Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#32|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
NO global demise of the human race after all?
Going broke there mr gates?
Putting your money where your mouth is costing to much??
only registered users can see external links
After all it is all about the money,
from climate change. Better think about yourself and people like you.
This is the actual post by Bill Gates:
only registered users can see external links
Here are some important statements:
"There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this:
In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us—just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature.
Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong. Although climate change will have serious consequences—particularly for people in the poorest countries—it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further."
"Although climate change will hurt poor people more than anyone else, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been. Understanding this will let us focus our limited resources on interventions that will have the greatest impact for the most vulnerable people."
"To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives."
"In short, climate change, disease, and poverty are all major problems. We should deal with them in proportion to the suffering they cause. And we should use data to maximize the impact of every action we take.
I believe that embracing the following three truths will help us do that."
Truth #1: Climate change is a serious problem, but it will not be the end of civilization.
"Even if the world takes only moderate action to curb climate change, the current consensus is that by 2100 the Earth’s average temperature will probably be between 2°C and 3°C higher than it was in 1850."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He is referring to the “MODERATE ACTION” scenario, which is somewhat subjective; whether the world will indeed follow a moderate action path is uncertain. If action is weaker (or worse) the warming could exceed 3 °C.
At the moment Trump is refusing to do anything and he is ramping up fossil fuel consumption. Other countries are also not doing anything even close to reach that “moderate action” scenario. That means they are performing along the high emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5), of which the range is about 3.3–5.7 °C projected temperature increase.
That projection MIGHT not predict the complete end of civilization, but it will force billions
of people to move from the hottest places on Earth.
Still, there is the risk of a "Hothouse Earth" feedback loop.
The paper "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene", published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in 2018, explores how crossing certain tipping points could lead to a long-term temperature rise of 4–5°C even if human emissions cease, with devastating consequences like massive sea-level rise.
It describes conditions leading to "serious disruptions" and an environment "inhospitable to current human societies," suggesting such a trajectory would likely take the climate beyond human adaptation limits, making the planet "largely uninhabitable" and raising the specter of civilizational collapse.
Part of what's left of civilization could possibly survive on Greenland, which is why
your billionaires are interested in conquering it. They want their progeny to survive,
on Greenland (or on Mars), while everyone else suffers and dies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current temperature has increased by about 1.3 °C to 1.6 °C above 1850-1900 levels, with 2024 being the warmest year on record and exceeding the 1.5 °C threshold.
In the hottest regions on Earth, climate change is
intensifying existing threats and creating new ones, primarily through more frequent and severe heatwaves, water scarcity, and desertification. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is warming at twice the global average, providing a clear example of these accelerating impacts.
Extreme heat and health
The most immediate and life-threatening effect is the dramatic increase in the intensity, frequency, and duration of heatwaves.
Health crisis: Heat-related mortality is increasing, particularly among the elderly and outdoor workers. High temperatures also worsen existing health issues like cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.
Threat to life: Some projections indicate that parts of the MENA region could experience heat and humidity levels that exceed the limits of human tolerance. In 2023, Al Hudaydah, a major city in Yemen, was projected to face over 300 days a year of unbearable heat if global warming continues at its current rate.
Urban heat island effect: Cities in hot regions trap and retain heat, making them significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas. This intensifies the effects of heatwaves for millions of urban residents.
Water scarcity and desertification
For regions already suffering from a lack of water, climate change is compounding a severe water crisis.
Accelerated water loss: Higher temperatures increase evaporation rates, drying out soil and reducing available water resources. The MENA region, with 12 of the world's 17 most water-stressed countries, is facing unprecedented water scarcity.
Desert expansion: Rising temperatures, less predictable rainfall, and land mismanagement are causing deserts to expand and consume fertile land. This process, known as desertification, reduces arable land and threatens food security.
Saltwater intrusion: In coastal areas like Egypt's Nile Delta, rising sea levels are causing saltwater to intrude into freshwater aquifers and farmland, poisoning the soil and displacing millions.
Food and agriculture
Agricultural systems are extremely vulnerable to heat and water stress, leading to a decline in food production.
Crop and livestock failure: High daytime and nighttime temperatures can damage crops and cause livestock to suffer from heat stress, resulting in reduced yields and productivity. Repeated droughts, such as those that contributed to the Syrian civil war, have devastated agricultural production in the Middle East.
Intensified food insecurity: Reduced crop yields and water scarcity are increasing food insecurity and malnutrition, especially in vulnerable communities.
Economic and social consequences
The environmental effects of climate change trigger a cascade of economic and social crises in the hottest areas.
Displacement and migration: Food and water shortages, combined with rising sea levels, are forcing people to flee their homes. Climate change adds another layer of pressure to already unstable regions, with millions projected to be displaced.
Infrastructure strain: Intense heat puts immense pressure on power grids and other infrastructure. Increased demand for air conditioning can cause energy shortages and blackouts, and heat can damage transport systems like railways.
Socioeconomic inequality: Those with the fewest resources suffer the most from climate change impacts. In hot areas, wealthier individuals can use air conditioning and migrate during heatwaves, while low-income workers, particularly those in outdoor jobs, face much higher risks.
Is this a religious war ?
The average Temperature about all over the world are getting higher. Sometimes some places are cooler, but trend is up.
I correlates with the concentration of some gasses in our atmosphere.
This year we had a very cool summer here, and people ask: what's up with global warming ? But That's not the definition of global warming. In Sum, this year the average global temperature was again higher than the years before.
I believe it is very hard to face dangerous thoughts about the future and even more uncomfortable when we feel helpless. But we have to, in every aspect of live. That's responsibility. No panic.
And surely, to do the necessary things It is even more uncomfortable. And worst, if you can't say your actions will lead to success.
Everyone believes what he wants to believe. Just look into yourself, what's the motivation to believe this or that.
You are responsible for your feelings, thought and belives.
If you say to the people, you eat very bad things. It will damage your body all over time. Like sweets, soft drinks amd so on.
Mostly the people react like: ahh, it is not that bad , and that's our way of life.
But time shows how fat, ugly and Ill people get. Just because they don't want to face an fact that is uncomfortable and changes are even more uncomfortable. And than they claiming about stupid doctor who can't help...
Sadly today it's very popular to ignore such "heavy" themes and even fighting against physical facts and science to protect our comfort zone.
So "let it run down the hill" it's easier. Our kids have to solve their problems than (or not, when many people die, the problem is also solved). We love our way of life more and don't want to mess up with things like responsibility.
Every moment we have a choice.
Sorry for my bad English.
only registered users can see external links
all just to save a little electricity.
What a third world country you live in.
We have LEDs in every natural color possible now.
Thomas Edison would love how innovation obsoleted his invention.
He would love how it lasted for more than 100 years too.
That's what scientists LIVE for. Progress!
Even the dimmers work perfectly. The only non-LED light-source I still have is in the shed, which is a CFL tube.
In the kitchen, we have a light fixture that required at least a 100W incandescent light bulb. I had lots of problems to replace that one, but now I use 20W LED grow lights for greenhouses from AliExpress, which cost less than a dollar per piece. The first few lasted about a year, but they are getting better. The current one is 2 years old now. It just requires a bit of soldering and screwing in place. That light is on for several hours per day. That's over $60 per year, cut to a 5th.
In the bathroom I had a fixture with 2 50W halogen bulbs. I replaced that one with a 8W LED module. It's now over 12 years old. No ugly blue light, but exactly what I wanted
in the bathroom.
I think blue light in general, from our led displays,tvs and bulbs is the issue, and there are wavelengths just off our scale that can also mess with us big time.
That's mainly caused by their smart-phone keeping them awake at night.
During the day, it's more healthy to have light with lots of blue in it.
People who sit in an office all day, like me, get too little daylight.
That can cause unhealthy sleep rhythm issues too.
The best solution is to have bright light with lots of blue during the day and less light without blue and lots of red in the evening. Incandescent lamps couldn't give us that, but LED has the potential to provide it. It's available right now, but it would be very expensive to have it throughout the house.
tax money.
only registered users can see external links
So when you think about investing tax money in some new scheme going around today, keep this in mind, i am sure there were people saying NO don't waste the money, only for it to come out years later they were right. But the people, won't get their tax money back, it is gone,forever.
“was successful, but unable to compete with rival photovoltaic solar technology,
such as rooftop panels, which have much lower capital and operating costs.”
It's solar that cannot compete with superior solar.
Still, PV solar cannot compete with onshore wind.
But, for areas with lots of sun and not much wind, it's better.
According to IRENA, in 2024 onshore wind had an average levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of about US $0.034 per kWh.
Solar PV was next cheapest, averaging around US $0.043 per kWh globally.
the global average temperature obviously wasn't -5°F.
That would have caused a global mass extinction event.
The rest of what he is saying is pretty accurate.
He's just spreading too much doubt about what we DO know.
That's fuel on the fire of climate change denialism.
(Belief is accepting something as true in the absence of sufficient evidence.)
You are young enough to support the energy transition for yourself.
I commend you for not closing off your mind to the scientifically proven reality.
It's not a rosy picture to accept, but if more people support climate action,
our future will become less black.
If the world had denied that CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, we would have had double the incidence of skin cancer and cataracts in 2025. However, because the world acted, the ozone layer is recovering instead of depleting.
well, um, what do you make of that? every day that goes by a different side of the story comes out.
Of course he's going to support anti-climate change lies. That's his job.
It's what Trump did with all agencies; put someone in charge of it, to destroy it.
Your article doesn't contain any facts, just talking points.
we are tired of hearing the whining
only registered users can see external links
instead of depending on government to make changes, make the changes on a smaller scale
"Be the mayor that makes buses electric; be the CEO who ends fossil fuel dependence; be the school that puts (up) solar roofs," he said."
buses don't work but why not put solar panels on a school roof? why not the private companys that want change just do it themselves?
When something big needs to happen, private industry is never up to it.
When there is a war, you don't ask private industry to defend you.
Climate change will be more damaging than any war ever in history.
But we need everyone, to DEFEND humanity from climate change.
It's the most important priority that humanity has ever faced.
That's what government is DESIGNED for; do the things that people don't do
on their own, for the benefit of all people.
What would be the most important industry to not give away to private ownership?
AKA, what industry would you prefer to be owned and controlled by the government?
How about manufacturing weapons of war, that you don't want your enemies to have?
Lets say that climate change is the crisis that scientists tell you it is?
Why would you trust every business owner to prevent it from happening?
Do you understand what a conflict of interest that is to a business owner?
On the one side, they want to make the most profit as possible, but on the other side they need to plan for a future that threatens everyone, including their business. Meanwhile, they have to compete with other businesses. That gives an incentive
to go for the short-term profit, and delay planning for the oncoming threat.
The businesses who do start planning for the oncoming threat, are in a disadvantage against their competition, that don't. It's an incentive to delay the long-term thinking
as much as possible, like a game of chicken.
How about we let government create a 'level playing field', so there is no incentive
to delay the long-term thinking as much as possible?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Europe is planning to invest an extra €800 Billion into the defense industry. I'm incredibly annoyed that they are thinking about just giving away that money, to make it more advantageous for the wealthy to invest in it. Fuck that! They should buy public ownership of the military industrial complex, so it is under democratic control and not act as another cash cow for the wealthy, to become even more wealthy. The taxpayer pays for the military equipment, so stop enriching the wealthy with the taxpayer's money.
of course europe is pissed off they are being expected to pay for their own defense. it takes away money from their pet projects
you just sold us the weapons. That's not just by our choice, that's how you wanted it
for many decades.
How does our price of gas relate to this? That's a private industry in my country, just as much as in the US. The taxes on gas are used for investments in renewable energy and as an incentive for people to buy fuel economic cars.
We do pay for those weapons that go to Ukraine. What the US pays is mostly an imaginary value; you donated almost expired munition to the Ukrainians, and calculate it at full price. If would have cost you money to discard of it. Meanwhile, Europe does pay the full price. Even then, Europe committed around $198 billion and the US only around $175 billion. That's to protect ourselves from your worst enemy, after WWII. The United States played a leading role in the creation and development of NATO. Only very recently did you start reconsidering that arrangement. Of course you wanted us to spend more, mostly on weapons Made in America. We already spent 3 times more on defense than Russia. That should be enough. We are happy to pick up the tap for Ukraine, but the US doesn't want to deliver. Now we have to invest in our own military industrial complex. It's not just the money, but also the time.
It's not a smart strategy for you, because it will create another superpower, that doesn't do your bidding anymore.
But why don't you tell your side of the story. How did the US defend Europe?
What wars did you do to defend us, and were not intended to maintain your position as the worlds strongest superpower?
The US is the biggest supplier of arms in the world. You cannot just cut Europe off, from a 80 year old history of weapon manufacturing deals, and expect Europe to CATCH UP in a few years.
HOW can you not understand that?
Do you ever THINK, before you say something?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ChatGPT:
1. U.S. Weapons Production Policy
- Domestic preference laws: The U.S. has longstanding policies like the Buy American Act and Defense Production Act prioritizing U.S. manufacturing for military needs.
- National security rationale: Ensures control over supply chains, reduces dependence on foreign suppliers, and protects sensitive technology.
- Major systems: Most advanced weapons (nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, stealth fighters) are entirely U.S.-built.
2. Allied Weapons Programs
- Export and joint programs: Allies like the UK, Australia, Japan, and NATO partners often buy U.S. systems (e.g., F‑35 fighter jet), but some parts are made jointly or domestically in partner countries.
- Offsets and licensing: Allies sometimes manufacture components locally under U.S. licenses (e.g., Israeli or Japanese modifications).
3. Exceptions and Foreign Inputs
- Certain subsystems or raw materials (e.g., rare earth elements, semiconductors) are sourced internationally.
- Some allies sell weapons to the U.S. (e.g., Sweden’s Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle) if they meet standards.
4. Military-Industrial Complex Influence
- The term refers to close ties between the Pentagon, defense contractors, and lawmakers, leading to:
- Lobbying for domestic production to protect U.S. jobs and congressional districts.
- Pressure on allies to buy U.S.-made systems for interoperability (e.g., NATO standardization).
Bottom Line:
- The U.S. strongly prefers and incentivizes domestic weapons production and export of U.S. systems to allies.
- But it does not absolutely forbid foreign-made weapons — though sensitive tech (e.g., stealth, nuclear) is tightly controlled.
- Many allied militaries use a mix of U.S. weapons and domestically developed systems.
It has been occurring for thousands of years, possibly since the Sun formed about
4.6 billion years ago. There is direct evidence for that existing the last few centuries
and indirect evidence going back millennia.
Scientists have been tracking and counting solar cycles accurately since 1749.
Solar cycle 1 began in 1755. Solar Cycle 25 (current cycle) began in December 2019,
with solar maximum officially reached around October 2024. Activity is expected to decline as we move toward the next solar minimum in the late 2020s. (11 x 25 = 275 years)
That's 25 accurately documented solar maximums, where all life on earth didn't end.
only registered users can see external links
Can you learn the difference between science and click bait?
Have you seen any real scientists warning about this?
Maybe some that warned to more closely monitor the power grid, to reduce damage.
No serious scientists predicted life on earth ending from the solar cycle, in 2025.
It's still possible that the sun will ever burb out a solar flare that ends all life, but life has persisted for about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years. The most powerful recorded solar flare is the Carrington Event of 1859, a massive solar storm that disrupted telegraphs and caused auroras worldwide. Even that event, far smaller than an extinction‑level event would need to be, did not cause biological harm on a global scale.
Earth’s cosmogenic isotope records (carbon‑14, beryllium‑10) show large solar particle events, around 774 CE and 993 CE (also called the Miyake events). These are the strongest known solar particle events in the last ~10,000 years, and there is evidence
they had measurable effects on Earth, but no evidence of mass biological harm or extinction‑level damage.
It would be an incredible coincidence if the sun ended all life on earth during our lifetimes. If all life on earth were to be wiped out in the coming 40 years, it would at least 99.99999% certain be human made.
only registered users can see external links
If you don't believe it, go find the evidence that shows he's wrong.
due to ananas's link, when 1 of these comes up used, um, 7k off? would be handy for sure.and easy to work on. so glad that concept is finally coming back to American thinking.
With many cities in Europe putting in emission zones, small start up companies
might be interested in something cheap to transport stuff around in those emission zones, since the big brand vans are still too expensive.
It's clear that your billionaires are worrying to completely miss the trend, but it will be
a tough competition against China.
If you keep putting up tariffs, Europe will do the same, and Amazon has no chance
to sell these electric trucks to Europe.
U.S. Port Collapse: 50,000 Containers COLLAPSE –
America’s Supply Chain Is BREAKING
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
at 20 years old, she needs to be either looking for a education or getting a job or getting married so someone can keep her up.
but no, she is out breaking the law.and aint learning her lessons from the punishment either. next time i hope she gets the 6 months in jail. maybe she will start her college course s in there or something productive
They are getting arrested almost every time.
She's doing exactly what she professed to believe in.
If she had quit her cause, you would call her a sell-out.
Instead she shows that she's committed, which you don't like.
On 9 June 2023, Thunberg graduated from high school. In 2023, the University of British Columbia awarded her an honorary Doctor of Laws degree, and the University of Helsinki conferred upon her an honorary Doctorate of Theology.
She is currently enrolled at Stockholm University, pursuing a bachelor's degree in Global Development.
She is doing exactly one of your options; continue her education.
And she didn't pick a subject that would discredit her convictions.
She obviously wants to be a global protest leader for climate action.
A few arrests during protests on her résumé is not a problem for that career.
Since when is the effort to save humanity not "something productive"?
22% of Americans are doing jobs that they self describe as meaningless.
Go talk to them.
only registered users can see external links
Some people care about other things than money.
There is no future in supporting that society.
She can be a little cog in the grinding machine, or she can try to make a difference.
I think she's making a courageous choice.
True, she might be sacrificing her own prosperity, in the goal of preventing
climate catastrophe, and great suffering for many people.
What is the definition of courage, in your opinion?
Isn't it something like; sacrificing, and doing something hard, for a good cause?
why not work a good paying job creating alternative energy sources or similar? be prosperous and contribute towards your goals?
I worry more about America, out of control of anyone.
There are people protesting the actions of China and America too,
but it isn't such a clear problem, with such clear solutions, which clearly isn't addressed enough.
It's nowhere near an "obvious lost cause", it's JUST a political choice.
One individual cannot nearly achieve anything important on her goals, by just working a good paying job creating alternative energy. It's very much debatable
if joining Extinction Rebellion does ANYTHING AT ALL, but she's pretty famous
and is inspiring people. She's also angering lots of people, so I don't know if she's
a net positive, but she's aspiring to be better than just a angry teen. I think she understands that. That's obviously why she's pursuing the bachelor's degree in Global Development. She already has fame, if she combines it with actual skills,
she might very well be that net positive.
Some people are born to lead, others are born to follow. She wants to lead.
Why don't you ask your "leaders" why they do what they do?
Is it maybe because you understand that they're only serving themselves?
less than 7 years and done. millions wasted by citys all over the US
only registered users can see external links
PLEASE note, the bankruptcy was filed in 2023. 3 years after Trump, 1 year before Trump so whos fault>?, not Trumps
No one ever denied that. It's not an economical choice, it's a sustainable choice.
chances are they are also very complicated to work on.
electric vehicles used to be very simple but now they add computers where none are needed
The only reason for why these busses are expensive and less reliable are the batteries.
Trams and trains are extremely reliable electric vehicles.
Electric busses with batteries will become more reliable too.
That requires investments and testing, which is why I support projects like that.
That might be more expensive and problematic at first, but it will be solved.
If you see what's needed to make an electric lawnmower, than I agree
that they are more complicated. To me, that's just problems to be solved.
Gas powered cars broke down all the time too, early in their development.
EV's are still early in their development, so it is to be expected of them.
That's no reason to not do that. Humanity needs to get of fossil fuels ASAP.
Do you know the YouTube channel "Aging Wheels"?
The presenter (Robert Dunn) is very entertaining.
He is who I am referring to for electric lawnmowers being complicated.
"This Electric Mower is Great! Until it Isn't..."
only registered users can see external links
"Spent $1500 to Fix Ryobi's Mistake"
only registered users can see external links
"This was Bugging Me So I Fixed It"
only registered users can see external links
--------------------------------------- added after 7 minutes
Liver transplants weren't always successful, but advancements in medicine have significantly improved outcomes over time. While the initial success of liver transplants was limited, advancements in surgical techniques, immunosuppressant drugs, and patient care have dramatically increased the survival rate and quality of life for transplant recipients.
Now, they practically warranty that the patient will live at least 5 yrs and many live a full life.
The moral is don’t give up. The end results are what matters.
BTW, why are you so against replacing internal combustion engines?
let the person who earns their wages buy what they wish with their money. and a city or state or government should be good stewards of the money they take from the people. it should be invested in what is reliable ,long lasting and quality built. not someone's science experiment.
the ford 300 inline 6 engine will easily go 400,000 miles with some Maintenace. that's why ups ran them for decades. why is it the governments have to invest in junk?
your lithium mining employees children and pollutes the ground water and is difficult to recycle.kinda like that nuclear waste you are so fond of.
only registered users can see external links
why should i want to glow in the dark so you can put coal miners out of a job?
As far as you wanting to drive a polluting hunk of iron, there's nothing I can do about it. Nor do I like anything that endangers mankind.
Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste
A major environmental concern related to nuclear power is the creation of radioactive wastes such as uranium mill tailings, spent (used) reactor fuel, and other radioactive wastes. These materials can remain radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.
Fossil fuels have significant negative environmental impacts, including contributing to climate change, air and water pollution, and resource depletion. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, leading to global warming and extreme weather events. They also cause air pollution with harmful pollutants like particulate matter and sulfur dioxide, impacting public health. Extraction and transportation can damage ecosystems, contaminate water, and disrupt habitats.
The environmental impacts of human sexual activity are multifaceted, ranging from waste generated by contraceptives and sexual health products
1. Waste Generation:
Contraceptives, including condoms, and other sexual health products like lubricants, generate packaging waste that ends up in landfills.
Longer-term contraceptive options like IUDs and implants can have less waste, but still come with their own risks and potential for environmental impact.
so uh, it may be best for you to stp having sex and walk everywhere you go if you don't want to endanger mankind.
into a negative for humanity.
If I thought that nuclear power would have enough benefits towards the survival of humanity, I would take the downsides of the nuclear waste for granted, but I think it's not the smartest direction to take. It's not renewable, it's also a fossil fuel, it's very expensive and dangerous, and most importantly, it doesn't combine with the irregular supply of solar and wind well. I prefer to invest money wisely, and investing in nuclear energy is not. It will only make the energy transition more expensive, slower and cause more downsides.
The argument that ..... is ending up in landfills is never a good one.
The basis for everything should be recycling. If they are making stuff that isn't recycled properly, then that should be priority one. Circularity is part of sustainability.
The number one issue with fossil fuels is that it's not recycled at all; we use it and then it's gone. The only thing we are doing is trying to find new sources that are not gone yet, which is increasingly more difficult.
I think CAT is at a stage when contraceptives are not needed anymore.
I didn't think I also needed to give you sexual education, phart.
protection is not just to prevent babies in modern times. it also prevents those things that ajax and sandpaper won't remove.
as for energy, i would rather see time and money spent on geothermal. nothing to recycle. Recycling cost alot of money and creates pollution during material transport and reforming.
just 55 degree air that can assist in heating or cooling of anything from rooms on up.
How can that ever be better than extracting the useful resources out of waste
and re-using it? All useful resources would just be depleted very soon.
In most cases, recycling costs much less energy and creates much less pollution than making the materials from scratch.
In The Netherlands we are recycling glass since 1972. Organized recycling of paper started around 1916, but in the 70s the national system was introduced. Cans were removed from waste starting in the 80s. In the 90s aluminum recycling was improved and currently about 75% of all aluminum is extracted from our waste.
rebuild a engine or electric motor instead of grinding and melting and repouring metal.
New Comment Go to top