100 Million Will Die by 2030 If World Fails to Act on Climate: Report

[Hissyspit]

Source: Reuters

100 million will die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate: report

LONDON | Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:01pm EDT

By Nina Chestney

LONDON (Reuters) - More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.

As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organization DARA.

It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.

More than 90 percent of those deaths will occur in developing countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries in 2010 and 2030. It was commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing countries threatened by climate change.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE88O1HG20120925

[a geek named Bob]

1. this is kind of the reason I push for creative solutions

[bananas]

53. Twice as many will die from nuclear war in that time.

Statistically, nuclear war can be expected about every 100 years,
and a small regional nuclear war will cause about 1 billion deaths globally from nuclear winter.

Making the optimistic assumption that we won't have full-blown MAD but just small regional wars,
that averages to (1 billion/100 years) = 10 million deaths per year from nuclear war.

That averages to 200 million over a 20 year period, and 2030 is about 20 years away.

References:
http://nuclearrisk.org/
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/

[NickB79]

59. Statistics based on one data point? Really?

We've had ONE war in which nuclear weapons were used, and from that we should extrapolate a once-per-century nuclear war rate?

[Ilsa]

2. A tiny clip from the Ag report yesterday indicated

That next year, people could expect ALOT more government intervention if we have another year of drought like this year. The intervention will be absolutely necessary. This means we should expect both physical strain on food and resources and economic strain.

So far, drought patterns for the central plains are expected to remain through December, with some relief for the eastern corn belt and central and south Texas.

[dkf]

5. Exactly what kind of government intervention?

[Ilsa]

10. I guess it depends on severity

of crop losses due to drought, but I suspect financial help to support keeping herds instead of sending most of them to slaughter due to high feed prices; price supports for livestock, credits to dairy farmers, etc, I guess. I'm sure there are other things they can think up.

[dkf]

12. But more funds don't solve shortages, that just keeps it here instead of for export.

[Ilsa]

52. The idea would be to keep the farm and ranch operations going until

They can be profitable again, and to provide assistance to banks backing farm loans, crop insurance, etc. It's to stabilize the operations in much the same way the Fed did for the Too Big To Fail banks in 2008.

Keep in mind that a shortage of one type of crop for feed might mean producers seek other alternatives besides that commodity whose price went through the roof. Also, the subsidies might allow more producers to buy the expensive feed to keep operations going for another year vs taking more of those animals to slaughter.

[NickB79]

60. Unless, of course, they'll never be profitable again

The current drought in the central US has been linked by some climate scientists to the melting of the Arctic ice cap. The ice cap will be virtually gone in a few short years. If the drought we see today is part of a larger shift in climate, large portions of the US will no longer be suitable for farming as we currently know it. It would also create a perpetually high grain price, hurting other farmers in areas that can still support conventional farming.

My opinion is that price supports are a short-term fix, a crutch to help an unsustainable industry (the US industrial ag. system) keep hobbling along a little longer. What we need is to re-evaluate the way we farm in the first place.

[Ilsa]

68. Yes, that or shift production to

plants that require less water, or shift planting to other areas that have have more rainfall. Some products might need to be flipped between areas.

[kestrel91316]

3. RW cheers at this. They want the poor dead. And it WILL be the poor who die.

[GliderGuider]

78. And as the world gets poorer, more of us will become eligible for the privilege nt

[AZ Progressive]

4. Every Presidential Election is a Fork in the Road of our Future

Since in 2000 (not truly the people's fault), America had a moment of going in the direction of an Al Gore Presidency, which would have meant that America would have taken a leadership position on Global Warming on Earth, and the extent of Global Warming that we now face could have been avoided. But because America went in the direction of a Bush Presidency, this did not happen, and now we are seeing more of the extent of the consequences of that direction that America took back in 2000 (along with the thousands dead in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as the financial disaster of 2008).

Presidential Elections are EXTREMELY SERIOUS (and so is what party controls Congress because of its supporting role) and the consequences are grave for so many people.

[dkf]

6. What can the President do on his own? Doesn't he need congress?

[rhett o rick]

8. Is that a serious question or rhetorical?

Our current president campaigned to take actions to work towards solutions to reduce the impact of climate change. Recent wild fires across the nation appear to be attributed to climate change. But the administration has been mute when asked what actions should be taken. Congress is of course needed but it would be nice if the president would put some pressure on them.

[dkf]

13. I'm wondering how much he can accomplish by executive order or whatever.

Or EPA regs or through other government functions vs needing treaties/agreements and other formal arrangements.

Isn't that why the Presidency can be pivotal?

[defacto7]

23. It should be...

But congress and the Supreme Court have been practising subverting the president through any means if he takes the bull by the horns in a way that undermines their agenda which does not include government intervention but corporate control to save their own asses at the cost of America as we know it. Don't expect that moving congress over to the left will help that much in the short run because the supreme court is still the trump card and neither the president nor congress "in the short run" can override them. It takes a huge move by both houses to bump them and that is no easy task.

When asked about Obama's statement concerning Supreme Court Decisions, Justice Antonin Scalia said with a smile "What can he do to me?"

The right wing of the Supreme Court has become the very thing they were meant to protect us from... political tyranny.

[dkf]

29. True. It's too bad they didn't do more for renewables.

Solyndra was the wrong way...they needed huge tax incentives to create demand.

[lunatica]

39. How do you propose to focus Congressional attention on climate change?

I would think the best way is to have the President focus his attention on it and start using the bully pulpit to put pressure on Congress and to educate the citizens at the same time. This country, and the world, are ripe for learning a whole lot about Climate Change when the weather has been so extreme this year.

I expect the weather won't be settling down into 'normal' either.

That's what the President can do.

[rhett o rick]

7. Is it even remotely possible for us to do anything to prevent this? Nature will win, mark my words.

[Matilda]

11. It may still be possible, but is it probable?

I believe that most people who are opposed to action on climate change are acting purely out of selfishness. They know deep down that it will mean changes in lifestyle, and they don't want to make the decision to alter what makes them comfortable.

I was watching the Formula 1 Grand Prix on Sunday night, and I thought how much gas those cars are guzzling, and wondered how much longer it can continue? Plus it was Singapore, which is a night race, so they have huge lights which take an emormous amount of power to keep the track lighted properly. It can't go on, but when will people take the hard decisions like this? This is just one extreme example, but it's the sort of thing people have to come to grips with.

But people are selfish, and poll-driven government are unwilling to make the hard choices for fear of a political backlash. It's a vicious circle.

[rhett o rick]

55. Selfish is right. Why should I cut back when the other guy wont? nm

[Richard D]

16. If nature has a personality . . .

. . . I very much doubt that nature considers the consequences of global warming to be a win.

[hughee99]

63. You can purchase carbon credits...

They may or may not do much to clean up the environment but they do wonders for cleaning up guilt.

[SHRED]

9. Not even a dent

[hatrack]

14. And the controversy roiling the nation today?

A blown call in a pro football game.

[Blue_Tires]

44. +10000

[ZombieHorde]

51. Ha! Silly humans arguing over games while sinking on the Titanic.

That is so funny!

[RoccoR5955]

15. That's all?

That's a quite optimistic view. If sea levels rise like they are predicted to rise, it's more like 500 million. Great deltas, where populations are concentrated will no longer exist. This would yield more devastation than air pollution, hunger, disease, and other sources cited.
Imagine the Nile delta, pretty much all of Bangladesh, NYC, New Orleans, San Francisco, a good portion of Greece, Indonesia, Pacific island nations, all gone! Perhaps my estimate is a bit optimistic, but it's more realistic than 100 million. Those are the few that I can think of off the top of my head. Climate change will bring about a major change in the population makeup of the planet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. It's the figure by 2030

Sea level rise won't be that large by then - that will be driven by the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps (but the problem is that once they do start to melt, it'll take a long time to build them back up again).

[RoccoR5955]

56. The melting of polar ice is going on much faster than "they" predicted

Which is why I said what I did.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. That is the floating sea ice, not the ice on land

and only the melting of the latter alters sea level. While more open sea in the Arctic will increase the rate of warming for Greenland, so far sea level rise has been very slow - you have to melt through a huge thickness on the island to raise the whole world's sea level appreciably (Greenland's ice cap is under 2 million sq. km, while the oceans are 360 million sq. km, so you need to melt a thickness of about 200m for 1m of sea level rise).

[RoccoR5955]

61. Greenland has also been melting faster than earlier predicted.

Just google "rapid greenland ice melt," to find out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. But not at the huge rate needed to change sea levels significantly by 2030

See eg http://www.greenlandmelting.com/1/post/2012/08/2012-the-goliath-melting-year.html

It's on the order of 100 Gt per year. A gigatonne is 10^9 tonnes, or 1 cubic km of water (a little bit more of ice). The total volume of Greenland ice is about 2,800,000 cubic km. Once it's melting at 100 times the present rate, it will be changing sea levels noticeably. But I can't see that happening with 18 years.

[RoccoR5955]

75. Neither can scientists

as a matter of fact, they are surprised at the current melt rate.
I think that they are underestimating the problem, but that's me.

[IDemo]

69. Rising sea level isn't the most immediate GW threat

The increased absorption of solar energy that would have otherwise been reflected by the ice is already having a noticeable effect on our weather, and this is likely to get much worse:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/shrinking-arctic-ice-and-the-wicked-backlash-on-our-weather/2012/09/21/253aea6c-03f8-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. Yes, but #15 was about sea level change

and whether it should be factored in for a 2030 figure.

[GliderGuider]

73. The near term problem isn't sea level rise, it's rainfall changes.

The US drought, the cold, wet weather in the UK, the partial failure of the Indian monsoon - these are affecting the world's food supply today. They are directly linked to the melting of the arctic ice cap through the effect that is having on the polar jet stream.

This is happening at the same time that oil prices are rising due to hitting the peak oil plateau in 2005, and the global financial system is breaking down, starting in Europe.

We are so completely, totally, irredeemably screwed.

[AverageJoe90]

17. Very well within the realm of possibility........

.......especially if China implodes and goes into a full-blown civil war or if a mega-plague develops somewhere. Not a pretty picture to paint.

[Mojorabbit]

19. Well there is a new coronavirus which is SARS like

http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/who-issues-criteria-for-identifying-new-respiratory-virus-1.971545
WHO issues criteria for identifying new respiratory virus
snip
The World Health Organization has issued guidelines for identifying possible cases of a new SARS-related respiratory virus found in two people from the Middle East.
In a news release issued Tuesday, WHO said it has received no reports of additional cases of the “novel” coronavirus, which belongs to the same family as SARS and the common cold.
snip
Health officials became aware of the new virus earlier this month when a 49-year-old Qatari man who had travelled to Saudi Arabia for hajj -- the Muslim pilgrimage -- became sick upon returning home.
He was placed in intensive care in Doha, Qatar on Sept.7 and then transferred to the U.K. by air ambulance on Sept. 11. There, the British Health Protection Agency confirmed the man was infected with a coronavirus.
The virus was matched to the case of a 60-year-old Saudi national who died earlier this year.
The WHO says the new virus is “very different” from SARS, but the severity of the two cases identified so far has put officials on alert.





and the hajj is getting ready to start in earnest. One never knows if this might be the one.

[Jamaal510]

18. So the question now is how we get the message across to

all those who think that Climate Change is just some liberal hoax created by a bunch of liberal scientists. There is countless evidence out there such as the melting ice and air pollution, yet we have a good chunk of Americans who refuse to acknowledge its existence. For some reason, it doesn't seem to be very important to that many people to preserve the environment for future generations.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

22. We ignore them. The threat is too serious to educate them.

We make the necessary changes and imprison those who try to obstruct them.

[Llewlladdwr]

25. Uh-huh.

Who exactly is "we" in your little authoritarian fantasy?

[I love weed]

46. WTF?

Spoken like a true fascist.

[magical thyme]

49. We don't. We make changes in our own lives

based on what we believe. Live the change you want to see. It is the only way, and that way when the crap hits the fan, you will be in a position to help those who have been slower to see the light.

Edited to say this was meant to be a reply to 18, not the dictator!

The only thing I miss right now is companionship, and once I am able to move, I am heading to a transition town where I will automatically find like-minded people.

In the meantime, I reduced my energy consumption dramatically in the last 9 years. I put limited money into a couple small projects and got used to having my thermostat set at 55 in the winter. Your body adjusts *and* I'm now allowing myself to set it to 60, feel plenty warm and using ~ half the oil and gas that I used when I first moved here. I've gotten down to about 300 gallons oil/winter. This year I'm aiming for 200 gallons -- we'll see if I can make it.

I am currently almost vegan and will be 99-100% vegan by next year. I grow as much of my own as I can, increasing what I grow each year. I buy as much local organic as I can. I have already lost 2" around my waist in just 6 weeks or so and the change in diet has been totally painless thanks to the book "Eat to Live." The diet promoted by that doctor (which has been demonstrated to be very healthy) is one where I can grow most of what I eat, relying on others only for buckwheat (which is grown and processed locally).

I am driving my '97 civic into the ground, still getting almost 45 mpg. There may be 1 car after the civic for the rest of my life. When change hits big time, I will have my arabian mare to get around. She's under saddle now and will also learn to pull a small buggy. Non-horse people should be switching to bicycles. I don't ride bikes simply because they give me ear-aches for reasons I don't understand. Plus I'm a life-long horsewoman and have a future role to play in that.

I live further from where I work than I want to, but will change that as soon as I'm able to sell my house. I will be downsizing my house in a big way (not that my house is all that big, but 1400 ft' is plenty for a small family, way more than I need as a single). When I do downsize, the freed up money will go to extra insulation, solar, wind or geothermal -- which ever makes sense. I have my eye on an 800 or so sq' cottage near a transition town with acreage. Maybe will grow enough to sell excess at the in-town farmer's market...

[2ndAmForComputers]

83. Trying too hard.

Even the username is too over-the-top. Be more subtle next time.

[patrice]

28. It's worse than that. They don't just think it's a hoax. Tea Partying End Timers are spreading

the hallucination that Environmentalism and alternative energy technologies are a U.N. conspiracy to take over the USA. I believe they are doing this through their churches; that's why we see Ralph Reed involved in the Romney SuperPACS so deeply.

It is unfortunate that the next wave of repercussions from the Derivative Crash of '08 is headed at us & expected to arrive near the end of this year or early next year, so the End Timers are going to be screaming bloody murder that they were right all along when that trouble hits us, since it's a WORLD financial crisis and ignorant Tea Partyers et al will take that as proof of U.N. involvement.

[GliderGuider]

79. Not necessary - it's too late for preemptive education

The changes are already well underway.

What's about to happen is that the shit is going to hit the fan and begin to splatter, world-wide. Then, as a consequence of being smacked by the crisis, people will begin to change.

Before that point, education will not be successful. After that point, education will not be necessary.

[Bozita]

20. Since the end of the world is coming next week/month/year, this shit is all immaterial

See your local fundy church for all the gory details.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

21. Something more than a democratic process needs to bring about a solution...

We can't put the fate of the planet in the hands of idiots, especially something with a time limit like this.

Anyone standing in the way and obstructing the process of averting this impending disaster should be charged with crimes against humanity and imprisoned.

The time is over to educate the ignorant bastards or compromise with the selfish fucks taking us down this path.

This is far too serious of a threat to stand by any principles.

[Speck Tater]

24. The deniers will just go right on saying "Those 100 million would have died anyway."

They will deny that the deaths had anything to do with global warming. That is, if they even notice 100 million deaths. Frankly, it's not likely that they will notice.

[M_M]

26. K&R but

you may as well have dropped those last eight words from your title.

[patrice]

27. If we can get around these F-ing End Timers, we could get some churches to help on this.

Time for some people to prove that they're real Christians, don't you think?

[ErikJ]

30. Sadly, if this was a Hitler or Tojo etc, we would mobilize to defeat it

But humans, especially Republicans, arent evolved enough to equate environmental threats as such.

[Scootaloo]

31. As the report says...

Most of those 100,000,000 people will be in places like Bangladesh, Indonesia, sub-Saharan Africa, and central Asia.

In other words, as far as the major polluters - who are also the nations with the best shot at fixing the problem - are concerned.. this is a problem for those brown-skinned Dirt-Worshipers in Farawayistan; fuck 'em.

Does the US give a shit about famine in the Mddle East?
Does China give a flying fuck about floods in South Asia?
Does Europe give a good goddamn about Central African desertification?

Let me spell out how much the average American is concerned for the melanistic heathens of Farawayistan. Upon news that what was effectively a slave revolt shut down a Foxconn factory in China, the burning question in the minds of Americans was "But will my iPhone 5 ship on time?"

We're not going to give a shit about this until it's 33% of America dropping dead. And even then, plenty of our body politic will be claiming that they "deserved it" for not bootstrapping or something.

[cstanleytech]

32. Climate change imo is a lesser problem though when compared to the human population as a whole which

keeps expanding.
After all the planet can only support so many people before its resources run out but sadly many people seem willing to ignore that fact and keep having children.

[GliderGuider]

37. Climate change may ultimately "solve" the problem of population growth.

Famine and disease are the heavy lifters after all.

[longship]

34. No! Billions will die.

Humans are changing the biosphere such that we may not be able to fix it. The climate seems to have clicked into a new state. That ain't good.

[GliderGuider]

38. Over the next century, I agree.

These projected deaths by 2030 are just the overture. The carrying capacity of the planet is probably less than 1 billion at this point, given all the biospheric damage and resource depletion we've caused. and no ecological niche supports a population above it's carrying capacity for long. The convergence of climate change, resource depletion and economic implosion makes the contraction inevitable.

[slackmaster]

48. I guarantee that at least 7 billion people will die over the next century

You can bet on it!

[GliderGuider]

50. But that's not really the point now, is it? nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

57. Heh.

[Vidar]

35. "And the money kept rollin in."

[adigal]

36. It is inevitable that something will take a bunch of us out

With the way population has grown, and the continued growth, something is going to take out a whole bunch of us. Global warming, rising seas, famine, pandemics. We are out of balance with the world. In order to grow enough for everyone, we have to use (or so we think) techniques that destroy as we grow. It's not good.

[GliderGuider]

40. Are we on the cusp of global collapse?

If the data of the last 40 years means anything, the answer is, "Yes, starting in 2015."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112724609

[lunatica]

41. 2030 will only be the beginning of the Big Die Off

If nothing is done to either mitigate climate change or learn to live with it there will be many, many more millions dying off much faster after 2030. It will only keep getting worse. We already don't know if we can mitigate the changes at all even if we tried.

[GliderGuider]

42. I keep thinking of the word "bottleneck".

I think it has been baked in the cake for either the last 50, 200 or 10,000 years - take your pick depending on your ability to perceive root causes. I generally choose the latter, 10,000 years. As far as I can tell the predicament we're in the the result of an unfortunate convergence of our innate intelligence, innovation, short-sightedness and reproduction.

[marions ghost]

43. Right if its that bad in 2030

then we can assume it will get worse....

[Uncle Joe]

82. I agree with your take on the situation lunatica.

[Blue_Tires]

45. Personally, I think we'll have World War III (or something close)

before 2030

[Javaman]

47. We now have more suicides deaths than people killed in car wrecks in this country alone...

and nothing is done to fund mental health services.

What makes anyone think that we are going to do anything to help the world combat climate change and the 10's of millions that will die because of it?

humans like big staggering numbers en masse not the slow drip of numbers over time.

we are willfully ignoring ourselves to death.

[GliderGuider]

54. Other assessments are quite a bit more dire

Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

A recent paper from the Australian government research organization CSIRO compared the real-life trends of the last 40 years to the models published in the "Limits to Growth" study of 1972. The match they discovered prompted them to estimate that global birth rates and death rates could be equal by 2030, marking the peak of world population.

That's my gut feeling right now as well. Over the next 20 years there will be a combination of accelerating climate change (decreasing food supplies and increasing the spread of infectious disease), along with growing resource shortages and deepening global economic breakdown. That combination would raise mortality rates and decrease birth rates very rapidly, in line with the experience of Russia whren the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the 1980's.

If the crude birth and mortality rates were to meet at 12 per thousand in 2030 there would be an extra 180 million deaths over current UN projections. In addition, there would be almost 400 million fewer births than the UN expects.The population would peak just short of 8 billion in 2030. If the same trends held, the world population would then drop to about 2.5 billion by the end of the century.

[sir pball]

62. Good riddance.

The planet is already well past its carrying capacity, given human nature - yes, I'm aware in a theoretically ideal situation where everybody consumes subsistence-level amounts of resources while using all available technology to maximize production from 100% of arable land the number is wildly high, tens of billions, but realistically we're at 1.5x the sustainable population, if not twice.

100,000,000 is a good start to the two-and-a-half billion that need to go.

[slackmaster]

64. Malthusian Catastrophe Theory has been around for more than 300 years

It has always found ardent supporters here and there.

[sir pball]

70. Indeed

I'm aware that Malthus completely missed the mark on technological advances; as I pointed out there are plenty of models that put the number as high as 40 billion.

I'm a pragmatist/realist/cynical SOB though. Developing middle classes in China and India don't want to be told that they have to go back to subsistence levels, a 4-person family in a 500-square foot microhouse eating 1800 vegan calories a day and bicycling everywhere. For better or worse they want to live like the West, consuming two to three times that base level. Technology is great but it does have its limits - we've definitely stretched Malthus' theories beyond anything he ever imagined possible, but at the end of the day we're in a closed system with an ultimately finite amount of resources and if we aren't past capacity yet for our desired lifestyles, we're getting awfully close. Negative population growth is, if not already, soon to become as critical a factor of environmentalism as any other.

[GliderGuider]

71. How much did Malthus know about rainfall changes due to global warming?

Or soil degradation due to monocropping, fresh water loss from over-pumping aquifers, peak oil, or global economic breakdown? All things upon which our finely balanced and now overstretched system of industrial geoagriculture depends on, and all of which are now in play.

Let's not get too facile with our dismissals...

[november3rd]

66. Optimistic

This seems like an extremely optimistic estimate to me.

I don't know who this group is, but these conclusions strike me as supportive of the thesis that Climate Change is that great a threat. I'm expecting damages of this magnitude before 2020, if not 2015.

[GliderGuider]

72. If one was just thinking about climate this might be a decent estimate. However

There are a lot more bullets in the air than just climate change.

I expect we'll hit 100 million total excess deaths (relative to the UN Medium Fertility Variant projections) around 2025, and then it will start to get really bad.

[TexasBushwhacker]

84. I agree. i

My first thought was "only 100 million"? The world population is already 7 billion and it should pass 8 billion by 2025. That's just 12 years away. There are approximately 56 million deaths per year so an extra 100 million over 12 years is pretty insignificant.

[JRLeft]

67. This is what God wants. Ask any Teabagger.

[Denise21]

76. Romney does not believe in this climate CHANGE

Romney does not believe in this climate change so we can't hire Romney you are FIRED!!!!!

[tularetom]

77. I'm guessing far more than 100 million will die even if the world acts on climate change

Right now the world population is 7 billion. For 100 million people to die in the next 18 years is an annual death rate of .0008 (8 one/hundredths of one percent or 80 deaths per 100,000 population). The current death rate just in the US is ten times that (800 deaths per 100,000)...

[davidn3600]

80. I think we may already be passed the point of no return

It will take decades to change our infrastructure to one that would be eco-friendly. We should have started this process in the 1980s.

The problem is also population growth. United Nations estimates 11 billion people by 2050. The world is overpopulated. And in the future there will be increasing struggle as humans fight over limited resources.

[olddad56]

81. we passed the tipping point long ago. By the 2030, the survivors will envy the dead.

have a nice day.

[primavera]

85. Ah, but it's such a small price to pay for being able to drive a Humvee!

After all, our freedom to do whatever we want without regard for others is our inalienable right as Americans!