Snapped Shot

For Prince Charles:

In one of his most out-spoken interventions in the climate change debate, he said a £15 billion annual programme was required to halt deforestation or the world would have to live with the dire consequences.

"We will end up seeing more drought and starvation on a grand scale. Weather patterns will become even more terrifying and there will be less and less rainfall," he said.

For Al Gore:

The heart of Gore’s message is that the way to prevent the potential catastrophe global warming represents is for each of us to make a personal commitment to bring about lasting change—in our own lives, our communities and the world. According to the science Gore presents so expertly, the world has 10 years or less to turn things around before it is too late.

For Prince Charles:

He called on Governments to act within 18 months or risk causing a catalogue of natural disasters. “What we have got to do is try to ensure that these forests are more valuable alive than dead. At the moment, there is more value in them being dead,” he said.

Wow! Glad I have time to take my vacation before the world ends. More valuable alive than dead? Tell that to the people cutting down the trees to eek out a living doing only thing they know how to do. Cut the trees down and burn them to cook their food with and to try and stay warm during cold nights.

Oh wait. Obama has a plan. He wants to spend nearly 1 TRILLION dollars to combat global poverty. Am glad to know Marxism has gone global now. I just wish it was not here in the good old USA. Why should we be responsible for feeding the world?

But, I think I like Pinky Charles' idea better. Let's get McD's involved and they can just turn it into a giant McPlayland.

Prince Charles disclosed that he had already discussed his concerns with the White House and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, as well as the presidents of Indonesia, Congo and France, and businesses including Barclays, Shell, Goldman Sachs and McDonalds.

He said that every year, 20 million hectares of forest – equivalent to the area of England, Wales and Scotland – were destroyed and called for a "gigantic partnership" of governments, businesses and consumers to slow it down.

I am confused. Wouldn't these areas have been deforested by now if that much land was deforested each and every year? 20 million hectares per year?!? Well, he did only say "forests". I know here in America we go through enough forests to populate 20 Englands, 30 Wales, 34.5 Scotlands, and 2 7/16 Italy's.

But, he was not finished there. Let's continue on with this diatribe shall we? (heck, you have made it this far. thank you)

The number of birds, animals, marine and freshwater creatures in the world has dropped by almost one third, according to the WWF conservation organisation. It found that between 1970 and 2005 land-based species fell by 25 per cent, marine species by 28 per cent and freshwater species by 29 per cent.

So, in 35 years we have lost nearly a third of ALL individual species (by territory)?? Wouldn't that mean that we should have already lost all species since 1900? How are we even finding new species? Ok, let us just say that since the beginning of the real ramp up of the industrial revolution in the 1800's (Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700's) we have then passed on 200 years now. Would this mean we have gone through 200% decline in species? Please explain this to me. And of course, if you find anything I have said here wrong, you can tell Brian.