Hi Everyone,
Last week I blogged about the 9 year old girl who accidentally shot her instructor and the NRA's lack of real concern about changing anything, especially any new laws. Well that got me thinking.........
The NRA's biggest defender and maybe its biggest backer, is the Republican party. Any talk of stricter gun control, especially after what happened in Newtown, Ct., becomes a fire storm with the GOP and NRA going hand-in-hand in opposing any and all changes to the constitution that restricts: gun ownership or magazine loads or semi or automatic weapons. So when the GOP likes an amendment, they protect it with all their might and will use all the financial resources they can muster to oppose their opposition.
But, what happens when the GOP doesn't like a constitutional amendment? They try to block and stop the law by using back door means. What law? Legal abortion is what I am talking about. Now I do respect religious women and men whose faith opposes abortion. But, for all the other women, it is their decision to make and not some political group who want their religious beliefs entwined with laws. This country was built on the belief that there should be a separation between church and state. But not if the GOP has its way.
So how does the GOP circumvent Roe vs. Wade? By enacting laws that will close legal abortion/planned parenthood clinics. The GOP should not be allowed to make citizens look up their rights by zip code. Per a recent magazine article, women who live in one of the following states, their rights are especially endangered:
Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee and Utah now have Texas style hospital admitting restrictions. Numerous clinics have shut down since they were too far away from any hospitals. People too poor to travel vast distances are now left out of making their own choice, since their choice was taken away.
Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Wisconsin admitting laws are currently held up in court. If approved, Mississippi could end up with no clinics. Again, no choice.
Ohio has a law that providers must have an agreement with a hospital, but public hospitals are banned by law from making such an agreement. Where is their common sense?
Louisiana's admitting law kicked in this month. Three of the state's five clinics might close.
Oklahoma's admitting law goes in effect November 1. Two of the state's three clinics might shut down.
So these new laws are forcing legal clinics to close, leaving women with no choice; which is the choice their political representatives made for them. No clinics, no choice. How sad!!!
Again, politicians have no common sense. The law of the land should apply to all citizens. It amazes me how the GOP circumvents laws that doesn't suit their religious beliefs! I find that oh so tragic. Especially since the GOP was totally against John F. Kennedy running for President because he was a practicing Catholic and the first Catholic elected President. The GOP was very afraid that Kennedy would make decisions based on his religious beliefs or on orders from the Vatican. But isn't that exactly what the GOP is doing now? Of course it is. Talk about flip flopping!
Under the law, women have the right to choice. Interference from the government, in this case state governments, is totally unacceptable. Keep the separation of church and state.
Remember this when you vote.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Sunday, August 31, 2014
This Just Isn't Right!!!
Hi Everyone,
This blog is about one of those story's that just boggles the mind. How could such an incident occur? A complete and utter lack of common sense is the only explanation as to why it did happen.
Last week, a 9 year old girl, while taking gun lessons, accidentally shot and killed her instructor. The little girl was taking lessons, with her parents approval and permission, on shooting a Uzi, sub machine gun. My understanding is that there are settings on Uzi's that can make it a single shot or multiple shot, (semi-automatic) gun. The girl was able to handle the recoil of the single shot mode. But when the instructor switched the gun to semi-automatic mode, the girl was not able to handle the recoil; by being unable to hold the gun facing the target. Instead, she unfortunately allowed the gun to veer off to her left side, where her instructor was standing. In a nano second, the gun fired, and the instructor was shot once in the head and died shortly thereafter.
I feel so sorry for this little 9 year girl, who will most likely be scarred for life, with her vivid memory of what happened. What her parents thinking? That a little girl could handle the recoil of a semi-automatic gun? Obviously the parents used absolutely no common sense in allowing their daughter to shoot this weapon. But also, how is this even legal? But what really amazes me is that the gun range thought this was a good idea. Did you know that there are more restrictions on children being able to ride a roller coaster, (they all have height restrictions) than shooting a very dangerous weapon that can easily and in this case did kill a person?
To add salt to this wound, the NRA, in their infinite wisdom, said that gun ranges need to use more common sense, (now they think about common sense?). A little to late for this instructor and little girl. The NRA also stated, as usual, that the need for more laws restricting this activity is not necessary. That the ranges can self police themselves. Really??? I think not, as evidenced by this incident.
Yes, new laws with age restrictions should be passed asap, so this kind of tragedy can never happen again. Leaving gun ranges to "police" themselves will never happen, especially when there is money to make, trying to teach little children to use weapons that should only be used by adults.
It is time for the NRA to get its act together and stop the insanity!!!
Til next week.
Peter
This blog is about one of those story's that just boggles the mind. How could such an incident occur? A complete and utter lack of common sense is the only explanation as to why it did happen.
Last week, a 9 year old girl, while taking gun lessons, accidentally shot and killed her instructor. The little girl was taking lessons, with her parents approval and permission, on shooting a Uzi, sub machine gun. My understanding is that there are settings on Uzi's that can make it a single shot or multiple shot, (semi-automatic) gun. The girl was able to handle the recoil of the single shot mode. But when the instructor switched the gun to semi-automatic mode, the girl was not able to handle the recoil; by being unable to hold the gun facing the target. Instead, she unfortunately allowed the gun to veer off to her left side, where her instructor was standing. In a nano second, the gun fired, and the instructor was shot once in the head and died shortly thereafter.
I feel so sorry for this little 9 year girl, who will most likely be scarred for life, with her vivid memory of what happened. What her parents thinking? That a little girl could handle the recoil of a semi-automatic gun? Obviously the parents used absolutely no common sense in allowing their daughter to shoot this weapon. But also, how is this even legal? But what really amazes me is that the gun range thought this was a good idea. Did you know that there are more restrictions on children being able to ride a roller coaster, (they all have height restrictions) than shooting a very dangerous weapon that can easily and in this case did kill a person?
To add salt to this wound, the NRA, in their infinite wisdom, said that gun ranges need to use more common sense, (now they think about common sense?). A little to late for this instructor and little girl. The NRA also stated, as usual, that the need for more laws restricting this activity is not necessary. That the ranges can self police themselves. Really??? I think not, as evidenced by this incident.
Yes, new laws with age restrictions should be passed asap, so this kind of tragedy can never happen again. Leaving gun ranges to "police" themselves will never happen, especially when there is money to make, trying to teach little children to use weapons that should only be used by adults.
It is time for the NRA to get its act together and stop the insanity!!!
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Haves and Have-Nots
Hi Everyone,
Sometimes you hear or read about something and say, what are they thinking, that makes no sense. Well, today's blog is about just that.
And the back story goes like this... In order for a Manhattan condo skyscraper to be built with government incentives/assistance, the developer had to set aside a certain number of units with affordable rents. The rest of the condos are very pricey, they most likely are for the 1% ers. From the outside looking in, the deal seems to be OK. That type of deal is used widely in New York City. But, when you look into the realities, the deal may not be so good, especially for the renters of the affordable apartments.
NYC is a city where the rich and relatively poor have long lived and commuted side by side. The civil rights acts of the 1960's, stopped the segregation of African Americans and other minorities. But now a new trend is appearing that should have people talking about whether it is appropriate and even legal. The new trend is buildings with separate amenities and even entrances for the haves and have-nots. A few buildings now have a side entrance for the renters, with the main entrance only for the people who could afford to buy the pricey condos. There are even some buildings where the renters aren't allowed to use amenities like fitness centers. In those same buildings, the owners of condos don't even have to pay a bloody cent to use their fitness centers.
Is it just me or are the renters being treated like second class citizens? Of course they are. How can this be legal? Owners are using affordable housing tax breaks, zoning breaks and other incentives to create a caste system. Developers say that they are motivated by business, not bias and reserving some prime features for higher paying residents is the price of having affordable housing in hot neighborhoods. I guess a prime feature is the main entrance, which the renters of affordable apartments are forbidden from using. So the developers have the have-nots walk around to the side of of the building where they won't be seen. Doesn't that sound like bias and segregation to you? It does to me. This is all about money and greed.
Will this lead to separate entrances to Neiman-Marcus like stores or high end restaurants, etc., etc.? I think not, but what is happening with the high end residential buildings has got to stop asap. Jean Green Dorsey agrees with me, as she filed a complaint with the NYC Human Rights Commission this past spring over her Upper West Side building's fitness center. She and her fellow rent stabilized tenants are not allowed to use the fitness center even after they offered to pay.
Obviously, common sense was never a consideration and now these developers/owners are receiving the bad publicity that they rightfully deserve.
Til next.
Peter
Sometimes you hear or read about something and say, what are they thinking, that makes no sense. Well, today's blog is about just that.
And the back story goes like this... In order for a Manhattan condo skyscraper to be built with government incentives/assistance, the developer had to set aside a certain number of units with affordable rents. The rest of the condos are very pricey, they most likely are for the 1% ers. From the outside looking in, the deal seems to be OK. That type of deal is used widely in New York City. But, when you look into the realities, the deal may not be so good, especially for the renters of the affordable apartments.
NYC is a city where the rich and relatively poor have long lived and commuted side by side. The civil rights acts of the 1960's, stopped the segregation of African Americans and other minorities. But now a new trend is appearing that should have people talking about whether it is appropriate and even legal. The new trend is buildings with separate amenities and even entrances for the haves and have-nots. A few buildings now have a side entrance for the renters, with the main entrance only for the people who could afford to buy the pricey condos. There are even some buildings where the renters aren't allowed to use amenities like fitness centers. In those same buildings, the owners of condos don't even have to pay a bloody cent to use their fitness centers.
Is it just me or are the renters being treated like second class citizens? Of course they are. How can this be legal? Owners are using affordable housing tax breaks, zoning breaks and other incentives to create a caste system. Developers say that they are motivated by business, not bias and reserving some prime features for higher paying residents is the price of having affordable housing in hot neighborhoods. I guess a prime feature is the main entrance, which the renters of affordable apartments are forbidden from using. So the developers have the have-nots walk around to the side of of the building where they won't be seen. Doesn't that sound like bias and segregation to you? It does to me. This is all about money and greed.
Will this lead to separate entrances to Neiman-Marcus like stores or high end restaurants, etc., etc.? I think not, but what is happening with the high end residential buildings has got to stop asap. Jean Green Dorsey agrees with me, as she filed a complaint with the NYC Human Rights Commission this past spring over her Upper West Side building's fitness center. She and her fellow rent stabilized tenants are not allowed to use the fitness center even after they offered to pay.
Obviously, common sense was never a consideration and now these developers/owners are receiving the bad publicity that they rightfully deserve.
Til next.
Peter
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Fact or Fiction
Hi Everyone,
Today's topic has very unfortunately become a very hot button political issue. The problem should have never become political, but in today's Washington, D.C., what else would you expect. If one side says it is dark outside the other side will disagree saying the opposite.
So what is today's topic? Global warming. As always, I like to deal with facts and just the facts. Not innuendo, spin or outright lies. So let's check out some facts about global warming from the 6/23 issue of Time magazine.
1) Weather records have been kept in this country since the mid 1800's.
2) Since the mid to late 1800's, at the start of the industrial revolution, man has pumped an unknown amount of pollutants into our atmosphere. While at the same time, more forests were being wiped out for their wood.
3) Scientists have already documented a 5" to 8" increase in the sea level around South Florida over the past 50 years.
4) The first 13 years of this century were among the hottest since records have been kept.
5) California is in the midst of the worst ever drought in their history.
6) With each passing year, forest fires burn more and more acreage, especially in the West.
7) Not only the rate, but also the amount of polar ice melting not only affect sea levels, but also affects weather patterns around the world.
8) Just during the last 4 years, from the mid-Atlantic up the northeast coast, has seen more severe summer and winter storms. Just at my home, 60 miles north of NYC, lately when it rains, it's never a little shower, when it rains it is more like the sky just opens up and deluges us. For years now, during the winter, we don't get a lot of little snow storms, we get dumped on with 6 or10 or 14 or more inches of snow. Schools around here been talking about setting aside more snow days in addition to the 5 or so days already allotted.
Those are the indisputable scientifically proven facts. There are more, but you get the picture. But here is another fact, only 40% of Americans "strongly agreed" that the earth is getting warmer. That is a very sad number. I believe that our polarized politics is at the very least, creating our apathy towards global warming. In other countries, it is the majority of people who believe that our earth is getting warmer. The problem here is that Republicans have outright rejected climate science. Kinds of reminds me when the Catholic church told all that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of our universe. A very long time ago science proved them all wrong. So why doesn't the scientific proof convince them now? Good question. Science is science and not believing sends us back to the dark ages.
Global warming is occurring now! And common sense says that now is the time to start acting not in the future. The future is also now! Please don't let spin and deceit guide you into thinking that we humans have not had a lot of influence on this problem and that global warming is happening as you read this.
Enough said.
Til next week.
Peter
Today's topic has very unfortunately become a very hot button political issue. The problem should have never become political, but in today's Washington, D.C., what else would you expect. If one side says it is dark outside the other side will disagree saying the opposite.
So what is today's topic? Global warming. As always, I like to deal with facts and just the facts. Not innuendo, spin or outright lies. So let's check out some facts about global warming from the 6/23 issue of Time magazine.
1) Weather records have been kept in this country since the mid 1800's.
2) Since the mid to late 1800's, at the start of the industrial revolution, man has pumped an unknown amount of pollutants into our atmosphere. While at the same time, more forests were being wiped out for their wood.
3) Scientists have already documented a 5" to 8" increase in the sea level around South Florida over the past 50 years.
4) The first 13 years of this century were among the hottest since records have been kept.
5) California is in the midst of the worst ever drought in their history.
6) With each passing year, forest fires burn more and more acreage, especially in the West.
7) Not only the rate, but also the amount of polar ice melting not only affect sea levels, but also affects weather patterns around the world.
8) Just during the last 4 years, from the mid-Atlantic up the northeast coast, has seen more severe summer and winter storms. Just at my home, 60 miles north of NYC, lately when it rains, it's never a little shower, when it rains it is more like the sky just opens up and deluges us. For years now, during the winter, we don't get a lot of little snow storms, we get dumped on with 6 or10 or 14 or more inches of snow. Schools around here been talking about setting aside more snow days in addition to the 5 or so days already allotted.
Those are the indisputable scientifically proven facts. There are more, but you get the picture. But here is another fact, only 40% of Americans "strongly agreed" that the earth is getting warmer. That is a very sad number. I believe that our polarized politics is at the very least, creating our apathy towards global warming. In other countries, it is the majority of people who believe that our earth is getting warmer. The problem here is that Republicans have outright rejected climate science. Kinds of reminds me when the Catholic church told all that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of our universe. A very long time ago science proved them all wrong. So why doesn't the scientific proof convince them now? Good question. Science is science and not believing sends us back to the dark ages.
Global warming is occurring now! And common sense says that now is the time to start acting not in the future. The future is also now! Please don't let spin and deceit guide you into thinking that we humans have not had a lot of influence on this problem and that global warming is happening as you read this.
Enough said.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Voodoo Economics
Hi Everyone,
Way back when, while I was in college, I took 3 economic courses. During my freshman year, the first course that I took was economics 101. It was during that course that I learned about the fundamental concept of supply and demand. It is a relatively easy concept to understand.
Demand: refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price. The relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand relationship.
Supply: represents how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price. The correlation between price and how much a good or service is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price therefore is a reflection of supply and demand.
So that is what I learned so long ago; about supply and demand and how this fundamental concept has been around for a very long time. Until now that is. Over the last decade, orange juice consumption has dropped a whopping 40%. So you would think that since demand has fallen and supplies increased, the price would drop. Not so fast. When was the last time OJ prices dropped? The prices have not fallen, but have actually risen. So what do you do in this day and age if demand is down and supplies are up? In this day and age, that means charging more for the product. Isn't it obvious that the higher prices of OJ is more about greed than about supply and demand. I am not surprised about this turning against a fundamental concept in order to make more money. Greed certainly rules here and common sense is again either tossed out the window or is totally ignored, which hurts us the consumer.
So today's supply and demand concept no longer means what it used to.
Til next week.
Peter
Way back when, while I was in college, I took 3 economic courses. During my freshman year, the first course that I took was economics 101. It was during that course that I learned about the fundamental concept of supply and demand. It is a relatively easy concept to understand.
Demand: refers to how much (quantity) of a product or service is desired by buyers. The quantity demanded is the amount of a product people are willing to buy at a certain price. The relationship between price and quantity demanded is known as the demand relationship.
Supply: represents how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good producers are willing to supply when receiving a certain price. The correlation between price and how much a good or service is supplied to the market is known as the supply relationship. Price therefore is a reflection of supply and demand.
So that is what I learned so long ago; about supply and demand and how this fundamental concept has been around for a very long time. Until now that is. Over the last decade, orange juice consumption has dropped a whopping 40%. So you would think that since demand has fallen and supplies increased, the price would drop. Not so fast. When was the last time OJ prices dropped? The prices have not fallen, but have actually risen. So what do you do in this day and age if demand is down and supplies are up? In this day and age, that means charging more for the product. Isn't it obvious that the higher prices of OJ is more about greed than about supply and demand. I am not surprised about this turning against a fundamental concept in order to make more money. Greed certainly rules here and common sense is again either tossed out the window or is totally ignored, which hurts us the consumer.
So today's supply and demand concept no longer means what it used to.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Tooting My Own Horn
Hi Everyone,
For those of you who don't know, I am the original owner of a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity Eurosport CL. It has 33 out of 38 options and is still a dream to drive, just like when it was new. But what my car is not, is a muscle car. It was built for high gas mileage and luxury. Through all of the last 28 years, I have somehow managed to keep the car in excellent condition. Actually it is in show condition and going to car shows is what I do with the car. FYI, it has not been a daily driver for over 11 years.
I have been showing the car for 15 years, long before you stopped seeing them on the road. Now when I show it, there are always people who come over to talk to me about my car. Almost all the people either had a similar car or knew someone who did. People tell me that when they go to car shows they expect to see, mustangs, vettes, 57 chevys, camaros, road runners, chargers and cudas, etc., etc., but they never expect to see a celebrity. They all rave about what a great car it was and what a surprise to see one in such great condition at a car show. But it is when they learn how many miles are on it that they are really surprised. My car has over 300,000 miles on it and it still looks almost new. When I talk to other car owners, it is not unusual for classic cars to change hands 3,4,5 or more times since it was new. So if the car was already in show condition, the new owners are just maintaining what prior owners did to the car. But I have taken care of this car for 28 years and have kept it show condition. People can and do really appreciate that fact.
For all the years I have been attending car shows, I never expect to win to any trophies for multiple reasons: it is a 1986, it is a celebrity and it has 300,000 miles. All those are strikes against me for winning anything. For the past 5 years or so, the newest form of collecting cars is what is called a survivor car. It will have original paint, rust is common and it runs. My car is not a survivor car since it was repainted, (due to a GM recall) when it was 6 years old. So I always joke with people that they should give trophies for highest mileage / best looking car. But of course, there is no such award.
Last night, my wife and I attended a local car show. There were approximately 50 or so cars there. Most of the cars were from the 60's and 70's and there were only 2 cars from the 80's. When the trophies were being awarded there was a Judge's favorite 4 cars category. The Judge named the first 3 favorite cars and they were the usual type of winning cars. Then the 4th car number was called. Both my wife and the car owner next to me told me that I had won. The first thing I did was check my number to make sure and sure enough, I had won. I was stunned, excited and couldn't believe it. The Judge was highly impressed on how well an original owner had taken care of a 28 year old car with over 300,000 miles on it.
Although I know I will never win best of show, I used to say that I owned a classic car but now I can honestly say that I own a classic trophy car. Now my ego isn't so big that the trophy will sit on our mantle. But that trophy will always be with the car when I go to other shows.
My horn has been tooted.
Til next week.
Peter
For those of you who don't know, I am the original owner of a 1986 Chevrolet Celebrity Eurosport CL. It has 33 out of 38 options and is still a dream to drive, just like when it was new. But what my car is not, is a muscle car. It was built for high gas mileage and luxury. Through all of the last 28 years, I have somehow managed to keep the car in excellent condition. Actually it is in show condition and going to car shows is what I do with the car. FYI, it has not been a daily driver for over 11 years.
I have been showing the car for 15 years, long before you stopped seeing them on the road. Now when I show it, there are always people who come over to talk to me about my car. Almost all the people either had a similar car or knew someone who did. People tell me that when they go to car shows they expect to see, mustangs, vettes, 57 chevys, camaros, road runners, chargers and cudas, etc., etc., but they never expect to see a celebrity. They all rave about what a great car it was and what a surprise to see one in such great condition at a car show. But it is when they learn how many miles are on it that they are really surprised. My car has over 300,000 miles on it and it still looks almost new. When I talk to other car owners, it is not unusual for classic cars to change hands 3,4,5 or more times since it was new. So if the car was already in show condition, the new owners are just maintaining what prior owners did to the car. But I have taken care of this car for 28 years and have kept it show condition. People can and do really appreciate that fact.
For all the years I have been attending car shows, I never expect to win to any trophies for multiple reasons: it is a 1986, it is a celebrity and it has 300,000 miles. All those are strikes against me for winning anything. For the past 5 years or so, the newest form of collecting cars is what is called a survivor car. It will have original paint, rust is common and it runs. My car is not a survivor car since it was repainted, (due to a GM recall) when it was 6 years old. So I always joke with people that they should give trophies for highest mileage / best looking car. But of course, there is no such award.
Last night, my wife and I attended a local car show. There were approximately 50 or so cars there. Most of the cars were from the 60's and 70's and there were only 2 cars from the 80's. When the trophies were being awarded there was a Judge's favorite 4 cars category. The Judge named the first 3 favorite cars and they were the usual type of winning cars. Then the 4th car number was called. Both my wife and the car owner next to me told me that I had won. The first thing I did was check my number to make sure and sure enough, I had won. I was stunned, excited and couldn't believe it. The Judge was highly impressed on how well an original owner had taken care of a 28 year old car with over 300,000 miles on it.
Although I know I will never win best of show, I used to say that I owned a classic car but now I can honestly say that I own a classic trophy car. Now my ego isn't so big that the trophy will sit on our mantle. But that trophy will always be with the car when I go to other shows.
My horn has been tooted.
Til next week.
Peter
Sunday, July 6, 2014
This Solution May be a Win - Win
Hi Everyone,
The southern mid-west of this country and all the way to the west coast, has been in a severe drought for some time now. Even the snow pack totals in northern California has been a lot less then usual for years. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, there are no different weather patterns, consequently the drought will continue for who knows how long. But, while large parts of this country are in a drought, the north and south pole glaciers are melting at an alarming rate due to global warming. The direct result of which is that the ocean levels are rising and will eventually threaten all coastal cities around the world.
As to why global warming is happening is not the subject of today's blog. Today's blog is about a solution to both the drought and rising ocean level problems. I think that a common sense solution would be to build a whole lot of desalination plants along the west coast and if need be, where ever they are needed. The desalination plants could definitely supply the much needed fresh water. But, in addition, depending on how many plants are built worldwide, they could conceivably keep the ocean levels at bay or at the very least, could postpone the threat to coastal cities. Sounds far fetched, but it just might work. The toughest part of this idea is building the tens or hundreds of thousands of miles needed for the pipelines.
Unfortunately, time is not on our side. In order for something this big to happen, countries would need to make a leap of faith and begin the projects sooner rather than later. Even though building the plants would take years, it is the building of the infrastructure that will take many more years. That's why time will eventually be against us all and why forward thinking will be a necessity.
Just some food for thought.
Til next week.
Peter
The southern mid-west of this country and all the way to the west coast, has been in a severe drought for some time now. Even the snow pack totals in northern California has been a lot less then usual for years. Unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, there are no different weather patterns, consequently the drought will continue for who knows how long. But, while large parts of this country are in a drought, the north and south pole glaciers are melting at an alarming rate due to global warming. The direct result of which is that the ocean levels are rising and will eventually threaten all coastal cities around the world.
As to why global warming is happening is not the subject of today's blog. Today's blog is about a solution to both the drought and rising ocean level problems. I think that a common sense solution would be to build a whole lot of desalination plants along the west coast and if need be, where ever they are needed. The desalination plants could definitely supply the much needed fresh water. But, in addition, depending on how many plants are built worldwide, they could conceivably keep the ocean levels at bay or at the very least, could postpone the threat to coastal cities. Sounds far fetched, but it just might work. The toughest part of this idea is building the tens or hundreds of thousands of miles needed for the pipelines.
Unfortunately, time is not on our side. In order for something this big to happen, countries would need to make a leap of faith and begin the projects sooner rather than later. Even though building the plants would take years, it is the building of the infrastructure that will take many more years. That's why time will eventually be against us all and why forward thinking will be a necessity.
Just some food for thought.
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)