Especially documentaries concerning environmental issues like wildlife, polution, global warming, climate change, natural areas and campaigns to protect them?
2007-06-18 17:31:59 · 5 answers · asked by Stan S 1 in Environment ➔ Other - Environment
yes
We need all the exposure we can get ,
to bring Nature to the people ,
so that they get to know it and understand it ,
and instruction of its importance in relation to Mankind
2007-06-18 18:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. A better use of money would be for environmental groups to go out and help nature. They should spend the money on planting trees, setting aside land for nature preserves, reasearch on fuel alternatives, animal refugees, and forest rehabilitation. If they want to advertise, a website is a cheaper way to get the word out.
2007-06-20 20:52:21 · answer #2 · answered by snickers 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Um, I'm sorry but that seems like an oxy-moron. I mean, electricity and technology is partly to blame for the earth's situation...so I don't think that is a good way to spend money...which is made from paper/ which comes from trees. There are plenty of nature shows as it is, they should use the money to plant more trees, clean our rivers/lakes, etc...pick up trash. Think of a cleaner way to keep or get rid of waste on our earth. What good does it do to film a disgusting river and then walk away from it?!
2007-06-19 00:42:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are tons of other options for environmental groups. You could have protests or sponsor nature walks in your area or have PSAs on TV or start your own campaign instead of just documenting one.
2007-06-19 01:13:32 · answer #4 · answered by Amy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if it is the best use of money, but they do that quite a lot don't they? I see such documentaries on PBS TV all the time.
2007-06-19 00:38:45 · answer #5 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋