Climate Change: the costs of doing nothing

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113


Check out what he is saying at 4:43. I believe he is referring to the Bill's opening up of permitting as an easier process to increase oil & gas production beyond anything it has recently been at.(This includes easier production than anything that existed even during Trump's regime.) This would definitely deal with Russia/Ukraine.

I haven't read the bill, but it seems like it might be meeting short term needs and long term goals in the same bill. That is what many of us have been talking about. If so, it meets the Republican party in the middle. They will fight the bill and never admit that though. It shows the absolute mess this war between the parties brings about. They(both parties) can't shut themselves down for two seconds, in order to legitimately consider the merits of a bill before them. It is only Democrats vs Republicans that occupies their minds.

Quit bickering and do your job!
Seems like it should be a sunset bill if anything. Federal O&G permitting is annoying but it’s not insurmountable. There are plenty of existing permits waiting to be drilled. the Real debate we’re having is are we willing to make a deal with the devil, long term, that provides enough financial insurance to the fossil fuel industry to make investing in those drilling permits a viable investment.

It’s not just a “how do we deal with inflation caused by a global supply shortage” it’s how do we deal with it while not painting ourselves into a corner in terms of climate change.
 
Last edited:

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
The language of the bill in a lot of places, goes through '31.
I don’t support propping up the oil industry that far in the future. I’d rather pay more at the pump and let them go the way of the horse drawn carriage. once ubiquitous, then suddenly in rapid decline.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Go right ahead you daft ol bastar'. It's only 8 or 9 years to pull up to the pump with a replacement. You find a substitute tomorrow, and get back to me. I'll not be waiting by the phone.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
Go right ahead you daft ol bastar'. It's only 8 or 9 years to pull up to the pump with a replacement. You find a substitute tomorrow, and get back to me. I'll not be waiting by the phone.
I don’t need to fund a replacement, I just don’t need to invest in their companies’ continued surety of financially beneficial regulatory environment. I want investors to feel like there is a risk to continued investment in fossil fuels, because there is a risk. No more sweetheart deals to subsidize the industry. No more regulation with kid gloves.

Let the free market determine what a fair price of oil should be when a regulator says you have to check these 9 boxes before you can get a permit. Demand is demand. Supply is supply. If demand necessitates a high enough price for a producer to deal with the polution Of their product then the product will be produced. If demand isn’t high enough, then it won’t be.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
I don’t need to fund a replacement, I just don’t need to invest in their companies’ continued surety of financially beneficial regulatory environment. I want investors to feel like there is a risk to continued investment in fossil fuels, because there is a risk. No more sweetheart deals to subsidize the industry. No more regulation with kid gloves.

Let the free market determine what a fair price of oil should be when a regulator says you have to check these 9 boxes before you can get a permit.
I was simply speaking about permitting being made easier through '31 possibly. I am assuming they aren't planning on investing in oil and gas through '31. That was just an oft used sunset date for numerous parts of the bill. I skimmed it, and saw it stated for many things.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
I was simply speaking about permitting being made easier through '31 possibly. I am assuming they aren't planning on investing in oil and gas through '31. That was just an oft used sunset date for numerous parts of the bill. I skimmed it, and saw it stated for many things.
That’s what I’m saying though, I don’t think we should be making permitting easier. Permitting isn’t that hard.

Whats really being done is that Renewables development is being tied to oil and gas leasing which is imposing restrictions on renewables dev and detrimenting them so we can keep the status quo.

There are real problems when oil and gas leasing is being done as a priority on lands that don’t even have significant oil reserves and it’s holding up renewables development. That’s already happening and that provision of this bill will only make things worse. It also means that an environmentalist NIMBY group that doesn’t want ANY development can stop a renewables development by stopping an oil and gas lease sale on environmental grounds which might have nothing to do with the renewables impact (like potential groundwater contamination)

Go read Section 50265. It’s bull:crap:

If anything it should work both ways… an oil lease shouldn’t be offered unless a minimum volume of renewable rights of way are approved by the feds.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
After reading the bill I’m somewhat surprised the green energy people are supporting the same. Reads like Manchin got what he wanted in the bill and the Dems figured they could claim a political victory .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
After reading the bill I’m somewhat surprised the green energy people are supporting the same. Reads like Manchin got what he wanted in the bill and the Dems figured they could claim a political victory .
And the Republicans will fight it like the plague, praying enough Dems can pass it.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
Section 50265
I don't like how it ties oil & gas and renewable energy leases on the same piece of land to each other. If anything it should tie money in oil & gas leases and renewable leases in a general accounting sheet to each other rather than tied to a piece of land. There might be a piece of land that oil will destroy the environment, and not with solar, or vice versa. Certain species of fauna or animals might be affected more by one, and less by the other.
 

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
This is all Federal and off shore stuff though, so it won't make that much difference in oil production.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,171
625
113
la la land
plastic bags replaced paper bags to save trees
we dont burn garbage to reduce air polusion, now we have more methane gas.

for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
Was wondering how long it would take the left to tie climate change to Covid 😂
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
The cost of doing nothing:


TELEMMGLPICT000305461933_1_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqgeM9nLqjJU1C6JsEKW4oSt3bi7s1wsZuWO3ma0o_jZI.jpeg
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
Not diminishing the climate change aspect but the Rhine seems to be historically unreliable when it comes to water levels.


It's not only the Rhine though. The Po (Italy), Loire (France), Thames (UK), Guadiana (Spain), Danube (Eastern Europe) are all having the same issues.


Same thing we're seeing in the American Southwest.

I seem to recall being told that because of Climate Change the world would become wetter. That seems to be false in various areas of the globe.
 
Last edited:
  • Sad
Reactions: watu05

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,011
172
63
I seem to recall being told that because of Climate Change the world would become wetter. That seems to be false in various areas of the globe.
For every 1 degree increase in temperature, the atmosphere can hold 4% more moisture which can be let loose by the increased number of severe storms. Also weather patterns change which changes the normal supply sources for rivers. Simple statements don't describe the complexity involved.

Also affecting rivers such as the Colorado are the effects of dams and excessive water use which is why we see so many photos of Lake Meade and Lake Powell drying up. Those dams were build to irrigate arid land and support the growth of large cities. The total demand for water now exceeds supply. Add in decreasing snow melt and it's a major crisis and source of interstate contention for states along the Colorado.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
It's not only the Rhine though. The Po (Italy), Loire (France), Thames (UK), Guadiana (Spain), Danube (Eastern Europe) are all having the same issues.


Same thing we're seeing in the American Southwest.

I seem to recall being told that because of Climate Change the world would become wetter. That seems to be false in various areas of the globe.
We are indeed getting wetter on the whole. Surely your not basing this statement from one summer? Almost as bad as our beloved conservative poster saying there is no global warming because it’s been cold for the last two weeks. Climate changes take years to determine. Science.


 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
Look at the CHANGE in precipitation by area. You're going to leave Billions of people in populated areas around the globe (and important aquatic transportation corridors) without water while other areas will see more. Unless you plan on piping that water thousands of miles, you're not seeing the real issue here.

precipitation_figure3_2022.png


If you notice, you're essentially shifting the water volume away from the rockies and towards the Mississippi River Valley, so anywhere on that relies on the Spring Runoff from the Rockies is going to have a lot of trouble. Especially the Western US, and I would expect that even though they will see greater average rainfall, places like Kansas & Nebraska will have a lot of problems as well.
 
Last edited:

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
Look at the CHANGE in precipitation by area. You're going to leave Billions of people in populated areas around the globe (and important aquatic transportation corridors) without water while other areas will see more. Unless you plan on piping that water thousands of miles, you're not seeing the real issue here.

precipitation_figure3_2022.png


If you notice, you're essentially shifting the water volume away from the rockies and towards the Mississippi River Valley, so anywhere on that relies on the Spring Runoff from the Rockies is going to have a lot of trouble. Especially the Western US, and I would expect that even though they will see greater average rainfall, places like Kansas & Nebraska will have a lot of problems as well.
Did anyone expect the wetter climate to be uniform across the globe? Weather patterns simply don’t work like that. There will of course be areas which receive diminished rainfall although as I’ve said in the past and are now being proven correct the overall climate will be wetter.

This is even more reason we need to be spending money to adjust to the warming climate. More water needs to be captured and stored on the west coast. Population has obviously grown to a point in certain arid portions of the globe where said density is likely not sustainable going forward. Until we get China and India on board there is zero chance of staying below the set drop dead numbers or significantly dealing with this issue longterm. Spending money on dealing with the consequences is vital.
 
Last edited:

URedskin54

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2005
8,992
7,337
113
Look at the CHANGE in precipitation by area. You're going to leave Billions of people in populated areas around the globe (and important aquatic transportation corridors) without water while other areas will see more. Unless you plan on piping that water thousands of miles, you're not seeing the real issue here.

precipitation_figure3_2022.png


If you notice, you're essentially shifting the water volume away from the rockies and towards the Mississippi River Valley, so anywhere on that relies on the Spring Runoff from the Rockies is going to have a lot of trouble. Especially the Western US, and I would expect that even though they will see greater average rainfall, places like Kansas & Nebraska will have a lot of problems as well.

You've gotta be pretty pumped that those Houston residents are going to keep getting flooded out of their homes like they deserve though right?
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
Did anyone expect the wetter climate to be uniform across the globe? Weather patterns simply don’t work like that. There will of course be areas which receive diminished rainfall although as I’ve said in the past and are now being proven correct the overall climate will be wetter.

This is even more reason we need to be spending money to adjust to the warming climate. More water needs to be captured and stored on the west coast. Population has obviously grown to a point in certain arid portions of the globe where said density is likely not sustainable going forward. Until we get China and India on board there is zero chance of staying below the set drop dead numbers or significantly dealing with this issue longterm. Spending money on dealing with the consequences is vital.
And the fact that the regional climate change will be non-uniform will lead to inhospitable conditions in major population centers across the globe. It will lead to mass migration, to overcrowding of existing population centers and existing infrastructure, and eventually to new geopolitical and eventually military conflicts over hospitable lands.

That is my ENTIRE POINT when I say the cost of doing nothing (or trying to 'adapt) is much, much, much greater than the cost of trying to prevent / curb the emissions.

Where do the millions of people living in Europe go when their land can no longer physically sustain the level of population it currently does and there are no open lands to migrate to? It's simply an impossible ask, to spend enough money to deal with that kind of migration, and to replace the existing infrastructure of entire civilizations.

You think going from oil to renewables is expensive? How expensive do you think it will be to build enough infrastructure in say ... Missouri to deal with an influx of impoverished population the size of France?

These conflicts are ultimately going to make WWII look like the Union-Jenks game.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
You've gotta be pretty pumped that those Houston residents are going to keep getting flooded out of their homes like they deserve though right?
Houston proper tends to vote Democrat. Can the floods please be directed to the surrounding suburbs? (I kid).
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
And the fact that the regional climate change will be non-uniform will lead to inhospitable conditions in major population centers across the globe. It will lead to mass migration, to overcrowding of existing population centers and existing infrastructure, and eventually to new geopolitical and eventually military conflicts over hospitable lands.

That is my ENTIRE POINT when I say the cost of doing nothing (or trying to 'adapt) is much, much, much greater than the cost of trying to prevent / curb the emissions.

Where do the millions of people living in Europe go when their land can no longer physically sustain the level of population it currently does and there are no open lands to migrate to? It's simply an impossible ask, to spend enough money to deal with that kind of migration, and to replace the existing infrastructure of entire civilizations.

You think going from oil to renewables is expensive? How expensive do you think it will be to build enough infrastructure in say ... Missouri to deal with an influx of impoverished population the size of France?

These conflicts are ultimately going to make WWII look like the Union-Jenks game.
Other than southern and eastern Spain we’re not seeing or forecast to see anything like you’re referring. I continue to feel like I’m talking to a 5 year old on this topic. Again….as long as China and India continue their current course there is zero we can do to make a significant impact on longterm climate change or prevent global emissions from surpassing the drop dead number. It’s simple math and science. Which you continue to ignore. We better spend some money preparing for the future as there’s very little the US can do to change it.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Apr 18, 2011
8,171
625
113
la la land
Other than southern and eastern Spain we’re not seeing or forecast to see anything like you’re referring. I continue to feel like I’m talking to a 5 year old on this topic. Again….as long as China and India continue their current course there is zero we can do to make a significant impact on longterm climate change or prevent global emissions from surpassing the drop dead number. It’s simple math and science. Which you continue to ignore. We better spend some money preparing for the future as there’s very little the US can do to
change it.
there are many factors that can be attributed to climate change. we are just one small part

the current approach is like driving donw a street full of chug holes, and we think that just putting on new tires will make the ride smoother.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
Other than southern and eastern Spain we’re not seeing or forecast to see anything like you’re referring. I continue to feel like I’m talking to a 5 year old on this topic. Again….as long as China and India continue their current course there is zero we can do to make a significant impact on longterm climate change or prevent global emissions from surpassing the drop dead number. It’s simple math and science. Which you continue to ignore. We better spend some money preparing for the future as there’s very little the US can do to change it.
WWIII it is. You refuse to anticipate the repercussions of your decisions.

YOURS IS NOT A FUTURE YOU CAN “PREPARE FOR” It doesn’t matter how much you think that you can. You are wrong.
 
Last edited:

Gmoney4WW

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
22,368
8,321
113
WWIII it is. You refuse to anticipate the repercussions of your decisions.

YOURS IS NOT A FUTURE YOU CAN “PREPARE FOR” It doesn’t matter how much you think that you can. You are wrong.
You always ignore fact that we could do everything we can, and spend buttloads of money on it, and it still wouldn't make a difference. India & China have to cooperate for any of it to have a chance. They refuse. We can't make a dent in the situation with no help from them. So you want to put your head in the sand, and pray they wake up. It's too late.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
You always ignore fact that we could do everything we can, and spend buttloads of money on it, and it still wouldn't make a difference. India & China have to cooperate for any of it to have a chance. They refuse. We can't make a dent in the situation with no help from them. So you want to put your head in the sand, and pray they wake up. It's too late.
I don't ignore that fact that they are stubborn and they are roadblocks to what needs to be done, I say it's lest costly, and more likely to succeed, even with its huge cost and small chance of succeeding. We can try to adapt, and spend even more boatloads of money adaptation efforts, and it still won't make a difference. I have a better chance of convincing the Chinese that they need to change than I do ultimately beating the insurmountable odds and adapting to climate change without pushing humanity back to the stoneage via natural disasters combined with military conflict (and quite possibly nuclear war)
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
WWIII it is. You refuse to anticipate the repercussions of your decisions.

YOURS IS NOT A FUTURE YOU CAN “PREPARE FOR” It doesn’t matter how much you think that you can. You are wrong.
YOURS IS NOT A SOLUTION WHICH CAN SUCCEED. Your incapability to follow simple math is simply dumbfounding. This isn’t an opinion it’s mathematics. Simple mathematics at that. Your proposal is to spend our entire resources trying to prevent something which we don’t control. We will end up broke and unable to remotely cope with a warming climate. Americans will starve and we will have done nothing to secure food and water supplies. It’s insanity.

You have never explained how the US can prevent us from passing the drop dead line with the likes of India and China continuing to increase coal fired plants as well as emissions overall. Until you can you have no viable plan. You refuse to accept reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
YOURS IS NOT A SOLUTION WHICH CAN SUCCEED. Your incapability to follow simple math is simply dumbfounding. This isn’t an opinion it’s mathematics. Simple mathematics at that. Your proposal is to spend our entire resources trying to prevent something which we don’t control. We will end up broke and unable to remotely cope with a warming climate. Americans will starve and we will have done nothing to secure food and water supplies. It’s insanity.

You have never explained how the US can prevent us from passing the drop dead line with the likes of India and China continuing to increase coal fired plants as well as emissions overall. Until you can you have no viable plan. You refuse to accept reality.
You want to test your math skills against mine? Ok. I pick Partial Differential Equations. Let's go. Or maybe if that's not your speed we could just go for some Linear Algebra with a few multivariate matrix applications.

I understand what you're saying. Without China (and other countries') participation in our efforts; we will reach points at which we can not unravel what has been done. This will have serious consequences. That is a given. You are correct. I don't dispute that whatsoever.

What I am saying, and you keep failing to understand, is that society's ability to 'adapt' to the consequences of our actions will be much improved if we don't keep exacerbating our problems by slow playing our efforts to stop their causes. I understand that it will be ludicrously costly; however, I've already given you an example, that the costs of adaptation to the (more or less) status quo that you advocate for are in the long run exponentially more costly than doing all that we can now.

I've given you the logical reasoning to explain how and why that we are likely to see population migration. This logic is supported by evidence that you provided. This is in my opinion inevitable given what climate science predicts given a (more or less) unaltered course of action by the human race. The fact that we're already seeing the effects of our past emissions around the globe should just provide even more evidence to my premise.

How many people do you think will starve globally when the place where they live, which used to be habitable is no longer habitable and they have nowhere to go that can support their presence or the presence of their neighbors. What you're ultimately suggesting is picking up entire countries and transplanting all of their housing, their sewer systems, their electric grids, their power generation, their roads, their bridges, their schools, their languages, their governments etc... to a new location... How do you not understand that such an exercise is orders of magnitude more costly (and logistically impossible) than shifting our energy generation strategy? Finally, that plan is only possible in a vacuum where there is no greed for natural resources. That greed will inevitably lead to conflict which just makes the exercise's success even less likely.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: watu05

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
You want to test your math skills against mine? Ok. I pick Partial Differential Equations. Let's go. Or maybe if that's not your speed we could just go for some Linear Algebra with a few multivariate matrix applications.

I understand what you're saying. Without China (and other countries') participation in our efforts we will reach points at which we can not unravel what has been done which have serious consequences. You are correct. I don't dispute that whatsoever. What I am saying, and you keep failing to understand, is that society's ability to 'adapt' to the consequences of our actions will be much improved, if we don't keep exacerbating the problems that lead to worse and worse consequences. I don't care how much it costs. I've already given you an example, that the costs of adaptation to the (more or less) status quo that you advocate for are in the long run exponentially more costly than doing all that we can now. And I've given you the logical reasoning to explain how and why that scenario is likely to come to pass, given what climate science predicts given a (more or less) unaltered course of action. The fact that we're already seeing the effects of our past emissions around the globe should just provide even more evidence to my premise.
I have a minor in mathematics. I’ll go head to head with you any day my friend :).

I’m not advocating for us not to reduce emissions. Green energy is a good thing. Reducing emissions is a good thing. I am advocating being realistic as it relates to China and Co. In the next ten years the US will become a minor player in the global emission game. China and Co continue to expand fossil fuel emissions. Coal being the most alarming. This is the world we live in. Now and in the future. We better devote resources to ensure the US is in the best possible position to ensure its population has sufficient food and water. Any climate discussion regarding the actions of the US must be prefaced with the reality of the global situation. Something you always fail to acknowledge. An omission which is reckless as well as dangerous.

I’ve stated for years on this topic that China wouldn’t reduce emissions despite their rhetoric of years past. I was told by many on this board I was wrong. That China understand what was at stake. I’m being proven more correct every day. Wish I would have been wrong. We’re going to crash through those states emission limits (point of no return) and there’s not a damn thing the US can do about it. We better be ready for the consequences. They’re a certainty.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

astonmartin708

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2012
16,206
5,409
113
I have a minor in mathematics. I’ll go head to head with you any day my friend :).

I’m not advocating for us not to reduce emissions. Green energy is a good thing. Reducing emissions is a good thing. I am advocating being realistic as it relates to China and Co. In the next ten years the US will become a minor player in the global emission game. China and Co continue to expand fossil fuel emissions. Coal being the most alarming. This is the world we live in. Now and in the future. We better devote resources to ensure the US is in the best possible position to ensure its population has sufficient food and water. Any climate discussion regarding the actions of the US must be prefaced with the reality of the global situation. Something you always fail to acknowledge. An omission which is reckless as well as dangerous.

I’ve stated for years on this topic that China wouldn’t reduce emissions despite their rhetoric of years past. I was told by many on this board I was wrong. That China understand what was at stake. I’m being proven more correct every day. Wish I would have been wrong. We’re going to crash through those states emission limits (point of no return) and there’s not a damn thing the US can do about it. We better be ready for the consequences. They’re a certainty.
Funny. I just learned that my engineering coursework put me 2 classes shy of having a formal minor in Math. Since college though I have studied a few different relevant areas extensively (related to my current occupation) that would have thrown me over the threshold. Is it too late to get a new minor? lol

I have already have minors in Geoscience and Music.
 

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
26,259
5,624
113
Funny. I just learned that my engineering coursework put me 2 classes shy of having a formal minor in Math. Since college though I have studied a few different relevant areas extensively (related to my current occupation) that would have thrown me over the threshold. Is it too late to get a new minor? lol

I have already have minors in Geoscience and Music.
I spent 3 years as a Chem E major. Took me that long to figure out it just wasn’t something I wanted to do the rest of my life. Switched to accounting but took a few more hours for my math minor. Took me 5 years and a summer but I finally graduated. Went to work for Arthur Andersen and then watched Enron take down one of the largest accounting firms in the world. Left for TU law before the collapse of Enron and AA.
 
Last edited:

watu05

I.T.S. Senior
Mar 19, 2021
1,011
172
63
I understand that it will be ludicrously costly; however, I've already given you an example, that the costs of adaptation to the (more or less) status quo that you advocate for are in the long run exponentially more costly than doing all that we can now.
What you describe is a lot of work and might even require more taxes, so those with only short term interests will deny, and when that doesn't work, say it's too late anyway.
 

URedskin54

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2005
8,992
7,337
113
What you describe is a lot of work and might even require more taxes, so those with only short term interests will deny, and when that doesn't work, say it's too late anyway.

It’s too late anyway
 

URedskin54

I.T.S. Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2005
8,992
7,337
113
Can’t remember who said it but “Environmentalists make good movie villains because they want to make your real life worse”

 

Latest posts