In addition to taking over the nation's energy supply, Sanders' plan claims to end unemployment by creating 20 million jobs, provide "massive investments in research and development" and impose fines and litigation on the fossil fuel industry.
Taking over energy is just the beginning of the takeover of the entire economy. That's what socialism is. That's who Sanders is and his Democratic opponents for president are moving in his direction of Government control of industry. When people lose their economic freedom, they lose their personal and political freedoms as well. Object, and you go to jail. Politicians decide how we should live, what medical care we get and when, what fuels we can use and vehicles we can drive, and then we have nothing to say about it. We are serfs of the state.
To relieve some stress, it’s useful to note NASA analysis concludes Amazonian fires are at about the 15 year average. It doesn’t make it good, but it’s context the media seems to be failing to provide. Why? is a reasonable question.
There are 80 percent more fires this year than there were last summer, according to the Brazilian government. This surge in burning has accompanied a spike in deforestation in general. More than 1,330 square miles of the Amazon rainforest have been lost since January, a 39 percent increase over the same period last year, according to The New York Times.
Don't Amazon areas lost to fire grow back eventually? Forests burn in the USA too. Part of the natural cycle (I realize that farmers burning land in Brazil is different.) But the land will grow back. The Amazon is over 2 million square miles. The NY Times article reported in the above post that 1330 square miles were "lost". While that's a 39% increase over last year, it's still only about 65/100ths of one per cent of the total Amazon. (0.065%). In any case, "the whole Amazon" isn't on fire. That's fake news, yellow journalism, exaggeration, and why there are so many sceptics today about what's published in media about this or anything regarding the environment. It's obvious that many people have an agenda and will distort facts to support their agenda.
Something doesn't add up. NYT reports:
Why a 15 year average? Ah, I see, because that would include some years with excessive burning, and that would make the current crisis look less of an issue in comparison. That is using statistics to downplay a crisis...... As the above link shows, in the last 10 years (with the exception of 2010) there has been a decrease in the number of fires and these often started later in the year....
And, indeed, something that nobody has said.
Don't Amazon areas lost to fire grow back eventually?
In short, a country where corruption is legal through the mechanism authorizing lobbies to fund candidates...
Some of it, not necessarily with the same vegetation, and animal life doesn't grow back. The CO2 that was produced by the burning will stay in the atmosphere for decades and contributes to Global Warming (which contributes to a dryer Amazon, according to climate studies).
Except. Every. Single. News. Headline.
There are those "studies" again. Which "studies," Bart? Whose "studies?" What makes you think these "studies" are more reliable than "studies" that "prove" the opposite? Why don't you show us a chart?
Yes, it was 15 smiles, one for each year of your “logic.” Who would have thought that a longer statistical period would yield more accurate results than shorter, cherry-picked one!? By all means, let’s exclude years with excessive burning so that the current one looks hugely excessive, even if it is only average.
