+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 42
Latest: eranda
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 10213
Total Topics: 244
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - AGelbert

Pages: 1 ... 562 563 [564] 565 566 ... 668
8449
Dirty Money, Dirty Fuels: Why Money in Politics Matters to the Environment

Politics Matters to the Environment

Lukas Ross, Friends of the Earth | April 30, 2014 10:09 am | Comments

What if fighting dirty money in our elections was the key to fighting dirty fuels in our economy?


That’s the question asked in a recent report released by the Sierra Club and Oil Change International. From the perspective of the fossil fuel industry, political contributions are just another form of investment. The only difference is that, for the millions polluters spend on elections, they see billions in bonus profits.

As the report says, “The return these polluters are getting on these political investments—in the form of billions in corporate tax handouts—exceed 5,000 percent, demonstrating that Congress remains the best ‘investment’ possible for the coal, oil, and gas industries.”


For dirty fossil fuel companies, a political contribution is just another investment.   >:(


The oil and gas industries are among the worst offenders. Between 2009 and 2010, the report estimates that they spent $347 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and in return netted a handsome $20 billion in federal subsidies. Most of these came in the form of accounting gimmicks that help hide corporate profits and obscure tax breaks that help cover drilling and refining costs. Because of loopholes like these, the actual taxes paid by most big energy companies fall well below the top corporate rate of 35 percent.

You would think that at a time when both Democrats and Republicans are preoccupied with deficits and debt, cutting subsidies for polluters should be an easy move. After all, these are some of the most profitable companies in world history; surely they need government support like Bill Gates needs food stamps. The fact that many of these giveaways are nearly a century old, dating from a time when fossil fuel extraction was a much riskier game, only adds to their irrelevance. At a time of significant fiscal strain, decades-old free money for rich polluters should be the first thing on the chopping block.

Unfortunately, in the new world of campaign finance born after Citizens United and supercharged earlier this month by McCutcheon vs. FEC, money speaks much louder than fiscal and environmental sanity. The report points out that solid majorities of Americans support action on climate change, investment in renewable energy, and a repeal of fossil fuel subsidies. And yet, Congress is arguably in its most rabidly anti-environment phase in U.S. history, voting repeatedly to block action on climate change, cut support for renewable energy, and hobble enforcement of clean air and water provisions.

The only way to solve this disconnect is through a new system of public financing. As such, the Sierra Club and Oil Change International are throwing their weight behind the recently sponsored Government By The People Act, which would allow federal candidates to receive money from small donors matched on a six-to-one basis. This would not end money in politics, or even strip polluters of their ability to purchase influence.

Winning those fights has to be part of a much longer campaign against corporate personhood and the idea of money as free speech. But in the meantime, it would give candidates who share the increasingly pro-environment sentiments of the American people a chance to be heard. Friends of the Earth supports the Government By The People Act and its vision for a more healthy and just world.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/30/dirty-money-dirty-fuels-politics/

8450
Nuke Puke / Re: The nuclear INSANITY of the 1950s
« on: September 04, 2014, 07:28:08 pm »
1955: Why the US Chose Nuclear Energy Over Solar    

Snippet 1:

This amazing excerpt from the book, Let It Shine: The 6000-Year Story of Solar Energy, provides fascinating context to energy choices the US made in the 1950s. It was a pivotal moment for the advent of solar energy, but the US supported nuclear instead.

What's most interesting is all-out backing the US government gave the nuclear energy industry to get it off the ground. Similar histories are likely written about government support for oil and gas when they first emerged. Renewable energy industries have had no such support - infinitesimal by comparison. It's a testament to pioneers in the solar and wind industries and a handful of supportive governments that they are nearing grid parity today.


Snippet 2:

With fuel apparently so abundant and cheap, electric companies expanded to meet demand. Liberal government policies made it easy to procure capital to build larger and more efficient power plants. Utilities encouraged greater consumption because the costs of building new plants and installing electric lines could be recovered more easily if customers used more energy.

"Once you had the lines in, you hoped people would use as much electricity as possible," a utility executive remarked. "You wanted to get as much return on your investment as you could." Gas companies took a similar approach - "if you sell more you make more." 

Agelbert NOTE: REMEMBER THAT every time you hear a pro-nuclear power or fossil fuel propagandist states that WE CREATED THE DEMAND BECAUSE WE ARE THE PIGGIES and fossil fuelers and nukers are JUST ACCEPTING OUR WHINING and being LOYAL SERVANTS. LOL!

Snippet 3:

Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, making available at no cost to the industry "the knowledge acquired by 14 years and $10 billion worth of government research." In this act, the government pledged to undertake for the private sector "a program of conducting, assisting, and fostering research and development to encourage maximum scientific and industrial progress." In other words, the government paid all the expenses and took all the risks for the nascent nuclear energy industry. 



Snippet 4:

Solar energy received virtually no support in the ensuing years, and by 1963 the association (of scientists for the  development of solar energy) found itself bankrupt.  
The governments of Israel, Australia and Japan deliberately aided the solar industry,        but the US Congress and White House sat on the sidelines. True, as early as 1952 the President's Materials Commission, appointed by Harry Truman, came out with a report, Resources for Freedom, predicting that America and its allies would be short on fossil fuels by 1975. It urged that solar energy be developed as a replacement.

"Efforts made to date to harness solar energy are infinitesimal," the commission chided, despite the fact that the "US could make an immense contribution to the welfare of the free world" by exploiting this inexhaustible supply. They predicted that, given the will to go solar, there could be 13 million solar-heated homes by the mid-1970s.

Atoms For Peace                                                


The Commission advocated for a 50-50 split for nuclear and solar contributions
to America's energy future, but the US government lavished billions on atomic power research while spending a pittance on solar. International cold war politics more than technological advantages accounted for the difference.

Agelbert NOTE: Yep there is ALWAYS a government STUDY out theIr that states that 4 minus 5 equals a negative number. LOL! But we all know that ONLY TOKEN efforts were made to develop solar and ONLY because they needed panels on space vehicles, PERIOD.

And that's the story of HOW the nuclear industry defrauded (and still defrauds!) the American Public in our Darwinian Descent to Civilizational Suicide in the Service of Profit over Planet Dirty Energy.
Have a nice day.


1955: Why the US Chose Nuclear Energy Over Solar                                      

8451
Who CAN you trust? / Re: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden
« on: September 04, 2014, 06:26:39 pm »
How ABOUT THAT!    Whitey's "reasonable, logical and civilized"    Modus Operandi EXPOSED! 


Added instructions To that FINE and PRUDENT and SENSIBLE advice given above to HELP YOU PEOPLE TO BEHAVE so you don't CAUSE TROUBLE by YOUR behavior.

1) When stopped by a police officer for any reason whatsoever, even if it happens on a regular basis without a ticketing offense, ALWAYS be RESPECTFUL and the POLICE OFFICER will be RESPECTFUL TOO! Remember if the police officer does NOT act RESPECTFULLY, it's YOUR FAULT!  ;D

2) If a sales person follows you around in a store or you are mistaken for a service person or/and asked to clean up some mess or take out the garbage or "Where's that pizza we ordered?", be THANKFUL that you can get such QUICK SERVICE and ATTENTION.  ;D  What's wrong with you?  Don't be so paranoid and overly sensitive!  Stop playing the RACE CARD! Quit your whining! This just shows what a RACIAL DIVIDE (Whites are reasonable and non-combative - we aren't looking for silly excuses to feel dumped on!) in this country. We whites are happy  when we are followed around or mistaken for a service person. That we get quicker service!... ;D

3) Racism ENDED in the USA when the Civil Rights act was passed a long time ago.  Stop living in the past.  Get that silly chip off your shoulder.  If you don't want to be called a welfare queen, whining trouble maker, BEHAVE and you won't have any TROUBLE.  USA! USA! USA! ;D

Signed,
Some NON-racist  ;) REAL (white) Americans  that made the above SUGGESTIONS for the GOOD of you over excitable minorities.   
 




Agelbert NOTE: If that's how the NON-racists think, I don't think it would be a good idea to ask what the RACISTS think!  :P

 

8452
1955: Why the US Chose Nuclear Energy Over Solar
This amazing excerpt from the book, Let It Shine: The 6000-Year Story of Solar Energy, provides fascinating context to energy choices the US made in the 1950s. It was a pivotal moment for the advent of solar energy, but the US supported nuclear instead.

What's most interesting is all-out backing the US government gave the nuclear energy industry to get it off the ground. Similar histories are likely written about government support for oil and gas when they first emerged. Renewable energy industries have had no such support - infinitesimal by comparison. It's a testament to pioneers in the solar and wind industries and a handful of supportive governments that they are nearing grid parity today.

Prelude to the Embargo
For almost three decades after the end of WWII, the US had few problems with its energy supply. Its industry, commerce, and homes all had ready access to oil and gas from both domestic and foreign sources. Most of the oil was close to the surface, easy to tap, and economical to extract. Foreign governments sold their oil to American companies at extremely low prices, and US government subsidies also helped to keep prices low and profits high. Natural gas prices were also low and enjoyed the same tax advantages as oil.

Corporate spokespeople assured the public that this rosy situation would continue almost indefinitely. With fuel apparently so abundant and cheap, electric companies expanded to meet demand. Liberal government policies made it easy to procure capital to build larger and more efficient power plants. Utilities encouraged greater consumption because the costs of building new plants and installing electric lines could be recovered more easily if customers used more energy.

"Once you had the lines in, you hoped people would use as much electricity as possible," a utility executive remarked. "You wanted to get as much return on your investment as you could." Gas companies took a similar approach - "if you sell more you make more."
They promoted consumption through advertising campaigns and preferential rate structures. It worked as families rushed to buy electric and gas-powered appliances. The growing affluence and postwar baby boom pushed electricity generation up over 500% between 1945-1968, and gas production almost tripled from 6-16 trillion cubic feet during those years. US fuel consumption more than doubled.
Enter Solar
The frenetic pace at which America was gobbling up its energy resources alarmed only a few farsighted individuals. Eric Hodgins, editor of Fortune, called the careless burning of coal, oil and gas a terrible state of affairs, enough to "horrify even the most complaisant in the world of finance."
Writing in 1953, he warned that "we live on a capital dissipation basis. We can keep this up for another 25 years before we begin to find ourselves in deepening trouble." But such warnings were treated with derision or ignored because too much money was being made on energy sales.
A few scientists and engineers took the same dim view and sought an alternative to a fuel crisis they saw as inevitable. In 1955, they founded the Association for Applied Solar Energy and held a World Symposium in Phoenix, Arizona. Delegates from around the world attended, presenting research and exhibiting solar devices.
Israel displayed its commercial solar water heaters, and representatives from Australia and Japan discussed their nations' increasing use of the sun. To many, the symposium represented the dawn of a new solar age, but the careless confidence of energy-rich America squelched that hope here.
Solar energy received virtually no support in the ensuing years, and by 1963 the association found itself bankrupt.
The governments of Israel, Australia and Japan deliberately aided the solar industry, but the US Congress and White House sat on the sidelines. True, as early as 1952 the President's Materials Commission, appointed by Harry Truman, came out with a report, Resources for Freedom, predicting that America and its allies would be short on fossil fuels by 1975. It urged that solar energy be developed as a replacement.

"Efforts made to date to harness solar energy are infinitesimal," the commission chided, despite the fact that the "US could make an immense contribution to the welfare of the free world" by exploiting this inexhaustible supply. They predicted that, given the will to go solar, there could be 13 million solar-heated homes by the mid-1970s.
Atoms For Peace
The Commission advocated for a 50-50 split for nuclear and solar contributions to America's energy future, but the US government lavished billions on atomic power research while spending a pittance on solar. International cold war politics more than technological advantages accounted for the difference.
The Soviet's growing military might and possibility of nuclear warfare dominated. Rather than scare Americans, President Eisenhower decided to give nuclear weapons a happy face by introducing the peaceful atom.
At the United Nations in 1953, Eisenhower assured the world body of US determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma - "to find the way the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to life." When he proposed the peaceful use of the atom "to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture and medicine ... and to provide abundant electrical energy in power-starved areas of the world" - everyone sprang up and applauded and kept on cheering.
Someone called Eisenhower's plan "Atoms for Peace" and the phrase stuck. Selling the peaceful atom as the world's future energy source suddenly became America's number one priority.

Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, making available at no cost to the industry "the knowledge acquired by 14 years and $10 billion worth of government research." In this act, the government pledged to undertake for the private sector "a program of conducting, assisting, and fostering research and development to encourage maximum scientific and industrial progress."
In other words, the government paid all the expenses and took all the risks for the nascent nuclear energy industry. There was no parallel "Solar Energy Act.
People from every national and political inclination heralded the arrival of the atomic age, the "third great epoch in human history." A few people though had second thoughts.
Nobel prize-winning chemist Dr. Glenn Seaborg, who later headed the Atomic Energy Commission, argued that the difficulty of finding sites for disposal of dangerous radioactive waste would severely hamper development. Worse, experts agreed that the owners of atomic power plants could quickly convert their fissionable material to build bombs. Even members of the Eisenhower administration admitted having "some unhappy second thoughts - that 'atoms for peace' could turn into 'atom bombs for all.' The specter of nations in the underdeveloped world arming themselves atomically was "terrifying."
What About Solar?
Dr. James Conant, the American scientist who first oversaw the making of America's first nuclear weapons, agreed that nuclear power was too dangerous and expensive. He urged the nation to instead create a program like the Manhattan Project for the development of solar energy.
The NY Times also suggested the government should "transfer some of its interest in nuclear to solar." But the attitude of Washington and the private sector mirrored that of a nation hypnotized by seemingly limitless supplies of cheap fossil fuel and by the almost magical aura surrounding nuclear energy.
Life Magazine put it aptly in an article, "The Sun: Prophets Study Rays for Far-Off Needs." A few farsighted scientists are dreaming of ways to save the US when coal, oil, gas and uranium run out. That may be 200-1000 years away, the article said.
George Russler, chief staff engineer at the Minneapolis-Honeywell Research Center, suggested that solar energy could better tackle the growing need to replace oil by providing heat for houses and office buildings. He pointed out that the low-temperature heat required "ideally matches the low-grade heat from the simplest and most efficient solar energy collectors."
This was the perfect way to start putting solar to widespread use and ameliorating the ominous circumstance that the number of new oil discoveries in the US had fallen every year after 1953, while reliance on imported oil kept growing. In fact, in 1967, for the first time in the nation's history, crude oil reserves declined.
And renowned oil engineer Marion King Hubbert predicted in 1956 that American petroleum production would peak between the late 1960s and early 1970s. Most in the oil industry ridiculed his work, but in 1970 the laughing ceased. His prediction had come to pass.
++++
This is an excerpt from an article in the May/June issue of Solar Today.
John Perlin, author of Let It Shine: The 6000-Year Story of Solar Energy (2013) is an analyst in the Department of Physics and Director for implementation of solar and energy efficiency at University of California/ Santa Barbara. He writes and lectures widely on the history of energy, solar in particular. Check out his website: http://john-perlin.com/
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.feature/id/1924

Agelbert Comment:
Great article!
But I would like to add a few salient details of the history not mentioned in it.
1) The cost of the Manhattan Project was far more than 10 Billion dollars. Despite that fact, we-the-people were NEVER given a credit on privatized for profit nuclear power. We paid for the development, we ensured the power plants from radiation accidents and we paid to make utility investors an ARTIFICIAL profit. This is an obscenity.
2) Nuclear power plants were TOTALLY unnecessary for nuclear medicine because a cyclotron can make all the short lived isotopes needed for tracers in nuclear medicine. Eisenhower (and General Groves) KNEW that. The UN speech was hype.
3)Most of our bombs DID NOT come from commercial nuclear reactors because, by their very design, they had too much "product" of a very unstable isotope of Plutonium that must be kept to a very low percentage in order for the material to be considered "bomb grade" plutonium. You have to shut the plant down a few weeks after a start up and harvest the product at exactly the right time. That is not feasible (cold shut downs and starts every few weeks for a commercial nuclear power plant). SPECIALIZED nuclear reactors were built specifically to make the bomb grade plutonium. We-the-people paid for them too! BUT, we were ALLOWED to believe nuclear power plants were a huge risk to underdeveloped countries and a resource to be cherished and protected because of the "Bomb product potential". It was a LIE. We-the-people actually preserved MORE profit for the investors by allowing the U.S. Government to provide MORE "protection" in the form of SECRECY in the private sector of nuclear power. A club was created. We-the-people paid for it including funding university nuclear physics departments and keeping the cloak of secrecy under the guise of "national security" (NOT! - it was REALLY nuclear club JOB SECURITY).
4)With this backing, all sorts of pollution and mendacity about accidents and leaks and cancer clusters and epidemiological studies proving children near power plants had higher cancer rates were keep from we-the-people. The profits just keep coming in for the investors and rampant externalized costs (that would make the coal mining industry blush!) from uranium mining cancers to sloppy nuclear waste "disposal" in the oceans, etc. were ALL kept out of the public view.
In other words, the "national security" monicker was used to defraud the American public of billions of dollars for a technology that has NEVER been profitable when all the environment AND energy costs of extraction to disposal are ACTUALLY accounted for.

Full details at the link below:
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/nuke-puke/no-we-never-needed-lwr-nuclear-power-plants-to-make-nuclear-weapons/

 

8453
Wonders of Nature / The beauty of a drop of water on a waxy leaf
« on: September 04, 2014, 12:54:54 am »

8454
General Discussion / Arctic Expansion
« on: September 03, 2014, 11:05:24 pm »
Arctic Expansion

Genetic analysis reveals the history of the earliest human migrations in the region.

By Jyoti Madhusoodanan | September 2, 2014

The Arctic’s earliest human inhabitants migrated into the region from Siberia approximately 6,000 years ago.
These so called Paleo-Eskimo peoples lived in isolation—despite periodic migrations of other populations—before suddenly vanishing 700 years ago, according to a study published last week (August 29) in Science.

This genetic analysis of 169 ancient and present-day humans used museum specimens of bones, teeth, and hair from Alaska, Canada, and Greenland; the researchers, led by Maanasa Raghavan and Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, also sequenced the genomes of modern-day Native American, Inuit, and Aleutian Islander families to enable comparative analyses.

Their results showed that Paleo-Eskimos spread into the Arctic independent of Native American and Inuit migrations. Although it periodically abandoned the area, this Paleo-Eskimo population lived there in near-isolation for almost 4,000 years before disappearing. The team’s analyses also showed that modern-day Inuits are not directly related to these earliest settlers, suggesting that the ancient Paleo-Eskimo lineage did not vanish simply due to interbreeding.

“Elsewhere, as soon as people meet each other, they have sex,” Willerslev told National Geographic. “Even potentially different species like Neanderthals [and modern humans] had sex, so this finding is extremely surprising.”

Instead, this population may have developed medical problems as a result of continuous inbreeding, which may have contributed to their eventual extinction, Willerslev told The New York Times. Another potential factor may have been climate change, as periodic fluctuations of even a few degrees could cause a loss of marine food resources.

“By using genetics and genomics, they were able to answer questions that archaeologists have been trying to solve for decades,” anthropologist Todd Disotell of New York University who was not involved in the research told the New York Times. “With genetics, you’re looking at the ancient people themselves, not their refuse, so to speak.”

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40914/title/Arctic-Expansion/

8455
Who CAN you trust? / Cops Are Armed and Dangerous
« on: September 03, 2014, 10:47:56 pm »

8456
Who CAN you trust? / Re: Corruption in Government
« on: September 03, 2014, 09:33:30 pm »
LD,
I've been thinking about the "problem" of Bamboo as mistakenly being branded UN -"American".

Hollywood is the culprit! Bamboo is associated with Banana Republics and/or Asian tropical jungles.  :( Merikans have seen too many movies of the "japs" o the "gooks" hiding in the bamboo OR preparing bamboo SPIKE booby traps for unwary Merikans. Bamboo just ain't Anglo-Saxon as far as our propaganda pushers are concerned!

Sure, it's INSANE that Merikans just LOVE BANANAS and don't seem to make the same connection (United Fruit Fascists and Chiquita Bananas had great PR for over a century!) THERE but that just proves how "successfully" we-the-people have been brainwashed and DUMBED DOWN.

By the way, there is a guy in Vermont that is growing a type of bamboo that IS invasive here.   ;D  Good for him! This whole "invasive" thing is kind of stupid anyway. This is ONE PLANET! If it grows, it's because it LIKES IT THERE! Invasive, MY ARSE! 

Quote
The World of Bamboo

     by Gib Cooper


Bamboo's natural range includes every continent except Europe and Antarctica.

We once had 5 million acres of an American native bamboo known as Canebrake or Arundinaria gigantea growing in our Southeastern quarter. This bamboo and its ecosystem were soon greatly diminished in area by the migration of settlers in the early 19th century.   :emthdown: The bamboo grew in good soil and was cleared for farmland. Unbelievably, a new species was described for the USA in 2006. Its name is Hill cane, or Arundinaria appalachiana.

Stone Age Asians may have relied heavily on tools they made of materials other than stone. The lack of stone tools of the quality found in Europe in much of Southeast Asia roughly corresponds to the natural distribution of bamboo in the region. It appears that Southeast Asia has been heavily forested for many millions of years. This is still one of the areas of dense bamboo forests remaining in the world. Man may have relied more on bamboo than we know. Based on this theory, bamboo was probably one of the most important materials used by early Asian people. Even today, the use of bamboo has more significance to Asian cultures than any other.

Evidence of bamboo use is found in South America. Some excavations of early dwellings have imprints of bamboo canes and split, woven material preserved in the mud or adobe used in the construction or as protective living stockades around villages.

Bamboo is an incredible grass that has long been in use by people around the globe. In our modern world it is finding a new place in the spectrum of plants, fibers and foods used to enhance the quality of our lives.  :emthup: We are not simply talking about one plant. Bamboo is a large group of giant grasses with over 1,200 species found from the tropics to temperate regions.


http://www.greenlivingjournal.com/page.php?p=1000192




 

8457
Who CAN you trust? / The Bamboo "monster"
« on: September 03, 2014, 06:03:35 pm »

The Bamboo "Monster"

Snippet:

Did you know that from 1898 to 1975 the US Department of Agriculture introduced hundreds of my varieties to the states. The plan was to plant me widely as a commercially viable plant. Around 1960, the New Crops Branch of the USDA studied Phyllostachys bambusoides and loblolly pine to compare yields for pulp production. Then on July 1, 1965 the Department of Agriculture just stopped researching me. I was very confused by that because I’m much more virile than pine. Latter I found out that the government turned their back on me because loblolly pine business interests wanted them to.  >:(The same thing happened to hemp.  >:(

Contrary to what idiots may think, I am native to North America. I’m not an invasive weed, or a pest. For some reason Americans seem to think that I can defy the laws of nature. They think I will “take over” if you plant me. Well, yeah, I will take over if you don’t keep me in check. Let me tell you a little secret. I’ll throw this little nugget out there as a peace offering; I have an Achilles Heel. If you want to control me, all you have to do is dig a trench around me and fill it with sand. Then, twice a year, you take a spade and plunge it into the sand. When you find one of my rhizomes you cut it. It’s called root pruning (or rhizome pruning in my case), and it really is that easy. If you do that I won’t escape containment. Well, I may still find my way out by plunging down beneath your trench, but eventually, if I do that, I’ll send up a shoot and then you’ll know where I escaped. Then you just eat the shoot, or don’t, and pull the rhizome up and put me back into containment.

My growth habits are not a state secret, and I’m easy to contain if you just understand how I grow. Sure, once I get established as a healthy grove I’m just about impossible to get rid of, but then what’s wrong with being strong and powerful? I am stronger than steel and I’m capable of weathering hurricanes. Indigenous cultures know that when mother nature strikes via natural disasters I’m the safest place to seek refuge. I’ve been told that I have somewhere around 1400 uses for mankind. Why, kind reader, do Americans hate the most useful plant to them on the planet?!!!          

Full article with graphics at link below:

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php/topic,3320.msg55274.html#msg55274

8458
Who CAN you trust? / Re: Corruption in Government
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:49:46 pm »
Environmental Control Drones: A True Tale from South Carolina

Posted on August 30, 2014  by  Wendy McCarty

A white truck with a decal on the side pulls into the driveway. The decal itself is unreadable from afar. A man wearing tan pants and a white shirt with a circular decal on the shoulder comes to the front door. As the man approaches, the decal on his shirt is easily readable “Environmental Department.”

The door is answered.

“Hello?” Says the homeowner.

“What’s going on in your backyard?” the agent asks.

“Just a little bit of permaculture” the homeowner responds.

“Put on some shoes and lets go back there and take a look”

“Bamboo???” The agent asks once they are both in the backyard.

“Yeah…it is planted all around the yard.”

“You know… it (the bamboo) is really devaluing your property. I could show you pictures of some overgrown bamboo that has taken over properties. It is bad to have. It gets out of control. Go back in the house. I’m going to take a few pictures and then I’m going to leave. It is not illegal to have a garden, but you have to keep your weeds trimmed to below 16 inches. They have to be cut. This property is considered overgrown.”  

Full article with pictures and video at link below:

http://thebutterchurn.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/environmental-control-drones-a-true-tale-from-south-carolina/#comment-1121

8459
Climate Change / Re: Pollution
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:19:40 pm »
Wildfire near California-Oregon border 'extreme,' firefighters say
Read more at http://newsdaily.com/2014/09/03/wildfire-near-california-oregon-border-extreme-firefighters-say/#UoxlTGRlB7jDOrMA.99

8460
Exxon forced our first ad, Exxon Hates Your Children, off the air.   


Comcast and Time Warner refused to let us run Exxon Hates America.   


So this time, we’re taking Exxon Hates the World directly to the people, by launching a major ad campaign in the New York City subway system next week.


Watch. Tell five friends. Let Exxon know that we’ve got their number and help us make Exxon Hates the World go viral.

Thanks for everything you do to make this movement real. We couldn’t have done this with you.

Sincerely,
 John Sellers, Other 98%   

[embed=640,380]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juoJ_GwdeI8#[/embed]
http://exxonhates.com/




Have FUN on the INTERNET! Give Fossil fuelers an Excedrin HEADACHE! Press the VIRAL  button!

Pages: 1 ... 562 563 [564] 565 566 ... 668

+-Recent Topics

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
Today at 02:12:02 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
Today at 01:44:52 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
Today at 01:43:40 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
Today at 12:48:14 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
Today at 12:05:05 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
July 17, 2018, 08:58:52 pm

Plants Which are BOTH Nutritional and Medicinal by AGelbert
July 17, 2018, 07:28:02 pm

Blasts from the 2012 to 2013 past when there was more HOPE 🌟 by AGelbert
July 17, 2018, 07:07:01 pm

Healthy Eating by AGelbert
July 17, 2018, 06:45:30 pm

Cat and Dog Capers by AGelbert
July 17, 2018, 06:34:13 pm

Free Web Hit Counter By CSS HTML Tutorial