Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

(21,088 posts)

14. Or you could say that 1 and 2 are both impossible

Fri May 3, 2013, 10:45 AM

May 2013

Leaving #3 as the only realistic outcome, whether we like it or not.

Mother Nature has no ethics.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Even if they did, the problem is far bigger than carbon emissions. Gregorian May 2013 #1

No worries, mate pscot May 2013 #2

The warming problem is entirely due to carbon emissions. nt wtmusic May 2013 #9

This Misattributed Source game is always fun. wtmusic May 2013 #13

Or you could say that 1 and 2 are both impossible GliderGuider May 2013 #14

You are dead wrong about #1. Gregorian May 2013 #15

I'm very interested in how you plan to modify wtmusic May 2013 #17

The difference between a market dominated by cprise May 2013 #3

Interesting caraher May 2013 #5

Indeed, we can't even deny the establishment things like cprise May 2013 #6

Renewables don't have investors? wtmusic May 2013 #8

Do you have any class awareness cprise May 2013 #10

Help me differentiate between rich investor-elves wtmusic May 2013 #11