are involved in some great big global conspiracy to reduce pollution and create more sustainable methods for producing energy and fuel, and right-wingers claim, how do right-wingers benefit by opposing it?
disco stu, so you say opposing it helps power be consolidated in the corporations rather than the government who are pretty much working hand in hand anyway to creat policy?
his divine shadow, like the one sided thinking.
KPK02 sounds like you need to update your information a tad bit.
You are obviously 5o years behind if you think the USA is considered "the rich".
ted w sorry I guess I should have put quotes around "the liberal media".
steelgrave if you were as informed as you think you are you might actually be dangerous instead of comical.
Oh boohoo lasvegas, they have all of our best interest in mind when spying on American citizens and trying to talk you into giving up rights for security, but don't have it in mind when trying to develop a decent source of fuel and energy.
Did they have you best interest in mind when they did the same thing while developing nuclear weapons or no?
washjeffstudent, there are only two underlying arguments to the whole global warming scenario.
#1 pollution and nonsutainability is good or
#2 pollution is bad and sustainable methods are needed.
By opposing one you are supporting the other whether you like lies or not.
robzu97, so now there is something wrong with personal gain and capitalism when it comes to the environment. How socialist of you.
uncle pennybags, get over your excuses.
anything there is a company can make money off of if there is a demand for it.
even today, most companies create demand through advertising. there is no loss in demand when changing fuels or reducing pollution that for the most part can be turned into, or sold to companies that can turn it into industrial useful products.
disco stu, so you say opposing it helps power be consolidated in the corporations rather than the government who are pretty much working hand in hand anyway to creat policy?
his divine shadow, like the one sided thinking.
KPK02 sounds like you need to update your information a tad bit.
You are obviously 5o years behind if you think the USA is considered "the rich".
ted w sorry I guess I should have put quotes around "the liberal media".
steelgrave if you were as informed as you think you are you might actually be dangerous instead of comical.
Oh boohoo lasvegas, they have all of our best interest in mind when spying on American citizens and trying to talk you into giving up rights for security, but don't have it in mind when trying to develop a decent source of fuel and energy.
Did they have you best interest in mind when they did the same thing while developing nuclear weapons or no?
washjeffstudent, there are only two underlying arguments to the whole global warming scenario.
#1 pollution and nonsutainability is good or
#2 pollution is bad and sustainable methods are needed.
By opposing one you are supporting the other whether you like lies or not.
robzu97, so now there is something wrong with personal gain and capitalism when it comes to the environment. How socialist of you.
uncle pennybags, get over your excuses.
anything there is a company can make money off of if there is a demand for it.
even today, most companies create demand through advertising. there is no loss in demand when changing fuels or reducing pollution that for the most part can be turned into, or sold to companies that can turn it into industrial useful products.