on January 24, 2007 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .,.]

1/24/2007 9:17:20 AM

^It won't be a problem in the 8 countries i mentioned but 80% of the world is living in complete poverty. Holland had money to build an advanced system. Everybody knows most of the world lives near the coast. Bangladesh won't be able to do anything about this and pretty much the whole damn country will be submerged in 50 years. The lower Himalayan icecaps are melting and they provide water for almost all of Asia. What will happen when 2 billion people are out of drinking water?

And vegetation will go down because there will be less ground water due to more evaporation. Most of the rain will runoff. Not to mention as more countries become modern the damand for simple resources like wood goes up we are going to cut down most of the trees.

1/24/2007 10:45:17 AM

As far as wood goes there are some virgin forest still in Russia thats where the lumber will come from. In the US they are always working on ways to get tree's to grow faster. The USA will be in trouble if we don't watch our own water habits.

1/24/2007 12:06:23 PM

Quote :

"Holland had money to build an advanced system."

Advanced? It was the 16th century! It relied upon earthen dams and windmills. You're telling me Bangladesh can't even manage basic 16th century technology? Who's fault is that?

Quote :

"What will happen when 2 billion people are out of drinking water?"

Human beings are quite clever, they'll think of something. That said, so what if it melts? Will it stop raining just because there is no snow? Do what all modern cities do for water: build massive reservoirs and tap every source you can find. The predictions show that as the temperature rises so does evaporation and thus rainfall, so getting water shouldn't be a problem.

Quote :

"as more countries become modern the damand for simple resources like wood goes up we are going to cut down most of the trees."

North America has more trees today than we did in 1880. Europe might just have more trees today than any other time in recorded history since they have stopped using them for firewood (stoneage man clearcut britain back in his day).

1/24/2007 12:46:26 PM

Quote :

"Who do you think is going to be effected the most when the oceans rise several feet in the next 40 years?"

I will be very surprised if the oceans rise more than 1 ft in the next 50 years Just please stop talking.

1/24/2007 1:44:11 PM

Lonesnark, can I hire you to write my next 10-page paper? You are undoubtedly the best bullshitter Ive ever encountered.

1/24/2007 2:39:30 PM

Quote :

"Human beings are quite clever, they'll think of something."

Isn't that what we're trying to do now?

1/24/2007 2:55:55 PM

^ No, because sea levels have yet to rise the predicted foot.

1/24/2007 3:08:47 PM

Right, but isn't that what we're attempting to do now, think of a solution before the problem arises? You would agree that we tend to discount the future as far as gains / penalties are concerned, so if the goal of the environmental community is to avoid future problems (percieved or real) then they need to sell businesses and governments on the fact that the price of prevention is cheaper in the long run than the price of the cure.

1/24/2007 3:15:10 PM

Quote :

"Advanced? It was the 16th century! It relied upon earthen dams and windmills. You're telling me Bangladesh can't even manage basic 16th century technology? Who's fault is that? "

weather patterns are different. They get way more rainfall down there, higher population density, and the climate is different so the situation is much more complicated.

Quote :

"Human beings are quite clever, they'll think of something. That said, so what if it melts? Will it stop raining just because there is no snow? Do what all modern cities do for water: build massive reservoirs and tap every source you can find. The predictions show that as the temperature rises so does evaporation and thus rainfall, so getting water shouldn't be a problem. "

There will be more rain but it will come quicker and just cause floods with most of it running off into the sea. The reason for this is because when you have more heat water from the ground evaporates much quicker and a drier ground doesn't absorb water as well. Less trees also decreases groundwater so everything is feeding off of something else. Snowmelt off the himalayas thats been built up thousands of years is the source of the rivers and its going away. If the rivers stop flowing there will be nothing to dam for a reservoir.

Quote :

"North America has more trees today than we did in 1880. Europe might just have more trees today than any other time in recorded history since they have stopped using them for firewood (stoneage man clearcut britain back in his day)."

That and deforestation/burning of the rain forests's.

Trees were just one example. There are millions of resources that seem unllimited that will be comprimised by global warming and increasing population.

Quote :

"I will be very surprised if the oceans rise more than 1 ft in the next 50 years Just please stop talking."

Would you be surprised if a glass of water rose after you dropped a few ice cubes in it? This is no different and glaciers are melting all over the world. Its proven fact this is happening and no longer debatable.

1/24/2007 5:34:44 PM

Fact

OK Earl


Tell me, how many feet has the ocean risen in the last 200 or so years, since the onset of the industrial revolution?

Oh yeah, thats right, it has risen about an inch.

1/24/2007 8:46:35 PM

Quote :

"There will be more rain but it will come quicker and just cause floods with most of it running off into the sea"

This, my friend, is why humans build wonderful contraptions called "Dams" and "reservoirs". We use them to store water between the time it falls from the sky to the time we need it. We can use it to irrigate the land for food, generate electricity, and we can even drink it. I hear the Chinese are about to finish a very big one which is going to eliminate flooding along the deadliest river in China, with the added bonus of electricity and enough drinking water for hundreds of millions of people.

Quote :

"Trees were just one example. There are millions of resources that seem unllimited that will be comprimised by global warming and increasing population."

Such as? You have yet to name one. Trees are neither rare nor hard to grow. A large percentage of our lumber comes from tree-farms which through mechanization have managed to alleviate much of the demand that used to come from virgin forests. That's right, tree farms, trees are perfectly capable of being grown and harvested just like wheat. And just like wheat, if we want more then we'll just plant more.

1/24/2007 11:43:27 PM

Quote :

"This, my friend, is why humans build wonderful contraptions called "Dams" and "reservoirs". We use them to store water between the time it falls from the sky to the time we need it. We can use it to irrigate the land for food, generate electricity, and we can even drink it. I hear the Chinese are about to finish a very big one which is going to eliminate flooding along the deadliest river in China, with the added bonus of electricity and enough drinking water for hundreds of millions of people."

LMAO dams only work when they have a river to hold back. they store like 99% river water and 1 % rain water. a reservoir, its flood control and all other advantages are moot if you have no river.

Quote :

" Tell me, how many feet has the ocean risen in the last 200 or so years, since the onset of the industrial revolution? Oh yeah, thats right, it has risen about an inch."

and greenland/antartica werent melting in the last 200 years so you've said nothing. if you look at pictures of any glacier from the 70s and look at it today you can tell they are melting fast now.

I think it was 2005 when the largest glacier split in half. They are melting right in front of our eyes. Go to Greenland and watch them melt for yourself. Don't forget that this is the warmest its ever been and it keeps getting warmer every year. Temperatures and chemistry don't work on a linear basis they work more on a "get to a certain level" then the reaction starts basis.

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ocean]

1/25/2007 12:46:39 AM

Quote :

"they store like 99% river water and 1 % rain water"

I'm sorry, do I really have to ask this? Where does "river water" come from? Perhaps it is being delivered upstream by water gnomes? Or, just thinking here, maybe it fell from the sky as precipitation?

That said, where on land do you know that it rains regularly but there are no rivers? It is a natural process for water moving over land to etch channels into it, whether it is rock, soil, or other, so for rivers to not exist would be puzzling; the water needs to get to the ocean somehow. Underground aquifers are common but often do not move that much water. Of course, if they are then you can just drill down and tap it that way, no need for purification

And no, you don't need cliff walls to build a dam. Here in North Carolina dams are very common dispite the flat terrain. All it means is that a fairly small dam will produce a very large lake, which for the purpose of storing water is all we want.

1/25/2007 1:05:19 AM

^the main source of the rivers in said areas are the himalayan snow melt. when the himalayan glaciers are gone there will be no anual snow melt and the rivers will run dry for long periods. When you have 2 billion people relying on this water for food, drink, and energy; collecting rain just won't cut it.

1/25/2007 1:15:56 AM

Quote :

"the main source of the rivers in said areas are the himalayan snow melt"

Wait, so if we reversed global warming and the snow stopped melting they would be just as fucked?

That doesn't sound very plausible. More likely, it snows every winter in the Himalayan mountains, it's just that more melts every summer than falls in the winter. So what? The snow will keep falling every winter and melting every summer even if there is no glacier left. If it gets ridiculously hot then the snow will start falling as rain... big whoop, so you fill up your reservoir in the winter.

1/25/2007 1:32:08 AM

Globally there are some scarce resources out there, but freshwater is not one of them. And if it were, you could just build some desalination plants and get your water from the ocean.

Its not like desalination is some type of crazy space-age technology.

1/25/2007 1:36:53 AM

^^No man you don't understand that the snow had been built up for thousands of years and now it is going away quicker and quicker.

^Yes but how would the water be delivered without pipes? Most of the people we're talking about barely have enough money to survive. What about irrigation? There are alot of things to take into account and i happen to think that capitalism just isn't going to meet the needs of the poor in a time of global crisis.

1/25/2007 2:09:13 AM

So what!?!? The existence of snow at the top of a mountain has a negligible effect upon the rates of precipitation. And the idea that the water they are using is solely that of melted glacier is ridiculous. Think about how much water flows to the sea every year and how much there could have been atop that mountain. The vast majority of it is either rainfall or fresh snowfall.

Quote :

"Most of the people we're talking about barely have enough money to survive"

Which begs the question: why are some nations poor? Would it not be more humane to fix their poverty than to fret about where they are going to get pipes?

1/25/2007 2:28:01 AM

^We are going to have several other issues to fix of our own. There will be immense problems this nation will face due to global warming (replacing the breadbasket, relocating sea level cities, getting more drinking water). This will all be done because we are rich and in the top 4%. The 80% of the world thats living on <1$ day won't have that same option.

What will happen when hundreds of millions of povershed people lose their homes and must go elsewhere?

wars?
genocides?
world chaos?
who knows? anything except the world is gonna go to shit.

1/26/2007 4:16:33 PM

the world sure did end after the tsunami...its not like it uplifted the human spirit and people worked together or anything like that

1/26/2007 4:17:43 PM

throwing away your computer and TV is gonna fuck up the water supply

so be prepared to enjoy getting poisoned by your daily shower

that's my hippy thought for the day

1/26/2007 4:26:49 PM

what hippies take daily showers, let alone use evil technology products like TVs?

1/26/2007 4:27:26 PM

well it isn't the hippies tossing heavy metals into the landfills

tap water is simply more delicious with lead and phosphorous

I drink Fiji bottled water because it has higher levels of arsenic

1/26/2007 4:33:42 PM

i only like to drink my arsenic if its mixed with old lace

1/26/2007 4:35:50 PM