using up valuable resources on luxuries? preventing the few affordable means the poor have to survive?
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/environmentalism-as-religion-/
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200209%5CFOR20020903a.html
2007-03-20 13:47:32 · 10 answers · asked by WJ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No, but they don't understand that the end result of much of their activity will be poverty.
2007-03-20 13:52:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Obviously you have no understanding of the developing world. In Peace Corps we found that the best, most economical and most efficient/sustainable items were also the most environmentally sound.
Much of this world lives in extreme poverty (which is UN defined as living on a $1 a day). Progress isn't skyscrapers and major highways, it is ensuring that everyone has easy access to potable drinking water and food that provides nutrition and isn't just a stomach filler like tortillas or fou-fou through environmentally sustainable means.
2007-03-20 20:57:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
hahaha... saying "you shouldn't develop in the same environmentally irresponsible way that we did" is saying "let them eat cake"?
does anyone even use their minds anymore? or think? that's ridiculous in almost every way and makes no sense what so ever to link the two... as you or the man that made the comment basically make no attempt to defend it...
there MAY be other ways to develop that don't destroy the environment... is that so inconceivable? that's all he's saying... yet your article takes it as "you can't develop at all"...
it's like saying that if Jay-Z tells a kid that it's wrong to sell drugs that Jay-Z is against the poor kid... since he sold drugs early... but he knows there are other ways to "make it" other than the path he's taken...
this is ridiculous and comical...
it's like Republicans only see in black and white... I don't understand how they even function when they can never seem to think outside of the box in even the simplest ways...
and a Republican talking about "let them eat cake" when they talk about the "lazy poor" constantly... great piece of accidental satire... golden...
2007-03-20 21:49:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are many people living luxuriously instead of sharing their wealth to the poor to survive. Environmentalists must look into the condition of people for their welfare instead of tolerating the wealthy people to enjoy their ostentatious use of resources.
2007-03-20 20:52:34 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it's more apathy than malice. Do you think for a minute that someone like Weird Al Gore has any understanding what it is like to be middle class, let alone poor?
2007-03-20 22:07:58 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Global warming, who does that hurt? the middle class and lower. why? Get rid of industries to stop global warming. Then only the rich can afford luxuries.
2007-03-20 21:07:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Really stupid, awful mean people tend to go into the field of science. They hate the poor! They just want the poor to starve, they've always conspired against the poor.
2007-03-20 21:10:44 · answer #7 · answered by justagirl33552 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Already the ethanol craze in the US has caused the price of corn tortillas to skyrocket in many underdeveloped countries ....
2007-03-20 21:37:35 · answer #8 · answered by Apachecat 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes they do. cause they are bad people who have no heart. But I agree with them, they are always helping the environment so they deserve a break dang it.
2007-03-20 20:56:22 · answer #9 · answered by That one Guy Who Puffs it 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Poverty has risen every single year under Bush's Presidency, so what's your point?
2007-03-20 20:57:42 · answer #10 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋