Curse

lakatz · Dec 20, 2007, 08:33 AM // 08:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by freaky naughty

...but I don't think you know how rich the people who exploited oil became. You know that guy John D Rockefeller?

LOL... why would you think that when I've never told you what I DO know and don't know? I know a little about John D Rockefeller. For one thing, I know and am tickled by the fact the Rockefellers are Grandees. And I know a little about the Gettys, the Bushes, the Marshalls and other oil families as well... probably more than I really want to.

But I can't figure out how John D Rockefeller relates to the female environmentalist in China who has become the richest self-made woman (emphasis on woman) in the world through her environmental efforts. Rockefeller was then. She is now. And the times... they are achangin'. So, if you don't mind, I would love for you to connect the dots for me. Thank you!

OI-812 · Dec 20, 2007, 02:40 PM // 14:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muspellsheimr

However, I seriously doubt it will come to us destroying the worlds forests for energy

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2241764.ece

Before you ask "what does this have to do with this debate?" look at the article and think. Trees = charcoal. Charcoal = popular source of energy. (The gorilla-slayings, while not relevant to the debate at hand, are noteworthy.) Also, when you cut down trees, it gives you this thing called "open space" - for putting down everything from farms to power plants to towns to whatever.

lakatz · Dec 20, 2007, 03:25 PM // 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by OI-812

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2241764.ece

Before you ask "what does this have to do with this debate?" look at the article and think. Trees = charcoal. Charcoal = popular source of energy. (The gorilla-slayings, while not relevant to the debate at hand, are noteworthy.) Also, when you cut down trees, it gives you this thing called "open space" - for putting down everything from farms to power plants to towns to whatever.

Good article. But, as hard as I try, I can't find in it any reason you are using it to refute Muspellsheimr's point that he doubts it will come down to us destroying the world's forests for energy. As the article is very clear on, charcoal isn't a popular resource. It's at the moment the only resource in some remote regions of eastern Congo, and the manufacture of it is, in fact, outlawed. It's not the country that's engaged in cutting down the trees. It's poachers. The government is actively involved in looking for cheaper alternatives to provide those areas for cooking fuel. The article certainly does not show a trend toward us destroying the world's forests for (carbon emitting) energy. It shows a trend away from that actually.