Eco - windmills ... (bit OT)

The management of the oil company does it for them.

Do you really believe that "the stockholders" have much of a say in running companies? They do, only when they're wealthy people who own a preponderance of the stock, which lets them control who sits on the board. The "little guys" are generally disorganized and unfocused.

I just love the Johnson Wax -- "a family company" -- ads. "Family company" means it's not public -- the Johnsons own the stock, making them unaccountable to anyone else. They might very well be as sincere as they paint themselves, but being family-owned does not, per se, guarantee that a business will try to behave in a responsible manner, that goes beyond merely making money. (Contrary to what you might think about my opinions, making money is a good thing.)

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:iikodf$eld$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

It appears you don't.

You lose.

You might want to read about what happened to W Eugene Smith, one of the great photojournalists, when he tried to document a Japanese business's pollution of the waters near its plant.

One of his photos -- "Tomoko and Mother in the Bath" -- showing a mother bathing her child, whose body was deformed by mercury poisoning -- combines beauty and horror in a way not easily described in words. It is one of the greatest photographs ever taken. The child's deformities were /wholly/ the fault of the business placing profit above responsibility to its community.

The copyright holder has withdrawn the photo, so I can't find a Website with it.

If you ever saw it, you would burst into tears. So shut the f*ck up about how wonderful an unregulated marketplace is, you piece of moral s*it.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:iimstk$iov$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

a few bad examples don't make an entire picture. OF course,the one who first resorts to profanity LOSES. You lost this argument.

Oh,and if "business" is so evil,then YOU,being such a moral person,should not be using any product from any business. That would include the Internet,the computer,the food you buy at the store,etc.

No, I said it exactly as intended. I guess the subtlety of that was - well - just too subtle for you ... It is the *model* that is pushed by the MMGW high priests as immutable ("we're right, therefore you must be wrong", remember?), so when the facts do not fit that model, an excuse for the factual anomaly is invented, and given a fancy name ...

Arfa

Well, for the rest of the world aside from you, I would contend that it really does, which is why the perceived problem of belief in the science among the general populace, exists in the first place. It is this point that I believe both you, and the presenter of that programme, missed ...

Arfa

That's a far better use to put them to. I wonder how they get up there in the first place ?

Arfa

Up to the point where "science" conflicts with what people would LIKE to believe -- it gets in the way of their making money.

well -

The "facts" are that there was been a noticeable rise in the Earth's temperature over the past 20+ years. You can't change this, so you have to change the model.

Well, they didn't land there with a paraglider (no wind, no thermals) or helicopter (turbine blades in the way), so I guess they just broke into the tower and climbed up the internal ladder. Tour of the insides:

And virtually everyone either ignores this problem, or feels helpless to do anything.

Two other views which have been expressed here:

Doing anything is an affront to personal freedom.

Anything we do will have undesirable side-effects, so we should do nothing.

PeterD wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Plague.

First,I don't believe we are anywhere close to the "carrying capacity" of the Earth. Some places are jam packed,others are sparsely populated.

WHAT to "do" about "excess population",and how do "we" determine HOW MANY people "we" are going to allow for any particular region? Who gets to be the "we"? IMO,that's starting to get a bit "Big Brother-ish". It's CREEPY. I see parallels to Soylent Green.

Most places don't even use good farming techniques,wasting or depleting a lot of arable land. South America is stripping the rainforests,slash and burn,for uses the land is not suitable for. many places around the world still burn wood for cooking and heating. I saw on "Martin Yan's China"(PBS-TV) where their people outside of the cities are burning the waste stalks from rice and wheat harvests for their cooking. so much for "carbon control"....

No, we're not close to it. So we're supposed to wait until things get so bad we no longer have any rational alternatives?

I agree. That's why I suggested (I think) that everyone, everywhere, be forced to limit the size of their family to two children.

If people everywhere would start talking about it, we might come to a consensus, perhaps even without getting government involved. Of course, what do you do about people who adore children, and want to have huge families?