America's Air Quality Is Slipping After Years of Improvement (apnews.com) 144
The Grim Reefer shared this report from the Associated Press:
Over the last two years America had more polluted air days than just a few years earlier, federal data shows. While it remains unclear whether this is the beginning of a trend, health experts say it's troubling to see air quality progress stagnate. There were 15% more days with unhealthy air in America both last year and the year before than there were on average from 2013 through 2016, the four years when America had its fewest number of those days since at least 1980...
Air quality is affected by a complex mix of factors, both natural and man-made. Federal regulations that limit the emissions of certain chemicals and soot from factories, cars and trucks have helped dramatically improve air quality over recent decades. In any given year, however, air quality can be affected by natural variations... Air pollution experts agree wildfires likely have had a role, along with random variation, a stronger economy which leads to more consumption of fuels, and a changing climate. Higher temperatures increase the chances for fires and smog.
Even with the recent stagnation, there are far fewer bad air days now than in the early 2000s, 1990s and 1980s.
They also report that "about 100,000 Americans each year die prematurely because of polluted air, studies show."
Air quality is affected by a complex mix of factors, both natural and man-made. Federal regulations that limit the emissions of certain chemicals and soot from factories, cars and trucks have helped dramatically improve air quality over recent decades. In any given year, however, air quality can be affected by natural variations... Air pollution experts agree wildfires likely have had a role, along with random variation, a stronger economy which leads to more consumption of fuels, and a changing climate. Higher temperatures increase the chances for fires and smog.
Even with the recent stagnation, there are far fewer bad air days now than in the early 2000s, 1990s and 1980s.
They also report that "about 100,000 Americans each year die prematurely because of polluted air, studies show."
I would like to see a breakdown by state (Score:5, Insightful)
We are driving way more efficient cars and trucks. Automakers sure have not slid back on emissions. All though, Volkswagen did get caught cheating on the emission tests.
Coal plants are closing, and new ones are not opening. Electric system is using way more wind and gas plants.
So, again. I would like to see a break down state by state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is just an personal observation by me, so it means absolutely nothing.
Re:I would like to see a breakdown by state (Score:5, Informative)
Most goods are shipped by rail over any distance.
The Bureau of Transportation[1] doesn't agree with you.
Just sayin' [1] https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/2... [bts.gov]
Re:I would like to see a breakdown by state (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There are gravel pits everywhere. I"m not sure why anyone would ship bulk gravel anywhere by rail. Hell, there's a gravel and cement supplier a couple miles from where I live; no railroad spur to it. Well, that's just one bit of anecdotal evidence.
Like I said, citations, or you just made it up.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, that report is all about transborder transportation between the US and Canada or the US and Mexico, not about transportation between and within the States. As such, it could be argued that rail may be underrepresented in the report you linked since our neighbors may not have the infrastructure necessary to receive freight by rail at the border (which, given that the US has the largest rail network in the world [wikipedia.org] wouldn’t exactly be surprising).
So, I went looking for domestic numbers, which I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's kinda deceptive, and isn't really a good apples-to-apples comparison IMO. From the page you cited, Europe, as a whole has a far larger rail network than the US. And I didn't even count countries like Russia, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine, etc. Or Turkey.
If you add those countries then the US really pales in comparison. Even if you lump all of Canada and Mexico in with the US, it still pales in comparison to Europe. Europe uses their rail network for passengers too, much more so than we do.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's what happens in Yoorp. It's over that way somewhere ---->
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how the SUV/truck trend began right about when obesity rates started skyrocketing. Now you have a large number of Americans who have to drive a huge 4x4 off-road vehicle just to get to and from work. Why? Because big trucks have ... big seats for great big asses!
I have seen some spectacularly fat people in some hilariously small cars.
People buy trucks because they offer a high seating position (thus a good view) and a lot of content per dollar. Because they're held to lower mileage and emissions standards than cars are, it's cheaper to give them performance, and in fact to build them in the first place (since the weight penalty is less significant.) So you get more kit for your buck.
A simple way to solve or at least mitigate this problem is to put car-level emissio
Re: (Score:2)
Most people won't want to dick with a CDL.
That's right, because a non-commercial license is not all that difficult to obtain and gets them what they want. Have you tried to get a CDL? I have, and it's not that difficult.
There's a written test, which is not all that different from a non-commercial test. Then there's a driving test, again not that different than a non-commercial test. The difference is that you drive a bigger vehicle. You must drive the same class of vehicle in the exam that you would be licensed to drive, with a non-commercial
Re: (Score:3)
Go ahead, make all people driving 3/4 ton trucks register as a commercial vehicle. I dare you. People will be standing in line for it.
In the most populous state with the most vehicles, that's already true. My 1992 F250 was registered commercial, so is our 2006 Sprinter 2500, and no we didn't have a choice about it. But you don't need a CDL to drive any commercial vehicle for non-commercial purposes, only a license of sufficient class, and neither of those vehicles requires a class B license.
We also have a 1999 Blue Bird Q-Bus which is registered as an RV, so it can be driven on a Class C in spite of its significant GVWR and air brakes. It
Re: I would like to see a breakdown by state (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People buy trucks because they offer a high seating position (thus a good view) and a lot of content per dollar.
I bought mine because it is easier and less expensive to maintain and the small cab makes for better climate control without sacrificing cargo capacity which is much greater than any enclosed vehicle.
A simple way to solve or at least mitigate this problem is to put car-level emissions standards on trucks unless they are registered as commercial vehicles, and require a CDL for use of any commercial vehicle.
They have effectively already tried that route and failed with increased taxes and regulations.
They do not want a simple way which does not allow for rent seeking and social control. If they did, they could use a tax on the negative externalities [wikipedia.org] which applies to all vehicles.
Re:I would like to see a breakdown by state (Score:5, Interesting)
What other reason (that makes sense) can explain the sudden popularity of these vehicles beginning 10-15 years ago and remaining true today?
This trend started way before 10-15 years ago. Hell, Hummer production ceased 9 years ago due to rising fuel cost and the recession.
The CAFE standards were a major reason for the rise in SUV popularity. As they were considered trucks they were mostly exempt from CAFE until 2006. So cars got smaller and the engines became pretty anemic through the mid 70's and into the mid to late 90's even. Since large cars like station wagons were hard to make efficient, they fell out of popularity. To get that kind of hauling capacity you could get a minivan.
Of course minivans became associated with soccer moms, so men didn't want to drive them. This brought about the rise of what I call the "manly minivan" or SUV. Then women started realizing that minivans weren't cool and an SUV gave a better view as it sits up higher than a car or minivan.
After seeing that you had a better chance of survival in an SUV, this only increased their popularity among parents. Of course the car manufacturers realized this and started adding styling that made them look even tougher, people felt they were even safer. Granted, most of this was BS as shiny chrome looking plastic tubes on the front don't do a thing, but people are easy to fool. The manufacturers did get smart and added stability control. That did a lot to keep stupid people from rolling them.
SUVs also tend to have a lot more low end torque. So you don't need to rev them to high RPMs to get in the power band is the engine. This make them feel more powerful than a lot of cars as most parents don't want to rev out to 6 or 7000 RPMs.
I personally prefer driving a car, but I also own an SUV that I use to take my dogs to the vet, use in snow, and when I need to transport something large.
Re:I would like to see a breakdown by state (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO, the anti-minivan bias is poorly considered. With fold-to-the-floor seats you've got an absolutely cavernous amount of room to put things in them. E.g. I've got a washer and dryer in mine I'm taking to the scrapyard on Monday. and there is still room for a couple of bodies back there, more if you chopped them up first.
With an air mattress in the back you can camp comfortably in it too. None of my SUVs could do that.
My only complaint is the roof rack on mine (a decade+ old Town and Country) flexes disconcertingly at the weight of 6 1"x6"x16's (deck boards). I'm going to have to make a rigid roof rack eventually (if my (14 and 17 year) kids don't steal it first.)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, the anti-minivan bias is poorly considered.
I completely agree. I would have gotten a minivan if it had been entirely up to me. But my wife felt otherwise. But I also have a pickup truck that sees less than 20 mile per year for anything too big or messy to move in the SUV.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a use few use cases for a pickup, but like you it's a miniscule fraction of my overall miles. :( :(
* Moving firewood - I pay someone to deliver it.
* Taking trash to the dump - I pay for a service
* Moving critters - They ride in the van.
I don't like paying for those things I could do, and oddly enough I do actually enjoy them. Oh well.
P.s. If you are in Tennessee in the springtime and see a mint green Chrysler going 10 miles under the speed limit then please don't tailgate it. There is a non
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, the anti-minivan bias is poorly considered. With fold-to-the-floor seats you've got an absolutely cavernous amount of room to put things in them. E.g. I've got a washer and dryer in mine I'm taking to the scrapyard on Monday. and there is still room for a couple of bodies back there, more if you chopped them up first.
This, in Japan the van never had such a problem so you get a whole bunch of luxury vans like the Nissan Elgrand or the Toyota Alphard. Same with China, in fact if you're wealthy enough to have a luxury car in many Asian countries, you're wealthy enough to not drive it yourself. So a large, roomy rear interior is a huge sign of status.
SUV's have developed their own stigma of late. You see an SUV you know that there's a person behind the wheel who has no interest or competence in driving. I'd much sooner g
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how the SUV/truck trend began right about when obesity rates started skyrocketing.
It started when the Feds increased taxes on or effectively banned vehicles which they did not approve of for consumers like station wagons and heavier vehicles. The result was increased purchases of vehicles build on "truck frames" like SUVs because they were effectively being subsidized. As time has gone on, taxes have been increased on the smaller of these vehicles driving consumers to buy larger ones which are exempted for being commercial vehicles.
I saw this back in 2004 when GMC discontinued my "ligh
Re: (Score:2)
Or a strong economy means more people working burning electricity and whatever.
It might be interesting to normalize this to the rate of unemployment, or other business factors.
Re:I would like to see a breakdown by state (Score:5, Funny)
Is it because of the forest fires out west? Or anything else like that?
It's vaping . . . definitely . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I would like to see a breakdown by state (Score:3)
Itâ(TM)s coal-fired power plants, if youâ(TM)re curious.
Theyâ(TM)re responsible for the most soot and Mercury. Many are in the Appalachian corridor, so their plume clouds waft over the mid and upped east coast.
Not trying to get into politics today, just answering your question. Cleaner cars have had a big impact, but the easiest pickings from that sector have long been gotten.
Because of exemptions, many of our (older) coal-fires plants have sections that are burning using 70s/80s emissions te
Re: (Score:2)
Cars have gotten clean enough that in many areas the air from the tailpipe will be cleaner than the air being sucked into the engine.
This is probably what got you a down-mod. It's true though. Can't have truth get an up-mod. That includes my comment.
Go ahead, make my day and mod me down to -1. Go ahead, I know you want to.
That got me modded down to only a zero? You all can do better than that!
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
https://www.politifact.com/tru... [politifact.com]
Thats why. Trump is helping US businesses poison americans.
Re: (Score:1)
Is it because of the forest fires out west? Or anything else like that?
It's the marijuana smoking. I can smell it from here. Damned hippies.
Re: (Score:1)
WTF what that? Oh, I see my mistake. I forgot to use my sarcasm font again.
Wait, is my sarcasm font working this time? I can't know until I submit my reply.
where is the data and where are the instruments ? (Score:2, Insightful)
come on maybe at least linking to or stating your sources
I would really like to know what the instruments that they used and how they calibrated them...
Re: (Score:2)
It's very interesting that you would jump straight to blaming mismeasurment instead of the myriad of other things that could explain this out of context article.
Re:where is the data and where are the instruments (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA: "The EPA quietly posted new air quality data online last month that shows a recent uptick in polluted days."
So much so that you'll contact the EPA and research them, or so little so that you expect the entire national air quality monitoring system [epa.gov] to be described to your satisfaction in a daily news article?
Pro Pollution government. (Score:3, Interesting)
Couldn't have anything to do with putting the EPA in the hands of a man who thinks it shouldn't exist. Neither could it have anything to do with a President who rolled back every anti pollution measure he has the ability to roll back. Those couldn't have any negative effects on air pollution right?
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, keeping a 30MW coal plant operating should be prosecuted for 1 murder per 2 days (low estimate, short-term pollution only). So should blocking or reducing nuclear -- the only currently viable power source that can deliver enough power while being safe (geothermal is good too, but only in some locations), while being also cheapest if you count all externalities. This comparison might change once some new technologies are developed, but for now, hydro and wind are nasty, and solar while promising is n
Re:Pro Pollution government. (Score:5, Funny)
I see you are still driving your dino fuel vehicle..
Got me! While I don't own a car and ride a bicycle to work, eating chicken means I'm still powered by dead dinosaurs.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to explain that my remark against "renewables" is not an insane diatribe: hydro power, besides large-scale dam failures you hear about so damn often, turn ecosystems reliant of the river into a hydrologic desert. Eg. Egypt had its whole populated-before-20th-century area fed by flooding of the Nile -- which is now shut down completely. Human crops get irrigated artificially, but no one irrigates wildlife areas or natural wetlands. And affected areas are huge: to get big enough power-generation capac
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that the sound the turbines make causes cancer! rrrrrr! rrrrrrr! rrrrrrr!
Re: (Score:1)
To pee on your "holy renewables" parade: around here, the law says you can't build a turbine within 10x(turbine's height) from a human dwelling, because of that sound. And then, I heard the nuclear reactor powering your hot winds will render Earth unhabitable in 1ba, then destroy it completely in 4.5ba. So that's how unsafe your power is. :)
Re: (Score:2)
To pee on your "holy renewables" parade: around here, the law says you can't build a turbine within 10x(turbine's height) from a human dwelling, because of that sound.
I've talked to people in the industry and they say this distance from dwellings requirement is because of in cases of ice building up on the blades, or a catastrophic failure of the windmill, there could be big chunks of debris flung into the air and come down to kill someone.
There's always been some kind of no-go zone around windmills once they get to a certain size. Maybe it got larger over this noise issue but I haven't seen this applied widely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pro Pollution government. (Score:2)
How do you count all externalities when we haven't figured out long term storage of nuclear waste?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look! We figured out how to store the waste!
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
Now can we have more nuclear power?
Re: Pro Pollution government. (Score:2)
"Until such time as this or some other innovation is developed, on-site storage of the spent fuel in dry casks remains a perfectly viable option."
Sounds like we're not quite there yet, but I hope we can get a bunch more nuclear power.
Re: (Score:1)
Why didn't you quote the entire paragraph in the article?
"Storing the spent fuel in deep geological wellbores is technically feasible. As demonstrated in Finland there are no technological barriers to deep well storage, although there remain political barriers. In the United States, Yucca Mountain in Nevada was proposed as a repository, but after years of back and forth, the plans were abandoned. No politically acceptable site has yet been identified. To get around the political deadlock, Deep Isolation
Re: (Score:2)
So we have a way to store spent nuclear fuel that might or might not be fully safe. We have no such way to store spent coal fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Which party created the EPA? HINT: It's not the party of Nazi Pelousy...
Which party currently is doing their best to oppose all such regulation? Yep the same party that created it. Just like Obamacare was derived from a Republican proposal yet it is the Republicans who are adamantly opposed to it and are doing their best to dismantle it.
So your point is?
My point is parties change. The Republicans of today are not the Republicans of the past. And the Democrats of today are not those of the past. Neither is what they should be as both are too beholden to their big money ba
Re: (Score:2)
The article specifically discusses the potential impact of regulation changes:
Scientists say that it is too early to see the effects of changes in environmental policy of the Trump administration, which took office in January 2017.
Instead, it appears the most significant variable that changed is the massive amount of wildfires last year.
In an email, the EPA told The Associated Press the increase in unhealthy air days in 2017 “is largely associated with wildfires” in the west and it is studying 2018 before officially announcing its annual air trend data.
Air pollution experts agree wildfires likely have had a role, along with random variation, a stronger economy which leads to more consumption of fuels, and a changing climate. Higher temperatures increase the chances for fires and smog.
For the first time in recent memory, for example, WA state actually had some severely smoggy days, bad enough to affect people with sensitive lungs. I can't even recall when that has happened before, and it was directly caused by the wildfires in British Columbia. I'm betting California similarly had skewed results because
Doubtful (Score:2)
Despite setting air quality standards independently of Trump, most of the bad air quality violations were in California [nytimes.com] (there's a map in the middle of that article). Whatever the reason for the uptick, it's unlikely to be due to Trump's policies. If it were, you'd have expected the air quality v
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe California needs to reconsider their policies on natural gas vehicles and nuclear power plants.
If anyone goes looking for them on YouTube they will find 30 year old recordings of California Democrats talking about the benefits of natural gas and nuclear power. Just look how times have changed.
What they do is fine by me. Facts don't care about your feelings. The Democrats will warm up again to natural gas and nuclear power. It's that, the lights going out, or more pollution. Take your pick. I kno
Precision! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Air quality is affected by a complex mix of factors, both natural and man-made. "
Orange-man-made to be precise.
Re: (Score:1)
Everything good that happens is due to things done before he became POTUS and everything bad is due to things he has done. The world is a funny place!
I see the same with every President. The Right Wingers place all credit on the current or last Right Wing President and all blame on the current or last Left Wing President. Why do you expect Left Wingers to be any different? Why expect the wing you aren't part of to be better than your wing? If they ARE better why not be one of them? If not then why the high expectations?
Trump is slipping (Score:5, Insightful)
His team must have overlooked the people that produce this data. Otherwise they would have been fired and replaced with people that will lie for Trump, no matter how many people that kills.
Nope, he didn't (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
he's moving large numbers of Gov't oversight jobs to the deep south
Cite?
(Not arguing, but I'd like to see a source for the assertion.)
Re: (Score:2)
He's talking about the move of NIFA and ERS to Kansas City (not the deep south).
ERS has been especially embarrassing for this admin, given the negative impact of the trade war. Economists have been quitting left and right since there move was announced, and analysis is already showing the move will cost a lot more money than it saved.
Re: (Score:2)
Not replaced. Trump seems to have found it easiest to just shut down their programs and destroy all of the data.
I guess it would be bad for his routine claims of omniscience if he had any need for science or history.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes. He is a "stable" "genius" after all. One that has trouble reading, but I guess from his perspective his statements all make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't is nice how statements made based on facts have no connection to whether the people making them and recognizing them like each other?
Incidentally, I currently have marked you as "friend", an that basically means "is at least worth disagreeing with".
Re: (Score:2)
His team must have overlooked the people that produce this data. Otherwise they would have been fired and replaced with people that will lie for Trump, no matter how many people that kills.
Why? You only get fired if you advocate for something he doesn't like (action against climate change) or tell him something he doesn't want to hear (your poll numbers are terrible).
But he doesn't really care about air quality, nor does his base, so they're more or less free to report.
Re: (Score:2)
But he doesn't really care about air quality, nor does his base, so they're more or less free to report.
You may have a point. After all, incapability to understand and look after their own affairs is a characteristic of his voter base.
Damn statistics (Score:2)
15% more means what exactly? If there were 6 days last year and this year there were 7, that's a 15% increase in the number of days or a 0.3% increase annually.
It could be a statistical anomaly, well within the margins of error or it could be very impactful.
Also, how does this compare with population growth (including the unofficial mass migrations which haven't been quantified) and what are the correlations. Per capita it seems like this has been a negative trend so it could really be a 125% decrease compa
Re: (Score:2)
It's like you can't even be bothered to read the article in a quest to be wrong
Re: (Score:2)
Who said that Trump caused it?
"Whether we have or haven't managed to undo 20 years of progress in 2 years of an administration hell-bent on undoing every environmental regulation that it can doesn't obviate the safety standard."
Yep. Didn't say that, and the article backs me up on what I did say:
Bad Air Quality (Score:2)
What's that word? (Score:3)
What's this feeling I'm having? I think it's "schadenfreude".
We had a POTUS that tried to make legislation by executive order. The Democrats cheered because it was their guy signing the orders. Then another POTUS comes in and removes those legislative orders. Now the Democrats are all upset, complaining on how "he can't do that!"
He can do that. He did do that. And if you wanted him to not do that then you should have kicked your Democrat senator's ass for not making this a law when Democrats held both houses of Congress and the White House.
You can take your leftist tears and go to hell. Consider this a civics lesson. If you want to your policies last beyond the next election then next time do it the right way and put it into law.
Had the Paris Accords been ratified by the Senate then that "bad orange man" could not have withdrawn the USA from it. Had the new EPA standards been made law by Congress then they'd likely still be in effect. Had the Democrats allowed for more fracking for natural gas then we'd see coal be priced out of existence.
I blame the Democrats for this. Had they set up a lasting energy policy when they had the chance then President Trump could not be tearing it apart with his phone and a pen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's that word? (Score:5, Insightful)
I blame the Democrats for this. Had they set up a lasting energy policy when they had the chance then President Trump could not be tearing it apart with his phone and a pen.
Of course you're wrong in lots of ways: Both GWB and DJT used executive power much more aggressively, and weren't dealing with a congress whose express goal was to make them one-term presidents. But executive agencies exist because congress members do not have the expertise to regulate food and drugs, or the environment, or the use of radio spectra. So they delegate that regulation to the executive with a guiding principle and the assumption that the law as written will be faithfully executed by the agency.
Trump's appointees are too busy enriching themselves and hippy-punching to faithfully execute the law, . With the environmental rollbacks, judges have repeatedly found that the governmental action fails to satisfy the Chevron Doctrine, which holds that agency action is lawful as long as it isn't "arbitrary or capricious."
Our federal system gives Wyoming as many senators as California. Put simply, the Paris accords will never pass while the Republican Party makes climate denial an article of faith. So I get it, you blame Democrats for not Green-Lanterning the government into sanity. This is one of many positions you should reassess.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Putin.
When Trump has finished sucking your Kokov, do you think he will want to have a go at Kim Jung Un's little lemon lollipop?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, fuck those lefty commie bastards using executive privilege to get round an obstructionist congress and trying to make life better for you and everyone else! A fascist bastard using executive privilege to make your life and everyone else's life worse will sure show them the error of their ways!
Executive orders are not a good way to run a country, but cheerleading their abuse because it highlights a "civics lesson" isn't very civic minded of you. Maybe if you spent more time helping your fellow man than
Re: (Score:2)
Executive orders are not a good way to run a country, but cheerleading their abuse because it highlights a "civics lesson" isn't very civic minded of you.
Cheerleading? I'm not liking Trump's executive orders either. If Congress was doing their jobs then we wouldn't have this problem. Instead they just handed it off to the executive, only to complain when the executive didn't do things "correctly". If they didn't want the executive to take this option then they should not given that option in the law.
Maybe we'll see both the Democrats and the Republicans fix this the right way. That fix includes not letting the executive write laws.
Getting to zero carbon by 2050 is fantasy (Score:2)
We will not replace all fossil fuels any time soon. Not by 2030. Not by 2050. Probably not by 2100 or even 2120. We know this because some very smart people looked at the numbers.
https://business.financialpost... [financialpost.com]
University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. âoeThere are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.â On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.
If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.
I've heard people say we need to address the problem of global warming like we did with the Manhattan Project, or the Apollo Program. So far we've been about as effective in solving this problem as the "nuclear boy scout" in trying to make a nuclear power plant in his parent's garage.
First we
burning plastic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
The vast majority of left-wing protesters arrested on suspicion of politically-fuelled offences in Berlin are young men who live with their parents, a new report found. The figures, which were published in daily newspaper Bild revealed that 873 suspects were investigated by authorities between 2003 and 2013. Of these 84 per cent were men, and 72 per cent were aged between 18 and 29.
Mommy still letting yo
And yet (Score:2)
the air quality in Berlin, governed by a coalition of social democrats (commies for you) and (filthy for you) greens, has been at least improving consistently over the last decades:
https://www.berlin.de/senuvk/u... [berlin.de]
But please stay wherever you are enjoying your freedom.
Re:What a coincidence... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
King Arthur: [about the inscription on the rock] What does it say, Brother Maynard?
Brother Maynard: It reads, "Here may be found the last words of Joseph of Aramathia. He who is valiant and pure of spirit may find the holy grail in the Castle of Aaauuuggghhh... "
King Arthur: What?
Brother Maynard: "The Castle of Aaaauuuggghhhh"
Sir Bedevere: What is that?
Brother Maynard: He must have died while carving it.
King Arthur: Oh come on!
Brother Maynard: Well, that's what it says.
King Arthur: Look, if he was dying, h
Re: (Score:2)