reedr57’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  passionate but confused

  We have relative standards about subsidies in this country, and societal well-being (or logic) doesn't play much of a part in the decision making process. If we stopped subsidizing industries that compromised life on earth by producing GHGs and toxins these industries can't or won't clean up, we could apply more funds to green tech, and give it a real chance in the marketplace.

  But we'd need a Congress of leaders who represent the public and greater good, not just the top 1%. And we'd also have to stop pretending that we live in a true free market economy. We might even get a decent healthcare system if we did all of that.On A response to Shellenberger & Nordhaus from David Hawkins of NRDC posted 2 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  proper disposal of toxic cleaners

  Although many green stories wisely advocate the move to non-toxic cleaners, I haven't seen info about proper disposal of the old "bad-for-you" cleaners.  Are there options besides findng a "dump" that offers recycling for toxic waste--for a price?

  Actually, replacing any environmentally unfriendly item with a green one poses equally important disposal issues. On An eco-entrepreneur's advice on kid-proofing your cleaning supplies posted 2 years, 2 months ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  11th hour free labor

  I don't like "gotcha" questions for worthwhile activist efforts, and DiCaprio et al deserve kudos for the film, but the notion that people should work without pay is unacceptable. Enthusiasm and desire to "do good" are all admirable, but what about reality? There is all too little security in a freelancer's life. A decent paycheck is a minimum requirement.

  And it's hard to believe no one could afford to pay the necessary workers SOMETHING. "Someone" like Warners, whose executives are paid well regardless of the project, and whose greenlighters had a decent gamble going, based on returns from the box office performance of "An Inconvenient Truth."  Or, DiCaprio could have fronted the money and been a first-out investor. Risky, sure, but less so than for the freelancer who doesn't have another multi-million $ contract around the bend. Fairness should be a top priority on socially-concerned films, because in one way or another they are all about preserving a decent life. As the scientists have cautioned: the planet will survive; it's people and other living things that may not.

  BTW, Current TV gets much of its material for free. And when Current does pay, it's usually based on votes, well after the work has been done, and well below market rates. The cabler is already making a profit after only two years and is often heralded for such a brilliant business plan. It sounds like exploitation, not democracy, to me.On Leo's feel-good press conference is interrupted by a feel-bad question posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses