Comments guade00 has made

Buying local is good. Buying less is even better.

Seriously, the majority of Americans are still in the "ignore you" phase.

Best wishes with either 350 ppm or 2 degrees. People, we are in the midst of a massive climatic shift and species die-off. Please, by all means, let's reduce our use of fossil fuels, cut emissions, and achieve some sort of peace with our environment. But, be sure, it's happening.

I'm all for a shorter government work week, until I wish to use that particular government service on a Friday.

The report does not discuss what all those workers with 3-day weekends do on their days off. I mean, do we really expect them to be zero-emitters on those days? Isn't it more likely that they are jumping in their cars and driving somewhere? Or turning all the lights and TVs on in their homes? 

It might save the government money and energy, but as a tool to address climate change, I'm not so sure.

"Neither MoveOn nor the Sierra Club, however, can file suit against Bonner & Associates, as the two groups were not directly harmed by the fraud."

Wire fraud isn't a statute individuals file suit on. It's a federal crime (18 USC 1343). A U.S. attorney files the suit. And the suit would have to prove that the victim actually relied on the false or fraudulent statement and suffered damages as a result. Nice try. Let the press do their job, that'll be enough.

The G8 was indecisive. We'll find out in Copenhagen how shafted we really are.

He's right. We're toast. And I say that optimistically. Perhaps it's better for the long term survival of the world's ecosystem.

We better get crackin' on international deals too. This bill is absurd--we all know it--not just because it doesn't go far enough domestically, but also because the real problem is global emissions. We're toast.

Whatever we do, we better do it fast. And it had better make a difference in worldwide GHG emissions, or we're pissing in the wind.

Wait till that sucker melts completely and the feedback mechanism kicks in. We're toast.

And those are "tough principles?"

Goodness gracious. If those are the tough principles that will lead the way out of our climate crisis, we really are in deep kimchee. Too little, too late.

I shudder to think of what lame impotency exists in the "less stringent" recommendations of the group that has been compromised by corporate multinationals.

We're toast.  On 50 green and civic groups roll out tough climate principles posted 8 months, 4 weeks ago 10 Responses

Courts have never been reliable guarantors...

...of the environment.

This decision is evidence of the crap shoot that is litigating protection of the environment. Legislating environmental protection in clear and unequivocal terms is the only way we will ensure our ecology will be preserved.

Remember, the Supreme Court was one vote away from deciding that carbon was not a pollutant in Massachusetts v EPA. Had that decision fallen the other way, regulation of carbon emissions would have been set back a generation.

Much better to elect conscientious people than to bring suits before conservative courts.
On Clinton appointee upholds destruction of Appalachia posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 12 Responses

Good points

Perhaps Sam would prefer that we all purchase our own private rail cars and diesel engines in 60-month GMAC installment plans at 7% interest. You know, the way we do it with cars. Then, if we simply shift our subsidies of roads and automobiles to railways, it would pencil out for the budget hawks.On Did the Obama team ax funding for mass transit in the stimulus bill? posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

But we won't hold it against him

Let's not trumpet farming and ranching in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries in Colorado and New Mexico territories (or States) as something to be proud of. It is all too likely that his family's ranches were carved out of insidious allotment and reservation policies in the west designed to destroy or marginalize the original "owners" of the land, the native tribes.  

He seems like on OK guy, though.On Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar picked to head Interior Department posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

Hold on, cowboys

Just a small problem with the "tax the chinamen" theory, and that would be the WTO. See, the US and most of the western industrial states insisted on removing the kind of targeted tariffs you recommend. Without getting into the minutiae, the US would have to apply the tariff evenly across the entire producing world. While that's still possible, pretty soon we return to tariff wars.

First, we must insist on environmental protection in general and limiting carbon emissions in specific in any WTO-inspired conversations. Of course, that has to be done in tandem with UNFCCC negotiations. You see the complexity.

And the post by "mwildfire" is certainly novel in its revisionism. The rest of the world is now balking at American climate change leadership? And Africa now is a creditor continent and, along with the Yellow Peril, has all the money?  Am I just missing the air of sarcasm here?On Old-style 'North-South' rift opens at U.N. climate talks posted 12 months ago 6 Responses

No big deal

Nothing an enlightened Congress and president can't remedy.On Roadless rule limited to 10 Western states, judge rules posted 12 months ago 4 Responses

At least they made it public

Yes, it's a naked effort to lobby the Obama administration on environmental issues. I can buy that. But can you imagine for a nano-second the outgoing monsters in the Bush-Cheney administration and their retinue of oil and gas industry lobbyists ever releasing such a clear manifest of policy recommendations for public consumption?

Transparency was a promise of the Obama campaign. Agree with the policies or not, the document and its authors are there for us to debate and discuss. This is the way it is supposed to be, and for many of us, what we voted for. On Enviro coalition delivers a whopping transition plan to Obamaland posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

Let us hope...

that the Reagan era ends once and for all November 4.On White House begins review of controversial EPA rule posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

That's nice to see.

It's nice to see that Republicans actually believe in more regulation. That's an intellectual progression for the party that has been almost completely co-opted by big business and the religious right.

But I believe you really don't want to get into a pissing match on which party wants to deregulate more on an environmental news and commentary site; this conversation is really about the fish, in case you didn't read the Sharpless piece. On We have another billion-dollar resource at risk: the ocean posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Good for them

Ingenious use of local circumstances to create a sustainable home, but not a model of sustainability for the rest of us, unless we all want to relocate to a former gravel pit in the southwestern desert.

Life isn't just water and energy. Presumably, they'd need roads to service the area (I saw a Prius!), maintenance of those roads, health services, police and emergency, other amenities, like getting your Prius fixed when it breaks down, movie theaters, etc., some kind of organizational governing system--pretty soon, life starts looking unsustainable again.

The owner in the first video says that humans are "enhancing" the natural environment in a way that "mother nature could never do." It's largely a fantasy. There simply are not enough gravel-pits to go around, and the amount of people on this planet would simply overwhelm this concept.

Still, it is ingenious.On Living off-grid in a reclaimed gravel pit posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

What is to be done?

So, CO2 emissions continue to rise, the Arctic ice cap is melting, and methane traps are releasing.

When we should have been turning this runaway train around, we haven't even slowed it down. And does anyone really think Copenhagen 2009, the successor to Kyoto, will get our planetary house in order?

The political will for drastic measures does not exist. The time for change has come and gone. Conservation, emissions reductions, and the green economy may make sense in their own regard; but, in terms of climate change, is mitigation now our only realistic option?On Last year's world CO2 emissions exceeded most dire IPCC predictions posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

CWA stuff

This is a cool case. I like how the court uses Chevron analysis--which typically is highly deferential to administrative agencies--to slap down the EPA for its insolence.

The 9th Circuit points out a curious feature of the CWA in that once the EPA includes a source as a "point source" it can not de-list the source, and EPA is compelled to issue effluent guidelines. The EPA tried to do this with construction sites, but the Court said no-no. This is a distinct omission within the CWA statute and makes me wonder if it was an oversight by Congress. At any rate, the more regulated sources the better in my book.

And 2Wheeler is kinda correct in saying that industrial farming is not subject to CWA: Section 1362(14) specifically excludes agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from agriculture. However, the 2nd Circuit ruled an irrigation system was a point source where it spewed so much crap onto a field that it flowed into a stream. 34 F.3d 114 (1994). In addition, "rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation...from which pollutants are or may be discharged" are point sources, which would implicate many industrial agricultural operations. So, there are ways that EPA can get at dirty farms.
On Appeals court rules EPA must protect waterways from construction pollution posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses

Click on the little link next to source

and it says,

"Schwarzenegger has not yet responded to Palin's letter, nor has he made a decision about whether to sign or veto the legislation, said spokeswoman Rachel Cameron.

"The governor will take it into consideration," she said of Palin's letter.

But she said Schwarzenegger has warned that he will not sign any bills until the state's overdue budget is approved by the Legislature." LA Times. On Palin asks Schwarzenegger to veto bill that would reduce port pollution posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

It's true

Alaska is a welfare state, in a manner of speaking. In fact, as of 2005 for every dollar in taxes Alaskans send to the federal treasury they receive $1.84 in federal spending, which ranks them 3rd (after New Mexico and Mississipi), according to this Tax Foundation report.

So, yeah, let's get rid of 'em!On She knows 'more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America' posted 1 year, 2 months ago 32 Responses

The language is getting a little fuzzy here.

Why not rights for nature? This is an old topic, spoken about by Aldo Leopold in his Land Ethic. And Christopher Stone offered an engaging and robust argument for just such a concept in "Should Trees Have Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects." 45 Southern Cal. Law Review 450 (1972).

The notion of legal rights isn't linked to whether one is conscious or not, that much is clear; in the legal sense, rights are bound up with correlative duties. That is to say, if nature were to have rights, we humans, presumably, would have a duty to respect those rights and the rights likely would be enforced by some agency of the state.

Creating the legal fiction is only an act of legislation away from being a reality. The Ecuadorian constitution, though, seems problematic. The rights are listed in expansive terms, but the precise duties--and who owes them--are not defined. But I like it anyway.On New Ecuador constitution would give nature inalienable rights posted 1 year, 2 months ago 14 Responses

Great idea!

Forget about all that paradigm-shiftin' crap--let's start drillin' all over the dang place and just make oil cheap again so we can keep driving our big cars with cheap gas, so we can keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere, and so we can foist the niggling little problems of energy security and climate change on our great-grandchildren. I love the Conservative mentality. Sign me up for the Republican Party right now!On GOP platform acknowledges human-caused climate change, leaves out ANWR drilling posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

You forgot about a nasty little by-product

You make no mention of acrylamide. See this Grist article. And this FDA Q&A.
On Crunch time for 10 health-food-store potato-chip brands posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

"Contain" sprawl?

Holy crap, they're about 40 years too late! The only thing containing sprawl in SoCal is the Mojave desert--and it's not doing a very good job at that.On California bill aims to curb sprawl posted 1 year, 3 months ago 3 Responses

I like the sentiment expressed, but...

The legislation quite explicitly reads as follows:

By January 1, 2008, the state board shall, after one or more public workshops, with public notice, and an opportunity for all interested parties to comment, determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990, and approve in a public hearing, a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is EQUIVALENT to that level, to be achieved by 2020.

Part 3, s. 38550, EMPHASIS added.

It does not say approve a limit that is lower than that level. So it appears the DSP may have gotten this right.

Also, the Earthjustice comment states that the FSP fails to identify the term "maximum technologically feasible" into the Plan, and the comment proceeds to give the board a few examples of how this should have been done.

But the Board is in the troublesome position: while AB 32 defines "cost-effective," it does not define "maximum technologically feasible." Nor does AB 32 provide specific authority to define that term. This may explain why the term is not identified. And an additional quirk in the bill's text directs the Board to adopt greenhouse gas reduction activities that "can be implemented in an EFFICIENT and cost effective manner." AB 32, Part 4, s. 38561(a), p.10. So, is it efficiency or technological feasibility, or both, or what?

And interpreting "monetary and non-monetary incentives" to mean a private right of action is a bit of a stretch, but I'll go there with Earthjustice. Private rights of action are occasionally worthwhile. But beware, they sometimes backfire--see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. A court decision may just ruin your day. On EarthJustice challenges the legality of the draft plan for California's A.B. 32 posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses

Indeed, Mother Nature will take care of us all...

the way She took care of many great species no longer with us. On Australia continues to deal with epic drought posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

I have an idea...

put your head between your legs and kiss your...but, really, environmental issues have almost always taken a back seat to pocketbook issues, especially in election years. I suppose the trick is to connect the immediate economic issues with environmentalism. Tough task.

We'll get there, but the world may take on a WALL-E-esque color palette before we do.On Nearly two-thirds of Americans support offshore drilling, says poll posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

It's not nearly enough.

Put a 1 in front of any number NHTSA comes up with, and, then, maybe, we'll have a chance.On Big Auto backs off support for tighter fuel-economy standards posted 1 year, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Huh?

You're shocked?On McCain says he trusts Big Oil over energy and economic experts posted 1 year, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Escape? from what?

I think Fordowner is Escape-ing from reality. How much extra driving does Fordowner and any other hybrid driver do as a result of owning such "eco-friendly" vehicles, driving they might not do if they felt a little guiltier about driving (like me in my gas guzzling Jetta)?

With a world of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of drivers impending, we are not likely to Escape the carbon trap unless public transit, bicycling, and walking supplant the private vehicle. Of course, if the private vehicle emits no GHGs, and the process with which we make and destroy the vehicles or the roads they travel on also produce no GHGs, then, okay, we might have a scant chance.On Surprise first-quarter profit for Honda, unsurprising giant loss for Ford posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 Responses

He even got this one wrong!

Man, this guy can't get anything straight. See the most recent Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency report.On We're number one! posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

This is news?

I don't know about all you, but I didn't need a Stanford-educated economist to tell me this administration is dirty, manipulative, underhanded, and captured by powerful special interests. As if this is going to make a difference.

Do we really want this White House and this EPA to create sure-to-be-cozy-to-industry rules on greenhouse gas emissions anyway?
On Ex-EPA official details White House interference on climate action posted 1 year, 4 months ago 15 Responses

You can reduce your own ghg emissions by...

not buying cow's milk at all.

When will it dawn on us that the concept of "organic milk" from an oversized, methane-spewing, watershed-poisoning, energy-devouring, semi-domesticated, hoofed monstrosity is an absurdity?  

Just wonderin.On Sustainability goals for the U.S. dairy industry posted 1 year, 5 months ago 10 Responses

At last!

After decades of permitting herds of cattle to lay waste to vast tracts of federal lands, after hundreds of coal plants, mining operations, and destruction of wetlands, the BLM now understands it must consider effects on the ecology. Our faithful public servants at work!

I am certain the oil industry had NOTHING to do with this.On BLM contemplates two-year moratorium on solar power plant construction in the West posted 1 year, 5 months ago 68 Responses

What would be really neato...

is if oil profits were taxed--say, a paltry .001%--and reinvested in plug-in technology. And it would at least double this ridiculous amount. Probably piss a few oil execs off too.On Big Three automakers get plug-in funding from feds posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

And our "awesome" new plan is...

to continue advocating tax cuts, let the free market take care of the problem, oppose state programs that are actually addressing the problem (like that radical "patch-work" plan in in California), drag our feet in international negotiations, and basically pass the buck to the next administration. Cheers!On White House admits humans causing climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

Some legislative background

Clinton's voted for Lieberman-Warner in committee. S.2191. the bill has yet to reach the President, but you can be sure the White House is watching it closely to see if it is acceptable to their prime constituency, the oil and gas industry.

Clinton has introduced one piece of legislation that can be related to climate change in the last two years:

S.1059
Title: A bill to amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act to improve Federal building energy efficiency standards, and for other purposes.

Obama has introduced the following legislation that might have some bearing on climate change in the last two years:

S.133
Title: A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

S.767
Title: A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and for other purposes.

S.768
Title: A bill to increase fuel economy standards for automobiles and for other purposes.

S.2202
Title: A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to increase the renewable content of gasoline, and for other purposes.

McCain of course introduced S.280 (McCain-Lieberman) and:

S.1900
Title: A bill to authorize appropriations for the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. On Enviros respond to McCain's new climate plan posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Check your facts

I suppose if you just started paying attention to the primary/caucus race, you would think Obama has more delegates. In fact, Clinton has about 236 delegates to Obama's 136.

(+/-, depending on the source. Real Clear Politics has it at 236 to 148; CNN counts 210 to 123; AP counts 237 to 135).

Clinton will run particularly strong in New York, California, Florida, and much of the South. Obama probably is stronger in the Midwest. Clinton is the front-runner.

Woe for the best remaining candidates, Edwards and Kucinich.On Clinton and Romney win in Nevada; McCain wins in South Carolina posted 1 year, 10 months ago 6 Responses

Huckabee = Bush

Though Huckabee sounds like an affable, sensible middle-of-the-road Christian Republican, don't be fooled. His environnmental policies will likely be little different in comparison to the current administration's. To illustrate--

From the Huckabee for President website:

"We will set aside a federal research and development budget that will be matched by the private sector to seek the best new products in alternative fuels. Our free market will sort out what makes the most sense economically and will reward consumer preferences." And...

"We have to explore, we have to conserve, and we have to pursue all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass."

And, from the Grist fact sheet...

"Supports oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore in U.S. waters..."

"He dodges the issue of whether humans are responsible for global warming, saying we don't know for sure..."

And from his interview with CNN's Glenn Beck...

"As far as blaming human beings for enjoying the environment, I think that's a little bit extreme."

Now, from the Bush administration's White House website...

"We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. We know this can be done. Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases."

"Since 2001, the United States has invested more than $2.5 billion to research and develop clean coal. In addition, in partnership with other nations and the private sector, the U.S. is moving closer to producing energy from the world's first zero emissions coal-fired plant." And...

"Nuclear power is the one existing source of energy that can generate massive amounts of electricity without causing any air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions."

At the most basic level, Huckabee and Bush are almost indistinguishable, especially when you take a look at Huckabee's positions on the rest of the right-wing agenda. Does anyone really think Huckabee will be able to resist the industry lobbyists, who likely would be enormously influential in a presidential campaign? On Huckabee and Obama win Iowa caucuses; what's the green angle? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 19 Responses

Message to Manacker

Just read the reports in their entirety.

"There are, however, caveats to consider. First, we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes--let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change--for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig. 1). It is conceivable that pronounced ablation (e.g., 10, 11) in low-elevation marginal areas could offset the elevation increases that we observed in the interior areas. Second, there is large interannual to decadal variability in the high-latitude climate system including the NAO [North Atlantic Oscillation], such that the 11-year-long data set developed here remains too brief to establish long-term trends." Johannessen 2005.

"Our results show that the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior increased in overall thickness within the ROC from 1992 to 2003 and that this increase is probably the result of increased snowfall. Both of these observations are consistent with the latest IPCC prediction for Antarctica's likely response to a warming global climate." Davis 2005.

These studies have been put in their proper perspective at RealClimate.org.

If skeptics are going to cite studies to support their conclusions, they ought to read the studies' conclusions. On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

Sloppy numbers

Jabailo:

You asked for an answer to your "data."

"...what do you expect when there's zero hurricanes and cyclones?"

There were 15 named storms in the Atlantic Basin, compared to a long term average of 10. There were 6 hurricanes, with an average of six. There were three category 3-plus hurricanes, with an average of three. Though not as active as some predicted, "NOAA scientists are now carefully reviewing a set of dynamic weather patterns that yielded lower-than-expected hurricane activity across the Atlantic Basin. As a result, the United States was largely spared from significant landfalling storms. However several noteworthy events took place, including two back-to-back Category 5 hurricanes hitting Central America and the rapid near-shore intensification of the single U.S. landfalling hurricane." One storm, Olga, occurred in December, past the end of the season. Viewed at: http://www.weather.com/newscenter/tropical/index.html.

And for your comments regarding NOAA's sea level anomaly tracking, I point out to you the definition of "anomaly" at this site: "A mean sea level anomaly occurs when the 5-month average of the interannual variation is greater than 0.1 meters (4 inches) or less than -0.1 meters."

First, not even IPCC predicts within five-month intervals. Second, sea-level rises attributed to AGW and predicted by IPCC would not appear in NOAA's tracking because the rises linked to global warming are far less than 4 inches in that time period. Third, though climate change won't routinely cause anomalous sea level rises under this rubric, occasionally it will.  Follow this link, and you'll see what I mean:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/anomaly_prev.sh ....

At an earlier post (Tide Levels, 12/20/07) you cited this:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual1980.sh ... ...

as a map of "sea level anomalies for North America." But when one visits this site, it references Charleston, South Carolina. Furthermore, this was an interannual variation from 1980 to the present. But what you failed to include--likely intentionally--was this link:

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_statio ...

which includes the mean sea level trends at the same location since the 1920s. I think you'll agree the picture appears quite different, with sea levels rising significantly.

While you are welcome to post whatever you wish, your sloppy research approaches intellectual dishonesty, and you do all fair minded skeptics a disservice.
On NYT's Revkin gives Inhofe a pass posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

Why they probably won't

If such a policy were adopted by the German government as a formal trade policy, the US in all likelihood will initiate proceedings under the WTO on the grounds that this policy unfairly targets an individual member. WTO court precedents do not have controlling value on future decisions, but if the past is any guide, the US would likely prevail in such a dispute. The Germans would do better--again, if history is a guide--if they applied the policy uniformly against all trading partners and established the scientific basis conclusively between world industrial practices and harm to the German people and environment.

The US's ban on tuna that was caught with sea turtle-unfriendly methods would be a valuable lesson on how to properly target industrial practices that are environmentally unsound.On Germany's Social Democrats call for climate sanctions on U.S. goods posted 1 year, 11 months ago 4 Responses

Still doesn't add up.

If Colorado gets 70% of its electricity from coal and Washington roughly receives the equivalent from hydro, the oil intensity should be (roughly) the same, so I'm not really convinced. And throw in western WA's well developed public transportation system and climate change awareness, something else is at play, the kind of economies, for example.

The "de Place analysis" shows us just that. It shows that the top ranking states are diversified, mostly service oriented economies, that are much less energy intensive, while the bottom ranking states are the opposite. Bluntly speaking, California and New York produce a lot of dollars, while Louisiana and Alaska, by comparison, do not.
On How oil-intense is your state's economy? posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

Naysayers!

The skepticism about this post is puzzling. We should be asking why the hell aren't we planning these developments here (or wherever you live). Okay, I know, enabling legislation is impossible in light of corporate control of the legislative agenda. But, still...

And, despite the UAE's horrible human rights record, I don't think hordes of sex slaves will be forced to drag wind turbines through the desert, nor do I think child camel jockeys (in place of shiny SUVs) will be forced to transport corpulent sheiks to and fro.

Finally, corporations are signing up for this because, probably, the Clean Development Mechanism under Kyoto allows them or encourages them to do so.

Let's hope it works.On Can it happen here? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 26 Responses

Funny

At first, I thought, what an idiot. But reflecting on your comments, I now realize you were attempting to be funny. I mean a world full of ferns. That would be about as bad for earth ecology as uncontrolled global warming, so you surely were just joking around.

And "carnivorism." Wow, that's even funnier. Let's eat more ground beef, and, eventually, if we just buy enough of it, it'll all go away, like all those fish we have trawled nearly to extinction. Again, I appreciate the irony.
On A good reason we shouldn't love trees, at least not in this case posted 2 years, 5 months ago 40 Responses