|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| As to your point about social advocacy, I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. You're welcome to give up your power and responsibility as a thinking, active world citizen in a position of relative responsibility, especially within this culture. I'm not prepared to do so. And I believe many others out there are learning about the extent of climate change, and are considering positive ways to contribute to getting on with dealing with the issue in a way that our governments are completely and utterly failing us. |
The problem Mr. Hawley, is that we are working for a public, government funded institution and in particular we are transient workers forbidden by signed contract to participate in the political process.
First, the responsibility of social advocacy for the students lies with their parents, not their teachers. Young minds are very impressionable, I do not feel that it is ethical for anyone in a public school to advocate very specific (as opposed to general- don't litter, don't tease) policy and social changes. A school is a place to learn your ABCs and 123s, not your morals. I don't like the idea of a government-sponsored moral institute (sounds rather Orwellian).
The biggest problem though, is that if a teacher engages in social advocacy for a cause they think is right, such as reducing fossil fuel consumption, then another teacher can engage in social advocacy for the opposite issue, such as increased oil drilling in protected areas. Soon, the school would degenerate into an institute more concerned with social advocacy and competing agendas (or enforcing a unified agenda) then with things like math, science, language arts, art, history, geography, etc.
The problems of this country are the problems of Koreans. They must sort them out themselves.
Now if you want to open up an issues class where students are free to take a position and advocate either way without endorsement from their teacher, that is fine. But you must be impartial and allow opinions that you disagree with to receive equal time and opportunity.
| Quote: |
If we can be the wind upon which the seed of an idea is spread from those students and their teacher in that link above and help it settle and sprout within this corner of the world, then no, that is not cultural imperialism, and it's not even social advocacy. It's intelligent, responsible, communication.
|
Fine, then I plan to introduce a theological, national socialist advocacy message into my lessons. With healthy doses of eugenics. But above all I want to see the natural resources of the world exploited for maximum benefit to feed the starving people. I am sure you will have no objections. If its okay for you, its okay for me.
No, it is not intelligent and responsible. Our intelligence is to be used to fulfill our responsibility to teach English communication.
The road to Perdition is paved with good intentions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ethan Allen Hawley
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again Steelrails,
And thanks again for your continued effort to communicate.
You�re largely repeating your points from an earlier post, though you make your point clearer and better. While I do appreciate your effort, I still suggest we happily agree to disagree, for the following reasons.
Firstly, you finally bring up that golden canard that �we� are forbidden �by signed contract� no less, to participate �in the political process.� This is assuming a lot:
(i) that �we� are all E2 visa holders;
(ii) that our employers actually care about either our contracts or the letter of the law; and, largest assumption here by my estimation,
(iii) that anyone hearing about a group of kids wanting to fundraise for a couple of solar panels would actually bother to consider this a political act. Why on Earth would they?! It's not political at all. It is: economical; an exercise in being pro-active rather than being unwitting and ignorant victims; and, it's environmental, but more on this later.
Secondly, again, you're still over-dramatizing things; no-one here is advocating any �policy change� or notions of �social advocacy.� There are a myriad of ways of looking at such a class project: as a second-language learning exercise, a mathematics, science, and artistic endeavor, a cost-reducing effort for the school/ class, and, of course, as an environmental project.
Your strongest point and the rest of your latest post addresses the idea that if the main motivation for the entire group is actually a reduction of reliance on fossil fuels, and, if a project proposing the encouraging of an alternative is considered by that school to be some form of social advocacy, then that opens the school to advocates from other directions too. To this I reply on two points:
again, I stated in the original post that all suggestions should start with a proposal to the Korean co-teacher. They can sort out any �policy� issues internal to the school hierarchy, and will let you know whether the suggestion gains approval or not. If not, then, as I already stated, go ahead and leave it alone. I�m not advocating pushing any issue, but merely bringing up the suggestion for goodness sake; and,
your entire line of thinking here suggests that (even just suggesting) teaching kids to deal pro-actively with the challenge of climate change is merely a form of social advocacy on just another mere environmental issue.
This relates nicely to your line on how the problems of this country �are the problems of Koreans.� Well, climate change is not the problem of this country alone, it�s not the problem of Koreans alone, and it�s not merely another nice little environmental problem like recycling that can be dealt with via a national governmental media campaign over a week or two.
Further, the opposite is way more accurate: anyone NOT merely making such suggestions to their co-teachers, or even to their parents back home or local church like another poster suggested, is playing victim to circumstance. Merely sitting around waiting for the government or some higher authority figure to tell them what to do is irresponsible and an awful message to send to students of any age. Such laissez faire attitude is irresponsible and dangerous and belittles the role which �we� have been accorded in working with fellow humans as professional communicators. We should be taking every opportunity to discuss and further deal with the situation. The mere suggestion of couple of solar panels for the class is a very appropriate and innocuous start.
So, finally, addressing this issue is not just a pleasant sweet good intention, and it�s not a matter of �competing agendas� like so much western media has presented the false dichotomy of the absurd idea of a global warming �debate� over the last few decades up until the last week or two. Such an attitude is patronizing, and worse, it is inaccurate in that it again suggests that there�s not �enough� overwhelmingly conclusive proof that climate change is an issue demanding immediate responses from us all, let alone our governments, and other leaders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| (i) that �we� are all E2 visa holders; |
The overwhelming majority of ESL teachers are.
| Quote: |
| (iii) that anyone hearing about a group of kids wanting to fundraise for a couple of solar panels would actually bother to consider this a political act. Why on Earth would they?! It's not political at all. |
"Daddy, English teacher said today at school that oil is bad. But daddy, you work for SKOil, are you bad?" Daddy happens to be part of the PTA or maybe SKOil generously donated 10 million won for school materials. I mean SKOil, GS, Hyundai Oil Bank, S-Oil employee tens of thousands of people and those people have children. You think they'll be pleased if their kid comes home talking about such things?
Dude, only someone incredibly naive would not see the potential for politics in this.
| Quote: |
| Secondly, again, you're still over-dramatizing things |
No, I'm speaking from experience. General environmental advocacy is one thing, calling for your school to go fossil-fuel free and encouraging it to cease economic relationships with oil-based companies is a whole nother ballgame.
| Quote: |
| There are a myriad of ways of looking at such a class project: as a second-language learning exercise, a mathematics, science, and artistic endeavor, a cost-reducing effort for the school/ class, and, of course, as an environmental project. |
Please, spare us the bull. It's an environmental project first, with the other things as an add-on.
| Quote: |
| your entire line of thinking here suggests that (even just suggesting) teaching kids to deal pro-actively with the challenge of climate change is merely a form of social advocacy on just another mere environmental issue. |
General environmentalism is not, advocating that the school engage in spending to use alternative energy and that it cease economic relationships with those companies that "refuse to go green" IS social advocacy.
The extreme may consider lessons about recycling or the threat of global warming as social advocacy, I do not. But when you start talking about the use of public, governmental funds and advocating the termination of relationships, that is a whole different ball game.
| Quote: |
| Well, climate change is not the problem of this country alone, it�s not the problem of Koreans alone, and it�s not merely another nice little environmental problem like recycling that can be dealt with via a national governmental media campaign over a week or two. |
Yes, but it is the responsibility of Korean to vote for said policies. As a sovereign nation they should be able to do so without foreign organizations engaging in political advocacy. While in real terms, this of course does not happen, nonetheless it is a good principal.
| Quote: |
| Merely sitting around waiting for the government or some higher authority figure to tell them what to do is irresponsible and an awful message to send to students of any age. Such laissez faire attitude is irresponsible and dangerous and belittles the role which �we� have been accorded in working with fellow humans as professional communicators. We should be taking every opportunity to discuss and further deal with the situation. The mere suggestion of couple of solar panels for the class is a very appropriate and innocuous start |
Sorry, but contrary to you, I do not believe that being a transient teacher of English as a foreign language entitles me to shaping and molding young minds in a direction I see fit and usurping that privilege from their parents and themselves.
By engaging in such action I am in direct violation of my chief responsibility- Teaching English as part of a curriculum.
It is not our role to shape their minds. That is the responsibility of the parents. Our responsibility is ABCs. PERHAPS, it is the responsibility of their science or homeroom teacher, as part of an approved curriculum.
I do not want the Korean science teacher to not teach the kids science and instead teach certain ideas about English and give English lessons on pronunciation, with only vague connections to the science they should be learning. While cooperative lessons involving different subjects are fine, I believe that such actions can be counterproductive and undermine the authority of the subject teacher.
| Quote: |
| like so much western media has presented the false dichotomy of the absurd idea of a global warming �debate� over the last few decades up until the last week or two. Such an attitude is patronizing, and again suggests that there�s not �enough� overwhelmingly conclusive proof that climate change is an issue demanding immediate personal responses from us all, let alone our governments, and other leaders. |
Right, science on global warming is pretty conclusive. But what constitute the best measures to combat such things are sometimes in question. Previously solar panels were of limited value given the resources necessary to produce them and the pollution generated by them. What if wind power or geothermal energy is a better way to go? Now the door is open, suddenly some teacher is pushing SK Geothermal in class, while another is pushing GS Wind. What they aren't pushing is ABCs and 123s.
But what about another issue? What if its military policy, or social policy, or economic policy?
I'm off to go plan a lesson about space colonization because I strongly believe that our scientific future lies there. No more lessons on basic conversation and vocabulary, instead its terms like "return trajectory" and "low-Earth orbit". Yeah, I'm doing my kids a favor and living up to my responsibility to mold young minds for the future.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ethan Allen Hawley
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Steelrails"]
| Quote: |
calling for your school to go fossil-fuel free and encouraging it to cease economic relationships with oil-based companies is a whole nother ballgame.
... advocating that the school engage in spending to use alternative energy and that it cease economic relationships with those companies that "refuse to go green" IS social advocacy.
... when you start talking about the use of public, governmental funds and advocating the termination of relationships, that is a whole different ball game. |
I never said any of that. Again, your imagination is running wild with you. You're beyond bordering on trolling; you're now being a very boring troll, too.
| Quote: |
| By engaging in such action I am in direct violation of my chief responsibility- Teaching English as part of a curriculum. |
You see, this is why I think you're not a real teacher. Have you never heard of curriculum development? Have you never had responsibility for sharing your own class lessons? Have you never had to liaise with a co-teacher? Have you never heard of context for a lesson, or whole learning?
| Quote: |
It is not our role to shape their minds. That is the responsibility of the parents. Our responsibility is ABCs. PERHAPS, it is the responsibility of their science or homeroom teacher, as part of an approved curriculum.
I do not want the Korean science teacher to not teach the kids science and instead teach certain ideas about English and give English lessons on pronunciation, with only vague connections to the science they should be learning. While cooperative lessons involving different subjects are fine, I believe that such actions can be counterproductive and undermine the authority of the subject teacher. |
Yeah? That's a pity for you - and your students - that you have such a narrow vision of your role as someone involved in education, if such you really are. I have more confidence in your ability to communicate effectively, and in your co-teacher's judgement and ability to work with you.
| Quote: |
Now the door is open, suddenly some teacher is pushing SK Geothermal in class, while another is pushing GS Wind. What they aren't pushing is ABCs and 123s.
But what about another issue? What if its military policy, or social policy, or economic policy?
I'm off to go plan a lesson about space colonization because I strongly believe that our scientific future lies there. No more lessons on basic conversation and vocabulary, instead its terms like "return trajectory" and "low-Earth orbit". Yeah, I'm doing my kids a favor and living up to my responsibility to mold young minds for the future. |
Again, you're presenting a false dichotomy and overstating the case. Have you really nothing better to try and troll with?
It's never a case of either/ or. Such is tediously reductive thinking. Google "language-rich learning experiences" or something similar for the sake of extending vocabulary of students across various levels.
And if you are convinced of the need for someone to start dealing with the challenges presented by climate change - as you say you are but seem to want to make excuses about - but you really feel uncomfortable with having to talk with your co-teacher about this one small creatively contextual idea, then that is fine. Feel free to suggest an alternative approach outside school, perhaps in the other forum on Living in Korea or somewhere.
In the meantime, if anyone else out there still reading does have any positive conversations with co-workers or church or other community groups along these lines, please feel free to post results here.
Good luck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I never said any of that. |
The website you linked to did-
| Quote: |
| We're all part of institutions that ought to be looking out for the public good, from city and state governments to religious institutions to other kinds of charities and non-profits. Most of these institutions invest money in stocks and bonds, and have a responsibility to divest from an industry that�s destroying our future, and reinvest in solutions to climate change. |
And you...
| Quote: |
| Have you talked with your Korean and expat coworkers about the idea of crowd-source funding solar panels for your hagwon, school, or college to get it free of the nuclear and oil dependency? |
| Quote: |
| You see, this is why I think you're not a real teacher. Have you never heard of curriculum development? Have you never had responsibility for sharing your own class lessons? Have you never had to liaise with a co-teacher? Have you never heard of context for a lesson, or whole learning? |
As I said, I don't really have an issue with this in a hagwon or private lessons. That may not be what your students are paying for, but they can vote with their wallet and feet.
As an elementary public school teacher, the curriculum we prepare must cover certain concepts as these will be evaluated.
Now in H.S. you may have more latitude, and I will admit I am in error in not acknowledging that, as some of the vocabulary in such an exercise might be found on their national exam.
The role of the Korean co-teacher is to develop the broad curriculum in line with the expectations handed down by the Office(s) of Education. We do have some latitude in how we choose to achieve that curriculum and the acquisition of English in those students. And there are after-school programs in which one has broader discretion in the kinds of lessons they develop, but when it comes to the standard English class you have a responsibility to ensure English proficiency in certain area.
| Quote: |
| Yeah? That's a pity for you - and your students - that you have such a narrow vision of your role as someone involved in education, if such you really are. I have more confidence in your ability to communicate effectively, and in your co-teacher's judgement and ability to work with you. |
It's called humility and understanding one's duties. The roles you are endorsing are ones to be decided either at a higher pay grade than mine or are to be instilled by their parents. I was not hired to engage in political advocacy.
I applaud people who follow such concepts and find it sadly far to rare in our society. Too often judges, religious figures, politicians, teachers, and so on seek to overexert their influence on people's minds and all make the same claim- that their job somehow confers upon them this mystic responsibility. Especially dubious is the fact that it seems those of the working class do not have this responsibility. Its odd that the definition of "Who has this responsibility?" is pretty much "Whatever position I hold".
I assume then, that you endorse the uber-nationalism with Dokdo-based lessons that spring up throughout the school. I for one, do not. I know other teachers who do not. The same reason I do not endorse such a specific program as the one you mention is the reason that allows me to refuse to engage in Dokdo-based nationalism lessons- It has no place in the English classroom. We are here to learn our ABCs, not 'Why Dokdo is Korean'.
| Quote: |
Feel free to suggest an alternative approach outside school, perhaps in the other forum on Living in Korea or somewhere.
|
How about this- as part of private action in your free time. Or if you want to engage in political advocacy and are not a Permanent Resident or citizen, return to your home country and engage in it their, where it is your right and prerogative to do so.
If I am a parent, I am not sending my kids to school so that in English class they are learning about their NET's pet agenda. I am sending them there so that they learn "How's the weather? It's sunny." I am sending them there to learn grammar, vocabulary relevant to their lives and age, and pronunciation. Not why our school needs solar panels.
I am not my school's conscience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ethan Allen Hawley
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Steelrails"]
| Quote: |
| vocabulary relevant to their lives and age, |
Bingo!
| Quote: |
| I am not my school's conscience. |
I agree. We disagree.
Seriously, thanks for communicating, and the keeping of it all both cool and civil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ethan Allen Hawley wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
calling for your school to go fossil-fuel free and encouraging it to cease economic relationships with oil-based companies is a whole nother ballgame.
... advocating that the school engage in spending to use alternative energy and that it cease economic relationships with those companies that "refuse to go green" IS social advocacy.
... when you start talking about the use of public, governmental funds and advocating the termination of relationships, that is a whole different ball game. |
I never said any of that. Again, your imagination is running wild with you. You're beyond bordering on trolling; you're now being a very boring troll, too. |
Actually, you did say all of that:
| Ethan Allen Hawley wrote: |
| The original suggestion was to do with divestment. This is not about building anything, but rather about making sure any funds owned by the school are not invested in fossil fuels, but rather in more modern and responsible forms of power. |
Steelrails isn't alone in disapproving of your approach here.
The morality of you implanting your own moral judgments into your students is ambiguous at best... even (perhaps especially) when you believe those moral judgments are or should be universal.
I think it would be great if you could construct a lesson featuring the -facts- about where different countries get their energy and the repercussions thereof. But telling Koreans what to do in Korea is a little too 20th century for my tastes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ethan Allen Hawley
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Ethan Allen Hawley wrote: |
| The original suggestion was to do with divestment. This is not about building anything, but rather about making sure any funds owned by the school are not invested in fossil fuels, but rather in more modern and responsible forms of power. |
Steelrails isn't alone in disapproving of your approach here.
The morality of you implanting your own moral judgments into your students is ambiguous at best... even (perhaps especially) when you believe those moral judgments are or should be universal.
I think it would be great if you could construct a lesson featuring the -facts- about where different countries get their energy and the repercussions thereof. But telling Koreans what to do in Korea is a little too 20th century for my tastes. |
Okay, granted; I did suggest the word "divestment" in relation to larger educational institutions such as universities, and I stand by that. Whether public or private universities, that money comes from students, and students have the power to suggest to their university management the idea of divestment from the filthy fossil-fuel industries.
Given that the effects of CO2 and global warming have been a recognized fact for more than 100 years, and given that the recently retiring Dr James Hansen proved climate change was happening on Earth nearly four decades ago, I think it IS fair to call the dangers and immorality of fossil fuel investment and use a "universal." It's the same on any planet in the universe. The only surprise is that we continue to both use and defend their use. How many Fukushimas and Taean oil spills do we need?
At the same time, I'm still not suggesting "implanting" or even "telling" anyone at any school to do anything. Why all this exaggeration, you guys?
My suggestion was to start with a talk about it with the co-teacher. It may very well simply end there, and that's fine. If they're open to it, and they want to develop a lesson - such as your excellent idea comm - then things may develop further. If the idea comes from the students for any kind of response to the knowledge, then so much the better, and I agree, that is the best result.
But frankly, given the enormity of the challenge we all face wherever we're from, doing nothing different is surely the least moral response, whatever the context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ethan Allen Hawley wrote: |
the sad fact of the matter is that Canada doesn�t actually exist anymore.
|
Excuse me sir...can we talk about the REAL WORLD for a second?
Can you list even ONE country where, when an alternative energy program was embarked on that either was not a failure or at minimum resulted in sharply increased costs for the taxpayer?
See it's all well and good to splutter about "Saving the environment" and such and to anybody who doesn't know the facts it sounds good.
But very few people are willing to implement or support any policy which impacts their wallets and that is why such programs may last for a while but will sooner or later collapse as some have done already. The fact that some may be enjoying a reprieve or short-lived revival is not in my books a cause for celebration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ethan Allen Hawley
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
See it's all well and good to splutter ~ |
Yes well it certainly seems so. All I understood from your message was a lot of splutter.
The "fact of the matter" is that Canada [as we all know and love it] ceased to exist [as we all know] when that HAARPer guy somehow managed to become the ruling entity there.
The poor citizens of the nation-state previously known as Canada have been apologizing even more profusely than usual ever since. Why? Because he's clearly an oil-bought fossil-fuel lackey of the same ilk as the George Bushes and wasted no time wasting the land and all other resources there, much to the US fossil-fuel industry's delight.
The only great last strongholds of both rational and effective leadership (with regards policies affecting the natural environment) appear to be BC (for their awesome carbon fee system) and Ontario (for their shepherding of renewable sustainable energy). Neither place is a "reprieve" or a "short-lived revival." Both places deserve to be widely celebrated and emulated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Is there going to be any anti-American propaganda in this campaign? Goodness, we have enough of that already. Care to include a lesson on the dangers of US Beef while you're at it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ethan Allen Hawley
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Is there going to be any anti-American propaganda in this campaign? Goodness, we have enough of that already. Care to include a lesson on the dangers of US Beef while you're at it? |
Haa ha! Steelrails, i do like a good sense of sarcasm. Thanks for brightening my morning!
It's not just the poor old USA at fault here; it's just that the US political system is clearly so corrupt by fossil fuel money, and that has such a direct influence on other countries. I do think I've pointed to western nations in general often enough already, and certainly there are obvious issues in many other lands.
The latest example is this new petition from the great Avaaz.org which mentions how the British 'Advisor for Europe and Global Issues' is trying to block climate change from the main agenda of the upcoming international meeting called the 'G8.' I believe the official British term for someone with this kind of approach is 't-wat.'
http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Dont_let_climate_change_be_overshadowed_at_G8/?fBTaZab&pv=11&fb_source=message
Similarly, in Australia recently the leader of the opposition party said he'd fire the Aussie governmental head of the governmental group the Climate Commission despite all the good work they're doing. I understand the official Aussie term for this kind of person is 'dickhead.'
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/04/03/12/50/extreme-weather-will-become-worse-experts
The New Zealand prime minister just came back from leading a major trade delegation to South America in an effort primarily to lure oil companies there back to buying rights to drill for oil off the coast, despite it proving too difficult (read 'dangerous') for at least one recently, and despite its enormous unpopularity with local people. Sources indicate appropriate terminology for this kind of leader is either 'egg' or 'drongo.'
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10852977
Alternately, if you want good news coming from the US, check out this great piece, which is about a Republican mayor, no less
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/28/1788461/republican-mayor-leads-city-to-first-ever-solar-energy-mandate/
or even this one about New Yorkers - perhaps responding strongly to Superstorm Sandy - and changing their lives quite directly as a result
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/new-yorks-competitive-solar-program-off-to-a-bright-start |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
julian_w
Joined: 08 Sep 2003
Location: Somewhere beyond Middle Peak Hotel, north of Middle Earth, and well away from the Middle of the Road
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ethan Allen Hawley wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
See it's all well and good to splutter ~ |
Yes well it certainly seems so. All I understood from your message was a lot of splutter.
. |
Well I figured since you weren't understanding me it was worthwhile to attempt to communicate on your level.
Anyway it's not going to happen here soon or anytime soon. Neither America or China (who are the two biggest polluters) are engaged in a meaningful way and most other governments are still dealing with the effects of the financial crisis for years to come. And given that every single country who has actually installed and used renewable energy sources has experienced either failure or substantially higher costs overall...there's not likely to be any rush by other countries to emulate them.
Enviromental concern is going to be way down on their list of things to do..which is as it should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes indeed Canada is the environmental leader, whoops forgot about them ole tar sands and the huge carbon footprint oh well. No fossil fuel money there.
But be careful south Korea is under U.S. military control and can you imagine if THEY found out your plans! YIKES!!
saving the world is a tuff job. carry on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
