[talaniman]

I go with greed but the only answer to over population is birth control, right? Ask the Chinese how that's worked out for them.

[paraclete]

No nation can do it alone and yes the chinese populations needs to be controlled, there are too many of them. That goes for other populous nations. Fact is a sustainable Earth can not support more than 3 billion without depleting resources, many of which are already seriously depleted, so there are other forms of population control and we may experience many of them Sterilisation, Euthenasia, Famine, Pestilence, War, so it's no good throwing your hands in the air and saying birth control didn't work for the Chinese so it doesn't work. It did work, their population will stabilise and start to decline. We already have a serious issue in that two nations account for one third of the population

[tomder55]

Love to wake up in the morning to Neo-Malthusianism. Maybe we should mandate that our women wear Malthusian belts(Aldous Huxley's innovation)... oh but wouldn't that blow away this fiction of 'choice' and women controlling their bodies ? Maybe we could go a step further and adopt Eugenics so we can construct that more perfect population.

[tickle]

China has been controlling their population for years in various ways and have been successful, but the western world could not or would not have the ways and means to do the same:

Maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/chinapop.html

Sorry the link won't be easy, you will have to cut and paste but it is worthwhile reading and will answer tals and paracletes post (chinese population is controlled but there is a downside)

[paraclete]

love to wake up in the morning to Neo-Malthusianism. Maybe we should mandate that our women wear Malthusian belts(Aldous Huxley's innovation)..... oh but wouldn't that blow away this fiction of 'choice' and women controlling their bodies ? Maybe we could go a step further and adopt Eugenics so we can construct that more perfect population.

No Tom I recommend strict segregation, particularly in america, the last thing we need is more gung ho yanks spreading themselves around. No eugenics, all should be limited equally. The big problem is women don't control their bodies, they work on afterthought.

Much of the population needs serious reeducation, you can say one thing for the Muslims they seem to have some aspects of human relationships under control

[tomder55]

Much of the population needs serious reeducation

Yes Uncle Mao .

[speechlesstx]

love to wake up in the morning to Neo-Malthusianism. Maybe we should mandate that our women wear Malthusian belts(Aldous Huxley's innovation)... oh but wouldn't that blow away this fiction of 'choice' and women controlling their bodies ? Maybe we could go a step further and adopt Eugenics so we can construct that more perfect population.

And there you have it, why all those good liberals want free contraceptives. It's not about choice, it's not about women's rights, it's about climate change.

The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.

The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: "Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."

If Obama gets reelected he'll have accomplished his part on that and then he can continue his job crushing, economy wrecking, energy price soaring EPA agenda.

EPA's Insanely Ambitious Agenda If Obama Is Reelected

[talaniman]

As usual a republican opinion piece being passed as scientific facts. Its well known you guys are okay with big business screwing up the air, water, and land as long as they make bookoo bucks and trickle a few down to YOU!!

[speechlesstx]

Exactly what did he say that was incorrect?

[talaniman]

Exactly what did he say that was incorrect?

Taken together, they will further drive up pump prices, impose construction bans on local communities, and cripple oil, natural gas and coal production.

Energy prices are set by the markets as a commodity, and it's the global markets that raise or lower the prices as despite huge profits fueled by subsidizies the price has gone up NOT down. Production of oil, natural gas, and coal is also going UP, so is safe and clean an unreasonable expectation to for? How about wages in those industries going UP with all those record profits? How about fair market compensation when those companies want to build in a community instead of this imminent domain crap?

How about cleaning up their messes or have we forgotten Exxon Valdez, BP, or the Colorado River? To leave these consideration of FACTS out of the debate and broad brush the concerns of the business model as being beneficialwith no downside is short sighted and prejudiced.

Greenhouse Gas Regulations:

So we should let big companies pollute with NO restrictions? REALLY? May not hurt you but what of the kids wholive in those communities?

OZONE RULE

EPA itself estimated that this would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.

A study also shows that government and private industry could better mitigate costs and transition into even bigger energy jobs than are currently held. While initial cost estimates are high, long term profitability would more than offset the costs.

The sad part is what makes these endeavors truly and unnecessarily expensive is DELAYING implementation a number of years.

Hydraulic Fracturing:

Industries are already reporting data voluntarily. More to mitigate law suits in the future than to actually be safe. Wyoming ain't the only place that has to deal with contamination, but everywhere fracking is done has raised issues of documented contamination.

I could go on into all the other headings as they allspeakof cost but fail to point out that these costs are associated with making the operations in these areas clean and safe.

I mean his money projection are true, but you do want clean air, water, and land don't you????

Where your author is totally wrong is the onesided priority of profis over people and safety concerns of communities.

That's why we are fighting the Keystone pipeline in Texas.

[speechlesstx]

All I see is spin, not an answer to my question.

[paraclete]

yes Uncle Mao .

And you more than anyone, education and reeducation are tools to bring about change

[talaniman]

All I see is spin, not an answer to my question.

The article you linked was all spin from a non professional. Not only were basic scientific facts from years of data misrepresented, but so much was left out of what was presented that the whole article lacked any basis for credible consideration as an serious exploration of the real issues.

You should know that.

[paraclete]

Don't worry Tal after every storm the blame brigade gets to parade their favourite theories.

You know the stuff, warming oceans, bigger, more frequent storms, devastation, calamity.

We are all doomed, AAAGggggH!

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

we are all doomed, AAAGggggH!

I'm afraid it's true. Republicans LOVE to shoot themselves in the foot. This time they want to shoot mine too.

Will they EVER grasp the science?? Uhhhh, no.

Excon

[paraclete]

No The trogs can't grasp the science because it costs money, now if it were free