Yeah, well, we all know that it's either true or false, so there's really only a 50% chance that the position you're holding is right. Therefore, my position is equally valid to yours.
I find the claim to be outragous claiming 14% while it should be 0,6% but I also think people should switch to more renewable resources like wind and solar. however since I live in a first world country the entire problem above seems to be a none issue, I guess things are diffirent across yonder ocean (and then across the entire continent)I now wonder; Does the moon not affect the pacific? Is california devoid of tidal movement? is the coast not suitable for tidal powerplants? Nuclear, while not directly ruining the atmosphere, is politically unpopular, gets you tons of dangerous waste (wich you can slowly let leak into watersupplies, wich is fun) and I'd rather not have people build them in places where you can have earthquakes. Algae and plants that can be used to make biofuels and bioplastics are cool but the algea are pretty experimental right now and the plants need to compete for space with other things such as food for cattle, cotton and such, food for humans. and this usually leads to killing rainforests to exploit that nice nice fertile topsoil that washes away at the first good rain. to eventually leave a barren wasteland. Of course most of the world's oxygen is made by algae and not the rainforest but it's a nice thing to have around so let's try and not kill it 'kay?
I would never do such a thing. And if any of my agencies are found to be doing that I immediately deny I knew about it and fire someone.
