michaelmaltby
Colonel
..... how would he feed the world? Farmers of the world unite .... and grow:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DktisG0J_9g
Beautiful video
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DktisG0J_9g
Beautiful video
Ban Ki-moon wants us to stop using hydocarbons ....
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,036
- Jun 25, 2013
They're going to run out. It's only a matter of time.
True but we aren't stopping any time soon.
The energy crisis will be solved when we perfect nuclear fusion anyway...
The energy crisis will be solved when we perfect nuclear fusion anyway...
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,036
- Jun 25, 2013
Nuclear fusion has been 20 years away for at least 50 years. I wouldn't hold my breath.
- Thread starter
- #6
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"the end of oil" has been the end of oil for more than 20 years and there's still no "end" in sight in the near future .... except in the business plans of snake oil promoters and enviro-fascists.
There will never be the end of the oil. What will be (it actually it is right now) is that we now pay oil maybe 3 times as much as we did 20 years ago. Any maybe 7-8 times more than 40 years ago?
BTW, we need to fear much more the I'll-skin-you-off governments and big companies taking my and your money and fill their pockets, as we speak, than the enviro-fascists.
BTW, we need to fear much more the I'll-skin-you-off governments and big companies taking my and your money and fill their pockets, as we speak, than the enviro-fascists.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #8
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Chose your poison, tomo.... 
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
And even if everybody stopped driving automobiles tomorrow, the consumption of oil would still be at all time highs, because society is addicted to oil-based products.
For example: it takes 6 gallons of oil to produce one pound of plastic...
For example: it takes 6 gallons of oil to produce one pound of plastic...
N4521U
Plastic Pirate
China won't run out of food......
not as long as Australia keeps selling all their farms and resources to them!!!!!!
And try and run a wholey non-chinese owned factory There!
not as long as Australia keeps selling all their farms and resources to them!!!!!!
And try and run a wholey non-chinese owned factory There!
Chose your poison, tomo....
Not so much about choosing the poison.
We can either embrace or discard what the environmentalists say. Not so with what the gvnmnt says; actaully, they issue laws/orders. Eg. some 15 years ago our VAT was 15,5% (was not called like that back then, but the 'consumption tax'), then it jumped to 22 (with the name changed to VAT), then to 23, now is 25%. We cannot opt not to pay VAT. The gvnmnt was taking away maybe 2-3 KN from each liter of fuel sold 15 years ago, nowadays takes 6 (more than a dollar). The bank savings are now taxated, so will be the houses/apartments/flats. In the same time, the state officails, down from municipal 'sherrifs' up to ministers and prime-ministers spend lavishly, some are so sloppy and greedy that even made it into jail. Previously the most wealthy area of Croatia (Slavonia) is so destroyed by the import lobby that we now import more food than we export it. It does not pay to own a milk cow farm now, thousands were working mere 5 years ago. Slavonia and Vojvodina (in Serbia) were feeding former Yugoslavia.
For my family, we (wife and me) luckily do business with tourists some 7 years now. Otherwise I'd try tooth and nail to go work and live in Germany. Despite the fact that I fought for this country independence war.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I know what you mean, about the taxes, Tomo.
Here in California for example, we have to pay about $5.50 per pack for cigarettes and if you strip away the Federal and State taxes, the pack itself would cost about $1.25 per pack. A portion of the tax is of course, state sales tax and a small portion is an old Federal tax. But the balance of the tax is called a "tobacco cessation tax" that was aimed to stop people from smoking and was intended to go to health programs and education. However, less than one half of 1% of the tobacco tax revenues actually go to this purpose. Instead, the tobacco tax revenues go to special projects and other programs.
California has other excessive taxes that make it difficult for a business to operate here, but is also difficult to live and work here.
And yet, with all of these taxes the State brings in, we are in worse shape economically now, than we were several years ago when the taxes were lower.
Here in California for example, we have to pay about $5.50 per pack for cigarettes and if you strip away the Federal and State taxes, the pack itself would cost about $1.25 per pack. A portion of the tax is of course, state sales tax and a small portion is an old Federal tax. But the balance of the tax is called a "tobacco cessation tax" that was aimed to stop people from smoking and was intended to go to health programs and education. However, less than one half of 1% of the tobacco tax revenues actually go to this purpose. Instead, the tobacco tax revenues go to special projects and other programs.
California has other excessive taxes that make it difficult for a business to operate here, but is also difficult to live and work here.
And yet, with all of these taxes the State brings in, we are in worse shape economically now, than we were several years ago when the taxes were lower.
Try that in America - same result.
I'm quite happy if all the cars, trucks, etc stop using petrol. More available to keep aircraft flying!
- Thread starter
- #14
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".. We can either embrace or discard what the environmentalists say. "
We can either embrace or refute what the environmentalists say. And refute we must do when the basis of their argument is based of altered scientific data and the politics of fear and self-loathing. The environmentalists have yet to feed, clothe or house a single needy human being .... their secret wish is the humiliation of 'modern' society .... the more fanatical would, like Pol Pot, seek to de-populate humankind
They espouse 'mitigation' of changing weather conditions when such conditions are simply the expression of a marvelous, complex, natural system that views humankind as simply another product of its inherent creativity.... both expendable and puny. In such conditions it is wise to adapt to change .... and drop the arrogance implied by mitigation.
We can either embrace or refute what the environmentalists say. And refute we must do when the basis of their argument is based of altered scientific data and the politics of fear and self-loathing. The environmentalists have yet to feed, clothe or house a single needy human being .... their secret wish is the humiliation of 'modern' society .... the more fanatical would, like Pol Pot, seek to de-populate humankind
They espouse 'mitigation' of changing weather conditions when such conditions are simply the expression of a marvelous, complex, natural system that views humankind as simply another product of its inherent creativity.... both expendable and puny. In such conditions it is wise to adapt to change .... and drop the arrogance implied by mitigation.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #16
michaelmaltby
Colonel
I'm afraid I disagree Tomo ... and we can agree on that
- Thread starter
- #17
michaelmaltby
Colonel
- Thread starter
- #19
michaelmaltby
Colonel
".....with environmentalists, we can do what we see fit, within the constraints of the law. "
I can't comment on tactics in your neck of the woods, Tomo, but in Canada and North America I see no respect for the law.
I can't comment on tactics in your neck of the woods, Tomo, but in Canada and North America I see no respect for the law.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Environmentalists here are tend to cause more trouble than good.
I can cite some good examples here in California:
The first case, revolves around the Spotted Owl. The Environmentalists insisted that logging in what is called "old growth" forests (old growth is pristine, unlogged tracts of woodland) was harming the Spotted Owl populations, causing an alarming decline in the species. They forced the courts to press an injunction against the logging companies, who owned the land that the timber stood on. As a result, the timber industry in Northern California started to collapse, jobs were lost, communities went broke, people moved away. And yet, the Spotted Owl population continued to decline.
The environmentalists lamented that we were too late to save them and the damage was done. However, the foresters and land management people discovered that the spotted owls were moving from the "old growth" forests into the tracts of land that had younger timber (second growth) because there was better cover for them from larger predatory birds (Spotted Owls are small) and more things to eat. The moral of this story is, the environmentalists were only monitoring the small tract of land in the primative forest and not looking anywhere else. As it turns out, there are more Spotted Owls now, than before they tried to "save them".
The other example of enviromental stupidity, is the saving of the "endangered river smelt". California has a massive network of aquaducts that feed the agricultural areas and the many cities throughout the state. Over the years, a small fish has moved into the aquaduct system from the Sacramento delta. The enviromentalists have gotten the courts to restrict water flow in the southern aquaducts so it won't endanger the "fragile habitat" of these little fish....that DO NOT belong there in the first place! As a result, the agriculture has been severely compromised, vast orchards have died and many farms have gone bankrupt because of this.
There are many more examples, but now you see what we have to deal with, here...
I can cite some good examples here in California:
The first case, revolves around the Spotted Owl. The Environmentalists insisted that logging in what is called "old growth" forests (old growth is pristine, unlogged tracts of woodland) was harming the Spotted Owl populations, causing an alarming decline in the species. They forced the courts to press an injunction against the logging companies, who owned the land that the timber stood on. As a result, the timber industry in Northern California started to collapse, jobs were lost, communities went broke, people moved away. And yet, the Spotted Owl population continued to decline.
The environmentalists lamented that we were too late to save them and the damage was done. However, the foresters and land management people discovered that the spotted owls were moving from the "old growth" forests into the tracts of land that had younger timber (second growth) because there was better cover for them from larger predatory birds (Spotted Owls are small) and more things to eat. The moral of this story is, the environmentalists were only monitoring the small tract of land in the primative forest and not looking anywhere else. As it turns out, there are more Spotted Owls now, than before they tried to "save them".
The other example of enviromental stupidity, is the saving of the "endangered river smelt". California has a massive network of aquaducts that feed the agricultural areas and the many cities throughout the state. Over the years, a small fish has moved into the aquaduct system from the Sacramento delta. The enviromentalists have gotten the courts to restrict water flow in the southern aquaducts so it won't endanger the "fragile habitat" of these little fish....that DO NOT belong there in the first place! As a result, the agriculture has been severely compromised, vast orchards have died and many farms have gone bankrupt because of this.
There are many more examples, but now you see what we have to deal with, here...
