PDA

View Full Version : Save the melting Artic from oil drilling, industrial fishing and conflict, sign here


Sammo
Jul 21st, 2012, 09:50 PM
GREENPEACE'S INITIATIVE TO SAVE THE ARTIC from oil drilling, industrial fishing and conflict.

In 30 years 2/3 of the Artic have melted.

Sign here please:

http://www.savethearctic.org/

MPierce
Jul 22nd, 2012, 02:24 PM
Nobody cares about all that shit. They're more interested in TWAT

Sammo
Jul 22nd, 2012, 03:05 PM
They'll remember this when they become floating corpses.

debby
Jul 22nd, 2012, 03:20 PM
Nobody cares about all that shit. They're more interested in TWAT

:lol:

Or maybe both interested.

I signed the petition, Sammo, hopefully it will make something happen ! (which I doubt...)

Onslow
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:29 PM
this, among other small "climate" things, is not meant to change anything. it's for the people to feel better about themselves. the people who believe in the climate change but also have huge carbon foot prints and are too lazy to change their lifestyle. sign your name and sins are forgiven...

Sammo
Jul 22nd, 2012, 04:34 PM
this, among other small "climate" things, is not meant to change anything. it's for the people to feel better about themselves. the people who believe in the climate change but also have huge carbon foot prints and are too lazy to change their lifestyle. sign your name and sins are forgiven...

Well I dont even have a car :lol:

*JR*
Jul 22nd, 2012, 05:43 PM
Well I dont even have a car :lol:

OK, but the unofficial "Czar of Climate Change" (Al Gore, of course) lives in a huge McMansion and buys carbon offset credits from Generation Investment Management, a company he cofounded and is a partner in. :rolleyes:

And this (Greenpeace sponsored) petition is not even editable; they just want ppl 2B parrots. :spit: And it mixes 2 issues, the risk of arctic drilling, and the shrinkage of the glaciers (there and elsewhere) from climate change.

In other words, a warming climate from fossil fuel burning is independent of where the fossil fuels are extracted. We can either convert to alternatives (including more "wind, waves, solar, and geothermal") along with yes, modern nuclear plants; or conserve far more.

And ppl should either carpool to work, etc. or use public transportation. As they said during WW II, which I'm sure its historian Max can attest to:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/use_it_up/images_html/images/ride_with_hitler.jpg

MaxQue
Jul 22nd, 2012, 06:23 PM
I have a big issue with that petition. There is islands in the Arctic which already belong to countries (Russia, Canana...). There is no reason for them to recnounce their soveignety on them.

Sammo
Jul 22nd, 2012, 06:44 PM
In other words, a warming climate from fossil fuel burning is independent of where the fossil fuels are extracted. We can either convert to alternatives (including more "wind, waves, solar, and geothermal") along with yes, modern nuclear plants; or conserve far more.


How exactly would those modern nuclear plants work? I'm against nuclear power because they're too risky, I mean: terrorist attack - Chernobyl V2, that simple. I really really hope fussion power can work in 30 years as they say it will, but I have my doubts, they've been saying the same for decades, although now they say it's 'for real'.

*JR*
Jul 22nd, 2012, 07:28 PM
How exactly would those modern nuclear plants work? I'm against nuclear power because they're too risky, I mean: terrorist attack - Chernobyl V2, that simple. I really really hope fussion power can work in 30 years as they say it will, but I have my doubts, they've been saying the same for decades, although now they say it's 'for real'.

Japan (mis) handled Fuck-u-shima the way the US did the Deepwater Horizon well the year B4, letting the company essentially call the shots (though each had an incentive to cover their asses). In an emergency of either type, the government should nationalize the cleanup, and give someone with the willingness to act like Attila the Hun if necessary the authority to give the orders. :boxing:

in Japan, TEPCO was seeking to save the very expensive uranium in the fuel rods, and minimize the perceived damage. Had the Japanese "cut their losses" starting within say 48 hours and buried the reactors in layers of cement or concrete interspersed with lead to block the radiation (both dropped from US cargo planes on Okinawa) they'd have stopped the spiraling damage.

And regarding Arctic drilling, Shell Oil has like 15 of the mechanisms that were developed as the oil gushed in the Gulf positioned in the Arctic. If you don't want undersea drilling, the technology (leaving a "small footprint") now exists to safely drill the frozen ground on Alaska's North Slope in the winter.

Of course a lot of the radical environmentalists (many of who live in places like NYC, and rarely visit the Arctic) don't want any fossil fuels burned, and would like the US gasoline price as high as possible... consistent with not getting Obama and Congressional Democrats beaten, which IS a political dilemma. :shrug:

Fuck-u-shima had GE Mark I reactors, not manufactured since the 60s, though I agree that even modern ones shouldn't be built in earthquake-prone areas, like the East Coast of Japan; or the Pacific Coast of Kahl-eee-fornya, where a couple are on the verge of being shut down. (San Onofre and Diablo Canyon).