|
What exactly is Mr Cameron saying about the canadian tar sands mining???
Check out this podcast containing Cameron and a scene from Avatar at 4:52: We are the insurgents at subMedia
It features a statement of Mr Cameron after his visits to the ongoing annihilation of the Canadian landscape in search for more oil. For those who dont know it, Canada holds some of the largest oil reserves on this planet. Bad thing though that that oil is in the shape of tar sands which have to be dug out in humongous mining operations dwarfing the Unobtanium mines of Pandora and the refining process poisons the rivers and lands of the Cree indians (you may remember them for saying "Only When the Last Tree Has Died and the Last River Been Poisoned and the Last Fish Been Caught Will We Realise We Cannot Eat Money"). Mr Cameron then actually talks about how this oil is a valuable resource in the energy starved future can serve North America to become independent from OPEC oil imports. So what is he saying, that it is better to crap in the own backyard than in someone elses? crap is still crap and Tar Sands mining is about the biggest crap around in terms of hydrocarbon mining: http://www.treehugger.com/tar-sands-before-after.jpg Please, someone tell me that he had some goooood reason to say this - but it better be a really, really good explanation!!! |
I've been following this... He certainly was not actually directly supporting them - if anything, he's been fairly critical of it from what I've read.
|
Because he's a realist? Oil is a need. There is no way to go back. So instead of beating up on one end of the world for it, get it locally.
|
Quote:
Quote:
I call this an addiction! A serious one! It has all the symptoms, even denial. And as with all addictions, this is unhealthy (obesity, allergies, lung cancers,...), self destructive (depression, violence), destructive to others (the non-human inhabitants that live int he same home as we do) and hard to withdraw from - still as you probably would agree with any other addiction, withdrawal is the only choice. That simply is it - this society is hooked on energy and especially hooked on fossil fuels! And if that habit is not broken, the result is the same as with all addictions..... So anonymous oilsuckers FTW! Lol, what is funny in a very sad way is, that I actually in previous, half a year ago postings draw the comparison of the scenes at hells gate mine with the tar sands: http://www.blogcdn.com/green.autoblo...6/oilsands.jpg http://a5.typepad.com/6a0120a7ae0e08...7b4319d970b-pi |
He's trying to tread a very fine line. If he handles things correctly he could be an influence for the better. If he falls down too heavily on the 'tar sands mining must stop now' side he risks becoming a pariah in his home country and being written off as an extremist, which won't help anybody.
|
Well threading the fine line is nice - I know that he is trying to do so. Just like Greenpeace occasionally does when they support building pipelines in return for some forest protection or people standing in for deer bridges over new autobahns. Sure they try their best, but threading a thin line makes you weak. You cant push anyone while standin on that line. So you may be able to change a little bit here and there that would make the whole thing even more horrible. You can achieve people building in sufur filters in coal plants to at least remove the toxic sufur dioxide from the exhaust but you still allow the CO2 to destroy the climate.
I keep saying this - doing little detours and slight course corrections wont help anymore. Sticking to the same path but moving a bit to the left and right again depending on who wins the game does not change that the path leads to a cliff. You have to jump tracks for that. Its like a meteor heading to Earth - if you start early enough, you can shift the course a bit and it misses, if you come too late, that little shift wont help and you have to shoot all that you have at it to move it. The time to act gradually is long past. Maybe it was in the 1970ie or 1950ies or even earlier. Half a century later, gradual little changes cant help. Sure, if you outright protest against some atorcity, the culture committing it wont like you. But the people may like you. And wasnt it the people who have the power? I am sure the Brazilian government and farmers dont like Cameron - still he protested that dam project. So what I am amazed is how easy it is for someone to criticize and protest (rightfully!) a project in a land far far away but not have the guts to do the same locally. It should franky be the other way around. Coming from North America, Cameron should fight for the land there, in his neighborhood - even more so than in some Jungle. But its always like that, no? People donate money for organizations helping the Amazon or the Elephants or protest projects in Africa and Asia. That is all cool, but they dont care for their own homes as much. Why is that? Why do people spend more on saving the rainforest than preventing the cause of the ongoing extinction of animals and all that? Because it is far away - people can hope that it works, they dont have to face the opposition for it. If people there hate you for your environmentalist efforts, you dont have to deal with them. Doing something locally will let you face the people that disagree, you may be standing in the front line facing some stormtrooper police force and get teargassed. Fighting locally means also feeling the consequences locally and that, Mr Cameron is what you seem to not want to face. Imagine someone like Cameron with all the fans of his with all his VIP-ness taking a stand against oil sand mining. Him standing in front of the bulldozers that want to deforest another mining area. Dont you think that would be massive? Even more massive than him begging the governments and oil companies for a little more safety in their refining processes and a bit better conservation efforts for the rivers that are poisoned by the sludge? What is the goal here - to make the disaster a little less disastrous or to really stop that disaster from going on? I know many people suffered and got beaten up and lost their "respectability" in "normal society" for their actions agains nuclear power in Germany. But without that fight by "extremists", we'd have more nuclear plants, more radiactive waste in unsafe mines and probably one or two "Störfall" in that area. Threading a fine line by slightly influencing the numbers of years a plant can run or running more experimental salt mines for storage does not attack the problem, it is merely fuddling around with the symptoms... None of these actions are aimed at the cause of the problem, they always just try to make things a bit easier. Like taking painkillers for the brain swelling you have that causes you headaches instead of getting a surgery to get rid of the swelling... |
Hmmm. These are some good points.
|
If I remember the commentary correctly, here in Canada on our news, the reporters thoughts were, as Cameron is from Canada, that he didn't want to ruffle too many government and bureaucratic feathers here and the comments were something about being 'proactive' rather than 'anti-something" was a better way to go. (srry it was a week ago, don't remember much but the gist of it).
|
Quote:
It is always a tradeoff - nobody said that beeing on the side of nature is easy. Unless maybe the people whose toes you step on are far enough away, like lets say in Brazil which definitely would make more money, more development, more jobs, more growth, more development, more infrastructure possible if they build that dam, JC opposed. I am sure the Indigenous cheer, but the farmers, city dwellers, government officials dont really like Cameron now. So what does it take - some famous Bollywood filmmaker who travel to Canada and stands up against the tar sands??? Sorry - Cameron lost basically all the credibility he gained with his opposition of the dam project with me. He makes fine and inspiring and great movies, but that is about it - that is his job, I like him for that, but his environmentalism beyond that is something I currently do not believe in anymore :( |
So you lost all respect for him... Because he's a moderate?
I just love being in the middle of the road sometimes. Everybody hates us! :D |
Nah - I lost not all respect of him. But a lot of any respect for his environmentalism work. Telling Brazilians to not build a dam for their energy needs but agreeing on the hydrocarbon mining in the own country is kind of odd, dont you think? If he had at least said, that he does not like the mining there, that people should leave it, but if they insist on using it, then do this and that. And not saying it is a valuable asset and resource for the future development of the country.
And in a way yes, I dont like the people who try walking "in the middle", as this path is exactly what brought us here. People who do not dare to go too far away from the center path. It is the reasons why politics of a country are always similar despite of the voted party in parliament. It is why environmental protection is always weakened to the point it fits the economy. I think people have to "get it" and "see", that we cannot any longer insist on this economy as the building structure of a society or a world. We have to realize that the natural world and clean water and clean air and a healthy soil and biodiversity just cannot be paid in dollars. And Avatar speaks for that. And Camerons activities in Brazil seemed to go for that - protect the land, even if it means sacrificing development in industry, infrastructure, economy. That was the right course. To turn the coat when it comes to North america and say it is unpleasant and destroying parts of the land, but we must do this for our development in industry, infrastructure and economy - that is something I really did not expect now. Avatar is as far from "moderate" as you can get - so I never expected JC to follow the theme of his movie - I thought he did a great movie, wonderful thing, powerful message - but he is a technophile rich hollywood person, he would not personally get engaged - him going to Brazil let me to think he really took in his own message in the movie - seeing him taking action like that, making a docu on the people there, running around in the jungle with face painted and promising the people there to try his part in preventing their world from beeing destroyed - that last episode reverts that to the beginning, to me thinking of him as a great director, but not really an environmental acivist when it comes to personal action. His job in that area may simply be to make good movies that get people to think, that was what I expected from him in the beginning. If it was not for the Brazilian episode, I would not be as disapppointed as I was when I saw that statement some days ago now. In the end, itis his talent to make movies. I want to see Avatar II and maybe he will make some more that get peole to think. That is what he can best :D |
Moderates make up more than 3/4 of the world, but all we seem to get in any position to speak are the crazies on both sides. JC, a moderate, speaks out, and of course the right already dislikes him, and now the left too shall abandon him.
|
Sad really... Not everyone can stand on an extreme all the time.
|
Ok, I may have been a bit harsh on JC (though I do not consider myself part of the silly one-dimensional left-right game of politics). It is just - I have seen a lot of information in the past months and really think that it is not anymore the time to be moderate. Beeing moderate means that nothing much will change and Earth cannot really afford that. That is my opinion of course and I have to accept that JC does not share this. The main point I think for me was, that he takes an extreme position in Brasil and a very moderate position in Canada, where he could potentially foster a lot bigger changes by taking position - bringing the discussion home to the people who have seen all his movies, who know him, who paid for his movies. To turn towards beeing moderate again after beeing on the more extreme range just because it is more convenient is a bit weak. The main argument for that is usually to say "if I take an extreme position no one will listen to me at all anymore, so I better suggest some minor changes only - better to have them in place than nothing at all". I would challenge that this assumption is true. Of course JC proposing all people to live like the NA'Vi and taking a stand against any kind of mining and even technology would place him in an extreme corner. Compared to that, taking a stand against vast clearcutting and mining operations just for oil is moderate in my mind. Especially if he would just speak out on that behalf - he does not have to chain himself to a tree or something - just say openly, that this whole thing is a very bad idea in general, that no matter how it is safeguarded, tailings dams can fail (as in Europe last week) and the deforestation cannot be minimized in any way as cant the massive amounts of water used and CO2 produced.
Settling for some increased safety measures, more efficient processing and a financial compensation for the native americans living in the affected area is not helping. The NA'Vi would not take light beer and blue jeans or roads as a compensation for leaving their homes, so there is not really any true compensation or minimizing of the impact this has on the human and nonhuman population of Alberta (and who would pay the deer and the birds and the fish a compensation anyway). So I did not expect him to physically stand and protect the area, I did not expect him to tell people about living differently as a solution, but I expected him not to endorse the whole thing as a "valuable resource" that is good for the people in Canada if they exploit it. The least I would have expected him to say is, that it is a bad idea, but if it has to be done, safety measures should be improved etc. |
He thinks for himself, see, you may think you're outside the the spectrum of politics, but you're not. Nobody is, I'm not, JC's not. However, based on what I've observed, you lean waaaaaay, waaaaaay to the left. On just about everything. Whereas myself and JC, seem to take less extreme views on some things, and perhaps more extreme left OR right views on other things.
I'm for alternative energies, and for allowing oil drilling. Healthcare and keeping guns in US citizens hands. I refuse to chain myself to a single sides way of thinking, JC seems to do the same, and I applaud him for that. A lot of people think similarly, but they don't talk much, so you never hear about them. Its always the extreme left and extreme right doing battle with the rest of us just kind of sitting here. |
Exactly... that's the problem with politics. The parties are all too similar and to different, depending on the issue, when in both cases I often disagree with all of the mainstream ones.
The left wingers have some points and some things I think 'WTF are they on about'. Same for the right wingers. The only people who DON'T in that I am completely opposed are authoritarians (and even then, that is usually mixed with another political stance which I may agree with part of). I think that even James Cameron bringing these to people's attention is a good thing though... Before all of this, I'd only heard of them vaguely and had no idea what was actually happening, same as what's going on in Brazil at the moment. While I may not be there so can't get directly involved, now I know I will try and do what I can. |
Quote:
Quote:
Anyways - I get that the "silent majority" sits smack in the middle - they just want things to go on as they do, believe in steering a little will avoide the icebergs approaching. The problem I have with "just kind of sitting here" is, that this is exactly this attitude that got us here, facing that iceberg. It is of course also the easiest way, and the one taken by people who just have not thought of global politics at all (this is not targeted at you personally, but to many people who just dont care and simply vote "the middle" out of beeing lazy). All I can say is that if nothing much changes, we will hit that iceberg. "just sitting there" will not help. If the NA'Vi would have been "just sitting there" at the tree of souls, the RDA would have bombed them and started mining Pandora excessively. Sometimes, you have to take a side and cant say "maybe". Do you take the side of Nature and the Planet or of hydrocarbon mining for cheap fuel? The middle ground would be to have both, but that is impossible - they are mutually exclusive. All you can do is to promise to "just do a little bit of devastation" or to "clean up after destroying" - but that is not really helping. To be blunt - imagine the trees there to be human beeings. That is a stretch, but take it for a moment. What do you think would they think - that it is a big progress to cut down a few less than originally planned (but still take down hundreds of thousands)? That it is all right if they are allowed to settle in the newly created landscape after the destruction? Don't you think it would not be the same again for a long long time? That is my standpoint. I am freaking emotionally attached to Nature and Ecology. And honestly I also see it as offensive if people from "the middle" make fun of my concerns, of my attachments, of me literally crying for a tree that is cut down, basically of calling my standpoint something "extreme". Quote:
Quote:
Ideally, all people should be asked on all aspects of politics that affect them and ideally they should all be well informed and able to formulate their own reasonable opinion. That is utopian of course within the system we are in now, but that is no reason not to strive towards that. |
I dont think you got a word I said. Your still part of the left. Environmentalism in all its forms has always been a liberal policy, different people to different degree's, but you're still to the left. Monarchy's are a right winged principal. There are people who want to return to those days, and reestablish state religions as a result. Everybody sits on the scale, even anarchists. Although, what you define as "anarchism", can vary.
And moderates sit here because we either don't have the time, or energy to argue with you radicals. We just sit here and take your abuse. We have the right telling us that gay's and Muslims are going to destroy us, your left telling us that guns and the environment are going to kill us. We try to make a rational decision, and get slapped down by BOTH sides for not agreeing 100% with their doctrine. You are the same as the extreme right, even if you don't want to be. This is why I'm just going to start writing in Jon Stewart on presidential election ballots. He's the only outspoken moderate out there these days. |
Quote:
Oh and then the soviet states of the East - they are left wing in your view, right? They wrecked havoc with the environment there. And then: Quote:
I am not saying that most of my views dont fit into what you would call "the left", but honestly I think a onedimensional spectrum can not serve the variety of political and socioeconomic opinions well. Depending on what parameter you fixate (environment, family, social net, economics, authoritarianism, liberty, pacifism,...) people will end up at a different point on that line. This goes as far as that nationalist jew haters start to form a self sufficient commune and practice a new age religion while trying to recreate feudalism. WTF? - Put that into your spectrum... Quote:
I guess one thing is evident. During the past, there were always a lot of moderates with people of different more extreme positions pulling at them in different directions. In the end some compromise ruled. And in a way that is all right - I am not opposed to compromises. But there are times I hate compromises. when it comes to a continued existence on this planet for example. I dont see it as a compromise if humans are trying to destroy the planet a little slower. Thats no compromise. It is as foul as Greenpeace giving away protected forestland to build an oil pipeline in exchange for some other area - or the government in Stuttgart, that offers talks about a compromise in that construction project but continues to build and even states that they will not stop building. Some things, you just cant do "a little bit", and when it comes to a living Earth, there are only two options - you can destroy it (big time or a little less than big time) - or you can save it! But if you want to see yourself as the hero that stands in the middle, unwaivering to the obviously nonsensical ramblings of "left" and "right" extremists, then so be it. Just saying that that position is about as radical as the others. A strict policy of "lets not change too much" can be extreme conservatism or it can be extreme resistant towards significant changes. Just because it is the current course in politics does not say anything on its extremeness... LOL - I just have the image in my head of a donkey walking towards a gorge with two people pulling him to either side, another one pulling him back and a fourth one sitting on top traing to make him go forward. Poor donkey. I guess the best option would be to stop for a moment and look at the options and the evidence presented rather than beeing stubborn and move on. |
So you want compromises... For issues you don't really care about. But on YOUR issues, compromise is out. Right. Mix in some more fear tactics on our imminent destruction, and we have more "We're correct they're wrong from the left!" And of course the right never shuts up about it either. Fun times, fun times...
And if the left shut up, then we'd just have to weather the rights constant stream of abuse. Because they will never shut up. EVER. (Except when I turn off Fox news, then its quiet) I don't want to hear your dogma. Anybody's dogma. I don't care. I don't want to hear "We're right they're wrong" I want to know whats happening, why, and how, so I can make my own rational decision, and not be attacked by everybody for either disagreeing with them or not being radical enough. |
Quote:
So scientific conclusion is for example that the climate is changing and that it is caused by civilization. That is like >90% in favour of that "leftist" theory. Still the "moderates" are just now - some 30 years after there was a convincing amount of evidence for it - starting to even consider taking steps and at the pace they do in conferences like Copenhagen this is not going anywhere. I am not accepting all leftist theories on faith, if that is what you think. I look into it, into the evidence, into anthropology, biology, chemistry, geology. I studied geosciences, chemistry and biology even some resource geology, which gave me a bit of a global perspective, I would say. And I drew my own conclusions from learning about history as a special interest, from personal experience with people not knowing anymore that one can eat food that comes from a fire or that milk comes from cows. There are no other conclusions I can come to as the ones I voice here, at least when it comes to the situation, the causes and the pressure to act. I am more open about the future, as this is obviously not yet written and cant be analyzed like the past can be. I more or less have some ideas and I can make an educated guess as to what will not help there. And what does not help at all is "business as usual" or "baby steps". So do your own research - look out for evidence, sift through books on anthropology, resource management, chemistry, biology, ecosystem science, history, economics even. I read only a tiny tiny fraction of all that is available probably. Just really do so! Too many "moderates" are not doing so. They are moderate because they dont see a need in sifting through evidence and papers in research journals or books on science - of because they dont have the time and prefer to choose a role model they can listen to and follow - or by simply taking the middle between the ramblings from the right and the left and hope that that is a good point there as in bartering for a price on a marketplace in Egypt. I dont know you, I cant say this about you, but many moderates could not tell me solid evidence or a good line of deduction to support heir standpoint, but without such a stance, I cannot believe that they are making the right choices. So let me ask you this to get to know you a bit better - what is your view of the development, of politics and civilization based on - how did you arrive at the standpoint, you are at now |
As far as global warming goes, this has been debated to death. I'd need to find it, but charting global climate change over the past few million years, we're currently approaching the peak temperature of our cycle, and it will go back down. None of us will be alive to see it of course, this is measured in thousands of years.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming....ges/vostok.jpg Not the exact chart I was looking for, but still. When you look at ALL the data rather than just the tiny snapshot of the past two decades, it suddenly looks normal. Now, you're the one who sounds just as crazy as the people saying the global temperature isn't changing. Since neither side will agree on anything, its up to a third party to say "Hey, maybe your both right!" In this case, yes the temperature is changing, no we are not responsible. |
So we end up with a global warming debate?
You know that the current ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is >380ppm, right? This gives us this: http://www.avatar-forums.com/attachm...0&d=1287138822 For the upper graph, CO2 ppm, this is based on actual data. For the lower part, with the "?", this is projections - no one knows how high the change will be, but looking at the two graphs and their correlation, you can predict where it will go. Climate modelling also predicts and increase in at least 2 °C for the current ppm CO2 (and that is the low estimate for a concentration not rising anymore. James Lovelock, inventor of the CCD in your webcam and NASA scientist estimated 8°C which would turn most of the world into desert). And one thing is pretty evident - the current oil and coal burning of millions and millions of tons of CO2 per day definitely contributes to the CO2 content of the atmosphere. It does not just happen to go from <300 during 1/2 a million years to 380 in 50 years coincidentially at the time people start to burn oil and coal massively. Also note that the increase is far steeper (100 years in that graph is a straight line up) than ever before. Also note, that the mechanisms to alleviate the increase in the past (forests and ocean life for example) are also beeing hindered. So no "maybe you are both right" does not cut it. The number of studies showing an anthropogenic climate change are vastly outnumbering the ones who show something else. Besides - high CO2 is not only bad for the climate it is also bad for the ocean acidity and other factors of less obvious consequences. Most people in the general public dont even know how greenhouse gasses act and what the consequences really are But the point is: How much hard evidence and conclusive deduction does it take to convince moderates to accept something. I think moderates are so tired of beeing told by "left and right wing" people what is the truth, that they simply shut down to any argument and rather do the easiest but most unsatisfying thing and simply take a stand that is between the opinions they are presented with without assigning different weight to them out of fear that this would make them less moderate. So if 90% of the studies show something and 10% show something else, you go on and say "Oh, lets make it 50%, that is in the middle. Do you see the illogic there? That is like 90 people saying one thing and 10 people saying another thing and by averaging this to 50 you give that 10 people about 10 times more credibility than the 90 people. And yes, this is still on topic - Tar sands mining produces several times as much CO2 emmissions (and an article in current issue of Science describes CO2 as the major greenhouse gas) per liter of oil than conventional drilling and I still say the massive evidence on this, as well as the obvious destruction of nature in Canada are reason enough for someone like Cameron to know and stand up against such insanity. |
Oh - just was reminded of a more accurate (but still lacking a number of dimensions) chart of political positions: The Political Compass - it is a 2 dimensional chart - you can even take a test and check some famous peoples position for comparison. I'd be interested on where you stand on that. I am far at the "bottom" and quite a bit to the "left" on that one (looking from the "middle" of the chart, I am a bit beyond the Dalai Lama and Ghandi LOL). Sadly, some of the questions are having presumptions that made me choose a position that I dont like. For example one question asks if civilization requires strong authorities to continue existing. An answer of "yes" means to score authoritarian, while a "No" would score libertarian, but I had to say "yes" as I really believe that a industrialized mass society (civilization) does require authority - but the presumption behind the question is of course that everyone thinks such a society is the goal or the only way to live. So it presumes that of course I would want civilization. My true answer would be "yes, civilization as we define it and as it is set up requires authority, but I dont want authority, even if that means dismantling civilization as we know it now". Of course that answer is not included - so maybe they should put in a 3rd dimension and a 4th and... ;)
|
60 year old charts don't mean much, here's a 10 year old one..
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...0-400k_yrs.gif And another for the temperature: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...0-400k_yrs.gif What we see is that the temperature has not risen as it should. I guess this is because of all the other poisons pumped up in the sky that keep sunlight from coming down to earth? Welcome new ice age... >.> |
I've done those political tests that map left/right and authoritarian/libertarian before. I place fairly evenly in the centre and fairly far towards libertarian, which is about right for how I'd class myself.
|
Yeah, Fosus, thanks for the charts. I had to copy them and overlap them to correlate them both but if you do that you can also clearly see the connection between CO2 rise first and temperature rise later.
As you can see then, it takes a while for the temperature to rise. As the increase in CO2 recently is happening in the blink of an eye, it can be expected to have an influence only with some delay. Predictions are, that it will happen within this century. The effect has been buffered a bit by the release of sulfur compounds in the atmosphere causing more clouds and most of all the oceans have taken up much of the CO2 and temperature increase. But as the oceans turn more acidic due to this they not only become less favourite places to live for animals, they also reach a point at which they just cannot take up any more CO2. As they also warm up slowly, the world as a whole warms up. Think of a loop-circle fountain that is inside a room. As long as the water in the fountain is cold, it will cool down the room by its lower temperature and by evaporation (this is used in some hot regions as a air conditioning). But if that goes on for a long time, the water will warm up and the air becomes saturated in vapor and so the cooling effect of the fountain is gone. This is what is happening with the oceans and the atmosphere and that is part of why global warming is not instantaneous but takes some decades to take hold. The last time, so much CO2 was in the atmosphere, reptilians had a definite advantage over mammals, the optimum habitat for mammals was Antarctica and there were no ice caps. If we are heading towards that, as scientists like Prof James Lovelock predict, humans will either have to find ways to live in a desert or move to Antarctica. I hope he is wrong. What are the chances for a next ice age? It is possible. Mainly one major mechanism could make it happen, that is a breakdown of the oceanic currents and a diversion of the gulf stream to Greenland instead of Europe. By that, northern regions could become colder, more ice and snow could form over Europe (as it is colder) and over Canada and Greenland (as they get more humidity) and the resulting albedo effect could cool down Earth. Personally, I dont believe that even this effect would be enough at this stage though, if CO2 emission is not stopped. Not diminished or reduced, but stopped completely. Give Earth the chance to deal with the CO2 that are now stored in the "buffers" and not reach a point at which they overflow... |
Thanks for the political test Aurora, it was quite interesting to see where I stood within the 'spectrum'.
Although, I still maintain that we should only label ourselves as 'us' in terms of beliefs and not try to unnecesarily brand ourselves with a certain group's 'logo'. Believe only what you believe and let other people try and rationlise where you fall in their mind. After all that... here's me. Political Compass Printable Graph |
Back on topic - tar sands mining.
Just found this: Petroleum Play Are you fracking serious? In times of dire need to move AWAY from oil as a resource that is KNOWN to cause immense damage, they teach kids how oil is good and a playful nice thing so they can grow up with the ideas in their heads that when they grow up they can be oil miners as well? And then add some phoney environmentalist points in it by not letting you build a pipeline through a forest while in reality they do this: Great Bear Rainforest RAVE Can you spell propaganda... sigh good grief... |
*facedesk* *facedesk* *facedesk*
|
Quote:
|
:facepalm:
that is... terrible. What's worse is that while hopefully most people will realise the obvious agenda, some people might not :( |
Oh and here is another interesting statement that gets dismissed in corporate media:
Quote:
Remember the Cree from way back? "Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money" But I'm sure the oil companies will pay for some shantytown for them to live in and give them adequately paying jobs in cleaning their refineries. I am going to puke... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All images and clips of Avatar are the exclusive property of 20th Century Fox.