Comments iprefertherain has made

Enough with the PR already!

I think the idea of being either "blue" and/or "green" is ridiculous.

"Environmentalism" is the term that has brought us to this point in history where we are even aware enough as a society about these issues to debate these superficial terms.

The only departure from environmentalism - as practiced - I've read about is what Van Jones describes as a new philosophy which emphasizes priroritizing lower income communities with green collar jobs, rather than regulation, in some situations. That is a significantly different approach in my opinion.

However, SHellenberger and Nordhouse(or however you spell it) are wrong in that this new philosophy is not a difference in spirit of environmentalism and or in fundamental values from environmentalism, which they seem to think it is. It is simply a different approach.

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

... And THAT is why I'm proud to be California

Because even our Republican governor knows that Bush has NO CLUE about the environment. On U.S. EPA won't let California enact vehicle greenhouse-gas limits posted 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Responses

0.5%?!!!

How did England let Sherwood Forest be reduced to 0.5% of its original size? How can you just pave over your history and culture?On Groups band together to save Sherwood Forest posted 2 years ago 4 Responses

climate change - conservative cause????

Really? REALLY? And what's the Republican record on climate change? Say the presidents? For example? On Two enviro groups endorse their faves for U.S. president in '08 posted 2 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Although I should mention

I'm not so sure what the implications of "independance from Denmark" would mean here. I don't know how oppressive Denmark has been to Greenland historically.

It sounds however, like oil, diamond, and resource companies have instigated this debate, and a mere afterthought was independance. I'm skeptical of using these processes to achieve something politically "good".On Greenland's melting ice offers new mining opportunities, could fuel independence bid posted 2 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

"Our lives demand oil."

Actually, our lives simply DO NOT demand oil. That is flatly false. They demand food, water, shelter, clothing, companionship, etc. I don't think oil is anywhere on that heirarchy of needs. They really don't waste any time getting to their lies do they!On Chevron ad says renewables are great, oil is greater posted 2 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

Once

Once for Christmas I got a wooden camera. It was the best gift I ever remember getting. It was from Germany and it had wooden buttons, and a wooden shutter, and didn't really take pictures obviously,  but I pretended it did. Then I would tell my mom and she would marvel at my imaginary pictures.

All my other toys were plastic, but I remember the camera just being so much more fun. Even my friends thought my camera was the best.On Can a crusade against crap toys ever succeed? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

what the hell

happened to this world? What is going on here? You baby-boomers really messed up.

Big time. I think its time for you all to admit that.

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

PETA sympathizes only with some animals?

Not at all.

<cm>I wish it would be honest and include all facts as well as drop the viewpoint that some animals are worth sympathizing for while others are not.</cm>

Prescott and PETA never argue that some animals deserve sympathy over others. Nor do they claim this campaign will end ALL animal suffering. Please show me where he makes either of those statements.

This campaign's message is about vegetarianim and veganism. Its just one campaign though. Their whole group focuses on reducing animal cruelty though, so your accusation is baseless.

You have a point that vegetable-industries also use animal labor and if that can be stopped it should. PETA would probably be the first to agree. That does not make eating meat ethical though, and that is the point of this campaign.

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

Actually...

That could just be a new segment in Grist! It would be different from Umbra, because it could just focus on "greenwashing".

It could be called "A Scanner Dark-Greenishly".

Haha.

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

Re: Is PETA an environmental group?

Hey, if you disagree with PETA's tacitcs that is fine. If you don't like them, that's your choice, even if it is an ignorant one. But to call them "terrorists" or "extremists" is just a smear.

That just undermines any kind of intelligent and constructive debate.

Furthermore, their message is one that is worth debating. It is also the focus of this article which you seem to sidestep, in favor of starting a PETA witch-hunt.

Anyone can argue about whether or not vegetarianism is required for environmentalism.  By name-calling you completley undermine any solid logic their arguments hold.

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

Let's forget about "environmentalism"

For the moment, let's just forget about being "environmentalists", ok? That implies a lot of ideas that are confusing this discussion.

Vegetarianism is just the HUMANE thing to do. Its a humane way to treat animals and a humane way to treat humans.

For example, the Nobel Peace Prize winning buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

"UNESCO tells us that every day, forty thousand children in the world die because of a lack of nutrition, of food. Every day, forty thousand children. And the amount of grain that we grow in the West is mostly used to feed our cattle. Eighty percent of the corn grown in this country is to feed the cattle to make meat. Ninety-five percent of the oats produced in this country is not for us to eat, but for the animals raised for food."

Caring for animals, is to me, the basic point of empathy, but if you need more convincing look no further than how it affects ourselves.

"Environmentalism" though, typically means someone cares about more than just humans, more than even animals. They care about protecting tiny little plants and flora and even microorganisms. I've heard environmentalists say they even empathize with water itself.

So "Environmentalism" is a step BEYOND vegetarianism, since you can be a vegetarian and not an "environmentalist". Someone can still earn the title of "vegetarian" by refusing to eat meat, even if that person doesn't typically get behind "environmental" issues or candidates.

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

Oops, I meant Jan - not Joan

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

SCIENTISTS MISSED TIDWELL'S WHOLE ARGUMENT

I really want to first of commend these researchers for commitment to sustainability and defense of voluntary action.

But in my opinion, I did not read Tidwell to argue that, unless I am completely missing something. He never stated that voluntary actions were incompatible with policy. He does not even imply that.

What he says is that "everytime an activist or politician hectors the public voluntarily reach for a new bulb or spend extra on a Prius" it compromises their will to act on this particular issue.

Tidwell criticizes the way our mass-media system calls for voluntary action.

The mainstream media weakens the principles of opposition to climate change and the concrete solutions in its messages.

For example, we probably won't see a "number one: become a vegetarian, and try not to slack" on CNN. We'll probably see, "just try to eat less meat." Those convey two different principles.

Also, the content is watered down. You probably won't see "fasting" ever listed, even though its a voluntary action.

So if I understand what Tidwell is saying, these scientist don't address his argument, in fact they compliment it.

(Personally, I don't agree with his policy recommendations. If we are going to demand policy, why not demand eletric cars, not hybrids?)

As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. -Leo Tolstoy

That said...

I was unaware of "pesticide laden cotton" and think that is a more directly harmful problem.

If they addressed that on the show, or the unsafe workign conditions of the women and men who produce the raw materials over seas, I would be glad. On ANTM models green advice posted 2 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

The Poll

I think the poll question "Is LEED broken?" is a biased question.

The question should be "Is LEED sustainable?" That awful agency speak confuses the issue. Most of the article is in the context of that too.

By focusing the entire poll around "will it be fixed" rather than "will it ever promote truly sustainable buildings" you're already encouraged responses regarding whether or not LEED will succeed and have a succesful public image, rather than whether or not it is actually sustainable.

If the organization doesn't certify truly sustainable buildings, then I really think the article title says it well, its "LEEDing us astray".On LEED green-building program confronts critics and growing pains posted 2 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses

They'll shop until WE drop

I agree with the above comments. The idea that any mega-corporation, most especially Wal-Mart, is even "green" (to say nothing of actually sustainable), should be immediately scoffed at.

Furthermore, it is really popular to believe right now that we can buy our way out of global warming. Companies want us to believe that just by consuming differently, and not less, that we are still being environmental.

Baloney.

An essential part of being an evironmentally conscious person is LIVING SIMPLY and consuming  conscientiously.

That isn't a very profitable idea for most corporations, though.

By the way does Wal-Mart still use sweat-shop labor or would ending that practice, hurt profit as well?On Wal-Mart's eco-initiatives turning Arkansas into sustainability hotspot posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses