191–200 of 224 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t see a difference between a major news outlet from a democratic country which has freedom of speech and an outlet from a religious monarchy which has no notion of free speech or even human rights?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B9tzoGFszog > But I must make one thing absolutely clear: there can be no question of the BBC ever giving in to government pressure.
The UK is run by tyrannical bureaucrats, not the Government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the farmers own the water, its not about selling it to them but getting it from them.
Then tax them at a rate equivalent to their environmental cost? I don't think this is complicated (except politically, of course). You just want everyone to carry the cost of their own externalities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
??? 20 gallons get reused, 100% of it goes back into the system. If somehow 5% was destroyed from showering we wouldn't have any water left.
You know what they meant. They obviously mean the system controlled by us - not rain and shit.
You have seperate drainage for shower water and effluent?
That’s certainly not the case here in Australia.
Here, typically storm water and household waste water are carried over a common system. Usually if it rains more than 3mm in 24hrs the treatment systems are overwhelmed and untreated waste is sent out to sea. Coastal areas anyways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The chemtrail conspiracies have always been a catch all for any idea except "it's a contrail or non-hidden spraying of some sort". To quote the 20 year old snapshot of the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemtrail_conspir... : > The term "chemtrail" should not be confused with other forms of aerial dumping (e.g. crop dusting, cloud seeding, aerial firefighting, although the principle is m…
So sprayed metal particles from airplanes for weather modification are only "chemtrails" if it's done covertly. Language sure is interesting. I guess there's also a spectrum of what covert means. If a government does this but only announces it in places where only a few people hear about it from the official source, I guess that still counts as public and so not chemtrails.
> Any idea except "it's a contrail or non-hidden spraying of some sort"
Meaning the chemtrail conspiracy is "contrails are actually cover ups for chemical spraying that isn't otherwise known", not just "if chemical spraying is covert, then people made a language rule saying it should be referred to as a chemtrail instead".
I.e. chemtrails refers specifically to the conspiracy about a contrail based cover up for covert chemical spraying by world powers, not just a term for a claim that someone somewhere has sprayed chemicals covertly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You miss the point. Sanctions are preventing Iran from building infrastructure
Maybe, but they were not building it before the sanctions. Now I wonder if this disaster will be the main plea for lifting the sanctions, "millions will die in the next week!" or something similar to what was happening with pro-Palestinian propaganda. Come to think of it I wonder if the recent burst of news from Iran is just an attempt to lift sanctions and there is no severe draught... Just something common to happe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really know what they're talking about, states almost never refuse federal funding for anything.
Louisiana refused federal highway funding for long enough that their highway system went to shit. They refused due to a federal mandate that the drinking age be raised to 21. It isn't common, but states have absolutely forwent federal funding to stand their ground, and in my opinion they should do it more often. Its a huge weakness in our federal system that states are so dependent on federal funding for long lived p…
But I have property in Arizona and I have a real hard time imagining this state saying no thank you if offered water. It’s sort of a big deal out there these days.
Has this ever been proven to actually work?
The Chinese pretty blatantly used it to tailor things for their Olympics. I’m a little surprised how this has gone under the radar, considering the black box “effing with the weather cycles” truly is.
No need to point the finger at the nasty Chinese.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. It’s a recreation that many people get joy from doing… Just because it may not be “your thing”…doesn’t mean it’s not worth having.
I enjoy playing golf and also realize how wasteful it is. Id support repurposing the spaces near me for parks/zoning usage.
I think folks get caught up on golf course water usage, but every course around me uses reclaimed water. If houses were built there, that would no longer be reclaimed water, but potable water. Also I am convinced that landscape chemical usage would go up as well.
I have close family and friends in the business, I guarantee that huge efforts go into making sure not a single drop of irrigation isn’t used unless it’s needed. I can tell you that my neighbors don’t pay that much attention to their exact irrigation needs—simply watering for as long as they can, when they can. I doubt seriously that replacing a golf course with more homes would net much water savings…at least around me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. It’s a recreation that many people get joy from doing… Just because it may not be “your thing”…doesn’t mean it’s not worth having.
I have absolutely enjoyed my time on the golf course, but much like recreational cruise ships I’ll be perfectly content with them gone too. Just because I enjoy something doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate how wasteful it is and would oppose ending or at least reducing it.