Reheating: Call to Enter resistance

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2

Reheating: Call to Enter resistance




by Woodcutter » 30/10/09, 11:39

I have received this in recent days, which I deliver to you verbatim :
Hello, whether it is to bring to life the debate of ideas or to support the reasoning that constitutes its heart, the dissemination of this text depends in part on you. Please distribute it as widely as possible! Cordially.
PE Neurohr
-------------
ENTER RESISTANCE

Appeal on the destruction of the earth's climate and the genocide that will result from it

Paris, the 27 October 2009.

Hello,
The following text was not written to please you. The following text challenges your vision of the world. The following text will not make you see well in society. The following text is too long for you. The following text, in a word, is a text of resistance. You are free to stop here.

Tomorrow you will receive a list of citations, with the names of their authors and their sources, explaining the fact that the French, by destroying the earth's climate using machines such as planes or cars, proceed in any knowledge of the cause for the methodical, scientific preparation of a genocide.

The people cited are journalists, scientists, activists, etc., who claim that it is genocide but still forget, for now 1) their own tendency to dwell more on the fate of Costa Rica's golden-backed frog than that of millions of children, women and men cynically driven to genocide, through the destruction of the climate that allows them to feed; and these cited authors also forget 2) the central question: if there is genocide, by definition, there are those responsible. In 2009, there are people who, by their way of life, are preparing this genocide. These are mainly the inhabitants of so-called "rich" countries, including France.

Today, the following text presents a logical argument describing the 3 main stages of this genocide. They are obvious, and the evidence necessary to reach this conclusion is known to you. Nowhere is there a plot. However, the enormity of the crime, and the fact that it is our society that does it, the people we know who are involved in it, make the connection in your brain unacceptable. But there will come a time when basic logic and morals will break down the mental walls that characterize the climate debate.

Although this requires more development, you are offered here a relatively short version, in the form of a description as lucid as possible of the current situation, followed by a historical anecdote.

First of all, how would you answer the following question: "If it was possible to describe - in a compact and clear way - the situation of France in 2009 in relation to the destruction of the earth's climate, which word would choose? you? " We can approach the thing in the following way, starting with the result, then going up the chronological course of things.

1. If a population runs out of food, physiologically speaking, men, women and children die. However, according to the United Nations, in 2009, a billion human beings lack food and are therefore already in a "pre-famine" situation.

2. If climatic extremes - in short, droughts and floods - destroy crops, a population no longer has enough to eat.

3. The destruction of the earth's climate leads to climatic extremes. The vast majority of scientific studies attest to this (1).

4. Clap your arms very hard, blow hard: you will have no impact on the climate. To destroy the climate, we "must" use machines, called for example "plane" and "car". Transport alone is responsible for a quarter of climate pollution. By adding the industrial construction of the said machines and the infrastructure they require, this represents almost half of the pollution in question.

5. Is the destruction of the climate the work of wicked little green men from Mars? No. Is it Mother Nature, having a whim? No. It is human beings who destroy the climate. Note the "of": human beings. Indeed, one of the grossest lies that we hear today is to make believe "that we are all responsible". In fact, the climate pollution caused by a Frenchman is out of proportion to that of the majority of humanity. To put the responsibility of a Frenchman and a Malian, or an Indian, on an equal footing is a lie. It is therefore a small part of humanity that knowingly uses machines that destroy the earth's climate.

Now put these logical sequences in chronological order and summarize.

1. A minority of humans - including the French - use ostentatious machines that destroy the earth's climate.

2. This destruction of the climate leads to climatic hazards which will destroy the crops of the majority of the inhabitants of the planet.

3. Among the billion human beings already in food stress, these crop losses will result in the death of millions of human beings.
There is a precise word in the French language to describe what the minority of people described above do. This word is: genocide (2).

Even from a legal point of view, it is obvious, although international legislation against genocide was written at a time when it was hard to imagine that humans would mass murder other humans, destroying their climate. using machines (3).

About what ? How? 'Or' What ? France in 2009 is a genocidal society? What joke ! We are all very nice, me, my family, my friends, my neighbors are not genocidaires!
To make you understand the futility of such a reaction, a little piece of history. At the beginning of 42 begins the "industrial" genocide of the Jews. You can say what you want about the German population at the time, that they were immoral, etc., but you cannot say that they were "dumb" - unfortunately, otherwise it would have been faster to get rid of Nazism. The German population of 1942 is one of the most educated, the most technically advanced in the world.

However, at this crucial moment, Goebbels will do something which singularly sheds light on the situation in which we find ourselves in 2009. He will address the German population, and this "educated and technically advanced" people who are in the process of participate, at different levels, in a genocide, he will say the following thing. He will say that we must launch a national contest ... of politeness. Authentic (4).

It therefore seems that the human mind is capable of such a level of self-intoxication that an educated and technically advanced people can engage in a polite contest ... at the same time that it massacres children in gas chambers. In fact, there is a certain logic at work here. If we are all talking about how to improve the level of politeness in the country, it would be preposterous to pretend that we are, at the same time, carrying out genocide.

In 2009, in France, an educated and technically advanced people use machines which, clearly, prepare the genocide of millions of men, women and children. These people do not make a polite contest. But we have the ideological equivalent: "officials" explain to him that you have to turn off the tap when you brush your teeth.

The "normality" around you does not constitute a rational argument to claim that France is not engaged, at this moment, in the preparation of a genocide. If it hadn't been for the Allied Air Force, the genocidal Germany of 1942 would have been a country where people go to buy their bread, put their children to school, have a drink in a cafe ... or s 'indulge in polite contests. In The supplication, Chernobyl, chronicle of the world after the apocalypse, a witness says that she "understood that, in life, horrible things happen in a peaceful and natural way ..." (5).

In other words, to present the destruction of the climate as an ecological problem is to be late for a war. It is to understand nothing of the world around us, not because we are stupid, but because reality is somewhat awkward to admit.

Forget the little birds, whales, etc., we're not there anymore. France in 2009 began a genocide on a scale never seen in human history. But, you say, there is still a point that remains ambiguous. Unlike genocides committed in the history of mankind, the French do not explicitly want the deaths of millions of other human beings. Here again, the futility of the argument is obvious. Never ever has a genocidal people said, in essence: "We are bastards, and we take pleasure in mass murder." Each time, the genocidaires explain that they are poor little ones who only defend their own people. The Germans "defended" the purity of their race against the wicked Anglo-Saxon Jewish bankers, the Hutus genocide the Tutsis to "defend" themselves during a civil war, and so on.

The genocide that France is planning and implementing today is no exception to the rule of the genre. Thus, officially, the president is not relaunching the manufacture of machines that destroy the climate with the avowed aim of murdering millions of human beings - even if this is the main effect - but just to "defend" the growth in the face of the "crisis". One ideological system of the sick replaces another, but the piles of corpses are the same.

In conclusion, as an adult, you are responsible for your actions. Using certain machines - airplane and car for example - has the effect of causing genocide by destroying the earth's climate, as clearly as 2 + 2 = 4. No excuse holds. There is no excuse for participating in genocide. Consequently, if you use or wish to continue to use these machines despite this, you are knowingly participating in genocide (6). It is possible now to stop using the genocidal machine called "airplane", and it is possible in the short term, collectively, to organize to live without this other genocidal machine called "car".
What to do ? It is always possible to keep these facts in one corner of one's brain, as did the majority of the French population during the occupation. And it is possible to do what a Jean Moulin or a Lucie Aubrac did. We suggest that you enter the resistance.

Let’s get on well. Exhilarated people who believe that violence can solve the problems of the 7st century are repugnant to us. References to the Resistance are wanted, but they are understood from an intellectual and spiritual point of view (XNUMX). Just as it took courage for a de Gaulle to disobey, you will need courage to see that we are indeed living in a genocidal society, and just as much courage to draw the necessary conclusions in terms of political combat . It is clear that it is more comfortable to say that the CEO of Total is very, very mean, but to use his kerosene, with this dripping hypocrisy of good conscience which characterizes a significant part of current environmental movements.
One of the characteristics of the Resistance Party will be to start by freeing itself from "What will we say?" We don't care if we sound like crazy or clowns or extremists. Weren't the resistance fighters during World War II treated as terrorists? We care about what is right and true. Afterwards, the French are free to vote or not for our political vision, but at least they will be offered a serious option that does not insult their intelligence.

Thus, the airplane is currently the most "efficient" machine at destroying the climate, whereas the said machine is used by an ultra-minority on the surface of the earth. But these are only machines. When we think that the life of human beings is more important, we understand that aviation must be banned, and that immediately.

The same reasoning, more or less, applies to this other machine called "car". If the Chinese and Indian middle classes can "develop" and drive as the French do, we can stop talking about the earth's climate. So, unless you are racist and think that only we can use this machine, cars should be banned in France. To dare to speak of a "green car" in this international context is ludicrous.

Among the first four measures that the Resistance Party will implement, we therefore propose:
- the immediate ban on aviation;
- the progressive ban over one year of the private car (vehicles of course for firefighters, ambulances, etc.);
- the progressive ban, over two years, of any import of goods or services that can be produced or produced in France (which will significantly reduce transport by truck);
- the introduction of a maximum moral income (RM2) of 3000 euros net per month (roughly three times the minimum wage), which will apply to the 10% of French people who exceed this amount, but who will maintain them, worldwide , among the richest of the richest.

These measures may seem surreal. In reality, they are very simple, compared to those wanted by the resistance fighters of the first hour, during the Second World War. At the time, as the resistance fighter Serge Ravanel told him in interviews with France Culture, it took a certain dose of blissful optimism to claim that it was still possible to turn the tide and defeat the Nazi machine. Today, banning the use of a few ostentatious machines is, by comparison, a reasonable political goal. As for the apparent "speed" of the implementation of these measures, can we speak of "speed" when it comes to the prohibition of genocidal machines? And if you still hesitate, ponder these words from Romain Gary:
"I have no resentment towards the men of the defeat of 40. I understand very well those who had refused to follow de Gaulle. They were too settled in their furniture, which they called the human condition. They had learned and they were teaching the "wisdom", this poisoned chamomile that the habit of living pours little by little into our throat, with its sweet taste of humility, renunciation, acceptance "(8).

Ultimately, we offer to enter resistance. Within a month, we will carry out the founding act of the Resistance Party (9). Your help is crucial. Do not think that the inhabitants of the Third World will take a long time to call you genocidal, with good reason. In fact, it has already started (10).

You can :
1. Forward this call by email to as many people as possible. Even a few emails, sent by everyone, can allow this information to be widely disseminated.
2. Send us your contact details to snowhobbes@gmail.com ; so, we will keep in touch, inform you of the development of this initiative, and may offer to join the Resistance as soon as we have set up an adequate structure; and we will keep you posted on how you can participate in this fight.
Enter resistance.
Fraternally.
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr


(1) Compendium on the science of climate change, UNEP, 2009.

(2) Among the famines which received the most media coverage on the strange western skylights, there are of course the Sahel famines in the 70s. However, the "real origin of the Sahel disaster was revealed in November 2003, when climatologists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., published a meticulous study "which showed that" a single climatic variable was responsible for much of the rainfall decrease: sea surface temperatures rising in the Indian Ocean, which resulted from a build-up of greenhouse gases. "
Biologist Tim Flannery notes that "despite the importance of the moral implications of this study, it appears to have gone unnoticed in international media." He adds that "climate change in the Sahel is emblematic of the situation the world is facing in general (...)" (Les makers de temps, Tim Flannery, 2005).
In addition, according to the former secretary of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, already 300 people die every year due to the destruction of the climate.

(3) France is a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948. This Convention applies, including "in time of peace" (art. 1). The notion of genocide is not limited to racial characteristics, since genocide is understood, among other things, as the intention to destroy "a national group", including "in part" (art. 2). Thus, in third world countries, even if the well-to-do classes can eventually get away with it, this does not allow the general population to be murdered with impunity ...
Moreover, the act of genocide is "committed with the intent to destroy" human beings. Here, we see in advance the nauseating arguments that will not fail to be put forward. If France is developing the production of machines that destroy the climate - such as airplanes and cars - it is not with the intention of destroying entire populations. This argument is specious and does not hold up to analysis. We know that using machines that destroy the climate ... destroys the climate. And we know just as clearly that destroying the climate ... destroys human beings.
If he had to accept such a defense, then a murderer who stabs his knife in the heart of his victim can say most seriously in the world that he did not intend to kill her, he just wanted to verify that his knife is well sharpened. If we use a machine whose main result is to assassinate entire populations, the fact that this machine is also used to take holidays with a minority of humans can hardly be considered as a good reason to carry out the massacre.
Finally, according to the Convention, the process used by genocidaires may consist of "intentionally subjecting the group to conditions of existence calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" (art. 2, c)). Clearly, destroying the climate that allows a group to cultivate their fields, and therefore to feed themselves, constitutes an act of genocide.

(4) For the Germanists, the original version is even more impressive, particularly from the point of view of the euphemisms employed, another parallel with the present time. Der Spiegel reports this historical fact by specifying that Goebbels found that "die allgemeine Reizbarkeit deutlich zugenommen hatte" ("the general irritability had clearly increased").

(5) Zoïa Danilovna Brouk, inspector of the preservation of nature, in La supplication, Chernobyl, chronicle of the world after the apocalypse, Svetlana Alexievitch, 1997. (6) It is almost funny, somewhere, to realize how obvious this notion of genocide is, in the end, already present in filigree in the speech of many people dealing with this subject, but we don't want to see it. And this self-criticism is so unbearable that either the responsibility for this genocide is not mentioned, or the usual scarecrow - George Bush - serves as a scapegoat.
Thus, and this list is not exhaustive, far from it, Michel Rocard, at the turn of a sentence, speaks of "collective murder of the planet"; British journalists Mark Lynas and George Monbiot speak, respectively, of "a crime more unspeakable than even the most cruel of genocides" for which there is no excuse because "as established by the Nuremberg trials after the war, ignorance cannot be used as a defense (...) ", and" crime against humanity "; world-renowned climatologist James Hansen, speaking of the disappearance of living species, makes a comparison that is no coincidence for humans: he says that "if we cannot stop the further construction of coal-fired power stations, these trains carrying coal will be death trains - no less disgusting than if they were beast wagons heading for the crematoriums, laden with countless irreplaceable cash ", and he further adds that "the bosses of companies producing energy from fossil fuels know what they are doing and are aware of the long term consequences if they continue on this path. In my opinion, these bosses should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature "; Joe Romm, a former Clinton administration and expert on climate issues, also speaks of "an unforgivable crime against humanity"; David Suzuki, a high profile environmentalist in Canada, says that "when you run a country where all the great scientists or economists tell you you have to act and you don't do anything, you have to be tried and maybe even accused of crime against humanity " ; finally, speaking of the "adaptation to climate change" advocated by certain economists, which consists in not changing anything in our lifestyles, the biologist Tim Flannery considers that an "adaptation of this kind is a genocide"; polytechnicians Jean-Marc Jancovici and Alain Grandjean warn that "if we have difficulty associating billions of deaths with large-scale climate change, it is not that the risk is non-existent", and in relation to the necessary changes in society, they ask if it was necessary to "keep the concentration camps so as not to put out of work all those who were living from deportation" (Michel Rocard, France Inter, 22.7.09, cited by La Décroissance, 9.2009; Six Degrees, Mark Lynas, 2007 ; One Shot Left, George Monbiot, The Guardian, 25.11.08; Coal Mining: President and CEO, 21.11.07, and Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near, 23.6.2008, James Hansen www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ ; Pew Center: Bush team at Poznan doing "a very good job, actually, of representing US interests", comment on this dispatch by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, 13.12.08; David Suzuki, quoted in David Suzuki, tele-ecologist, Martine Jacot, Le Monde, 10.9.09; The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery, 2005; Refuel please !, Jean-Marc Jancovici and Alain Grandjean, 2006).

(7) On the other hand, we do not claim to have a thousandth of the physical courage of these people who knew that they risked torture and death.

(8) The promise of dawn, Romain Gary, 1960.

(9) The tool chosen to make these changes takes the form of a political party because environmental associations, by their statutes, forbid themselves to gain political power in order to ... be able to change things. In addition, their results so far are abysmal. Thus, perhaps the "least worst" of the big associations in France is Greenpeace, given that it is the members who finance it, and not the worst polluters on the planet, as in the case of WWF. However, the most heartbreaking criticism that can be made of Greenpeace can be read ... in their membership form. As long as we take the time to read calmly what is written in black and white.
Indeed, they tell us that "for 35 years, Greenpeace (...) has been acting to protect the environment" and that the association benefits from "recognized effectiveness". What is a little annoying is that a few lines later, they tell us that "nearly 80% of the primary forests on the planet have been destroyed". Indeed, with such figures, to speak of "recognized effectiveness" is completely justified. Further, they add that "industrial fishing fleets have already decimated 90% of the most consumed fish". It is clear, with such results, who would still dare to doubt the "recognized effectiveness" of Greenpeace? Et caetera (Embarquez !, Greenpeace, undated membership form distributed in June 2009). Note: this review is also a self-review, being written by someone who worked for Greenpeace and did not do better. The form "political party" does not guarantee success, but at least the direction is the right one, namely political power through the vote of the citizens. Associations have long since sunk into "sports commentary": they judge, rebel, claim, but forbid themselves, by their statutes, to have the power to change things.

(10) This is for example what a person living in India can already say, addressing us: "The incredible injustice that you, the developed countries, with a population of a billion, wish to do, fills us with horror ... You developed countries are truly disgusting in your inability to change your unsustainable lifestyle, to stay at home, to be happy with the beauty around you, to show interest in your neighbors and care for them, and take your own scientists seriously (...) If you don't drastically lower [your greenhouse gas pollution], you will simply have declared war on present and future generations , with your climatic weapons of mass destruction. You are pitiful, pitiful human beings. "The Incredible Injustice, Anandi Sharan, Hot Topics on the Climate, 17.7.09.
--

Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr
59 Orfila Street,
75020 Paris
Phone. : 01 82 09 12 25
E-mail: snowhobbes@gmail.com
Skype: pierreneurohr
Transport: metro Gambetta; bus 26, 60, 69, Gambetta stop
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 30/10/09, 11:42

The following :
"There are things that can only be done as long as it is not talked about; once it is talked about, it is no longer possible to do it."

Raul Hilberg,
Holocaust historian.

ENTER RESISTANCE 2/2

Appeal on the destruction of the earth's climate and the genocide that will result from it

Paris, the 28 October 2009.

Hello again,
This message complements the one you received yesterday.

As long as you are interested in the destruction of the climate which is being carried out before our eyes, you have been led to read the word "genocide". But this honest and reasonable description of the situation does not "hit" your brain, and for one simple reason: you are part of the society which is preparing this genocide. You are free, like yesterday, to stop here.

"(...) the rain no longer falls because the richest and most powerful nations have polluted our great" aerial ocean ", and in doing so they have crushed the populations of the Sahel to the point of turning them into dust ( ...) "

"An adaptation of this sort [to continue without changing our lifestyles] is genocide"
Tim Flannery,
Australian biologist.

"Our economic model is not that different, seen in the light of day, from that of the Third Reich (...) Today it can be argued that 'genocide' is, again, an adequate description of the way we continue to run our business, willfully ignoring the consequences this has on the poorest people on the planet. "
Colin Challen,
Labor MP in the British Parliament.

"Climate change is killing our people. (...) Floods like we had never seen before have come and swept everything away. It rained, and it rained until the earth was soaked and our homes submerged by water. (...) When we returned home, all the houses had collapsed, our grain stores were destroyed and food had been carted away. "
Constance Okollet,
Farmer from eastern Uganda, president of the United Women of Osukura Network.

If nothing is done, it will be a "silent genocide".
Thomas Tillman,
Prime Minister of Grenada.

The destruction of the climate is "mass murder".
Mohammad Nashed,
President of the Maldives.

"These coal trains will be death trains - no less disgusting than if they were beast wagons heading for the crematoria, laden with countless irreplaceable cash."

"The bosses of companies producing energy from fossil resources know what they are doing and are aware of the long term consequences if they continue on this path. In my opinion, these bosses should be tried for crimes against the 'humanity and nature. "
James Hansen,
NASA climatologist, generally recognized as the most competent in the world in his field.

The destruction of the climate is a "crime, more unspeakable than even the most cruel of genocides" for which there is no excuse because "as the Nuremberg trials established after the war, ignorance cannot be used as a defense (...) ".
Mark Lynas,
British journalist and writer, his book "6 degrees" was crowned with the prestigious Royal Society Prize for Scientific Books.

The destruction of the climate is a "crime against humanity".
George Monbiot, British journalist and writer.

The destruction of the climate is "an unforgivable crime against humanity".
Joe Romm, Energy Specialist, former Clinton Administration.

"When you run a country where all the great scientists or economists tell you you have to act and you don't do anything, you have to be tried and maybe even charged with a crime against humanity."
David Suzuki, Ecologist and journalist very popular in Canada.

"If we find it difficult to associate billions of deaths with large-scale climate change, it is not that the risk is non-existent (...)"
In relation to the societal changes necessary today, was it necessary, during the Second World War, to "keep the concentration camps so as not to put out of work all those who lived from deportation"?
Jean-Marc Jancovici and Alain Grandjean, Polytechnicians and authors.

"The incredible injustice that you, the developed countries, with a population of a billion, wish to do, fills us with horror (...). You the developed countries are really disgusting in your inability to change your way of life unsustainable, stay at home, be happy with the beauty around you, show interest in and care for your neighbors, and take your own scientists seriously (...).
"If you don't drastically lower [your greenhouse gas pollution], you will simply have declared war on present and future generations, with your climatic weapons of mass destruction. You are pitiful, pitiful human beings."
Anandi Sharan, Indian ecologist.

Do you want to be among the last to understand that this is genocide? And if you reach this conclusion, will you be among the last to wonder who is responsible for it?

Tomorrow you will receive an email asking you to join the Resistance Party's mailing list. You are free to join it or not.
Fraternally.

Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr

sources:
- Anandi Sharan: The incredible injustice, Anandi Sharan, Current topics on the climate, 17.7.09.
- Colin Challen: We must think the unthinkable, and take voters with us, Colin Challen, The Independent, 28.3.2006.
- Constance Okollet: Climate change is killing our people, Constance Okollet, The Guardian, 23.9.09.
- David Suzuki: quoted in David Suzuki, tele-ecologist, Martine Jacot, Le Monde, 10.9.09.
- George Monbiot: One Shot Left, George Monbiot, The Guardian, 25.11.08.
- James Hansen: Coal Mining: President and CEO, 21.11.07, and Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near, 23.6.2008, James Hansen www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
- Jean-Marc Jancovici and Alain Grandjean: Fill up please!, Jean-Marc Jancovici and Alain Grandjean, 2006.
- Joe Romm: Pew Center: Bush team at Poznan doing "a very good job, actually, of representing US interests", comment on this dispatch by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, 13.12.08. - Mark Lynas: Six Degrees, Mark Lynas, 2007.
- Mohamed Nasheed and Thomas Tillman: Climate: the cry of alarm from island states, Hervé Kempf, Le Monde, 22.9.09.
- Raul Hilberg: The Destruction of European Jews, Raul Hilberg, 1961. - Tim Flannery: The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery, 2005.
--
Pierre-Emmanuel Neurohr
59 rue Orfila, 75020 Paris
Phone. : 01 82 09 12 25
E-mail: snowhobbes@gmail.com
Skype: pierreneurohr
Transport: metro Gambetta; bus 26, 60, 69, Gambetta stop
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79112
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 30/10/09, 11:53

Sorry Bucheron, I know you don't like it but I edited your title:
a) no title 100% in capital letters
b) I added "warming" and "call" for search engine and visitors
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 30/10/09, 12:06

There's no lizard, it's better like that.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 135 guests