LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c ... -will-crea What this woman says she wants to do should scare the hell out of most people. It is not about saving the planet it is about the US government making a huge power grab. That is if you consider her idea of the government nationalizing Tesla because the government gave them the money to begin with. Some of you all wanted more socialism. Just like too much capitalism it comes with a very scary downside, if you are paying attention to the words being spoken. I bet the folks that run Tesla are just freaking thrilled about this news. bang1


It’s past time, she said, that the government gets its “due” for this “investment.” This has to be the most arrogant and terrifying thing I have read from any politician in a very long time. My instincts tell me this woman was the victim of a very large brain fart. That does not mean that she does not believes in this vision, but that even the FLP hardcore folks know they can't sell this pant load to the American people just yet.

I would agree if she was actually calling for nationalization of Tesla. But that appears to be a misrepresentation, a big stretch beyond what she actually said.

She does call for a major New Deal, a New Green Deal, and she does speak to getting a return on public investments from the private companies that have received those investments, but that's not necessarily nationalization. Maybe she means getting license fees. maybe she just means that the effort needs to actually pay off in terms of climate impacts for the public good. she makes the argument that the various green efforts are too disjointed to be adequate, that they need a "New Deal" with more purposeful long term, coordinated vision. Ala the way China approaches the long term.

Now, I'm not arguing that she's right, but I wouldn't take as gospel some right wing blog masquerading as news as the source of analysis of what she actually believes.

She is an exciting and excitable character. But at her tender age, needs a bit of adult supervision, without squashing her enthusiasm. The right-wing way over-reacts to her. They are looking for a new boogey-women. Hillary is no longer relevant and Pelosi, Warren et al. don't illicit enough of a reaction.

holmes435 wrote:Local storage is still going to be a lot less efficient than centralized at the moment, but local generation is certainly important. It is is massively disrupting market-wise, so we'll need overhauls in how we support utility companies financially from municipalities on up to the federal level. Upgrading the grid to properly accept and distribute the additional load is worthy of investment and is certainly a high scale operation if someone is able to snag some government cheese to do so.

Agreed, lots of jobs available but for some reason we're lagging behind on infrastructure investment.

For local storage I meant sufficient to buffer the homeowner for some period of time. It should scale, cost wise, just like local storage in a networked computer cloud model. There will also be the inevitable capacity increases through new technology for at home users.

A lot of the thinking and some test grids have been built for the new electric grid that will be required. My understanding is that the current grid is for the most part upgrade-able retrofit-able. An industry working group has been thinking about the problem, writing specifications towards the end since the early 1980s. I had a friend that spent a decade on this working group in the 90s. Even though the bosses of the participants did not really like the idea, in the late 90's, the working group did take up the specification for local co-generation and storage. I have not been following closely the status of this effort in recent years. I can only assume it has become much more serious, refining models and specifications, defining new service operator pairs, etc. In the late 80's, early 90's they were concentrating on establishing standard computer communication protocols for universal command, control and status reporting over the power grid, between systems of disparate manufacture. Much like what we did in that time frame with regards to medical imaging equipment communications. All of these standards developed are open standards, not reliant on any single manufacturer.

I suspect we are really pretty far along in knowing how to build the power grid of the future and having basic tools in place to do so. The bad news is, the existence of such facility makes it easier to hack and therefore a target for such! With it all being open standard - worldwide - its easy for bad guys to get the system specifications and reverse engineer what they don't know.

Everyone's biggest problem, this includes all industries and applications, is how to absolutely secure the communication while living in a world of lazy, fallible, security adverse humans.

jhu72 wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c ... -will-crea What this woman says she wants to do should scare the hell out of most people. It is not about saving the planet it is about the US government making a huge power grab. That is if you consider her idea of the government nationalizing Tesla because the government gave them the money to begin with. Some of you all wanted more socialism. Just like too much capitalism it comes with a very scary downside, if you are paying attention to the words being spoken. I bet the folks that run Tesla are just freaking thrilled about this news. bang1


It’s past time, she said, that the government gets its “due” for this “investment.” This has to be the most arrogant and terrifying thing I have read from any politician in a very long time. My instincts tell me this woman was the victim of a very large brain fart. That does not mean that she does not believes in this vision, but that even the FLP hardcore folks know they can't sell this pant load to the American people just yet.

I would agree if she was actually calling for nationalization of Tesla. But that appears to be a misrepresentation, a big stretch beyond what she actually said.

She does call for a major New Deal, a New Green Deal, and she does speak to getting a return on public investments from the private companies that have received those investments, but that's not necessarily nationalization. Maybe she means getting license fees. maybe she just means that the effort needs to actually pay off in terms of climate impacts for the public good. she makes the argument that the various green efforts are too disjointed to be adequate, that they need a "New Deal" with more purposeful long term, coordinated vision. Ala the way China approaches the long term.

Now, I'm not arguing that she's right, but I wouldn't take as gospel some right wing blog masquerading as news as the source of analysis of what she actually believes.

She is an exciting and excitable character. But at her tender age, needs a bit of adult supervision, without squashing her enthusiasm. The right-wing way over-reacts to her. They are looking for a new boogey-women. Hillary is no longer relevant and Pelosi, Warren et al. don't illicit enough of a reaction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39160/oc ... n-saavedra. She is excitable alright. IMO that adult supervision should include a crash course in threatening people with subpoenas using your political power. There is one thing for certain... she is a wild card in the Democrat party. You never know what is going to come out of her mouth. Youthful enthusiasm... you gotta love it. I wonder how long before some members of the Democrat party have to knock her down a few pegs in the pecking order. You gotta pay yer dues little lady... you are trying to jump to the front of the line. Nancy won't like that very much. angry4

https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 312079904/ These people can't even put their religion on the back burner long enough to address the infrastructure of the nation. Go figure. bang1

cradleandshoot wrote:

jhu72 wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c ... -will-crea What this woman says she wants to do should scare the hell out of most people. It is not about saving the planet it is about the US government making a huge power grab. That is if you consider her idea of the government nationalizing Tesla because the government gave them the money to begin with. Some of you all wanted more socialism. Just like too much capitalism it comes with a very scary downside, if you are paying attention to the words being spoken. I bet the folks that run Tesla are just freaking thrilled about this news. bang1


It’s past time, she said, that the government gets its “due” for this “investment.” This has to be the most arrogant and terrifying thing I have read from any politician in a very long time. My instincts tell me this woman was the victim of a very large brain fart. That does not mean that she does not believes in this vision, but that even the FLP hardcore folks know they can't sell this pant load to the American people just yet.

I would agree if she was actually calling for nationalization of Tesla. But that appears to be a misrepresentation, a big stretch beyond what she actually said.

She does call for a major New Deal, a New Green Deal, and she does speak to getting a return on public investments from the private companies that have received those investments, but that's not necessarily nationalization. Maybe she means getting license fees. maybe she just means that the effort needs to actually pay off in terms of climate impacts for the public good. she makes the argument that the various green efforts are too disjointed to be adequate, that they need a "New Deal" with more purposeful long term, coordinated vision. Ala the way China approaches the long term.

Now, I'm not arguing that she's right, but I wouldn't take as gospel some right wing blog masquerading as news as the source of analysis of what she actually believes.

She is an exciting and excitable character. But at her tender age, needs a bit of adult supervision, without squashing her enthusiasm. The right-wing way over-reacts to her. They are looking for a new boogey-women. Hillary is no longer relevant and Pelosi, Warren et al. don't illicit enough of a reaction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39160/oc ... n-saavedra. She is excitable alright. IMO that adult supervision should include a crash course in threatening people with subpoenas using your political power. There is one thing for certain... she is a wild card in the Democrat party. You never know what is going to come out of her mouth. Youthful enthusiasm... you gotta love it. I wonder how long before some members of the Democrat party have to knock her down a few pegs in the pecking order. You gotta pay yer dues little lady... you are trying to jump to the front of the line. Nancy won't like that very much. angry4

Classic, The Daily Wire. Take a look at the other "hot" news in the feed next to this article. Tells you all you need to know.

I would think someone will indeed suggest to be careful about what she says, but to call that actually an ethics violation is a huge stretch. One, she doesn't have that power, nor will she when she's actually in Office, so can't actually "threaten" to use it. Some of the House Committees will have that power and she's unlikely to even be on any of the Committees with any relevance to Trump Jr with such power. BTW, those who actually have such power, e.g. House committee chairs regularly signal the possibility of using their subpoena powers. But it should be with regard to necessary oversight and not purely partisan on its face.

But if you're going to sweat an actual public official for threatening to inappropriately use their powers to punish political opponents, you better start in the Oval Office.

cradleandshoot wrote:https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 312079904/ These people can't even put their religion on the back burner long enough to address the infrastructure of the nation. Go figure. bang1

Cradle, I'm sure you know this is politics 101. Priority setting.

We have an enormous deficit and there's discussion of a massive investment in "infrastructure". Might make a difference as to which "infrastructure" right? Trump wants that "infrastructure" to include a WALL on the southern border, the Dems want a more efficient energy grid, making whatever energy is produced not lost to leakage. More energy bang for whatever carbon/climate cost.

Different priorities.

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:

jhu72 wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c ... -will-crea What this woman says she wants to do should scare the hell out of most people. It is not about saving the planet it is about the US government making a huge power grab. That is if you consider her idea of the government nationalizing Tesla because the government gave them the money to begin with. Some of you all wanted more socialism. Just like too much capitalism it comes with a very scary downside, if you are paying attention to the words being spoken. I bet the folks that run Tesla are just freaking thrilled about this news. bang1


It’s past time, she said, that the government gets its “due” for this “investment.” This has to be the most arrogant and terrifying thing I have read from any politician in a very long time. My instincts tell me this woman was the victim of a very large brain fart. That does not mean that she does not believes in this vision, but that even the FLP hardcore folks know they can't sell this pant load to the American people just yet.

I would agree if she was actually calling for nationalization of Tesla. But that appears to be a misrepresentation, a big stretch beyond what she actually said.

She does call for a major New Deal, a New Green Deal, and she does speak to getting a return on public investments from the private companies that have received those investments, but that's not necessarily nationalization. Maybe she means getting license fees. maybe she just means that the effort needs to actually pay off in terms of climate impacts for the public good. she makes the argument that the various green efforts are too disjointed to be adequate, that they need a "New Deal" with more purposeful long term, coordinated vision. Ala the way China approaches the long term.

Now, I'm not arguing that she's right, but I wouldn't take as gospel some right wing blog masquerading as news as the source of analysis of what she actually believes.

She is an exciting and excitable character. But at her tender age, needs a bit of adult supervision, without squashing her enthusiasm. The right-wing way over-reacts to her. They are looking for a new boogey-women. Hillary is no longer relevant and Pelosi, Warren et al. don't illicit enough of a reaction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39160/oc ... n-saavedra. She is excitable alright. IMO that adult supervision should include a crash course in threatening people with subpoenas using your political power. There is one thing for certain... she is a wild card in the Democrat party. You never know what is going to come out of her mouth. Youthful enthusiasm... you gotta love it. I wonder how long before some members of the Democrat party have to knock her down a few pegs in the pecking order. You gotta pay yer dues little lady... you are trying to jump to the front of the line. Nancy won't like that very much. angry4

Classic, The Daily Wire. Take a look at the other "hot" news in the feed next to this article. Tells you all you need to know.

I would think someone will indeed suggest to be careful about what she says, but to call that actually an ethics violation is a huge stretch. One, she doesn't have that power, nor will she when she's actually in Office, so can't actually "threaten" to use it. Some of the House Committees will have that power and she's unlikely to even be on any of the Committees with any relevance to Trump Jr with such power. BTW, those who actually have such power, e.g. House committee chairs regularly signal the possibility of using their subpoena powers. But it should be with regard to necessary oversight and not purely partisan on its face.

But if you're going to sweat an actual public official for threatening to inappropriately use their powers to punish political opponents, you better start in the Oval Office.

I get it both sides do it, but neither side should. If it is an "ethics violation" I don't have a clue. I am guessing if a republican made the same statement it would be an ethics violation. That is what some folks on this forum would tell us. I call it the one way street syndrome...

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 312079904/ These people can't even put their religion on the back burner long enough to address the infrastructure of the nation. Go figure. bang1

Cradle, I'm sure you know this is politics 101. Priority setting.

We have an enormous deficit and there's discussion of a massive investment in "infrastructure". Might make a difference as to which "infrastructure" right? Trump wants that "infrastructure" to include a WALL on the southern border, the Dems want a more efficient energy grid, making whatever energy is produced not lost to leakage. More energy bang for whatever carbon/climate cost.

Different priorities.

Sorry my friend... with bridges and roads crumbling to pieces, especially in the NE United States infrastructure means what it says. That is where politics 101 should be put on a shelf. Chuck Schumer should know this more than anyone in Washington DC. He is the senior US Senator from a state that is devastated by a crumbling infrastructure. Oddly enough Cuomo and Trump met this week for 6 billion in federal money to build a new subway tunnel. I bet Chuck won't put any stipulations about CC/GW on this money if it materializes. Of course all three of the main players are all New Yorkers... what else would you expect. That is how you put politics 101 on the back shelf.

cradleandshoot wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 312079904/ These people can't even put their religion on the back burner long enough to address the infrastructure of the nation. Go figure. bang1

Cradle, I'm sure you know this is politics 101. Priority setting.

We have an enormous deficit and there's discussion of a massive investment in "infrastructure". Might make a difference as to which "infrastructure" right? Trump wants that "infrastructure" to include a WALL on the southern border, the Dems want a more efficient energy grid, making whatever energy is produced not lost to leakage. More energy bang for whatever carbon/climate cost.

Different priorities.

Sorry my friend... with bridges and roads crumbling to pieces, especially in the NE United States infrastructure means what it says. That is where politics 101 should be put on a shelf. Chuck Schumer should know this more than anyone in Washington DC. He is the senior US Senator from a state that is devastated by a crumbling infrastructure. Oddly enough Cuomo and Trump met this week for 6 billion in federal money to build a new subway tunnel. I bet Chuck won't put any stipulations about CC/GW on this money if it materializes. Of course all three of the main players are all New Yorkers... what else would you expect. That is how you put politics 101 on the back shelf.

The ignorance in this post is profound....and in some ways sad. At least you are, on record, against funding the construction of the border wall.

cradleandshoot wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:

jhu72 wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c ... -will-crea What this woman says she wants to do should scare the hell out of most people. It is not about saving the planet it is about the US government making a huge power grab. That is if you consider her idea of the government nationalizing Tesla because the government gave them the money to begin with. Some of you all wanted more socialism. Just like too much capitalism it comes with a very scary downside, if you are paying attention to the words being spoken. I bet the folks that run Tesla are just freaking thrilled about this news. bang1


It’s past time, she said, that the government gets its “due” for this “investment.” This has to be the most arrogant and terrifying thing I have read from any politician in a very long time. My instincts tell me this woman was the victim of a very large brain fart. That does not mean that she does not believes in this vision, but that even the FLP hardcore folks know they can't sell this pant load to the American people just yet.

I would agree if she was actually calling for nationalization of Tesla. But that appears to be a misrepresentation, a big stretch beyond what she actually said.

She does call for a major New Deal, a New Green Deal, and she does speak to getting a return on public investments from the private companies that have received those investments, but that's not necessarily nationalization. Maybe she means getting license fees. maybe she just means that the effort needs to actually pay off in terms of climate impacts for the public good. she makes the argument that the various green efforts are too disjointed to be adequate, that they need a "New Deal" with more purposeful long term, coordinated vision. Ala the way China approaches the long term.

Now, I'm not arguing that she's right, but I wouldn't take as gospel some right wing blog masquerading as news as the source of analysis of what she actually believes.

She is an exciting and excitable character. But at her tender age, needs a bit of adult supervision, without squashing her enthusiasm. The right-wing way over-reacts to her. They are looking for a new boogey-women. Hillary is no longer relevant and Pelosi, Warren et al. don't illicit enough of a reaction.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/39160/oc ... n-saavedra. She is excitable alright. IMO that adult supervision should include a crash course in threatening people with subpoenas using your political power. There is one thing for certain... she is a wild card in the Democrat party. You never know what is going to come out of her mouth. Youthful enthusiasm... you gotta love it. I wonder how long before some members of the Democrat party have to knock her down a few pegs in the pecking order. You gotta pay yer dues little lady... you are trying to jump to the front of the line. Nancy won't like that very much. angry4

Classic, The Daily Wire. Take a look at the other "hot" news in the feed next to this article. Tells you all you need to know.

I would think someone will indeed suggest to be careful about what she says, but to call that actually an ethics violation is a huge stretch. One, she doesn't have that power, nor will she when she's actually in Office, so can't actually "threaten" to use it. Some of the House Committees will have that power and she's unlikely to even be on any of the Committees with any relevance to Trump Jr with such power. BTW, those who actually have such power, e.g. House committee chairs regularly signal the possibility of using their subpoena powers. But it should be with regard to necessary oversight and not purely partisan on its face.

But if you're going to sweat an actual public official for threatening to inappropriately use their powers to punish political opponents, you better start in the Oval Office.

I get it both sides do it, but neither side should. If it is an "ethics violation" I don't have a clue. I am guessing if a republican made the same statement it would be an ethics violation. That is what some folks on this forum would tell us. I call it the one way street syndrome...

No, Nunes does it frequently. Other R's do as well. Nunes actually has that sort of power. It's not an ethics violation per se (at least as far as I'm aware) but the question is whether it's seen politically as a partisan political threat, or actually a legitimate oversight matter.

If it comes across as a threat that is purely partisan politics, I think we should all consider it reprehensible.

But she was commenting about the likelihood the Don Jr is undoubtedly going to be subpoenaed and the stupidity of trolling her, or anyone else in a body that he's going to face in January. I think her response was not well considered, but no one can say, credibly, that she actually has or will have (for quite a long while) the power to subpoena anyone. So, it's not an actual threat of abuse of governmental power. Just a comment on Don Jr's coming troubles.

Remember, this is the guy who claimed a totally non-existent father-son legal privilege and the GOP Congress let him get away with it.

cradleandshoot wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 312079904/ These people can't even put their religion on the back burner long enough to address the infrastructure of the nation. Go figure. bang1

Cradle, I'm sure you know this is politics 101. Priority setting.

We have an enormous deficit and there's discussion of a massive investment in "infrastructure". Might make a difference as to which "infrastructure" right? Trump wants that "infrastructure" to include a WALL on the southern border, the Dems want a more efficient energy grid, making whatever energy is produced not lost to leakage. More energy bang for whatever carbon/climate cost.

Different priorities.

Sorry my friend... with bridges and roads crumbling to pieces, especially in the NE United States infrastructure means what it says. That is where politics 101 should be put on a shelf. Chuck Schumer should know this more than anyone in Washington DC. He is the senior US Senator from a state that is devastated by a crumbling infrastructure. Oddly enough Cuomo and Trump met this week for 6 billion in federal money to build a new subway tunnel. I bet Chuck won't put any stipulations about CC/GW on this money if it materializes. Of course all three of the main players are all New Yorkers... what else would you expect. That is how you put politics 101 on the back shelf.

cradle, you and I could get a deal done. And get a beer afterwards.

And maybe Trump and the Dems will as well, but Trump is asking to use money for things the Dems believe are a waste of dough, and they're concerned about how Trump will distribute the $ unethically, and they have a base that says their priorities include climate issues.

So, they all will spout various stuff publicly for political reasons. The question is whether they can then cut a deal. Does Trump actually want a deal or does he just want whatever Fox tells him?

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 312079904/ These people can't even put their religion on the back burner long enough to address the infrastructure of the nation. Go figure. bang1

Cradle, I'm sure you know this is politics 101. Priority setting.

We have an enormous deficit and there's discussion of a massive investment in "infrastructure". Might make a difference as to which "infrastructure" right? Trump wants that "infrastructure" to include a WALL on the southern border, the Dems want a more efficient energy grid, making whatever energy is produced not lost to leakage. More energy bang for whatever carbon/climate cost.

Different priorities.

Aren't electric power grids PRIVATE?

Invest now:

One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/67374275 ... atastrophe

runrussellrun wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

cradleandshoot wrote:https://www.dailyherald.com/article/201 ... 312079904/ These people can't even put their religion on the back burner long enough to address the infrastructure of the nation. Go figure. bang1

Cradle, I'm sure you know this is politics 101. Priority setting.

We have an enormous deficit and there's discussion of a massive investment in "infrastructure". Might make a difference as to which "infrastructure" right? Trump wants that "infrastructure" to include a WALL on the southern border, the Dems want a more efficient energy grid, making whatever energy is produced not lost to leakage. More energy bang for whatever carbon/climate cost.

Different priorities.

Aren't electric power grids PRIVATE?

Like Amazon and FoxConn

https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 75881.html

We join the world’s Climate villains.

Trump Is Unwilling to Tackle Climate Change. China Must Step Up.

Some snips.....

China can do more. The planet depends on it.

Last year, levels of particulate pollution in Beijing dropped by more than 20 percent over the previous year.

China has shown less determination to corral its runaway emissions of carbon dioxide, the colorless, odorless gas that is principally responsible for the warming of the planet. A warming planet, after all, doesn’t present the same palpable and immediate threat to people’s daily lives that toxic air does.

China produced 27 percent of the global emissions of this greenhouse gas, and its emissions are expected to rise by nearly 5 percent by the end of this year,

The United States is second on that list, accounting for 15 percent of the world’s emissions — though China is quick to point out that its emissions per capita remain less than half of those of the United States.

For one, it must stop financing and building coal-fired power plants around the world. China has made reducing coal production and consumption a high priority at home, but Chinese energy companies are behind more than 200 new coal-fired power plants around the world that are either planned or under construction. Fighting a “war on pollution” and calling for “building an ecological civilization” at home while promoting the use of dirty coal in less developed countries makes China look hypocritical, even colonial. Instead, Beijing can and should be exporting the renewable energy technology that it has been so aggressively developing. With this clean energy, underdeveloped countries could leapfrog the outworn development model that sacrifices environmental well-being for economic growth.

We were laughed at in Poland today at the climate conference, pushing coal.
Poles love us. Everyone there has relatives here. Sheesh. That’s like losing the Irish.

I have hand written notes and newspaper articles my father-in-Law kept in 1977 while serving the US State Dept in Venezuela when the Polish Ambassador there defected to him. Pop was a Polish immigrant, and spoke Polish, served in the US Army OSS Code-breaking operation in London during WWII. The Ambassador approached him at a garden party. He saw America as a refuge.

Trinity wrote:We were laughed at in Poland today at the climate conference, pushing coal.
Poles love us. Everyone there has relatives here. Sheesh. That’s like losing the Irish.

I have hand written notes and newspaper articles my father-in-Law kept in 1977 while serving the US State Dept in Venezuela when the Polish Ambassador there defected to him. Pop was a Polish immigrant, and spoke Polish, served in the US Army OSS Code-breaking operation in London during WWII. The Ambassador approached him at a garden party. He saw America as a refuge.

But it is "clean" coal.

kramerica.inc wrote:Invest now:

One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/67374275 ... atastrophe

Or....we could plant trees that Harvard U. has destroyed. Oh....whats that. Never mind.

Do as...not as.

runrussellrun wrote:

kramerica.inc wrote:Invest now:

One Company Pulls Carbon From The Air:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/10/67374275 ... atastrophe

Or....we could plant trees that Harvard U. has destroyed. Oh....whats that. Never mind.

Do as...not as.

What trees is Harvard U destroying? They have a 281 acre arboretum as well as a 3,500 acre forest they take care of.