Jump to content

Climate Change?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Half a century of climate panic hasn't worked. Let's get smarter 

Fifty years of panic clearly haven’t solved climate change. We need a smarter approach that doesn’t scare everyone and focuses on realistic solutions


“ Bjorn Lomborg argues that the decision by organizers of COP26 to brand it as humanity’s “last chance” to avoid climate catastrophe is part of a long tradition of forecasting dire futures in order to try to provoke policy change. It’s time to try something else: turning our ingenuity to making green energy as cheap as fossil fuel energy. Then everyone will want to switch, he says.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are so many people so stupid. It is like all these phone calls I get for arrest warrants, charges on my credit card, duct cleaning, computer issues, etc with all the background noise of a busy call center. They keep calling because there are enough stupid people that give them money. And then they vote for stupid policies pushed forward by the same kind of people as the ones making the phone calls: Malevolent frauds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2021 at 9:12 AM, deicer said:

Still cheaper than oil and gas subsidies that go to dividends that leave the country.

My dividends on Suncor doubled recently and Enbridge increased today. I feel quite good about it as it is taxed at a lower rate. Just bought Pembina pipeline a couple of days ago.

Of course, I am not a fraud working in the airline industry making my living off of massive emissions and saying how bad carbon emissions are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2021 at 1:54 PM, deicer said:

ts the Alberta government subsidizes the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $2 billion per year, money the report’s authors say would be better spent on diversification and helping the province move toward renewable energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The government now expects to reap nearly $10 billion this year from royalties on bitumen, crude oil and natural gas"

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/braid-alberta-oil-revenue-stages-another-fiscal-rescue-what-would-replace-it

Seems like a pretty good return to me. And that is just the royalties, not including all the taxes and investment from the oil industry. Seriously de-icer, the more you post, the less credibility your thought process has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Junior said:

My dividends on Suncor doubled recently and Enbridge increased today. I feel quite good about it as it is taxed at a lower rate. Just bought Pembina pipeline a couple of days ago.

Of course, I am not a fraud working in the airline industry making my living off of massive emissions and saying how bad carbon emissions are.

Your forgot to include Retired from an airline and living on a pension invested in Global Corporations to your list of frauds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kargokings said:

Your forgot to include Retired from an airline and living on a pension invested in Global Corporations to your list of frauds.

That would be the guy who started the thread about Alberta stuffing fossil fuels. 
 

He accused me of being a racist at one point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've been saying for 25+ years - climate change has already happened and we are now seeing the effects hundreds of years later:  https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/world/antarctic-thwaites-glacier-climate-warming/index.html

But what do I really mean? If in fact anthropogenic climate change is a reality, then it's been here for decades if not centuries. And now, we pay the price. How to stop it? Can't.  Would take hundreds of years to turn it around. If it's even a valid hypothesis.

And yet we tax CO2, it's producers and cows methane emissions.

Oh, wait - that'll fix rising sea levels!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, Well, Well…the truth prevails…it was NOT “climate change” that burned California last year. More Climate Hysteria debunked !!

 

PG&E power line sparked the nearly million-acre Dixie fire, investigation finds.

State investigators have determined that a Pacific Gas & Electric Co. power line was responsible for sparking last year’s massive Dixie fire, which torched more than 960,000 acres in five Northern California counties as it burned clear across the Sierra Nevada. 

According to a statement by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, investigators found that the fire “was caused by a tree contacting electrical distribution lines owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric located west of Cresta Dam.”

The department’s investigative report was forwarded to the Butte County district attorney’s office, according to Tuesday’s statement. 

Cal Fire officials referred all questions regarding the report to prosecutors. The district attorney’s office could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-04/northern-california-dixie-fire-started-by-pge-power-line-investigation-finds?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOLDSTEIN: Wynne's epiphany on costs of green energy comes too late

"Former Ontario Liberal premier Kathleen Wynne has belatedly acknowledged one of her biggest mistakes was her failure to listen to warnings about how her government’s green energy policies would increase the cost of electricity."

No, her mistake was assuming that the people demanding this would actually be willing to pay for it. Any child with a hand held calculator new the costs.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-wynnes-epiphany-on-costs-of-green-energy-comes-too-late

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the real reason the oceans are warming and becoming more acidic:

https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/tonga-tsunami-warning-volcano-eruption/h_7b4aeb43e652d1ec18407f5a3ed69199

Every year, there are a dozen or more similar eruptions that are much deeper and aren't as apparent on the surface as was this one.

Volcanic Eruption near Tonga.2022.01.14 (1).jpg

Volcanic Eruption near Tonga.2022.01.14 (2).jpg

Edited by Moon The Loon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

Here is the real reason the oceans are warming and becoming more acidic:

https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/tonga-tsunami-warning-volcano-eruption/h_7b4aeb43e652d1ec18407f5a3ed69199

Every year, there are a dozen or more similar eruptions that are much deeper and aren't as apparent on the surface as was this one.

Volcanic Eruption near Tonga.2022.01.14 (1).jpg

Volcanic Eruption near Tonga.2022.01.14 (2).jpg

Geez, I wonder what kind of footprint that will leave behind ??  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AIP said:

Geez, I wonder what kind of footprint that will leave behind ??  LOL

Shhhsshhhhhh. There’s a simple solution to all this. Simply charge Mother Nature a carbon tax and all will be well in the Universe. Greta and Trudeau will be gushing with pride at the accomplishment.

Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Shhhsshhhhhh. There’s a simple solution to all this. Simply charge Mother Nature a carbon tax and all will be well in the Universe. Greta and Trudeau will be gushing with pride at the accomplishment.

All any jurisdiction could have possibly have done in this area gone in a very brief period of time.

What magnitude of difference I wonder ??  10 X, 1000 X 1,000,000 times more into the atmosphere in one fell swoop ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AIP said:

All any jurisdiction could have possibly have done in this area gone in a very brief period of time.

What magnitude of difference I wonder ??  10 X, 1000 X 1,000,000 times more into the atmosphere in one fell swoop ??

We will never know because pointing out inconvenient facts like your question, just doesn’t fit the narrative 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rex is asking questions that he knows will go unanswered.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-why-is-it-canadas-duty-to-destroy-its-economy-and-confederation-in-the-pursuit-of-net-zero

There's a simpler question here too, when asked, it shuts down all conversation and debate on the subject. It even silences politicians of all stripes and does it on all occasions. Here it is:

What cuts are you willing to make and what are you willing to do without?  Your answer must add up to the amount of carbon we need to shed?

Can we have more than one quote of the day contender? This could easily apply to virtually every problem we currently insist on making worse. There is only one reason I religiously wear a mask in public... it's so I don't have to talk to Karen.

The greatest part of that absurdity is how easily all bend to it, all speak the pious words of “net zero” as if they were summoning a genie, as our deluded leaders prate in foreign capitals about the brave new world they are about to call into being.

The same leaders who can’t manage a payroll system, dig a few wells and provide clean water, who shut down Parliament but party abroad with maskless faces laughing at jokes — of which I suspect we are the butt.

They do not have the intellectual competence to engineer this “transition.” As a minority government they do not have the mandate either.

   

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

McKinsey calculates the staggering capital spending required to reach net-zero by 2050

PUBLISHED TUE, JAN 25 20222:00 PM ESTUPDATED 40 MIN AGO

Emma Newburger@EMMA_NEWBURGER

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

·         The transition to net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050 will require an extra $3.5 trillion a year in capital spending on physical assets for energy and land-use systems , according to estimates from a new McKinsey report.

·         That amount is the equivalent of half of global corporate profits, one-quarter of total tax revenue, or 7% of household spending in 2020.

·         The report estimates the transition’s effects on demand, capital allocation, costs and jobs across sectors in 69 countries that produce about 85% of global emissions.

A wind farm shares space with corn fields in Latimer, Iowa, U.S.

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

As the world grapples with a worsening climate change crisis, governments and companies are pledging to achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions by 2050 — a goal that will require an extra $3.5 trillion a year in capital spending, according to estimates from a McKinsey & Company report released on Tuesday.

That amount is the equivalent of half of global corporate profits, one-quarter of total tax revenue, or 7% of household spending in 2020.

“The net-zero transition will amount to a massive economic transformation,” said Mekala Krishnan, a partner at the McKinsey Global Institute and the lead author of the report.

The report estimates the transition’s effects on demand, capital allocation, costs and jobs across sectors in 69 countries that produce about 85% of global emissions.

Capital spending on physical assets for energy and land-use systems during the transition will amount to roughly $275 trillion, or $9.2 trillion each year on average, the report said. That’s $3.5 trillion more than the amount being spent on those assets annually today.

The report said an additional $1 trillion of today’s annual spending must be reallocated from high-emissions to low-emissions assets in order to achieve a net-zero transition. It also urged businesses, governments and institutions to prepare for uncertainty during the transition and warned stakeholders to accelerate efforts to decarbonize and adapt to climate risk.

More from CNBC Climate:

Read more about how businesses and consumers are fighting and adapting to climate change:

Shell’s massive carbon capture facility in Canada emits far more than it captures, study says

Three former SpaceX engineers are designing self-powered electric freight train cars

How the U.S. fell behind in lithium, the ‘white gold’ of electric vehicles

Keeping global temperatures from surpassing the 1.5 degrees Celsius target under the Paris Climate agreement would require the world to nearly halve emissions within the next decade and reach net-zero emissions by 2050, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But the world has already warmed roughly 1.1 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and is on track to see global temperature rise of 2.4 degrees Celsius by the century’s end.

The cost of climate change will be severe if no action is taken. For instance, a report from insurance giant Swiss Re estimates that climate change could cut the global economy by $23 trillion by 2050, essentially shaving off about 11% to 14% from global economic output.

The McKinsey report noted that the net-zero transition will also have a significant impact on labor, resulting in a gain of about 200 million jobs and a loss of about 185 million jobs across the world by midcentury. Sectors with high-emissions products or operations, which generate about 20% of global GDP, will also see major impacts on demand, production costs and employment.

“The economic transition to achieve net-zero will be complex and challenging, but our findings serve as a clear call for more thoughtful, urgent, and decisive action, to secure a more orderly transition to net zero by 2050,” said Dickon Pinner, a senior partner at McKinsey and co-leader of McKinsey Sustainability.

“The question now,” Pinner said, “is whether the world can act boldly and broaden the response and investment needed in the upcoming decade.”

McKinsey calculates capital spending required to reach net-zero by 2050 (cnbc.com)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More unexpected news or perhaps reality?  

CLIMATE

Proposed California rule would cut its solar market in half by 2024, says Wood Mackenzie

PUBLISHED TUE, JAN 25 20224:40 PM ESTUPDATED 4 HOURS AGO
SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email
KEY POINTS
  • Proposed changes to California’s solar incentive program would cut the state’s solar market in half by 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie.
  • California regulators are considering cutting payments granted to solar customers for the excess power they generate. The new policy would also add monthly fees.
  • This would increase the payback period for solar systems, or how long it takes for the system to pay for itself.
 

Tesla Solar Panels

Tesla Solar Panels
Courtesy: Tesla

California regulators are reviewing proposed changes to solar incentive programs that would cut the state’s solar market in half by 2024, according to a new report from energy research firm Wood Mackenzie.

The California Public Utilities Commission’s proposed decision, released on Dec. 13, would reduce payments granted to solar customers for the excess power they generate, which is known as net-energy metering. The proposal would also add monthly hookup charges for customers.

 

This would increase the payback period for solar systems, or how long it takes for the system to pay for itself. This metric is a key consideration for those deciding whether to switch to rooftop solar.

Under the proposed changes, the payback period would more than double from between five and six years to between 14 and 15 years, according to Wood Mackenzie’s analysis of charges from PG&E and Southern California Edison, the state’s two largest utility companies.

“For both utilities, the payback periods under NEM 3.0 go way beyond the 10-year threshold,” said Bryan White, co-author of the report. “Beyond this threshold, customers are less inclined to invest in solar projects and installers are less motivated to sell them.”

The firm forecasts the state’s new residential solar installed capacity would drop 42% between 2022 and 2023, and another 10% in 2024. That year, new annual residential installed capacity will be about half of 2021 volumes, sinking to its lowest annual output since 2014.

Given California’s leadership role in terms of renewable energy buildout, the effects of the updated NEM policy would extend beyond just the state, having “major implications” for the entire industry.

 

The CPUC’s proposal has faced significant backlash from solar companies, renewable advocates, and even Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Its final decision was expected on Jan. 27, but has since been delayed. The five commissioners are not bound by the December proposal, and the commissioner who wrote the proposed decision has since left CPUC.

In another blow for the industry, the Investment Tax Credit, which supports renewable energy projects, will decrease beginning next year. An extension of the ITC was part of the Build Back Better plan. However, the ITC has typically received bipartisan support and was last extended under the Trump administration, which means it could still be extended without the Build Back Better plan’s overall passage.

“Ultimately, the NEM 3.0 PD and the ITC stepdown will create a challenging business environment in the near- to mid-term,” said White. “Many solar companies will not survive this double whammy of policy headwinds, resulting in significant consolidation in a contracting California residential solar market.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when the frauds on the left told us 20 years ago that our children wouldn't get the opportunity to see snow as a sort of emotional fraud to, in the end, get you to pay more taxes under the guise of preventing man-made global warming. Because after all, that would stealing the joy of childhood the way we have from Greta.

 

Looks like the children in Greece and Turkey still have that opportunity:

 

Photos: Athens and Istanbul under snow - striking images of unusual cold front (msn.com)

 

Have fun kids. Enjoy throwing snowballs, making angels, tobogganing, and building snowmen. Your children will be doing the same in 20 more years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yet another reason our cutting back will do little to influence any climate change.

In Southeast Asia, decades-long deals stymie shift away from coal

Power purchase agreements that ensure “coal lock-in” for decades are complicating the region’s transition away from fossil fuels.

Southeast Asia's transition to renewable energy is complicated by guarantees coal plants stay active for decades at a time.

Published On 7 Feb 20227 Feb 2022
 

GNPower Dinginin is one of the Philippines’s newest and biggest coal-fired power plants. Located in Bataan province on the island of Luzon, the $1.7bn facility began construction in 2016 before launching commercial operations late last year.

Plans are underway to add a second 668-megawatt unit that would expand total capacity to 1,336 megawatts. Like other coal plants in the Philippines, GNPower Dinginin materialised years before President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration banned new coal projects in 2020. Since the ban doesn’t apply to existing ventures, young facilities such as GNPower Dinginin ensure that coal will remain the Philippines’s primary energy source for years to come.

 

Not only is this bad news for climate action, it also doesn’t make economic sense as global energy demand slows and renewable energy prices fall, climate economists have warned. Holding the Philippines and other countries across Southeast Asia back from phasing out coal sooner is a rigid financing model that guarantees coal plants stay active for decades at a time.

Under power purchase agreements (PPAs), which are in widespread use across the region, utility companies pay coal plants to generate power for a 20 to 30 year period irrespective of external factors – a scenario known as a “coal lock-in”.

“Asian emerging markets are risky investments, which is why investors and project developers require financial incentives and higher returns on equity while investing in these markets,” Haneea Isaad, an energy finance expert at the US-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), told Al Jazeera.

GNPower Dinginin has PPAs with 30 utilities and two retail electricity suppliers. The long-term nature of these contracts insulates coal plants against market pressures, meaning owners have little incentive to shut down plants that produce guaranteed returns. PPAs are in many cases unprofitable for utilities since these companies are paying more for coal than they would for increasingly affordable renewables.

More than 60 percent of renewable power generation added in 2020 cost less than the cheapest new fossil fuel option, according to a report released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) last year. Building new renewable energy capacity would be cheaper than continuing to operate 39 percent of the world’s existing coal capacity, according to a 2020 report by the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carbon Tracker Initiative and Sierra Club.

Wind power farm in Yemen ChinaRenewable energy sources are now often cheaper than fossil fuel options, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency [File: Qilai Shen/Bloomberg]

Global electricity demand is also set to slow between 2022 to 2024, growing at an annual average rate of 2.7 percent versus 6 percent in 2021, according to the International Energy Association (IEA), with more than 90 percent of that demand servable by renewables such as solar and wind.

Terminating a PPA early can be a costly process, leaving the utility to pick up outstanding taxes, bank debts, equity capital investment and compensation to the coal plant developer for lost profits. In the case of a $1bn coal plant with a 20-year PPA, early termination could cost a utility between $555m and $845m, according to an IEEFA analysis.

Those costs are likely to be passed down to consumers in the form of higher electricity prices, according to David Elzinga, a senior energy specialist at the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

“There’s the climate angle but there’s also the cost of power production to keep in mind. The risk of doing nothing is thus significant from both a climate and financial perspective,” Elzinga told Al Jazeera.

Early PPA termination on the buyer’s end, which is usually a state-owned company in emerging Asia, “could hurt investor confidence and lead to less deals reaching financial closure,” the IEEFA’s Isaad said. In Indonesia – the world’s biggest thermal coal exporter – and Vietnam, roughly 60 percent of coal-fired assets are owned by state-owned entities, Isaad said.

PLN, Indonesia’s state-owned power company and the world’s 15th biggest owner of coal power plants, has pledged to retire three of its plants by 2030 and shut the rest by 2055 but cannot cancel its PPAs, Rida Mulyana, director general of electricity at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, told local media last year. At best, PLN can negotiate with investors and power producers, Mulyana said.

While rich countries such as Canada have government agencies that buy out PPAs, many cash-strapped economies can’t afford that option.

The Philippines’s government agency that privatises and manages the debt of state power assets is unable to buy out coal plants without “long-term and low-cost funds,” the Manila Bulletin quoted the agency’s board chairman, Carlos G Dominguez III, who is also the Philippines’s finance secretary, as saying last year.

‘Challenge for lenders and owners alike’

“Refinancing coal power plants will be a challenge for lenders and owners alike as environmental constraints put pressure on future financing pathways,” Ken Lee, senior analyst at Wood Mackenzie in Singapore, told Al Jazeera.

Blended finance programs that tie a refinancing mechanism, such as green bonds or ratepayer-backed bonds, to reinvestment in clean energy have been touted as a possible solution. The ADB’s Energy Transition Mechanism, announced last year, aims to retire 50 percent of coal-fired power plants in Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines over the next 10 to 15 years – a goal that requires $30bn-60bn in financing based on calculations of $1m-$1.8m per megawatt, Elzinga said.

Plants in Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines are younger so have more life and more financial value, he said. The ADB seeks to use concessional loans from governments and the donor community as well as market-based financing for its pilot phase.

So far, private players seem interested with Prudential, Citi, HSBC and BlackRock Real Assets all reportedly in talks with the ADB. The emergence of international carbon markets, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, could sweeten the deal for investors.

Placing a financial value on carbon emissions avoided by the early closure of coal plants could reduce debt levels and lower overall risk – a factor underpinning the InterAmerican Development Bank’s $125 million package to Chilean utility ENGIE Energía last year that has been billed as the world’s first pilot project to monetize the cost of decarbonization.

With more than 40 countries pledging to phase out coal power at November’s Cop26 conference, energy transition schemes such as the ADB’s are likely to be closely monitored by governments, utilities and consumers alike.

“Companies, over the last few years, have had shareholder pressure to exit coal so getting them to invest in coal plants might attract criticism but we’re asking companies to invest for the sole purpose of retiring these facilities,” Elzinga said. “It would be much easier if we asked them to invest in renewables but that wouldn’t resolve coal’s lock-in issue.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a cute little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth. She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark that had been pulverized with rocks. “What’s this?” she asked.
“Pulverized willow bark,” replied her fairy godmother. 
“What happened to the carpet?” she asked. 
“The carpet was nylon, which is made from butadiene and hydrogen cyanide, both made from petroleum,” came the response. 
Greta smiled, acknowledging that adjustments are necessary to save the planet, and moved to the sink to brush her teeth where instead of a toothbrush, she found a willow, mangled on one end to expose wood fibre bristles. 
“Your old toothbrush?” noted her godmother, “Also nylon.” 
“Where’s the water?” asked Greta. 
“Down the road in the canal,” replied her godmother, ‘Just make sure you avoid water with cholera in it” 
“Why’s there no running water?” Greta asked, becoming a little peevish. 
“Well,” said her godmother, who happened to teach engineering at MIT, “Where do we begin?” There followed a long monologue about how sink valves need elastomer seats and how copper pipes contain copper, which has to be mined and how it’s impossible to make all-electric earth-moving equipment with no gear lubrication or tires and how ore has to be smelted to a make metal, and that’s tough to do with only electricity as a source of heat, and even if you use only electricity, the wires need insulation, which is petroleum-based, and though most of Sweden’s energy is produced in an environmentally friendly way because of hydro and nuclear, if you do a mass and energy balance around the whole system, you still need lots of petroleum products like lubricants and nylon and rubber for tires and asphalt for filling potholes and wax and iPhone plastic and elastic to hold your underwear up while operating a copper smelting furnace and . . . 
“What’s for breakfast?” interjected Greta, whose head was hurting. 
"Fresh, range-fed chicken eggs,” replied her godmother. “Raw.” 
“How so, raw?” inquired Greta. 
“Well, . . .” And once again, Greta was told about the need for petroleum products like transformer oil and scores of petroleum products essential for producing metals for frying pans and in the end was educated about how you can’t have a petroleum-free world and then cook eggs. Unless you rip your front fence up and start a fire and carefully cook your egg in an orange peel like you do in Boy Scouts. Not that you can find oranges in Sweden anymore. 
“But I want poached eggs like my Aunt Tilda makes,” lamented Greta.

“Tilda died this morning,” the godmother explained. “Bacterial pneumonia.” 
“What?!” interjected Greta. “No one dies of bacterial pneumonia! We have penicillin.”  
“Not anymore,” explained godmother “The production of penicillin requires chemical extraction using isobutyl acetate, which, if you know your organic chemistry, is petroleum-based. Lots of people are dying, which is problematic because there’s not any easy way of disposing of the bodies since backhoes need hydraulic oil and crematoriums can’t really burn many bodies using as fuel Swedish fences and furniture, which are rapidly disappearing - being used on the black market for roasting eggs and staying warm.” 
This represents only a fraction of Greta’s day, a day without microphones to exclaim into and a day without much food, and a day without carbon-fibre boats to sail in, but a day that will save the planet. 

Tune in tomorrow when Greta needs a root canal and learns how Novocain is synthesized.

CB0AE83C-0A53-44D8-B3E2-84A89DCA4DCF.jpeg

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...