It's Come To This

[Repat Van]

Jul 4, 2019 8:55:32 GMT mids said:

What other discrimination in the workplace laws were in existence that could have been used? It's very often the case that existing laws do the job but hysterical snowflakes (i.e. you) demand their own extra special laws because they're so special.

Well if other laws could have been used they would not have needed a new one.

But given this kind of discrimination was rampant, existing laws were not sufficient so this clarification had to be made.

But as I said you and your fellow racists support race based discrimination so of course you will be opposed to laws made to prevent that. Or what exactly is your issue with laws preventing workplaces from firing / schools from suspending black people who may forego chemical straighteners in place of keeping their hair in the texture it grows out of their head?

[mids]

You hate white people.

[rick49]

"It is quite amazing to me, simply amazing, that in 2019 a law had to be enacted to protect black people from facing discrimination for the way their hair grows out of their head.


In 2019!"

It is quite amazing to me, simply amazing, that in 2019, Jim Crow segregation is being re-introduced/revived on our bastions of woke liberalism,,,colleges.


In 2019!

[flatandy]

Jul 4, 2019 2:03:00 GMT rick49 said:

Uh-huh: To save water, LA pays folks to tear out lawns that fight smog, costing billions

"This would be so California-hilarious if it didn’t affect the health of millions of its citizens."

"Statistics show that after some years of improvement, mainly nationally, air in the country’s capital of smog, Los Angeles, is deteriorating again. Los Angeles has chronically been the worst place for childhood asthma too."

"The drought is over. But the Los Angeles County’s Waterworks Districts are still signing up homeowners under their Cash for Grass program. Their website boasts of having paid to tear out and replace more than two million square feet of “inefficient turf.”

"Here’s the problem with that: Every 600 square feet of grass produces enough oxygen to support one human for one day."

hotair.com/archives/latimestot/2019/07/03/calif-smog-worsens/

Kinda like taking the oxygen bottle away from someone with copd. How woke.

Hmmm. You do know that smog isn't a lack of oxygen, don't you? And there's nothing in that link that actually suggests any causation between generating oxygen and the increase in smog?

You also know that even though California is no longer in drought that water is a scarce resource in California and we shouldn't be wasting it?

And you know that drought actually does happen in California fairly regularly?

And that tropospheric ozone pollution is particularly enhanced by increased numbers of warm days which... well, you know.

And that it's also damaged by the Trump administration trying to slash and burn emissions standards and in particular trying to destroy California's rights to have its own emission standards?

But, no, let's grow more grass - I guess in the even-hotter inland parts of the LA basin which actually have the ozone pollution but where it takes much more water and where grass basically dies out incredibly fast - despite the fact that it doesn't reduce photochemical smog levels at all.

It really is incredible that nonsense that these idiots spout.

[rick49]

They're all nuts. Looney tunes. Every last one of them.

Online mob goes after a Trump protester — because they thought she was a Trump supporter

"Multiple users decided that it was their moral obligation to pile on to “Jill.” Some even tried to dox her, according to Rubinstein, who worked hard to rein in the chaos."

“People are trying to have this woman doxxed."

www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/online-mob-goes-after-a-trump-protester-because-they-thought-she-was-a-trump-supporter

[rick49]

Jul 4, 2019 13:26:03 GMT flatandy said:

Jul 4, 2019 2:03:00 GMT rick49 said:

Uh-huh: To save water, LA pays folks to tear out lawns that fight smog, costing billions

"This would be so California-hilarious if it didn’t affect the health of millions of its citizens."

"Statistics show that after some years of improvement, mainly nationally, air in the country’s capital of smog, Los Angeles, is deteriorating again. Los Angeles has chronically been the worst place for childhood asthma too."

"The drought is over. But the Los Angeles County’s Waterworks Districts are still signing up homeowners under their Cash for Grass program. Their website boasts of having paid to tear out and replace more than two million square feet of “inefficient turf.”

"Here’s the problem with that: Every 600 square feet of grass produces enough oxygen to support one human for one day."

hotair.com/archives/latimestot/2019/07/03/calif-smog-worsens/

Kinda like taking the oxygen bottle away from someone with copd. How woke.

Hmmm. You do know that smog isn't a lack of oxygen, don't you? And there's nothing in that link that actually suggests any causation between generating oxygen and the increase in smog?

You also know that even though California is no longer in drought that water is a scarce resource in California and we shouldn't be wasting it?

And you know that drought actually does happen in California fairly regularly?

And that tropospheric ozone pollution is particularly enhanced by increased numbers of warm days which... well, you know.

And that it's also damaged by the Trump administration trying to slash and burn emissions standards and in particular trying to destroy California's rights to have its own emission standards?

But, no, let's grow more grass - I guess in the even-hotter inland parts of the LA basin which actually have the ozone pollution but where it takes much more water and where grass basically dies out incredibly fast - despite the fact that it doesn't reduce photochemical smog levels at all.

It really is incredible that nonsense that these idiots spout.

Tear out the trees, too, right?

[flatandy]

Depends on the trees. Eucalyptus, yes. Jacarandas, no. Palm trees (which aren't really trees), it depends.

[flatandy]

But trees offer way, way more value than turf, because they offer canopy shade, consume less water, and the leaves tend to trap and hold airborne chemical pollutants

[perrykneeham]

Jul 6, 2019 19:38:45 GMT flatandy said:

Depends on the trees. Eucalyptus, yes. Jacarandas, no. Palm trees (which aren't really trees), it depends.

For my education, what's the problem with eucalyptus?

[flatandy]

From what I understand they consume a relatively large amount of water - they grow fast and take a lot of ground water to do so. They're also considered a fire risk, more than normal trees. And they have shallow roots despite growing tall, which means they're at risk of falling over in high winds.

[flatandy]

They look and smell great, mind you. But, for practical reasons, they're not particularly suited to Southern California.

[perrykneeham]

Jul 6, 2019 19:55:03 GMT flatandy said:

From what I understand they consume a relatively large amount of water - they grow fast and take a lot of ground water to do so. They're also considered a fire risk, more than normal trees. And they have shallow roots despite growing tall, which means they're at risk of falling over in high winds.

I agree that they smell great, but I don't know that I see that they're thirsty. Surely, they're an iconic semi-aŕid plant. Why is being shallow-rooted inherently bad? Lots of pioneer species are. So are pines. They do burn well, that's true, but surely they are pyrophillic? Dunno, not having a go, but the case against them seems a bit incoherent.

[flatandy]

Part of the argument is the normal bullshit argument against non-native species (as if native species don't burn!).

But some things are definitely true - they're definitely shallow rooted, and shallow roots - particularly in California's arid and often loose soil - can mean instability. The problem is that they fall - and because they grow very tall and have fairly large canopies, when we get high winds (usually Santa Anas coming out of the desert) that means there's a lot of leverage and not a big anchor.

There are also lots of articles on how thirsty eucalyptus are. What makes you think they aren't (for a tree that will be growing in coastal semi-desert)?

From Wiki

Eucalypts draw a tremendous amount of water from the soil through the process of transpiration. They have been planted (or re-planted) in some places to lower the water table and reduce soil salination. Eucalypts have also been used as a way of reducing malaria by draining the soil in Algeria, Lebanon, Sicily,[45] elsewhere in Europe, in Caucasus (Western Georgia), and California.[46] Drainage removes swamps which provide a habitat for mosquito larvae, but can also destroy ecologically productive areas.

[perrykneeham]

Shallow, schmallow. There's a weird prejudice about shallow roots in popular ecology.  Tropical rainforests have particularly piss-poor soils, somewhat counter-intuitively. I'd be amazed if California had very many deep soils at all. I just don't buy that eucalyptus are big water users: they are an iconic feature of landscapes that just don't have that much water, particularly in the shallow, well-drained soils we're talking about. It's a contradiction.

Dunno. Maybe I've missed something but Portugal is full of 'em.  A famously well-drained, sedimentary, semi-arid area.  Very nice they are too.

[flatandy]

You accept that they're planted to drain swamps but still somehow claim that they aren't thirsty?

As for shallow roots: Shallow root problems

There are much more practical trees for southern California. Like the much more drought tolerant jacaranda.

[perrykneeham]

They're not known for falling over either. Shallow roots may be widespread - think of an outsidedown T.

[perrykneeham]

Jul 6, 2019 21:03:25 GMT flatandy said:

You accept that they're planted to drain swamps but still somehow claim that they aren't thirsty?

As for shallow roots: Shallow root problems

There are much more practical trees for southern California. Like the much more drought tolerant jacaranda.

No, I don't accept that they're planted to drain swamps in preference to the evapotranspiration performance of other trees.  They are not particularly thirsty. They just aren't.

Amazonian is not eucalyptus country. Australia is.

[flatandy]

Jul 6, 2019 21:07:46 GMT perrykneeham said:

They're not known for falling over either.

They are in California, being taller than most other trees here and not having such good anchors.

I know you're naturally argumentative, but you're taking it to another level here. Are you just refusing to accept the sources I've showed you and preferring your own prejudices?

[perrykneeham]

I'm not saying they don't fall over or that there aren't more appropriate species but your usual coffee-table knowledge has tripped you up again.

Eucalyptus are not especially thirsty and the shallow roots argument is cack. Look at the evidence all around you.

"The water use of a Eucalyptus plantation has been found to be 785 litres/kg of total biomass, which is one of the lowest if compared with tree species such as Acacia (1,323 litres/kg), Dalbergia (1,484 litres/kg) and agricultural crops such as paddy rice (2,000 litres/kg) and cotton (3,200 litres/kg).

In February 2017, the Karnataka government banned growing of eucalyptus plantations on private land in the state, including the plantations under agro/farm forestry. Under pressure due to ill-informed opinion, similar moves have been started in the neighbouring states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. These actions would have severe social, economic, industrial and environmental consequences and would also go against the objectives of National Forest Policy, 1988 as well as National Agroforestry Policy, 2014.

Based on the presentation of studies and facts by the Indian Paper Manufactures Association or IPMA, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change wrote to the Karnataka government, asking it to revisit / reconsider its decision, stating that, “It is a well-established fact that eucalyptus is an important tree species for agroforestry and farm forestry and is contributing as a raw material for pulp, plywood and fuel wood, besides giving good economic returns to farmers and tree growers and is also improving tree cover in the country. There are some concerns that eucalyptus depletes the ground water levels. However, there are no concrete studies to conclusively establish ill-effects of plantation of eucalyptus.”

In fact, many studies have pointed out that eucalyptus plantations do not absorb ground water and have no adverse impact on the water table. "

[flatandy]

So, compared with paddy rice and cotton...

Yeah. About that.