Quote:
Originally posted by fastpat
I don't have an argument with that, that's a quality of life issue and we know that we can reduce those things, because we have reduced them. If you compare current production cars with those produced before the PCV was introduced there is a very large change, 99% reduction or something close to it. I had a 9 year old car, a 1992, that had 140,000 miles on it and was still well under limits in California before it went away. That's typical.
The issue with so-called "Global Warming" is wholly different. "Global Warming" is world sociofascism (I combine all socialists under one identification) attempting to get control of industry, lifestyles, and nearly everything else that they've tried to get control of for the last 100+ years via a phony catastrophic environmental issue. Sociofascists think that this will give them the handle they've longed for, but could only get in some countries. It's their last chance at the gold ring.
|
Truely a political discussion which is normelly the nexus of any arguement from education to proper diets. It doesn't matter the reason, we should reduce the bad gases and bad liquids and the bad solids from our environs.
You want political? How about 100 Billion for a war? Do you know how much 100 billion could do in the private sector to not only clean up but to tighten up?
I am really starting to believe that if the war was go by a private concern they could do so more effectively - no disrespect to our brave soliders but they will all agree that every aspect could be tighter.
The answer - privitize every freaking thing. Thats neo-capitalism.