50 things you can do to save the Earth

[Guest Shingen]

This is an actual list of ideas that various American 'environmental groups' came up with in order to help save our planet!

1) Bury your car.

2) Become a total vegetarian.

3) Grow your own vegetables.

4) Have your power lines disconnected.

5) Don't have children.

6) Restrict the population of motor vehicles.

7) Don't build cars.

8) Stop building roads.

9) Replace roads with homes, parks, and gardens.

10) Halt weapons production and exports.

11) Stop the sale, distribution, and export of cigarettes.

12) Send an amount of money to Brazil to provide urban

jobs for impoverished workers now forced into the rain forests.

13) Blockade a lumber truck carrying old-growth trees.

14) Spend a month tree-sitting.

15) Try to live, if you can, to within the world average income

($1,250 a year) for 1 month.

16) Cut up your credit cards.

17) Unplug your television.

18) Undertake a Conservation Sabbath:

one day a week without consuming electricity or fuel.

19) Fast a day each week, send the money saved on food to help feed the hungry.

20) Adopt a homeless person.

21) Raise the minimum wage to a survival income.

22) Enact a maximum wage law.

23) Tie politicians' salaries to the average working wage.

24) Replace majority rule with proportional representation.

25) Replace the Electoral College with direct democratic elections.

26) Abolish the CIA and the National Security Act of 1949.

27) Pass a nature amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

28) Oust presidential adviser John Sununu.

29) Plant one new tree every day.

30) Go to jail for something you believe in.

31) Don't own pets.

32) Allow all beef-producing domestic cattle to become extinct.

33) Redirect the military budget to restoration work; convert weapons

factories to peaceful research; retrain soldiers for ecological restoration.

34) Remove US Forest Service from under the Agriculture Department;

place USFS, Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service under the EPA.

35) Consume only products produced within your bioregion.

36) Don't eat anything that comes in a package.

37) Don't buy anything that comes in a box.

38) Require operators & owners of nuclear plants to live within a mile of the site.

39) Mandate federal recycling and institute a refuse tax on solid waste.

40) Pipe polluted water back into the water supplies of the companies that do the polluting.

41) Don't own anything that runs on batteries.

42) Hand over excess packaging to store manager on visits to the grocery.

43) Travel by bus, never by air.

44) Stop using toilet paper and Kleenex; use washable cloth.

45) Extend the life of your wardrobe by learning to make and mend your own clothes.

46) Give money to every single panhandler you meet.

47) Democratize your workplace; start a union or a collective.

48) Learn to farm.

49) Liberate a zoo.

50) Ask your boss if you can take a day off to work on healing the planet ... with pay!

hehehehe.. yeah right..

Who wants to help me bury my piece o' crap car!

[Jay Reynolds]

Some folk have too much time on their hands,lol.

Here's two more:

51) Erase the human race.

52) Relocate everyone off world.

[Menchise]

Here is another one:

53) Start behaving like a REAL environmental group.

[Charles Lindsey]

Actual huh? here are some actual responses.

1) And have it Pollute the ground?

2) Why?

3) Can do. Not all of them but gardening is fun.

4) Nope.

5) Why not?

6) Nah. I would love to buy a hybrid though. It would save me money and conserve energy. It's your right to buy what you like.

7) Yeah right, build only SUV's

8) Ludicrous

9) see response 8

10) see response 8

11) I need to quit somehow.

12) No

13) Why? It's very good wood. I foresee lumber companies managing growth and old growth becoming a premium product.

14) No

15) When I bring home $1250 a month I'll buy everyone a generic soda.

16) An enviromental group said this? I pretty much have. Good advice.

17) Don't watch it much anyway. On the net too much.

18) Maybe. Would take some major scheduling.

19) No

20) No

21) Ehhh maybe.

22) Not only no but hell no. Though I do think some sports star wages are ridiculous. Life ain't fair. Roll over and whimper. (sarcasm)

23) I actually like this one. Elected officials (note change in description) are supposed to serve the public. They shouldn't get rich while doing it.

24) Nope. Which proportion? Ethnic groups? Religious groups?

25) Maybe. In this day and age it could be done.

26) Huh? I think we need our spies but the other I have no knowledge of.

27) WTF?

28) Why? No knowledge.

29) In my soil? see response 8

30) No

31) This one just really hit a nerve. I love my pet more than anything in the world. He has been my best friend and companion for nine years. I cannot imagine life without him. What resource would I have saved by not owning and caring for him?

What wack group put that forth? No one should own pets. Now we have a bunch of feral animals running around. What would you do with them then?

The rewards I receive from owning a pet far outweigh any of the negatives I simply can't imagine. He eats, sleeps, poops, and provides me with companionship. Granted his poop stinks but it's fertilizer. Where is the negative? So far as any resources go I worked for them. I paid for them. I can use them how I see fit (in the context of owning a pet. Food, etc.) If there is any debt to society for having a friend I have repaid it in spades. The food I buy makes a profit for the store I bought it from which in return makes a profit for the distributor they bought the food from. The vaccinations to keep him safe to be around other humans and other animals are in the hundreds of dollars by now. I would gladly pay hundreds more. Some of this is profit ot the vet so he can stay in business. That's the debt and I'll gladly pay it. I'll keep my friend thank you.

If a human being cannot show care and compassion to an animal they are no better than that very same animal. What is the environment for if not animals?

32) Part of 31 and I don't care much for venison.

33) See response 8

34) See response 8

35) No. Nice to keep your money local but it would be impossible. I know someone who only buy products from his local vendors. That is cool. Keeps his mooney and taxes in his town. But to limit it to products only is stupids. I suppose only Detroit residents could buy cars but where would they get the gas from?

36) No

37) I don't want it broken.

38) Sounds nice. They would darn sure make sure theirs was safe.

39) a] Sure b] No. On Top of the income tax I pay to get the money?. On top of the sales tax on my money (already taxed) that I have to give to get the product? Now you want to tax me to throw it away? NO. Besides, they'll just up the sales tax to compensate for that if they have the mind.

40) Sounds nice but ridiculous. Catch them and fine them.

41) I suppose this is to avoid the refuse tax.

42) No

43) No

44) It takes more energy to use detergent, water, and electricity to wash a cloth product than it does to produce and flush the relatively tiny amount of paper product that goes down with what you are going to flush anyway. You are going to pay anyway. Choose the cheapest. Tis how the disposable diaper industry survived a grass roots "movement/wish/public cryout" against disposable diapers.

45) I can do that.

46) NO. I made it; I keep it. That said I have given money panhandlers. I have even given a 15 mile ride to a hitchhiker. Depends on whether I beleive them.

47) No. At one time in history unions served a good purpose. I beleive they are now bloated.

48) goes with gardening response somewhere way up at the top.

49) Huh? So we don't preserve any species?

50) If I wanted to I would just take a day off.

Shingen, None of the rants above were aimed at you personally.

[ 05-18-2001: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]

[Blades]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time on your hands, Chav.

[Charles Lindsey]

No Blades, I took some time to give my opinion on some of "points" Shingen attributed to some un-named environmental groups.

The fact that I took the time to respond to those "points" shows that I care to some degree. Besides, it didn't take that much time.

What I posted should be regarded as an "Open Letter" to whatever group posted such thoughts.

Joke with me about something else.

[Parias]

Being Duke Nukem helps too I guess... gotta love that quote from the DNF trailer:

"Hey pal, what're you gonna do.... save the world all by yourself?"

[Guest]

heh, I only agree with #10, 11, 33 and 38

[Gallion]

Save the trees - kill the beavers

TTFN

[Epsilon 5]

Beavers? They're almost extict over here!

[Guest Shingen]

I got that list from the EIB Network.

I thought they were hilairious, so I threw them up here, to see what you guys would say... none of them are my ideas in the least!

I would've posted my own ideas, but yours are better Charles...

Here's the actual page I got the list from.

It just goes to show you that most 'envirnomental groups' are really just freaks with no clue whatsoever...

[Charles Lindsey]

I've thought about it Blades. The people who truly have too much time on their hands are the nutbrains sitting around thinking that stuff up.

I believe in being environmentally conscience but some of the above was ridiculous.

Just read in the paper that Greenpeace dumped 5 tons of coal on Cheney's lawn in order to protest. Hope they clean it up before it pollutes the environment.

Thanks for the comment Shingen.

[Menchise]

Charles, coal does not pollute anything unless it is burned, not including the damage caused by dumping five tons of anything on a backyard lawn. The gardener is going to have a very long weekend.

With all the damage that's already being done, Bush and Cheney could write their own list: Fifty Things You Can Do To Destroy The Earth.

Greenpeace gave the Bush administration what it deserved: Lumps of coal for being naughty this year.

quote:

---

It just goes to show you that most 'envirnomental groups' are really just freaks with no clue whatsoever...

---

I seriously doubt that the list was written by a typical environmental group. I think EIB just picked the most extremist minority of environmentalists and labeled them as representatives of the entire movement. It works the same way as the Tonight Show's Jaywalking segments, where they only show the people who got the answers wrong.

[Guest]

Menchise,

This is another debate I really DO NOT want to get into with you!!

The fact of the matter is, the greenies would rather have the earth be without humans, well, sorry pal, we're here to stay. I can't wait to see them drilling at ANWAR, why, because it means that we are less dependent on foreign supplies of oil, and the FACT of the matter is, the drilling tachniques we now have are much less impactful on the environment then they used to be. We can now drill sideways, backwards, forwards, and upside down. One drill rig can do what it used to take 10-20. I don't want to destroy the environment either, but the fact of the matter is, we need that energy, and if takes screwing up 2000 acres out 300 million, then so be it!!! and we won't make that big of an impact on the 2000.

Good grief, get a clue, the greenies are a bunch of socialists, who are drying because their favorite countries are getting blown out of the water economically, and they want to slow us down so they can say, see, China does better then we do. Well, sorry pal, I'd love to just throw them in the old growth forest and forget about them.

Read the energy report, it is excellent, get it here in a zip file and read it at your leisure, then come back and tell me how ridiculous it is, because it's not.

They worked hard on it and it shows, these guys know what they are talking about!! About fricking time we had a REAL energy policy!!!

Also, because Coal is petroleum based, they basically dumped toxic waste, coal in and of itself is harmful, if it gets wet, it will leech petroleum based distillates into the soil, making that soil infertile, NOTHING WILL GROW IN IT!!! These little twits should have been arrested for vandalism, illegal dumping and then fined for dumping toxic waste!!! and then forced to pay for the cleanup!!The ends do not justify the means, and if you want my respect, you'd better obey the law, because if not, I'll shoot first and ask questions later.

What a bunch of cowards!!!

[ 05-20-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Tekrebel]

Come on, everybody knows republicans == bad for the environment. Canada and US are being blamed by international organizations for not respecting the air pollution treaty they signed a few years ago. It's quite obvious that we are destroying our ecosystem and in the long run we're going to suffer the consequences. The facts are there and no political "energy bullshit plan" is going to do anything about it. If the US is so concerned about the environment, why haven't they respected the Kyoto treaty?

(Canada is as bad as the US on the environment issue)

[Guest]

Geez, we are gonna get into Kyoto again?

Come on, give me a break, I am so tired of the BS science claims of global warming, PROVE IT!!! I have yet to see ANY credible evidence on Global Warming, Kyoto was a treaty put together by a bunch of US apologists, namely one Al "I hate the US and all we stand for" Gore, and others. It was a treaty to excuse the pollution of 3rd world countries and make the US and other first world countries pay for "pollution Credits" from those same countries. It was nothing but a socialist scheme to get money to third world countries, who do nothing, from the first world countries, who do everything.

Our economies should not be held hostage by a bunch of third worlders who don't have a clue, thank god Bush kicked the Kyoto treaty exactly where it belonged, in the trashheap.

Wanna read a good article, by someone who knows how to think? Go here He makes more sense then most, and explains it well!!

So get off the Kyoto bandwagon, you oughta read the damn thing, what a loopy piece of garbage, only a basketcase who doesn't care about their economy nor the environment would sign the thing.

Read it before you start spouting about how great it is, because, Oh my god, what a ball buster it would be!!!

[Charles Lindsey]

Pollute: (source: Merriam Webster online via AOL)

code:

---

2 a : to make physically impure or unclean : BEFOUL, DIRTY

b : to contaminate (an environment) esp. with man-made waste

synonym see CONTAMINATE

---

My statement was Sarcasm. Not only did Greenpeace pollute but as an environmental group I think it was highly hypocritical of them to perform such an act with a substance they don't want used in the first place. If not Greenpeace then some other environmental group I am sure totally opposes the use of coal. Not only that but by buying 5 tons of coal they just created a market for another 5 tons of coal. How dumb is that? We don't like this stuff but we will create a market for more of it. To top it all off that 5 tons of coal could have gone to producing some of the energy we use. Some of the energy I bet greenpeace uses to power the lights and computers in it's home office.

I wonder if they have any solar collectors to offset their energy use to some degree.

Menchise' last paragraph I can agree with to some degree. Sure the quotes probablly aren't typical of most environmetal groups. At least I sure hope they are not typical. But it is those wackos who make such statements that need serious reigning in.

Thanks for the defense Jaguar.

[Menchise]

[Guest]

Yes, evidence can be found, but the evidence is by a bunch of fuzzy scientists who have been funded by the greenies. What answer are they gonna come up with? Find me evidence PROVED by separate and independent study, any independent study that I have found says that Global warming does not exist and is based on fuzzy science.

The earth goes through stages, and we happen to be in a little bit of weird stage right now. It might be warmer one place, but it is cooler in another, it may rain more in another place, but it is raining less in another. the ocean temperature in the pacific may be 1/2 degree warmer, but the atlantic is 1/2 degree colder. Global warming is NOT taking place. We as a species put out about 5% of the total carbon Dioxide that is put out on the planet, this is NOT enough to do anything. When a volcano erupts, Mt St. Helens for instance, it puts out MORE "greenhouse" gases in an instant then the human race does in a century. The human race CANNOT change the climate, accept through nuclear war, and I mean all out nuclear war!! Setting off every dirty bomb we've got, that is the ONLY way we are going to change the climate in any way, and the earth would heal itself after a century or so and go on without us.

This Global warming stuff is to scare the common people into believing appocolyptcal crap that gives the greenies power.

Well, I have done thorough studies on the scientific evidence available, and HAVE YET to see ANY Credible evidence on global warming, why? because there is none.

We need to get our own domestic supply of oil, ANWR, the gulf of mexico, anywhere that we can find it, 40% imports are much better then the 66% imports we have now. We are at the very precarious position of being blackmailed by the OPEC countries, just as they did to us in the 70's.

We need nuclear power plants, France has over 75% of their power supplied by Nuclear power, why not us? Our plants are better, safer, why not have nuclear power, oh, yeah, the waste, well take the waste, put it in concrete at a one part per million, and then take the concrete rocks and dump them at the ridges at the ocean floor, the earth will suck them back in and take care of it. Or better yet, put the waste on a rocket, launch it into space and throw it into the sun. There are all kinds of things that can be done, but the greenies would rither us live in mud huts, growing our own food and walking everywhere we go then keep on with the standard of living we have.

Well, thanks, but no thanks, I like my nice house, I like my air conditioning, I like my SUV, I really like my computer. We are a modern society, and we need power, let's go get it!!!

and by the way, 40 of the things in the report by Bush have to do with conservation, 40, where is the mainstream media making us aware of this? Thier not, they would rather cry about the environment, with no scientific proof, then to read the report and report about it fairly!!!

[Charles Lindsey]

I'll stick with hypocritical.

quote:

---

I doubt that Greenpeace has the funding to build their own power plants.

---

You left out my following statement.

quote:

---

I wasn't attacking you, I was disagreeing with you. Debates are not battles, at least they're not meant to be.

---

Yes they are. Debate = argue = fight = attack. Attack with words to try to prove your point of view or a set of facts. Or to prove statements with facts.

But no I don't think you were attacking me personally. I was thanking Jaguar for his defensive argument. He made a better argument and provided info.

[Sunanta]

Now now, guys, let's keep this civil- arguing over semantics just serves to inflame tempers. Let us also refrain from judging other's arguments (not opposing and attempting to refute, just judging), especially if you weren't initially neutral...

Anyway, my position is that both sides are exaggerating. We obviously have a problem with pollution. Denial is simply that- denial. The EPA (run by a conservative administration, just to remind you) has an entire site dedicated to global warming, which cites studies done by itself and others. Of course, tree-huggers predicting the end of the world in six months have probably gone off the deep end. Truth is generally between the extremes. While there is no consensus on the cause, global warming is indeed a problem. It is not merely carbon dioxide, but numerous types of artificial (and powerful) fluorocarbons generated in industrial processes, then there is methane (traps over 20 times as much heat as C02), nitrous oxide (over 250 times as much heat as C02), and another dozen agents responsible for global warming. Ignoring the problem is a fatal mistake, though causing undue panic is not necessary.

As for nuclear power: Though nuclear plants are far safer now than previously, there is a problem with the waste (shooting tons of waste into the sun is fine- if you wish to pay for it- this would also easily negate the savings in pollution and cost brought about by nuclear power. Putting one part per million into concrete, then dumping it into the ocean is also impractical). Drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Reserve would not affect oil prices by more than a few cents. This is because it is independent corporations who will drill it, and not the government. These corporations will sell the oil on the world market, causing the price of oil worlwide to drop by a few pennies. Even if the oil were reserved for our exclusive use, it would only allow us to be completely self-sufficient for a few months.

Accusing scientists who have conducted studies that affirm the hypothesis of global warming to be 'fuzzy' and 'funded by greenies' doesn't get us anywhere, since such an allegation could be thrown at even 'seperate and independent' studies who dare to confirm this theory- it works both ways and its premises (global warming does not exist and all studies that find it does are funded by radical, corrupt, far-left-wing environmental groups) are unproven and therefore cannot be of use in an argument.

[Menchise]

The wise one has spoken.

I'll try to be less judging.

quote:

---

We need to get our own domestic supply of oil, ANWR, the gulf of mexico, anywhere that we can find it, 40% imports are much better then the 66% imports we have now. We are at the very precarious position of being blackmailed by the OPEC countries, just as they did to us in the 70's.

---

Even if the figure was 20 percent America could still be 'blackmailed'. Almost every industry depends on a supply of oil to fuel the distribution of their products (namely transportation). Any drop in the supply will cause a recession of proportionate impact. A loss of 20 percent would be a disaster. A loss of 40 percent would be a HUGE disaster. Drilling more wells is a waste of time and money. The government needs to adopt an energy policy that encourages the proliferation of renewable energy sources in significant numbers.

By the way, that 40 percent figure was based on my assumption that the USA imported 50 percent. Since you said the USA actually imports 66 percent, the new figure is much higher.

quote:

---

We need nuclear power plants, France has over 75% of their power supplied by Nuclear power, why not us? Our plants are better, safer, why not have nuclear power,

---

Because the supply of Uranium is much smaller than the supply of oil (America would have to import more than 66 percent), and France doesn't have two fault lines running through it, not to mention the hurricane and tornado seasons.

[Charles Lindsey]

I was being civil. Weren't you being civil Menchise?

[Waves at Sunanta while making goofy sign above Menchise' head.]

[ 05-20-2001: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]

[Guest]

OK, Suntana, bring me an independent study that has NOT been funded by greenpeace, the Siera club or a dozen other organizations and thier contributors, I would love to see it. Because the ones that do exist refute the global warming theory by a pretty wide margin.

Also, what is so impractical about 1 parts per million in concrete and dumping it in a deep ridge in the ocean. Put it in a ship and dump it overboard, the radiation is spread out over a wide area, no more then the background radiation at that point. Concrete is cheap!! What is so "impractical" about it? at least concrete is cheap here, but maybe not in hawaii.

And this thing about importing Uranium for Nuclear power plants, sorry, no go, the US has plenty of ore to create the Uranium 235 needed to run our power plants, it's just getting the greenies and the ecofreaks to let us go get it. Same for the oil, you seem to think that there is only a few billion barrels of crude throughout the US and it's territories, but the fact is there is more oil then that, it's a matter of getting to it, again, through the greenies and ecofreaks. We have billions of tons of some of the cleanest burning coal in the world, but Clinton, along with his buddy Rhiady locked it up, why, so India wouldn't have competition for thier clean burning coal. How did they lock it up you ask, they created a national park over the top of it in Utah, via executive order of course.

No, the US has plenty of energy of our own, we just need to be able to exploit it, the ways of getting to that energy is about as low impact on the environment as you can get now, but the greenies are going to try and scare everyone, based on the technology of 30 years ago. This is reprehensible and disgusting, I hate liars, and the greenies and ecofreaks have lied too much for me to take them seriously now!!

We need that energy, and no matter the lies and propaganda the socialists, greenies, and assorted other ecofreaks, we are going to get it, why, because we ARE the greatest nation on earth, and by god we are going to stay there!!!

Don't get me wrong, I love nature, I go hiking, zero impact camping, 4 wheeling on logging roads, mountain climbing and snow sports, etc, etc. I LOVE THE OUTDOORS!! But there is no reason that we can't have one without the other, they can go hand in hand, it is just a matter of cooperation and compromise, which the greenies have been unwilling to do.

Spiking trees to break the chains on chainsaws, killing or SERIOUSLY injuring the logger, dumping 5 tons of coal on VP Cheneys front lawn, etc, etc ad nauseum. These aren't compromisers, these are children and should be treated as such, when they wish to grow up and act like adults, then maybe we'll talk.

[aramike]

A couple of things that caught my eye out of boredom:

quote:

---

America is NEVER going to be self-sufficient on its own oil wells, it's geologically impossible. Even if every single oil well in America was being tapped, the nation would still have to import over 40 percent of its supply from other countries. Without that 40 percent, the economy grinds to a halt. Without 20 percent, the economy still grinds to a halt. Therefore, whether America is less dependant or not, it's still dependant.

---

Menchise, I believe Jaguar said "LESS dependent" (emphasis added). Of course the US will still be dependant. But more money would remain in our economy. That, my friend, is a GOOD thing.

quote:

---

Yes they are. Debate = argue = fight = attack.

---

Dunno, Charles. The definition of debate is simply "a formal discussion".

By the way, there IS evidence for global warming, actually. TONS of it (I'm not an environmentalist, by the way - I just don't ignore facts that are against my beliefs). The thing is, conservation ain't gonna do a damned thing to fix it so a different method of repair must be devised (there are currently some working theories on what to do).

quote:

---

Because the supply of Uranium is much smaller than the supply of oil

---

Sure, but the CONSUMPTION of Uranium is practically non-existant when compared to oil.