This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 4 Dec 09, 12:05 PM SirLashleyS UK(S), 5 yrs   |
The Govt and oil companies were well aware of the geological probability of huge deposits, long before 1982. Even I - with no interest in Falklands whatsoever - had heard this back then. But yes, of course the factors you mention were also at play.
The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...) Edited 4 Dec 09, 12:12 PM by SirLashleyS | |||
| 4 Dec 09, 12:29 PM SirLashleyS UK(S), 5 yrs |
And 'desire to make profit' has at no point in human commercial history entered this equation. (Except when Bert Rubik invented then placed on the market his irksome cube).
The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...) Edited 4 Dec 09, 1:47 PM by SirLashleyS | |||
| 4 Dec 09, 2:21 PM SirLashleyS UK(S), 5 yrs |
Simplistically, yes - and so clever to notice. But my point was that UN hype blames cars & planes, ignoring the rest. Which includes yearly rain-forest clearance of acreage the size of Wales. Had this never started (logic suggests) CO2 levels may never have started to rise. Also that if it were banned, full stop, the lungs of the world might at least begin to recover.
The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...) Edited 4 Dec 09, 8:40 PM by SirLashleyS | |||
| 7 Dec 09, 7:14 PM Attitude_Adjuster UK(N), 6 yrs |
With regards to cars vs. tankers - it really doesn't matter. The problem is oil consumption - you can blame/tax anyone in the supply chain and the end effect is the same. I personally would point the finger at government policy which has sytematically encouraged car use - we abandoned our well serviced town centres in favour of out of town shopping centres, choice of schools for parents, town planning, and making the desirable places to live about as far from work as you can get, underinvestment in public transport etc etc.
I don't think that the UN ignores the rain forrests. But if I were, e.g. Brazil I'd take a great deal of issue with a rich continent that has completely deforrested telling me not to whilst continuing to enjoy the benefits of all that agricultural land. I havn't noticed the EU offering to regrow any trees recently
And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword! Edited 7 Dec 09, 7:18 PM by Attitude_Adjuster | |||
| 7 Dec 09, 9:27 PM SirLashleyS UK(S), 5 yrs |
Agreed. Though road-signs next to the tree-lined M1 inform us we're driving through the 'South Yorkshire Forest'. Even better, the M42 now takes us through the vast, endless 'National Forest'. Oh well, a start I suppose. But why's it still legal (in maritime law) for ocean tankers to use the filthiest, lowest-grade burnable, most pollutant muck as acceptable fuel? Rhetorical question only. Have a good solstice. LS The silky-smooth soothing voice of reason and logic. (You WILL feel much better and speak more sense while very securely tied-up...) |
