It's interesting and illustrative that the left thinks you need to be 21 to buy a gun, yet they are perfectly ok with ruining life as we know it on the basis of the ramblings of a 16 year old kid. And don't kid yourself. Doing what this kid is demanding will destroy our economy. Utility prices would go up tenfold probably. Kiss your car good-bye. Kiss your house good-bye. We would have mass unemployment, and people would be reduced to medieval standards of living. Of course, the left would welcome that since they see man's very existence, particularly white men, as an environment crime.
Funny how most of the right is perfectly fine with kids being passionate about a fairy tale deity that they pray to, but when one is passionate about the science that says we are turning our planet into a worse place to exist she's the one who is mentally ill.... lmao
I'm not using anything against her. She is a victim and I'm pointing out to what extremes the left will go to just to push their climate narrative. You're doing the same with 3 and 4 year old kids and your transgender lunacy. Ya'll can no longer find any adults to believe in the leftist fantasy, so you move on to the children. It's despicable, but I can see the logic in it as a political weapon. It's worked in the past. All we need now is to put them in uniform, a gender neutral uniform of course. The new age Hitler youth. How appropriate for the anti fascist fascists.
I’m doing what now? What transgender issues has to do with antagonistic behavior by adults toward a kid, I don’t know. But, hey, if you want to wear a dress, Captain, do you and maybe you’ll be able to focus on the topic at hand rather oppressing who you really are.
Perhaps Greta should be offered a post that has teeth at the United Nations. We need someone who has a sense of urgency when it comes to the health for all the world’s inhabitants. Both biomass and biodiversity have been taking some big hits due to habitat loss caused by agriculture and over building. Hazardous chemicals from pesticides, fertilizer runoff, and petrochemicals have adversely affected species that may not seem to have direct impact to us. However, since nature is basically one big food chain, any link of that chain dying off affects other species next to it and in turn affects those next to them. The apparent mass die off of insects, birds, and amphibians on a global scale is an indication we are facing a true global emergency. As a truck driver, I know a bit about bugs. And windshields. I used to dread certain times of year in certain locations because of the cleaning I would have to do on my big windshield. Nowadays, even driving through the flood affected states this Summer, I could go a couple of days without cleaning my windshield instead of twice a day in the past. Nature may be able to handle a little global warming or it may now be yet another stressor. One thing is for certain, nature is losing to habitat destruction, pollution, and over harvesting and there is no indication that current trends are changing. What happens when many of the species we rely on directly or indirectly go extinct? Cows, chickens, corn, and cockroaches will be what’s left of the world. For a little while, anyway, before humans end up choking like a mass of fish on a drying up pond. A reasonable solution would be for all countries to empower a third party with the authority to enact laws that all countries would have to abide by. Obviously that third party is the United Nations. However, many powerful business leaders feel the United Nations has a political agenda that is contrary to the interests of the United States. That may be, but we are watching our planet die before our eyes and there are significant inefficient and unnecessary industry practices that are harmful to our environment. Although there may be areas that may lend themselves to some compromise between industry and the inhabitants of the planet, we must remember the stakes and the nearly free reign industry had for last few centuries.
I did not say we should hand over “all sovereignty” to the United Nations. Our planet’s habitats have been in decline for a long tine and meaningful corrective action is still not getting done. Besides, we would always have veto power for use when they go too far off the deep end. There should be specific, enforceable benchmarks that cover things like the number and size of contiguous wilderness areas, required enforcement of land and sea species harvest limits according to their population, and greater pollution control requirements on industry. We don’t have to have miles upon miles of suburban sprawl, dump hazardous chemicals into our waterways, or harvest other species into extinction. Yes, the cost of many products would go up. However, other industries that have been adversely affected by pollution and over harvesting would benefit by thoughtful regulations and vigorous enforcement practices. Balance is key in nature as well as in business. Non compliance with environmental regulations must be made more expensive than compliance if we are to see a positive impact on our environment.
Yeah, great idea, what could possibly go wrong? I'm sure any such body will reflect the will of the American people and have our best interests at heart, or will those too be a casualty of the war on energy use?