Global Warming, Global Warning, Global Microwaving, Global Something, thats for sure, maybe.

I'm not convinced we are going through Global Warming, we might be, we might not be. However, we could be going through global "warning". Something may be going on globally, but we don't know what it is yet, and by the time something could happen, we may be saved by Peak Oil which reduces the amount of oil we regularly consume. Possible, no?

You would think the term global warning would have been a wiser choice of phrase than global warming because it gives more latitude to the eco movement to say "I told you so". If the earth is either cooling or warming, the term global warning could still apply. I kind of wonder if somebody mistyped the phrase as global warming when it first came out, and now regrets not calling it global warning. (suddenly I feel like I have channeled the living Andy Rooney). "Ever wonder why the ecologists didn't use the term global warning instead of global warming".........

I personally think we are going through global microwaving. Holes in the ozone layer allow some of the suns rays to act as lasers that pretty much burn up whatever water based cell life they come in contact with on the planets surface. Fortunately, because the earth is both spinning and orbiting around the sun at the same time, the rays that get through are constantly moving onto new targets.

The result is kind of what happens to food after it has been warmed up by a microwave, water molecules are first agitated as the microwave warms up the food, and as the food cools, this water vapor goes up into the atmosphere. If you have ever noticed what happens to uneaten microwaved food, it becomes dry and hard after it has cooled.

It is possible that global microwaving first heats up cell life on the planets surface, then causes additional releases of humidity into the upper atmosphere that can then cause a new chain of events to occur. For instance, additional humidity in the upper atmosphere can cause different spectrum of the suns rays to deflect back into space before they ever even reach the earth!

So even as the suns rays that are slipping through ozone holes are simultaneously microwaving small portions of the planet's surface on a continual basis, the result of that microwaving, release of humidity back into the upper atmosphere, could ironically then be deflecting other rays of the suns spectrum back into outer space.

So what causes the holes in the Ozone Layer? Al Gore's jet and Nancy Pelosi's military flights.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

YOPLAIT YOGURT New Plastic Container Can't be Stacked when Empty, How Can We Save the Planet When we can't even Stack our Recyclables?

The original Yoplait Yogurt Container pictured above was narrower, taller, and upwardly tapered. The upwards tapering towards the opening did not allowed for the empty containers to conveniently be stacked inside of each other for a more concentrated disposal/recycling of the plastic containers.

As you can see from the picture above, the newer Yoplait design has no tapering but the result is still the same, ONE CANNOT STACK the empty containers inside each other.

Is empty plastic container stackability a big deal? The Image above showcases how Yoplait yogurt empty cannisters would be bundled together, but not stacked, for purposes of recycling or as garbage waste. Would it not be better if these nine empty containers were put inside of one another so they took up a lot less space?

The Yoplait container design means it might take as many as 5 recycling trucks to transport unstackable yoplait yogurt containers that if stackable, could fit in maybe as little as one recycling trash truck. (I am taking an educated guess). On top of that, the non stackable Yoplait yogurt containers will require many many more plastic bags and paper bags to contain them for recycling purposes.

But there is more to this story, which is why efficient recycling is such a difficult task to successfully achieve. Even though the new containers are vastly inferior from a stackability point of view, when the new yoplait containers are being shipped to the stores, Yoplait is actually more efficiently shipping original yogurt product per each shipped box because there is less air in between the yogurt containers.

Did Yoplait Yogurt sell out the environment so they could increase their product shipping weight efficiency? The previously tapered plastic container design, when filled with yogurt and sealed in a shipping box, could not stack as densely as this new design. Yet neither design allows for stackability AFTER the yogurt product is CONSUMED.

Could this be one of those corporate mumbo jumbo, "one hand does what it wants to so it creates better results on paper" even though that corporate hand is actually cutting off three fingers on the other corporate hand that represents another part of the companies less "important" responsibilities involving recycling?

The picture directly above showcases a Yoplait plastic container that is stackable. Ironically, this is a LARGE CONTAINER of Yoplait Yogurt, and in combination with its stackability, may be VASTLY more environmentally friendly than any of the other Yoplait designs.

Once empty, the large yoplait container can be reused in a variety of ways, including as a "seeder" to grow seedlings into small plants for your victory garden. Or, to be used as a small water container so one can use water more efficiently by filling the container and then walking over to the intended watering target, rather than walking an always on water hose that just spews the water every which way.

Is plastic stackability a key component to making recycling more effective and efficient? Manufacturers that use plastics for their smaller products ideally should allow for their product to be recycled by either first being so soft that they can be smashed into a much smaller size, or by being stackable so they can be stored in a more dense state.

Well, I found this article about the wonderful world of plastics reuse.

Apparently plastic recycling is not considered a good idea and is not really as feasible as we would like to think. What is considered a good idea is plastic "refillability". Can a plastic item be refilled several times before it is discarded, recycled, or reused? If the plastic product can only be used once, before it is discarded, then that apparently is a very inefficient use of that plastic product.

Plastic Recycling only truly occurs when an item can be regenerated into exactly what it already was. Many times what we believe to be recycling is actually a ONE TIME RE-USE of the product into a farther down the recyclability chain container.

Since plastic is rarely if ever used to make the identical plastic component again, the continued demand for new plastic production may never actually go down.

A Yoplait Yogurt container might never comes back again as a Yoplait Yogurt container, nor will it come back as anything else that is as recyclable as it was when it was the Yoplait Yogurt container. If the Yoplait container doesn't end up in a landfill, it could end up being melted into a NON-RECYCLABLE plastic product such as a plastic parking bumper in a parking lot, a plastic wheel barrow, or a big plastic garbage dumpster, used for, ahem, recycling.

But getting back to plastic stackability, besides the issue of recycling our plastics, I believer there is an advantage to making our plastic products stackable so they just don't occupy as much space inside of a big heavy truck that is supposedly taking the plastic for recycling?

(Edit Update: May 21, 2010, I found this explanation by yoplait about their containers, the amount of plastics they use, and their future design goals. It appears my observation about being able to stack the product closer together was correct. Too bad the empty plastic containers don't restack inside of each other when the product has been consumed!)

What does this have to do with DailyPUMA? In a way it has a lot to do with Daily PUMA. There are huge discussions going on about global warming, carbon credits, and so on. Yet if we can't figure out how to best use plastics, how can we figure out more complex issues?

Which leads me to health care coverage. If our economy relies on indenturing the non rich into overproduction so that enough wealth can be created to pay for health care, we will continue to overuse our share of the worlds resources even as more and more countries reach out wanting theirs. If we cannot create a maintaining economy that provides enough opportunity for everybody, we can't realistically provide health care coverage for all, either.

HOW YOU CAN HELP! MAKE A DAILY-PROTEST.com sign and put it where others will see it. Daily-Protest.com signs can be placed in a storefront window, a bulletin board at work, or a countertop. Raise curiosity and awareness about how Chase Bank is harming a LOT of of their BEST customers by making a Daily-Protest.com sign.

The Girl who Silenced the World for five minutes, Youtube Video.

Credit Card Companies Increase Global Warming Risk Every Time they Increase Interest Rates on Old Credit Card Debt.

While the media trains us to believe that Wall Street is the God of all Gods, the wall street banks that received huge amounts of bailout money from the government continue to RAISE their credit card interest rates on their customers.

It is one thing to charge higher interest rates on new credit card debt, but it is evil to retroactively raise the credit card interest rate on old debt. The longer it takes a consumer to pay off an old credit card debt because banks are now increasing credit card interest rates, the more that consumer has to work to pay off their old, ever rising debt, and the less money there is available to maintain the present economy.

Old credit card debt requires the consumption of even more of the earth's resources by that consumer/worker as they attempt to earn more money so they can pay down their old debt that the banks have already profited from handsomely.  If this old debt could be paid down to zero, than the person has a choice, either buy new products, but at a slower rate, or just consume less and not run up new debt.

Plus, if the monthly minimum payment were increased to 8 or 10% of the total due, most people would not run up as much debt as they did when the monthly minimum payment was 2% of the total due, and more of their payment would go towards principle as well.  The higher monthly minimum payment would help conserve the world's resources by reducing life long indenturedness.  Life long indenturedness helps cause global warming, assuming you believe global warming is occurring.

Show me jobs that don't require the earth's resources and everyone could be a millionaire. Show me a person working to pay down an old debt that continues to inflate because of 15, 20 and 30% interest rates, and I'll show you why we are doomed as a planet.

Yes, older credit card debt causes increased global warming risks. If you don't believe in global warming risks, the accelerated overuse of limited earth resources occurs when people work to earn money to pay off old credit card debt that the banks have already profited from.

Old credit card debt continues to increase and multiply because of the obscene interest rates associated with them, sort of like the way cancer increases and multiplies. If you think cancer is good, then so is old, high interest, credit card debt.

As we move forward, the argument can be made that raising interest rates on NEW DEBT will result in less overall money being borrowed, and therefore the more profitable the bank's credit card divisions will become. In other words, people will borrow less money overall, but banks will profit more quickly from the higher interest rates. Additionally, a borrower will see more quickly how much they can actually afford to borrow before they can no longer afford the monthly payments.

However, those sneaky low monthly minimum credit card payments still entrap many consumers who use credit cards, and that is the way the banks have always wanted it, and is a significant part of the debt problem nowadays. If banks had just charged higher monthly minimums all along, there would be a lot less debt right now.

Do you see what is happening? LESS IS MORE! Banks give out less money, but charge higher interest rates, thereby making the God of Cable Media, Wall Street, happy. The problem is the EXISTING CONSUMER CREDIT CARD DEBT that was borrowed when everybody had more wealth and opportunities to pay it off, has gotten railroaded into the new, less money borrowed, higher interest rate charged paradigm. The result is increasing consumer indenturedness from their old time credit card debt, which in turn suffocates the worldwide economy from maintaining as we move forward.

Banks were forgiven on their old time debt, can consumers at least have the luxury of paying down their OLD CREDIT CARD DEBTS INTEREST FREE? The ratio of unsecured debt versus home equity has never been worse, and to allow the banks to continue to charge outrageous interest rates on old time credit card debt that they have already made huge profits from is an abomination that will offset any consumer benefit that lower mortgage rates may bring.

What makes Wall Street happy, does not necessarily translate into better times for the consumer, and that is something the media refuses to acknowledge, let alone report.