To quote Bender: "Kill all humans"
2006-07-28 23:38:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Kobie 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. air condition my house (this is my environment), by keeping the temperature and humidity low I can protect it, avoid mold and rot, improve life of the house
2. mow, water, insecticide and fertilize my lawn (also my enviroment and it is also nature), by caring for my lawn I protect my envronment from bugs, drought, etc
3. pay my taxes (this supports my town which again is my environment), taxes go for police and fireman which protect the synthetic and natural elements of my environment
4. vote responsibly (this encourages good laws and good laws will preserve and protect the country, my environment)
5. drive safely (my car is one of my primary environments), by driving safely I can protect it
2006-07-28 19:11:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by enginerd 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It relies upon what you imply via 'defend the atmosphere'. while you're speaking approximately worldwide warming and the finished 'carbon footprint' issue then no, no longer one individual or perhaps the finished inhabitants of the worldwide ought to help by using fact it would not exist. in case you imply much less pollutants which is composed of air pollutants in outfitted up aspects and towns, looking decision fuels and power sources and retaining organic worldwide, then particular. One individual can start up off a sequence and extra and extra human beings will stick to. it would be complicated even though it extremely is plausible. i think of maximum folk instinctively will opt to shop power and freshen up pollutants to shop money and help defend their wellbeing. autos are turning out to be extra and extra gasoline powerful as technologies progresses and the conventional public will choose their significant automobile to get a brilliant style of mpg. i think of decision fuels ought to start being presented nonetheless as we can sooner or later run out of gasoline and the fees on the pump will shop going up and up. What we choose is a central authority it extremely is straightforward approximately environmental matters. If power intake is decreased then theoretically power expenses ought to be decreased too. If we are turning out to be taxed extra via the government for retaining power, then you recognize for constructive that they are using the finished 'climate replace' issue as an excuse to extend and introduce extra taxes. via increasing taxes, the government won't unavoidably deter human beings from using vast autos and leaving their homestead lighting fixtures fixtures on all nighttime, they'll basically make it harder for the folk to regulate, and the effect would be a decelerate in technologies and production. a desirable occasion is this finished new 'low emission zone' in London. it extremely is extremely ridiculous and it will worsen over the years. quickly we wont additionally be allowed to force in London in any respect!
2016-12-14 15:53:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by piccard 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. Sleep
2. Hygiene
3. Care
4. No music
5. Finally, Sleep again.
2006-07-28 22:30:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Great question
Open more strip clubs: we are not going to protet anything and are all going to sie of sunburn and a lack of clean water, might as well go out and have fun before then!!!
2006-07-31 21:52:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
People stop driving their cars and start walking, or riding bikes. That is our biggest polution problem. But no one is going to do it.
2006-07-28 20:29:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by pixles 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
get another presdent, get another vice presendent, get rid of conaliza, get rid of the klane, that should about do it
2006-08-01 12:19:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by 1plum 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Don't camp, don't hike, don't cook, don't drive, don't live.
2006-07-28 19:35:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Michael M 6
·
0⤊
0⤋