So Rain or Kaibab, would you rather have Bush's hell of Gore's green hell? How would you like coarse toilet paper instead of soft Charmin kind?
Not to mention dishwasher detergent that doesn't work...
The environmental movement has been the American Communist's home for years now. The "green" movement is merely another vehicle to gain control of the masses... Mandating lightbulbs, detergents, land usage (yes, private property, too), what kind of cars we can drive (CAFE standards), & they're getting our kids while they're young & indoctrinating the clear through college.
BTW, Earth day is Vladimir Lenin's birthday, as well as the anniversary of Pravda, the "voice" of the communist party.
__________________
Vizslas... because life's too short to hunt with an ugly dog.
Take a warrior hunting!! http://www.warriorsoutdoors.com/
the term "green" is so over-utilized and broad, it has become a trite absurdity. i do think it's important to remember that, like people, there are both good things and bad things about the "green" movement.
by way of example, the idea that we should focus on building buildings that are both cost-effective and energy efficient are good things. of late architects in the green movement have focused on enhancing natural lighting throughout school and business work places. power costs are reduced, and employee and student productivity increases. good. most cities are responsible for water and wastewater treatment facilities. the vast majority of these facilities are 30+ years old, with sometimes equally old components. the focus on "green" has caused these folks to re-analyze how they can save energy, and cut cost. by way of example, new high efficiency water pumps use a fraction of the energy that the old ones use, resulting, over the capital life of the pump, in savings millions in excess of the costs of the new pumps. also good.
at the same time, i am painfully aware of the waste and near-fraud in some of the green movement. a rather illustrative (and grossly simplified) example is a certain unnamed "green" building standard. to achieve this highly sought-after certificationin a new building you had to a) design the building you would have normally designed, b) design your improved "green" version of the same building, and c) apply for your certificationbased uponthe delta of the energy savings between the normal and "green" building exceeding a certain number. sounds great, right? except, there were no baseline standards or requirementsfor the design of the non-green building. thus, you could proceed on the premise that your non-green building was designed by only moderately intelligent chimps, and so long as you didn't burn baby seals for heat in your green building, you'd get your certification. now, i understand that this flaw in the certification process has been remedied, but for years the certification meant nothing, but everyone wanted one nonetheless. it was a tool for consultants to get rich off the process, but added nothing to reducing real energy usage.
and don't even get me started on energy-efficient light bulbs...
bottom line is there's good and bad in the greening of america. we just need to be careful, and examine each initiative with a jaundiced eye, and not be swept up by the pro (or anti) green hysteria.
Green....
