Just take a look at this article. It prooves that "being green" is a political issue is not based in fact. Do you really want to have these environmentalist wako's running our country?
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
2007-06-12 05:46:06 · 12 answers · asked by Michael H 5 in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
ck - The practice you describe is called being a good steward of the planet which is what we are supposed to be according to my God at least. Moreover, that is a conservative view and has been practiced by conservatives for centuries.
2007-06-12 06:01:26 · update #1
All I have to say is:
Find me one Hummer that has over 300,000 miles on it.
Most don't make it past 75,000 before they are junked.
2007-06-12 07:29:00 · answer #1 · answered by joe s 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First of all its "wacko," not wako, and 2nd, why resort to name calling? It prooves nothing and turns a discussion into an argument. This benefits no one.
Diluting complex issues into fodder for the masses means that something gets lost in the translation. I'd try and keep an open mind if I were you and go back and look into "being green" again. It's something to strive for, and sincere, informed citizens and politicians are welcome to provide facts for consideration. I look, I listen, I think. Instead of an instant reaction, I often take months or years to make up my mind when conflicting "facts" are being bantied about.
E.O. Wilson for President. VP? Let me think about it.
2007-06-12 18:04:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As has been pointed out, this is an opinion piece based on "Dust to Dust", which was a report produced by a marketing group based on flawed assumptions. I was going to post a link to a site debunking the report, but Bob posted a better one (linked again below).
Your "question" is just further proof that knee-jerk generalizations about environmentalist "wackos" are completely unfounded.
2007-06-12 13:27:06 · answer #3 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Being "green" may be a political ploy, but it can't hurt to change our ways and use fewer of our natural resources. That's just being responsible, not wacko. Read the other side of the argument too, so you can actually form an educated opinion.
2007-06-12 12:55:45 · answer #4 · answered by ck 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's that (political) article that's not based in fact. Short discussion at this website, with a link to seven pages of scientific analysis demolishing the idea.
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/hummer_versus_prius.html
2007-06-12 12:59:45 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why do people of average means keep acting as unwitting mouthpieces for Exxon and big oil?
That's the real question about the rebel without a brain backlash against environmental concerns.
2007-06-12 12:54:23 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Vincent Van Jessup 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
they have books etc. to sell and no one would buy their products so they get a looser like green al to push it. From the looks of green al he is not doing without or cutting back on his emissions.
2007-06-13 02:11:32 · answer #7 · answered by K M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because there are whackos doesn't mean that there aren't sane environmentalists. Most are.
2007-06-12 13:10:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
WHY IS THERE A BUTTON "BACK TO OPINION" ???
So an opinion "PROVES" something ???
Plz take your medication !!!
BY THE WAY, WHERE IS THE ENERGY BALANCE ???
I DO NOT SEE ANY SCIENTIFIC UNITS HERE !!!! NO FIGURES = BS !
2007-06-12 13:12:33 · answer #9 · answered by NLBNLB 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wackos environmental or not usually don't know what they are saying.
2007-06-12 12:50:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋