Why is it that, if a poor little pup like myself, should want to enjoy a comfy home and some days of adventure, he is told that he is being selfish. That his love of an occasional ride and comfortable home are a threat to the survival of the planet.

But yet, when a rich man or company, without the consent of the billions who will be affected by his actions, decides to spray a bunch of chemicals into the air that everyone must breath and has the power to alter the planet for generations to come, in order to reduce the rays of the sun that provides life sustaining warmth and food for the entire world, he is hailed as a savior of the world?

Is it just me, or is one action a bit more dangerous than the other?

Hmm, a little pup enjoying an occasional car ride or filling the atmosphere with billions of particles of chemicals to mimic the cooling effect of a volcano. I wonder which of the two has the power to impact the planet more and forever change the course of planetary history? I don’t know seems about e qual. I mean what harm could be caused by dimming the sun and cooling the planet. Its not like a volcanic ash blocking the sun can unleash a decade of hunger, sickness, starvation, and misery, right? So which one is the right answer? I don’t know the answer, do you?