Forums > Social Discussion > Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life Ad in USA

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...3456
Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:US ads praise carbon dioxide By Deborah Zabarenko in Washington 18may06



A LITTLE girl blows away dandelion fluff as an announcer says, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life", in an advertisement targeting global warming "alarmists", especially Al Gore.



Herald Sun Newspaper



Anyone know whats going on with this Competitive Enterprise Institute?????







confused


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete Topic

TheWibbler
old hand
Location: New Zealand
Member Since: 11th Apr 2003
Total posts: 920
Posted:just a quicky about the awesom tokamak fusion reactor:


Non-Https Image Link


And a star trek warp drive


Non-Https Image Link


Not to appear like a dirty trekie but they both use energy into a torus shape to make power.

Patriarch, carbon dioxide isn't 'pollution' you've been told that already. You walk round life with your eyes closed. I cannot open them for you. But i'll tell you one thing, you destory the earth, you go to hell. Any religion that thinks the opposite must have lucifer as its god.


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:So now its a Bush led uranium nuclear solution to global warming . Out of the frying pan into the fire, Id say.

What about using clean, green Thorium instead of Uranium. NO waste and you can chew up old nuclear weapons in a thorium reactor.


smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

TheWibbler
old hand
Location: New Zealand
Member Since: 11th Apr 2003
Total posts: 920
Posted:Does seem weird not to use thorium instead of uranium ???

Fusion reactors use hydrogen and i think the waste product is drinking water, but i'm not sure.


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

Domino
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Member Since: 26th May 2004
Total posts: 757
Posted:David Attenborough is apparently the most travelled lifeform in the history of the planet.

Also, I thin that the fusion looks much cooler than the warp drive - so shiney ubbrollsmile


Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.

Delete

ickleMatt
ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.
Member Since: 4th Apr 2006
Total posts: 242
Posted: Written by:



Looking at all the data in the graphs seems to show that we have very little to worry about.





Are you unable to conceive the implications of the graphs? Admittedly nobody knows the exact consequences of a warming of the planet, but you can be sure that:

a) There will be an increase in the sea level - billions will have to be spent on flood protection in many seaboard cities

b) There will be increased desertification - millions of people will lose their livelihood, where do you think they will go? Will the West accept all of these immigrants? Will they continue to hand out aid, knowing that it is unsustainable? Or will they be left to die?

c) Many of the worlds rainforests will be damaged - leading to the loss of thousands of species of animals and plants, many of which would have been useful in developing medical cures.

These are some of costs that you seem to be unable to perceive.



 Written by:



Over the past 100 years, we've had less than a degree of variation in the temperature. Expand the graph to take in the past 5,000 years, and you will see that the Earth has done far more than this in the past. This is why the link between human activity and change in global temperatures is so weak.





Sure they earths temp made have varied more in the past 5,000 than the recent 100, but what we are talking about is the rate of change. Such an increased rate can only be attributed to human actions, pirates or not.



 Written by:



If people want drastic changes in economies, they are going to have to explain how the benefits outweigh the costs. In other words, compare the economic impact on people's lives (jobs being lost, higher cost of living) to the benefits (the decrease in temperature).





I would argue that changes in the economies are required, climate changing or not. (An interesting recent article regarding this) The current economic models are causing an increasing gap between rich and poor. This gap is unsustainable politically - it will lead to major conflict. Especially when we factor in the forthcoming resource wars (oil and water).



I think you need to look at the bigger picture when you talk about costs. Costs doesnt mean the GDP of such and such a country over the next 10 years, but what are the holistic implications of our actions. We need to look at this economically, politically, socially and anthropolgically. It is a falsehood to assume that economics is the sum of all things.



 Written by:



We need goals, measured not in a decrease CO2 emissions, but in benefits to earth.





If you cant admit that the science can prove that humans are affecting climate change or not how can you think it can give prescriptions on the costs of climate change?



 Written by:



Big business, on the other hand, are extremely familiar with the concept of making short term sacrifices for long term benefits.





Yes they are (unless of course they are corrupt and are involved in politics, like Enron for example), but when the economic models that they use externalize climate change, how do you expect them to see the long term benefits of not creating CO2 emissions.



 Written by:



This may be done through oil getting more expensive (for example, if we were to run out of oil), or from other methods becoming cheaper (such as a viable fuel cell, or nuclear fusion).





Do you think that the airline industry got to how it is without a little help from their political friends? The Oil industry is deeply involved in world politics. Subsidies on other forms of energy generation will only help to balance things out a little bit.



 Written by:



Although alarmists have been predicting that we will run out of oil for decades now, I am beginning to suspect that this may not be the case. We know now that oil may not in fact be a limited resource, but may be created naturally under the ground. If so, this may explain why our reserves have lasted so much longer than we've thought they should, and why we keep finding new sources.





Alarmists? How are willing to put forward such unsubstantiated reports yet dismiss climate change models out of hand?

The other night I hand a dream that in an instant all the oil in the world disappeared, I had to travel home from India to the UK by horse. It was a happy dream.



 Written by:



Some see pollution as reason to eliminate humans (or certain races) from the earth. I see it as the motivation to advance humanity and make us all better off.





Agreed, but maybe we have a different idea of advancement of humanity, I see it as us learning how to live in equilibrium with the world around us, not be using it as a means to make as much money as possible.


Delete

TheWibbler
old hand
Location: New Zealand
Member Since: 11th Apr 2003
Total posts: 920
Posted:Personally i think fundamentalist christians are largly to blame for global climate change.

God gave them "dominion" over the earth and everything on it, the greedy f@c#wits took that to mean they could rape their mother earth.

Also the end of the world is a good thing for christians because they believe after everyone is wiped out they will be resurected and live in heaven on earth. That's assuming that their god isn't lucifer and hasn't tricked them all into destroying the planet and living in eternal damnation.

There's a remarkable ammount of people on the net who seem to agree with this seemingly ludicous statement.

And everything patriarch says makes me believe it more and more

frown


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:Some stuff on cows!!

I ran into a woman at a conference last night whose husband actually did a PhD on the use of fertilisers and cow flatulence... still looking for that one, but apparently the diet, and whether a cow is lactating or not, affects the farting... for example the nitrogen from fertilisers turns into nitrous oxide.

 Written by:


Cow flatulence
It has been estimated that 9 to 12% of the energy that a cow consumes is turned to methane that is released either through flatulence or burping (Radford, 2001). A huge number of factors affect methane emission, including diet, barn conditions and whether the cow is lactating, but an average cow in a barn produce 542 liters of methane a day, and 600 liters when out in a field (Adam, 2000).




"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

TheWibbler
old hand
Location: New Zealand
Member Since: 11th Apr 2003
Total posts: 920
Posted:Yeah industrial farming is destroying our planet for sure

BTW there was a quote saying "vegans where leather sandals" but that's not true, "vegitarians might wear leather sandals" but a vegan by definition doesn't use any animal products, if they do then they are vegitarian.

A vegan friend of mine won't even eat honey. Also there is a shoe company in brighton called Vegan Shoes, they make fake leather shoes and are really good.


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:it was a joke, honey, relax
to all: please use a name or source when quoting so we can go back and look at the context


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Sethis
Sethis

Pooh-Bah
Location: York University
Member Since: 16th May 2005
Total posts: 1762
Posted: Written by: icklematt


The other night I hand a dream that in an instant all the oil in the world disappeared, I had to travel home from India to the UK by horse. It was a happy dream.




smile


After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:I think there is a high probability that as vegetarianism increases, any decrease in emissions from cows , will be off-set by increased emissions from bean eaters.


wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted: Written by: Stone


I think there is a high probability that as vegetarianism increases, any decrease in emissions from cows , will be off-set by increased emissions from bean eaters.


wink



Best post I've read today. ubblol


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Cheers Patriarch917 smile

Perhaps someone can "model" it, and come up with some pretty graphs.

I thought it was impressive that you were willing to cut down on CO2 emissions, even though you were not really convinced of global warming.




beerchug


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

TheWibbler
old hand
Location: New Zealand
Member Since: 11th Apr 2003
Total posts: 920
Posted:stone haha,

The benefit to the planet of everyone being vegitarian is increadible. We'd have somethinglike 6 times as much water. If everyone were Vegan we'd have around 15 times as much water.

This is because it takes about 1000 litres of water to make 1 hamburger

m


Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted:ubblol to Stone!!

Just read this in the New Scientist: Canada possibly pulling out of Kyoto, or at least asking for "more flexibility", whatever that means (possibly do less now and try and catch up in 20 years time??)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025533.200.html


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

dream
dream

currently mending
Location: Bristol
Member Since: 15th Jul 2003
Total posts: 493
Posted: Written by:

Just read this in the New Scientist: Canada possibly pulling out of Kyoto, or at least asking for "more flexibility", whatever that means (possibly do less now and try and catch up in 20 years time??)



It means they've just voted in a conservative (right wing) government.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

Nietzsche

Delete

Patriarch917
Patriarch917

I make my own people.
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
Member Since: 2nd Oct 2005
Total posts: 607
Posted:The Arctic used to be a subtropical paradise:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060531/D8HUVKSO0.html


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:that sounds really cool and totally a set up for a great scifi novel or movie or graphic

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: Stone


I think there is a high probability that as vegetarianism increases, any decrease in emissions from cows , will be off-set by increased emissions from bean eaters.


wink



the major difference it would make would be the reduction the deforestation of the amazon for animal rearing.

the deforestation of the rainforests is a far, far bigger contributor to the levels of carbon in the atmosphere than human created co2 emissions are.


cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

ickleMatt
ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.
Member Since: 4th Apr 2006
Total posts: 242
Posted: Written by: coleman


 Written by: Stone


I think there is a high probability that as vegetarianism increases, any decrease in emissions from cows , will be off-set by increased emissions from bean eaters.


wink



the major difference it would make would be the reduction the deforestation of the amazon for animal rearing.

the deforestation of the rainforests is a far, far bigger contributor to the levels of carbon in the atmosphere than human created co2 emissions are.


cole. x



Also large areas of forest are also cleared for soya crops. Soya is a major part of cattle feed (along with chop old bits of the last generation of cattle :barf: ).

The huge sales of burgers are contributing doubly for the destruction of the most important CO2 sink in the world.

Ban the burger. Or at least stop this senseless destruction, by making the cost of clearing forest relect the longterm costs of climate change (ie. price it out of the market). Come on Lula where are your green credentials now you are in office?


Delete

NOn
activist for HoPper liberation.
Location: ffidrac
Member Since: 23rd Jun 2004
Total posts: 1643
Posted:yeah, instead it would be deforested in order to grow large scale agricultural crops umm

Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006

if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:oh you beat me to it, at least the cows put some *cough* fertilzer back in the ground.
the cows may trample and such but agriculturally the ground would get all torn up
btw i will have my steak and have it bloody


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

coleman
coleman

big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Member Since: 29th Aug 2002
Total posts: 7330
Posted: Written by: NOn



yeah, instead it would be deforested in order to grow large scale agricultural crops umm





that suggests you believe that:



[the area that the cows are grazed on] + [the area that the cow feed that they eat is grown on] = [the area required to grow vegetables that could directly replace the cows in the human's food supply]



i'm fully prepared to accept this if you can show that growing human-edible crops takes up nearly twice as much area as the cow-edible crops.





cole. x


"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Delete

Birgit
Birgit

had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
Location: Edinburgh
Member Since: 27th Jan 2005
Total posts: 4145
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917


The Arctic used to be a subtropical paradise:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060531/D8HUVKSO0.html




Yeah, and the area where I'm from, about 400 metres above sea level, used to be an ocean. But that doesn't mean we have to hurry a climate change so that it happens again wink


"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half

Delete

NOn
activist for HoPper liberation.
Location: ffidrac
Member Since: 23rd Jun 2004
Total posts: 1643
Posted: Written by: coleman


 Written by: NOn


yeah, instead it would be deforested in order to grow large scale agricultural crops umm



that suggests you believe that:

[the area that the cows are grazed on] + [the area that the cow feed that they eat is grown on] = [the area required to grow vegetables that could directly replace the cows in the human's food supply]

i'm fully prepared to accept this if you can show that growing human-edible crops takes up nearly twice as much area as the cow-edible crops.


cole. x



not exactly, no the reason why so much rainforest is deforested for keeping cattle is because the once fertile land is exposed to the elements, like it has been before, loses it's nutrients and become desertified. I don't see what the difference would be clearing it for crops, just because there would be plants there, the rainforest has the amount of life in it that it has because tallest trees are there to protect everything underneath from the actually very harsh conditions of that particular climate. Even if you plough the land full of fertiliser and pesticides, I don't believe you can keep up the level of nutrients in the soil, and so more areas are again deforested...

But that's just geography, also if you think about it, if everyone did go vegetarian, you would need larger scale crops in order to feed everybody, and you'd there would more than certainly be a demand for it all year round... so what better place to grow it than in the biggest most fertile river basin in the world, which receives sunlight all year round, even if you destroy it's natural fertility in the process...

So the point, was not that it necessarily uses the same amount of land resources at all, but that the possible effects of an alternative should also be considered. Fact is, land is valuable, and if there suddenly becomes no market in cows, it doesn't automatically mean that the economic value and market potential of that rainforest land would change, it would just be turned over to another type of business. Chance would be a fine thing though, all the companies who own (or should i say... took over..?) that land may have a change of heart and run their business in a way that values the land environmentally and emotionally as well as economically...

i hope that makes sense, i'm not opposed to vegetarianism in the slightest, i am one, but i am wary that any sudden and drastic change to the environment could affect it detrimentally, even if it's meant with the best intentions.


Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006

if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.

Delete

ickleMatt
ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.
Member Since: 4th Apr 2006
Total posts: 242
Posted:NOn:

Sure if the land has been cleared before there ain't much you can do. The problem is that this process is STILL GOING on. What happens to the rainforest still left is dependant on the Brazilian people (ie. their representatives, the government). As for economic use of the forest: there are sustainable methods to selectively cut some trees that are used for economic purposes. These schemes are exploited by companies because there is a lack of enforcement of the laws.

As for land use between animal production and crops, I think you're a little confused:

A drop in production of cattle will not mean increased land used for crops. Cows need to eat as well - land use in beef production is not just for the cows but also their feed.

So if you have to feed an animal to feed upon it, then it follows that both the land use and water use is higher in this form of production. Land and water are both resources that will be the cause of conflict in the future. Resource wars

In India the majority of people are vegetarian; it is highly unlikely that they would be able to sustain the amount of production required if they ate as much meat as they do in other parts of Asia, let alone Europe or the States.

"Quantitative environmental evaluations of meat, fresh vegetables, and processed protein based on soybeans suggest that the environmental burden of vegetarian foods is usually relatively low when production and processing are considered."

- 'Quantification of the environmental impact of different dietary protein choices', Lucas Reijnders and Sam Soret, American journal of Clincial Nutrition, 2003

Don't get me worng I love meat. mmmmm meat. But I HAVE changed my diet so meat is something I have occassionally rather than it being a staple part of my daily food. Why have I done this? Because I disagree with the intensive farming practices that come about by making animal products as cheap as possible, therefore I try and only eat organic. Organic is expensive so I only buy it occasionally, therefore I eat less meat. Besides it tastes better as well biggrin

The above is an example of how changing the economics of production can lead to more sustainable methods.

And if someone starts complaining that this means that the poor can't eat meat any more; well thats the market for you. What you're talking about is a class issue not an environmental issue (ie. go and join up with you local socialist party, I'll be right behind you, and stop conflating class with environment).


Delete

NOn
activist for HoPper liberation.
Location: ffidrac
Member Since: 23rd Jun 2004
Total posts: 1643
Posted:i do understand the difference in resource use, between the cattle feeding and the crops, and i know it's not going to be as much, i've said that. It has really very little to do with the idea i am trying to get across. If you want to know the ratio of resource use, you need a statistician with all the figures... not me!

the MAIN point i wanted to exaggerate is that stopping cattle farming is not going to stop deforestation! Yes, it can be reduced but not stopped, and the extent to which it can be reduced does depend how the land is subsequently treated.

IF in our hypothetical vegetarian world, the land that has been destroyed by cattle farming could be regenerated through it's use by a number of small scale farms, providing for the amazon area, and run by the local people, THEN we might expect a stop on the deforestation of the area.

BUT, given the current economical climate, international trade agreements and the general overpopulation of the planet, i wouldn't have said that was about to happen. There is potential that that land can be deforested and further devastated by intensive agriculture of crops, it could also be industrialised, it could become a holiday resort, it COULD be left alone to regenerate itself, but with 6 and a half billion people in the world, i'm sure someone will try and have their hands on it. Give me a guarantee that it's going to be the good guy, and i'll withdraw the argument!

I disagree with the production of cheap meat in this way too, and i can't think it's very good quality, neither do i think that crops for human consumption that might hypothetically be grown on the same land would be good quality, supposing they are farmed using large-scale agricultural methods. By which, i mean fields and fields of crops, that require tons of machinery to harvest and are shipped thousands of miles across the world for sale... so why not at least consider that as another potentially damaging model, that we should also try and avoid??

I hope that i have somehow finally managed to make myself clear, I'm not in disagreement at all, call me devil's advocate if you will, but good design principles tell me that all angles should at least be considered first. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, people didn't have the luxury of multimillion pound computer systems that can provide forecasts for almost anything, and since the possibility is there, why shouldn't it be used to assess ALL potential outcomes rather than just the one preferential option, wouldn't we at least then have a clearer idea of the best step forward?

I'm sorry, but I for one just want to know the whole story, and I want other people to say it and i want them to think about it. Sometimes the environmentalist propaganda is as bad as the multinationals and it irritates me. For crissakes, be realistic about it, the greenhouse effect can't be forced to reverse, we're never going to have environmental utopia with everyone breathing fresh clean air, having access to safe drinking water and food, where all the armies disband and governments start pleasing everybody... But then... maybe i'm just a pessimist, and the whole world will miraculously change by taking a handful of measures...


Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006

if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.

Delete

NOn
activist for HoPper liberation.
Location: ffidrac
Member Since: 23rd Jun 2004
Total posts: 1643
Posted:N.B. That last paragraph is not aimed at anyone particular involved in the discussion or anywhere else, just an outpouring of my general frustration with the whole issue.... frown

Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006

if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.

Delete

ickleMatt
ickleMatt

enthusiast
Location: L.O.N.D.O.N.
Member Since: 4th Apr 2006
Total posts: 242
Posted:But then we are in agreement after all. smile

Any step in the right direction, is a step further down the right path. The stopping of intensive cattle production would mean those in the power have admitted that their is a problem, this in it self would be a momentous advance! Sure its not way the end of the story, but hey when is the story going to stop? Stories like this never stop.

Where the difference lies between the multinationals and the environmental groups are:
a) environmentalist are not driven by the profit/growth fetish,
b) any environmental group worth their salt admit that the produce propaganda

Sure I have my beef with many environmentalists, especially those who seem to think that humans play no part in ecosystems: the ejection of the Bushman from reserves in Southern Africa being an example.

Fundamentally I don't understand your pessimism. Your interest in the Slow movement surely tells you that their IS an alternative. Sure its going to be hard work, a real struggle, it may not even happen in your life time. But the Slow movement shows you the first few steps on a path that human kind can and must take to reach where ever we REALLY want to go.


Delete

NOn
activist for HoPper liberation.
Location: ffidrac
Member Since: 23rd Jun 2004
Total posts: 1643
Posted:yeah, we are in agreement. It's nice that you're so positive, i seem to be able to simultanously believe in the prospect of utopia and the prospect of nuclear wasteland, so i swing from being very pessimistic to optimistic quite regularly, it's kind of the only way i can justify the contradictions between what i know is necessary and what i actually do... Like for example, talking about carbon emissions over the internet on the laptop that i completely splashed out on, and use so much that for all i know the kilowattage of energy is equivalent to flying three times round the world smile (and yes, i am aware... nay, i hope that is an exaggeration, but i'm not really into stats, as i said...)

so ok, stop mass farming of cattle in the amazon, because slowly made organic local food is so much better anyway wink
peace


Aurinko freedom agreement reached 10th Sept 2006

if it makes no sense that's because it's NOn-sense.

Delete

Page: 1...3456