Why Mr Baerwald(I like the addition of Green) :)

Perhaps I didn't express myself very well David.

My point:

The reasons for global warming -to any definitive degree- cannot be attributed to mankinds actions(this globe has warmed and cooled before, it's an ongoing cycle, which is little understand, despite the people who think they're experts but they call themselves scientists, in some realm or other.)

whereas

mankinds poisoning of the water system(s), to a far greater degree, cab be quantified and accurately attributed.

Conclusion: Again, I would point out that if this were truly the crisis we're lead to believe it is, drastic actions would have already been taken, up to and including, the halting of all air travel, the end of petrol distribution and whatever else comes to mind.

~~~

This whole process is about giving the UN a global tax, and moving more control of global governance away from electorates everywhere under the auspices of saving the planet(it's such a noble cause don'tchaknow). Like you'd want the UN in charge of saving a lemonade stand. Environmental Castastrophe -as a governmental mechanism- has been in the planning stages for 4-5 decades at the UN, perhaps longer in other forums(if we're to believe Huxley or Wells), the first American go around being the 70's-80's imminent Ice Age scare. Let's not forget also that "apparently" global warming has stalled since 1998(how much do you and I really know about this stuff? Meaning we know what we read, which is one of the reasons I pay attention to this place, for non/standard responses). And actually, I have a timeline somewhere that traces the origins of the environmental catastrophe scenario back into the 19th century. Suffice it sir, the IPCC is agenda driven too.

And certainly David, air pollution contributes to water pollution. I wish y'all'd get it through your heads I am not anti environment stewardship but rather against the fanatical environment theology(yes theology) that calls for drastic reduction of human liberty(& human life for that matter, lol -have you seen that Oz is calling for a One Child policy? How stupid is that when it takes 2.1 births to replace the -count em- two parents, and thus maintain a steady population, as opposed to a declining population), including the entire eugenics/Malthusian nonsense. But that's what happens when folks buy into the silly notion that life doesn't begin at conception(maybe you're not an operational human being, but the outcome of those living cells will be -what?- a human life).

There are plenty of ways to live in more harmony with our environment but time and again our leaders(sic) opt instead for centralized systems, e.g., the lies of global free trade nonsense that only benefits a few Stakeholders(their language; mercantilism, my language), and so on. Efficiency is rarely a humane answer. Efficiency is also a hallmark of Eugenics. The way we do sewage disposal is terribly wasteful, and poorly done but it is one more means of centralizing power, making people unnecessarily dependent on government. But effective solutions are not the order of the day because they are humanity based.

Which is another place we depart: you believing government is a problem solver while I see it -on the whole- as a problem causer(once it exceeds its few areas of necessity, like men needing Rule of Law). Preferably Common Law, as opposed to Commercial Law or the Law of the Sea.

Just a note of clarity: although I believe that oil is abiotic in origin, I am less than convinced there is an endless supply, and I absolutely support moving away from petrol based energy systems but ethanol doesn't seem to be the answer.

Anyhow, I've other stuff that needs doing. Good success going forward, and keep an eye on that whole vanguard stuff, History says that's not a good place to be, unless you're lookin' to get snuffed. Which I doubt is your objective, so be mindful sir, please.

~~~

Btw, did anybody see Boston Legal last night? Did you hear the courtroom spiel about the environmental destructiveness of the nickel batteries that go into Prius'. Somebody jumped me about that when I posted it here. But as I recall, the article was in no way refuted. It was like the actress was reading from the article, lol, good stuff Boston Legal.