Ethiopia's Coffee Is the Latest Victim of Climate Change (theverge.com) 289
According to a study published today in Nature Plants, by the end of this century, increasing temperatures could make it impossible to grow coffee in about half of Ethiopia's coffee-growing regions. "That's because Arabica coffee trees (which are grown in Ethiopia) require pretty mild temperatures to survive, ideally between 59 to 75 degree Fahrenheit," reports The Verge. "Climate projections show that Ethiopia will generally become warmer and drier, and that means that 40 to 60 percent of areas where coffee is currently grown won't be suitable to grow the beans, the study says." From the report: In fact, climate change is already hurting Ethiopia's coffee growers: days and nights are already warmer, and the weather is more unpredictable and extreme. Hot days are hotter and rainy days are rainier. That leads to more unpredictable harvests and it hurts the local economy. Ethiopia is Africa's biggest coffee producer and the world's fifth largest coffee exporter, with 15 million Ethiopians living off coffee farming. Climate change risks disrupting the country's future. But there is a way Ethiopia can brace for its brewing troubles. The study found that rising temperatures will turn swaths of land at higher elevation into just the right places to grow coffee in the future. In fact, coffee farming could increase four fold if plantations are moved uphill, the study says. But to do that, the country needs to prepare: millions of farmers can't just take their crops and move to land they don't own. You need careful planning.
Cheap coffee products (Score:5, Interesting)
Coffee production in Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Vietnam invested in a lot of different farming crops, so did a lot of other nations. A global flood of cheap and quality coffee now exists from many different nations.
Other nations have learned how to do all the different coffee crops and are selling on the open market.
Lots of nations saw coffee prices and helped their farmers into a cash crop. Some made quality, some went for a lot of low cost production.
Consumers want a low cost product too, so costs are been pushed down. A low price still keeps farmers in work so different nations flood the coffee market with well planned plantations.
Other nations did the planning, used their best experts over the years and can now produce at a lower cost.
Its not the weather, its just classic competition and having much better experts.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers want a low cost product too, so costs are been pushed down.
Life is too short to drink cheap swill.
Kenya AA, Ugandan Elgon, Tanzanian Peaberry, Blue Java, just not the cheap organic acid juice from Central America.
Re: (Score:3)
Did I hear you just listing a whole bunch of varieties of tulip bulbs??
Re: (Score:2)
So the message is that Climate Change is going to wipe out yuppie coffee?
Re: (Score:3)
"more widespread planting of Arabica beans"
http://vietnamnews.vn/Economy/... [vietnamnews.vn]
"Arabica production is projected to rise because of the expansion of growing areas."
Climate change is not the issue AC, good long term investment and using experts helps.
This is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The study itself says "In fact, coffee farming could increase four fold if plantations are moved uphill, "
FOUR FOLD.
Yet, the headline is about how some coffee fields will be too hot.
Perhaps a more fair headline would be "Climate change displacing Ethiopian Coffee farmers, but will increase their productivity fourfold."?
Re: (Score:2)
As TFA points out, the only problem with this great scheme is that Etheopia is not Communist and the coffee farmers can't just be moved up hill to the newly productive land. That land belongs to other people, so there has to be some kind of transaction which is hard for coffee farmers with little capable and land that suddenly isn't nearly as valuable as the land they want to buy.
It's not an impossible problem to solve, but it's certainly screwing the coffee growers pretty badly and of course with climate c
Re: (Score:2)
The study itself says "In fact, coffee farming could increase four fold if plantations are moved uphill, "
Yep. Until that area too becomes too hot as well and then they have to move again (or not).
Perhaps a more fair headline would be "Climate change displacing Ethiopian Coffee farmers, but will increase their productivity fourfold."?
No. That headline would be unsupported by the article: the article did not say how much surface would be needed to get this increased production. If it takes 4 times the surface to produce 4 times as much coffee then productivity has not increased at all.
Talk about burying the lede (Score:5, Insightful)
"Scientists project climate change could increase coffee production in Ethiopia fourfold."
But that probably wouldn't get as many clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coffee prices have quadrupled in the last 20 years
Also, the number of elephants in Africa has tripled in the past six months!
Re: (Score:2)
The only way this could possibly be true is when you actively transport elephants into the continent. So WTF are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. Edit war in Wikipedia over which color of cool-aid is the better one. Film at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
And back to today's farm owner. What if, like many farmers (especially in Ethiopia I'm guessing), they're just barely making it - they don't have enough money to buy the uphill land, which is
Re: (Score:2)
Rich corporate fuck will seize the opportunity, and buy up all the other land and put factory farms on it to farm the shit out of it for maximum profit.
The little guy will get less and less and less...
Re: (Score:3)
Coffee has never been an indigenous subsistence crop in Ethiopia. In fact, the growth of coffee farming in Ethiopia has probably contributed to malnutrition there, as people stop growing the food they traditionally ate and start growing coffee for export instead.
The rich corporate fucks set up the banana republic operation decades ago. People in this discussion carrying on about the excellent exotic Ethiopian coffee are contributors to the repression.
Re: (Score:2)
100 years ago probably almost nobody at all in Ethiopia were growing coffee, because it's a modern cash crop.
So the severe social upheaval has already happened.
Plus: Ethiopia? It's been a hellish 'trouble spot' on the horn of Africa for decades. Not as bad there as in Eritrea, but it's a place with pretty severe social upheaval that doesn't have that much to do with the climate.
Deforestation has NOTHING to do with it (Score:2)
Fossil water consumption, deforestation etc etc. The impact a doubling of population every 25 years can have on an environment is so far in excess to what the relative steady global warming can do it's almost laughable.
But you are allowed to talk about global warming, you have to pretend population growth is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Population growth is leveling off. Release of fossil carbon isn't.
Talk about an asshole victim (Score:2)
Stop China, India and the Russian Federation (Score:2)
Is this study primarily a PR vehicle? (Score:2)
Check out the acknowledgements:
Sound like the study's sponsor begins with the assumption that the Coffee economy is not climate-Resilient And that climate change that is expected will damage it
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Denier trolls will spam this article with fallacious arguments against climate change.
And supporter trolls with spam this article with fallacious arguments for climate change.
Sorry, but both sides are guilty here.
The problem, in fact, is that there are "sides" in the first place. We need to let honest, non-politicized, non-agenda-driven science speak for itself.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They're not fallacious. It has been evidence based since at least the 1970's. I remember discussing greenhouse gases in my HS Chemistry class.
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity is "just a theory". Jumped off a 20 story building to test it? If not, why not.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget it. Too many people and organizations have stakes in this matter by now to ever allow you to get any unbiased information. Let's just enjoy life 'til it's no longer possible on this planet, then lament how we could never have foreseen this. Just like we always do.
I mean, nobody could have foreseen what's going down in Syria, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem, in fact, is that there are "sides" in the first place.
It's an entirely artificial debate that only exists in the US, thanks to large investments in "anti-climate change" agendas. The debate doesn't exist anywhere else because in other parts of the world just take the opinions of the vast majority of scientists (> 95%) on a matter in order to make informed decisions.
In combination with half-hearted attempts of most politicians worldwide, the primary effect in the long run will be that global warming will continue to accelerate, though it slow down a little b
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way that people who argue against lead paint, arsenic, or cars without seat belts are making fallacious arguments. Or...maybe you're just a hand waiving dumbfucker.
Re:science is a method of inquiry, not a belief (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely correct. However here's the problem with trying to get many people to understand this: the vast majority of people have no ability to even understand simple scientific abstracts, or even the news summaries written about them, let alone actually test anything. For many laymen it's a choice between believing what the folks in the white robes using cryptic symbols and vast machines are saying or not. So they make the exact same point you did, which is that this reminds them of the clergy, and as the clergy's clearly spouting bullshit these guys must be too, right?
I was recently trying to explain to someone on facebook why we have clear evidence for the climate warming up. The guy, who obviously didn't have much beyond an elementary school education, kept coming back to "Do you just believe it, or did you check it yourself?" Essentially, his point was that as I haven't gone through the vast majority of the scientific papers involving climate change myself and verified the results of thousands upon thousands of researchers whose skills exceed my own by several orders of magnitude, I have not in fact checked anything and am simply 'taking the scientists on faith.'
Even if I really wanted to, I couldn't do all the math again and check all the models and data used myself, I just don't have the skills (let alone the time and equipment) to do that. So there is a level of faith involved, but there's a clear difference between the kind oi religious faith he was talking about and you mentioned, and the kind of 'faith' most of us have in qualified experts and peer-reviewed research. Most of us who're not medical professionals won't understand the lab results ourselves, we tend to believe the doctor, or if we want to be extra sure we ask for additional information from another expert.
Science itself is a method, but there is such a thing as scientific consensus, which unlike religious consensus is subject to change. I'm not a cancer researcher for example nor can I claim to have the skills to understand and critique the papers written on the connections between say smoking and cancer, but I have enough 'faith' in the institution of modern medicine to believe, with a very very high certainty, that the expert opinion is correct and smoking causes cancer. Would I go as far as to say I know this to be true? Yes, yes I would because I trust the source, in this case the consensus of the relevant fields that's been refined over the decades.
Knowledge requires belief because knowledge is a subset of belief. Knowledge is the type of belief which is justified by evidence. Science is the tool used by experts to gather said evidence and the best tool we have devised to separate false beliefs from justified, true beliefs. Those of us who have a scientific view of the world (which I think here on /. constitutes most if not all of us) still believe things without understanding all the evidence personally, but that's because we believe the scientists. Not individual scientists mind you, but the community.
When phrases like "X doesn't believe in science" are used, they refer to people like the guy I was talking to who cannot understand any evidence to begin with because they do not even want to. It doesn't matter how many articles and different expert opinions you hand him, since it doesn't make any sense for him and in his head he thinks it's all just a cult that needs to be taken on 'faith' he will ignore them and keep occupying his own reality.
'
Re:Coffee in 2100 (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine what kind of havoc had to have happened for 9/10 of your friends and family to not have descendants. That's serious war and hell, and we see our own human history showing that we're not good at these long term planning challenges. The funny thing is that there were politicians in the Yucatan, in the beginning, that tried to get people to change farming practices to cope with the changing climate, but they were always immediately voted out of office because it would have affected profits.
So laugh and dismiss all you want, but vote for leaders that take this seriously and plan properly.
Re: (Score:2)
The Yucatan peninsula went from 1.2 million people, with scientists, politicians, and surprisingly advanced civilization at the time, to just over 100k in less than 100 years.
Over 10x that many people have moved to the US, legal and otherwise, in much less than the past 100 years. I think we have better tools to deal with the problem than the Mayans did.
Re: (Score:2)
And you welcome immigrants with open arms correct?
Re: (Score:2)
They probably don't own the land anymore. They probably have to go to the company store and buy imported canned corn from the US for food.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between Steward and Trump is - Steward asked the owner of the pussy for permission before grabbing it. Trump just assumed he'd get away with it because of his celebrity status.
The former is how decent men get pussy.
The latter is called sexual assault.
Re: (Score:2)
Homer Simpson?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded to 'troll'? Was it because the modders read the details of the model used like the assumptions made and the degree of error in the predictions? Well, no it's not because those details aren't available. By extension, the predictions also aren't science because 'science' allows open review.
The best one could say is that yeah, if Ethiopia gets hotter their coffee production could suffer.
But we already knew that right?
And as the post correctly points out, maybe it won't get hotter.
Predictable results (Score:3, Insightful)
This alarmism is based on an extrapolation of current conditions [xkcd.com]. Extrapolations 80 years into the future have a long history of looking laughably silly in hindsight.
The snow on Kilimanjaro was predicted [masslive.com] to disappear by 2015 or thereabouts.
Of course, it actually didn't [wordpress.com].
Science is all about forming hypotheses, then making falsifiable predictions.
What testable predictions do we have for Ethiopian coffee? What year will coffee be untenable as a crop?
Wait a couple of years and see if these predictions are correct - sounds like a valid test of climate change.
What's the problem with doing that?
(If you don't like waiting years, then let's look at previous testable predictions
Re: (Score:2)
90% of the snow and ice cap on Kilimanjaro is gone.
So what is your stupid point?
I doubt anyone made a prediction, you probably just cite a newspaper. That is not a prediction.
Re: (Score:2)
90% of the snow and ice cap on Kilimanjaro is gone.
Compared with 150 years ago [huffingtonpost.com], not since the turn of the 21st century - the majority of that ice loss occurred before man-caused climate change.
So what is your stupid point?
I doubt anyone made a prediction, you probably just cite a newspaper. That is not a prediction.
If you click the link provided, the prediction cited was in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" movie:
The 2001 forecast was indirectly part of key evidence for global warming offered during the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned of the threats of rising global temperatures. In it, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.
Re: (Score:2)
The weather forecasters predicted rain a few weeks ago, but it was sunny. I bought an umbrella for nothing, totally wasted money, burned the damn thing. Tomorrow they are predicting a tropical storm and 3m waves, but I'm going down to the beach in my mankini because what do those idiots know?!?
Re:Predictable results (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that photos like this prove nothing. You just have to choose your moment when to snap your pic. What you need to do is look at field measurements and sequences of satellite images taken regularly, all year round.
When people did that they came up with this: between 1984 and 2011, persistent snow cover extent on Kilimanjaro went down by 73%, which corresponds to a rise in the snow line of 290m.
Nobody can predict precisely when the first picture of a completely snow-free Kilimanjaro will be taken, but it will be soon. But even after that you'll be able to get pictures of a snow-covered mountain. If you google it you can find pictures of snow in Tampa Florida in 1977. It's not proof that Tampa has glaciers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
More processing power, models refined over the decades for more accurate forecasting.
...And they *STILL* can't get the computer climate models to even somewhat-accurately track *PAST* climate changes!
WTF makes anyone think that their predictions about *future* climate changes are any more reliable?
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Any links that current climate models can not track historical ones? ...
No?
Guessed so
Re: (Score:2)
Any links that current climate models can track historical ones? ...
No?
Guessed so
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Right. In the same way that models in the 60's couldn't predict within 1000 points what the stock market would be today, which means capitalism is a failure. Or maybe that's just hand waiving, and your a Libertarian moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. In the same way that models in the 60's couldn't predict within 1000 points what the stock market would be today, which means capitalism is a failure.
Non sequitur. The inability of a computer model to make a prediction of the stock market's value has nothing to do with the success or failure of capitalism. The stock market, like the climate, is a chaotic system, and nearly impossible to model in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the scenario? Best case we save the world. Worst case we make it a much nicer place to live.
The IPCC discusses climate models (Score:3)
More processing power, models refined over the decades for more accurate forecasting.
...And they *STILL* can't get the computer climate models to even somewhat-accurately track *PAST* climate changes!
WTF makes anyone think that their predictions about *future* climate changes are any more reliable?
Strat
For anyone wanting something more than the parent's word on this, the IPCC backs him up on it in their 5th assessment report you can read about here [www.ipcc.ch]:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of t
Re: (Score:2)
Popper was among history's best at philosophy of society and state. He was, unfortunately, never all that good at philosophy of science, which is a pity because so many people love to pretend he was (mostly the ones who can use him to deny science they find inconvenient unfortunately).
Philosophy is a fairly broad discipline with many specializations within it. While they all share certain core skills - being good, or even great, at one does not predict you will be good at another. Indeed, all too often thos
Re: (Score:2)
" think true objectivity is even possible.."
You, apparently, have never read Ayn Rand.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't argue with randroids, for the same reason I don't play chess with pigeons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Extrapolations 80 years into the future have a long history of looking laughably silly in hindsight.
So the result could be worse than the models predict?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. the models are not the issue, The interpretation, neither. Publishing is.
If we can mot manage a rapid change in CO2 exhaust, we as a species are basically doomed.
However I believe we will manage. Even rogue states like the USA will soon switch dramatically.
We won't be able to save most of the pacific islands but can still welcome the refugees.
Re:Correct! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, you've got the wrong end of the stick here when you're talking about "extrapolation". If you look at the instrumental record from the 1940s to the mid 70s, the world actually cooled [wikimedia.org].
This was because of industrial sulfate aerosol emissions, which increases the Earth's albedo. This effect was understood in the 1950s, which was why scientists expected the Earth to continue cooling. Arrhenius's CO2 driven warming theories had been discredited for over half a century because of two mistaken beliefs: (1) that CO2's IR absorption band was the same as water vapor's, so that it coud not materially affect temperature and (2) atmospheric CO2 was in equilibrium with ocean CO2. Both these beliefs were proven false in the late 50s, so from 1967 until 1980 or so the question was whether CO2 driven warming or sulfate driven cooling would predominate.
Until the mid 70s sulfates prevailed, however two additional developments caused a shift in the scientific consensus. First, much more data was collected about the Earth's atmosphere. Second, the availability of computers allowed us to actually calculate the relative effects of CO2 and sulfates, and they predicted an imminent reversal in the temperature trends of the past three decades.
This is as good as scientific confirmation of a theory gets: a counter-intuitive prediction that proves to be true. This is why by the 90s the overwhelming majority of climate scientists had confidence in at least the broad picture the models were predicting.
Re:Correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not extrapolation if there is a mechanistic explanation.
In 1900 there was a mechanistic explanation why NYC would have horse manure six feet deep on all the streets.
Re: Correct! (Score:5, Funny)
I take it you've never been to New York.
Re: (Score:2)
We have a similar situation now: it's looking like the whole world will be six feet deep in proverbial horse shit (AGW/climate change/whatever phrase you like) if we don't adopt the proverbial car (new power generation techniques).
Extrapolations 80 years into the future often look ridiculous because of some fundamental shift (in technology, policy, etc.). Visions of the future before the transistor (or active matrix/LCD-based screens, or CCDs, or...) was invented
Re:Correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
we'll be doing something differently by then
Unless we'll be actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere, it will still be there in 80 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if algae has anything to say about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
un-desertify the Sahara and planted trees throughout the whole thing
There would be people screeching about the damage to the Sahara desert's indigenous flora and fauna.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually many environmental groups have been trying to help halt desertification and begin to reverse it, because it is destroying habitable areas and the habitats of the things that live there (including people).
One idea would be to install masses of solar power, using some of it to supply Europe (which will attract the investment) and some of it to help make more of the desert habitable and arable.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, really long cables. High voltage DC to be precise.
Actually the distance to northern Africa isn't that far, certainly no further than some of the trans-European cables we already have.
Re: (Score:2)
Well since it's inevitable then trying to reduce CO2 output is a waste of money.
The only way we could possibly sequester a meaningful amount is if someone managed to find a way to un-desertify the Sahara and planted trees throughout the whole thing in the next decade.
Seeding in properly selected parts of the oceans would be easier and faster.
Re: (Score:2)
or CCDs, or...
Super, super tiny vidicon tubes.
Late in the tube era, there were little tiny tubes the size of an NE-2 neon lamp.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1900 there was a mechanistic explanation why NYC would have horse manure six feet deep on all the streets.
Joke's on them - the manure ain't from horses!
Re:Correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
You make an excellent point:
Re: (Score:2)
Please point out in the historical record where you can show people were saying "there are lots of other good reasons to stop using horses".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"The presence of 120,000 horses in New York City, wrote one 1908 authority for example, is “an economic burden, an affront to cleanliness, and a terrible tax upon human life.”
http://www.banhdc.org/archives... [banhdc.org]
Re:Correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
Perfect. Then, let's mark the projected date of this coffee calamity on a calendar and see how it plays out.
Re: (Score:2)
This
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they're already observing an impact from climate change, that's not extrapolation.
We are also seeing the impact of wider adoption of solar panels because of lower prices. If you project the price drop forward, within a decade they will actually go negative, and solar companies will PAY YOU to have panels installed on your roof.
If we are already observing the price declining, that's not extrapolation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they will pay more and more as time goes on? If I put on solar panels, within five years or so I won't have to pay a mortgage, and the subsidy will then soon also pay for my food?
Cool!
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way that a 20% coupon for BBAB means you're "saving" 20% of your money
/capitalistlogic
Re: (Score:2)
ftfy
Re: (Score:2)
Sooner or later 0.01 gets rounded down to 0 and then you get a 20% reduction on 0.00 and then it goes negative.
Sheesh. Go back to school.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that is much less sympathetic to the 1st world who won't send cash if they don't feel guilty about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm gonna take a wild guess that you don't work in pricing, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That last one is still the most likely single scenario for world war 3. Water is scarce, and getting scarcer as it has to be divided among an ever larger population.
Hitherto a lot of technology like desalination plants haven't made economic sense since the cost of using it was higher than the cost of just outsourcing your farming to somewhere else with more rain. Now those things are, ever more, starting to make sense because even just enough to drink is becoming a problem.
More importantly though, your text
Re: (Score:2)
One nuclear plant shut down because it thought it hadn't received an update from the temperature guages in over a hundred years.
Wow, who would've thunk we had nuclear power plants before we even figured out how to split the atom.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm... you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. Nobody suggested the plant was over a hundred years old.
Y2K affected the ability of computers to understand dates - so they ended up thinking a datestamp from 2000 was from 1900, it didn't change the actual date. It was a storage-overflow bug, not a time machine.
Re: (Score:2)
For the first time in years I haven't had any allergies this spring.
Thanks, Trump!
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, your immune system is shot or the environment is.
Re: (Score:2)
At least after they're born.
Re: (Score:3)
After three attempt to get various palms and fruit trees to grow on my property I've given up and gone back to cold tolerant varieties.
I too am growing pineapples, but only because they grow fast and can be done so in a pot, which I cart into a heated garage during the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. ...
Most parts of Russia are hotter in summer than Etopia.
And most parts of Russia are a freezing hell in winter
Honestly, that was actually a stuoid question. (I usuall say: there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. However, thisbwas a stuoid question)
Re: (Score:2)
It also supposedly floods places like New York, and will flush out all sorts of vermin.
Who will be left to buy the non-Maxwell House coffee??
Re: (Score:2)
Utter rubbish. It appears that you nothing about good coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the population density in Ethiopia?
Depends on the wind direction.
Re: (Score:2)
And just like in the 1980s, nobody will give a fuck and a few celebrities will sing a song about it.
Re: (Score:2)
In some alternate universe where warmer, more humid are doesn't == more tornadoes, hurricanes in the summer, and more blizzards in the winter.
Re: (Score:2)
Dampener forr what?
Temperature? Yes.
Amount if rain? No.
If I never had a flood on my fields or in my streets, and now have that every rain season, I would call that: extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is. And unlike some cults, it can even prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also going to get hard for some construction workers to get his pick-me-up before work. Do you want some hard working men in dangerous jobs to do their jobs without their morning wake up coffee? Why do you hate the American worker that you want them injured or even killed?
Re: (Score:2)
Sacrifice to our green gods? What kind of drugs are you on?