LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006 From: Stourport-England Status: offline
|
I agree RL. And we have two choices; 1) to continue as now, and squabble over oil and gas for decades, maybe even centuries to come - with all the expenses of armament to protect that which we have squabbled over successfully, the potential for conflict that goes with that and the continuation of pollution worldwide and especially in those relatively untouched places (the Arctic, and probably soon also the Antarctic) where we go squabbling. Whilst a few of us get very wealthy indeed from all this squabbling, the monies which were spent on the squabble are derived from most of the rest of us, rendering us peasants the poorer. 2) to decide right now to move away from fossil fuel reliance, building a whole new economy based on alternative power sources, with the opportunity to develop wealth which is not reliant on the spoils of conflict in faraway places, and whose wealth spreads throughout the population. And as a spin off, we also get to live in less polluted local environments, and the warmongers still get to sell their wares to defend us as now and they get to sell them also to those who choose to squabble over fossil fuels. And we are independent of everyone else on the planet. But Option 1 is what we'll be going with, thanks to "leaders" who suckle at the teat of the few who will benefit hugely from Option 1, and who will think not for one moment about sending we peasants and our children off to die for their profits in the midnight sun at the poles. At least we might get to die in fresh air, which is more than could be said had we died at home under their magnanimous rule. E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|