Are Indonesians Jumping The Gun?
I read an article this morning on Yahoo News relative to global warming prevention.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_sc/bali_saving_trees;_ylt=AsFw6l718MmK2jmPIdub.56s0NUE
I realize that it's important for us to have our rain forests for oxygen and survival, but don't you think that limiting biodiesel-plausible resources is getting ahead of yourselves a bit? I would like to know if it's possible to obtain resources from our earth without killing it or hurting it. Isn't there a way that we can chop down trees without burning them?
I was once told a story about a man who purchased a piece of property. It wasn't in very good shape, there were a lot of sand and a lot of trees standing in the way of building a home on that property or even selling it. So what did the man do? He chopped down the trees and sold the wood. He even sold the sand! He made the best out of the resources he ended up with. It seems to me like the UN doesn't believe that a similar story is possible in our world and with all of our dependencies.
It's interesting that this plan of action expires in 2012. I wonder if they're expecting the same thing as all of the acid heads.
I respect and agree with the governmental decision to limit deforestation, but I think that Yahoo & the UN really shouldn't be looking at agriculture as a negative product of destruction. I wish America would be more "into" Agriculture! I realize that commodities are not the most profitable way to make money off of the earth, but are they stopping because countries shouldn't be 'raping the earth' or because countries are not making enough money off of those commodities?
Without even more regular accessibility to biodiesel products how are we supposed to adjust to an alternatively fueled world? If biodiesel gets pumped into the concrete of my gas station, what am I going to have to pay - $5/gal?
This quick fix might help fix the ozone's boo-boo but it sure isn't going to help America's boo-boos or the American peoples' boo-boos.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_sc/bali_saving_trees;_ylt=AsFw6l718MmK2jmPIdub.56s0NUE
I realize that it's important for us to have our rain forests for oxygen and survival, but don't you think that limiting biodiesel-plausible resources is getting ahead of yourselves a bit? I would like to know if it's possible to obtain resources from our earth without killing it or hurting it. Isn't there a way that we can chop down trees without burning them?
I was once told a story about a man who purchased a piece of property. It wasn't in very good shape, there were a lot of sand and a lot of trees standing in the way of building a home on that property or even selling it. So what did the man do? He chopped down the trees and sold the wood. He even sold the sand! He made the best out of the resources he ended up with. It seems to me like the UN doesn't believe that a similar story is possible in our world and with all of our dependencies.
It's interesting that this plan of action expires in 2012. I wonder if they're expecting the same thing as all of the acid heads.
I respect and agree with the governmental decision to limit deforestation, but I think that Yahoo & the UN really shouldn't be looking at agriculture as a negative product of destruction. I wish America would be more "into" Agriculture! I realize that commodities are not the most profitable way to make money off of the earth, but are they stopping because countries shouldn't be 'raping the earth' or because countries are not making enough money off of those commodities?
Without even more regular accessibility to biodiesel products how are we supposed to adjust to an alternatively fueled world? If biodiesel gets pumped into the concrete of my gas station, what am I going to have to pay - $5/gal?
This quick fix might help fix the ozone's boo-boo but it sure isn't going to help America's boo-boos or the American peoples' boo-boos.