John Ray points to a Newsmax.com article about nature lovers welcoming the tsunami.
For most observers the South Asian tsunami disaster appears to be one of the most devastating tragedies in modern history. But some environmentalists are actually celebrating the tidal wave that killed nearly 200,000 people, saying it rid the coastal area of development and other forms of human contamination.
I'm sure we can arrange for all who share that sentiment to be exposed to the cleansing effects of nature up close and personal.
2 comments:
It's a shame a few misguided and unaware environmentalists are saying such hurtful things about human kind. It's as much a shame when the right continues to lasso these few instances in order to push their agenda against the movement. It becomes more plain to see the right have some type of vendetta orchestrated against the good efforts by greens. To acknowledge the environmental hazards our current administration is administering (in Robert Devine's "Bush Versus the Environment) is not only to admit the left is correct, but also to admit some positive change needs to take place. The right continue to push an ideology of capital consumption with little attention to environmental protection.
My final comment on the environmental posts here is in general it seems to me there is a lot of resistance to change, and right so in some of the instances regarding economics. But for green products to exist, they must have buyers. Since these products are already above the market average, it is left up to the upper middle class and higher to speak with their buck. Saying the expense of green product is a detriment to the economy isn't particularly convincing when these products start out just like many new products on the market, especially electronics -- and that is more expensive. If more people buy these green products, then I would have to assume in time they will go down as well. But only so if given the opportunity. I cannot tell the world this is some guiding light to eternal happiness because the only benefits to the consumer is going to be dependent upon their ideology, and more importantly, to their spirit.
I can see there is an awful lot of resentment towards the environmental movement. Actor Woody Harrelson was laughed at for the hemp clothing he wears; a local radio host of mine made fun of a woman who thought it was important to reuse plastic bags; and the "tree huggers" label is often disrespectful of those going the extra mile for their cause. These are just a few of the many negative examples where I can only conclude that to be environmentally concerned is like having a green poison sticker placed on your shirt.
If you follow my 'consumer capitalism' thinking and follow the dots, there is a direct correlation between the American gov'ts need to keep its consumers spending and that which is owned by the paper and waste industry (for starters). That being to consume and throwaway. The throwing away is the commitment to waste management and their income derived in the amount of waste hauled and disposed of. Even stories of recycling pickup have just been disposed of with the regular garbage.
Now for me to say any one of the above institutions is the enemy, isn't fair. I'm certain the waste management industry is doing the best possible job of overseeing that garbage is disposed of in the most efficient and economical manner with as little waste space used as possible. I'm sure the waste industry as well as the paper industry have a vested interest in making sure the consumers consume, and throwaway. Unlike some greens, I do not wish for the employed in these fields to be lose their jobs in a lickity split. I hope that in time some of these green concerns of mine can be gradually eroded away for a better market.
I rest with trying to seek out market-friendly alternatives that will bode well for us and the environment. I have no problem with negative green posts providing the author and commentor can prove why it is worse than doing nothing.
Post a Comment