English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-07-05 15:36:01 · 11 answers · asked by sweet_td4u 2 in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

he's actually pretty funny. As was John McCain on SNL.

2006-07-05 15:39:06 · answer #1 · answered by truthyness 7 · 0 0

GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL

Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results.

Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority.

Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC!

Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure.

So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment.

Joe...


KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.

2006-07-12 18:53:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Right on - could you imagine what things would be like after 9/11 if Gore were president. The country would be at its worse. The man never showed any signs of leadership. And intelligence was certainly not in his list of accomplishments. God was looking on America when Gore lost the election.

2006-07-05 22:48:04 · answer #3 · answered by Coach D. 4 · 0 0

If want to know a dork to at Prezzs bush. Gore won and never ever would have made the stupid mistake to start a preemptive war at a couple of billion a month.

2006-07-05 22:41:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't know but I agree. I mean, you must be a real dork to lose to BUSH right???

2006-07-05 23:45:33 · answer #5 · answered by damao987 2 · 0 0

actually you should question the people who claim the 00 election should have gone his way... they are the real dorks... hehe

2006-07-05 23:35:25 · answer #6 · answered by Jeff B 3 · 0 0

because,
doing ther right thing,
being intellegent,
looking out for others,
and trying to save the world
is dorky.

2006-07-05 22:38:53 · answer #7 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 0

Lord, I wish I knew! lol

2006-07-05 22:40:07 · answer #8 · answered by Sara 6 · 0 0

He's an American politician.
Hope that helped answer your question.

2006-07-05 22:40:07 · answer #9 · answered by simsjk 5 · 0 0

I think he just tries too hard.

2006-07-05 22:47:29 · answer #10 · answered by rsantos19 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers