Not too far from the truth.[/quote]
interestingly my profession is âindustrial designerâ
that means i design products, appliances, furniture⌠all the things we attribute the most to pollution, fashion, and thus climate change.
i think you will realise its not about changing the way of life of people, but changing the opinion that we get everything for free.
anything we do now, our children will need to clean up, is that fair?
things like elecronics, using 10w of power when turned off⌠that is bad design. the greens are not about getting rid of electronics but they are about making them designed better, they are about using no lead in themâŚ
they are about using non-toxic chemicals in clothes⌠its actually cheaper for companies to use the 16 non-toxic dyes (that can make every colour you wish) than it is to use the 16,000 toxic dyes.
do you want to weartoxic clothing?
people who think the greens are a bunch of hippies⌠well many of the are. but they are not trying to push a hippy lifestyle, they are just trying to bring pollution to a reasonable level. currently pollution is happening that doesnât need to, and pollution is happening that has no economic advantage over not polluting.
I am trying to push the Greens more towards corperations than people. i see that is the biggest area. and it has been proven to be cheaper for corperations to be environmental than not, so the message just needs to be out.
Alltaken[/quote]
Typical misinformed green philosophy.
a) Wasting power, I think everyone agrees that it useful to use less power, but it most cases the economics donât justify the added expence. Where they do it make sense.
b) Dyes in clothes. Dyes in clothes are not carcinogenic, they are fixed in place and therefore cannot leach out. Even if they could leach they are not absorbed across the skin barrier. Some of the dyes used in clothing are carcinogenic if ingested, but noone is suggesting you should eat your clothes. There are plenty of known carcinogens produced by plants, if fact the most deadly chemicals known are produced by respectively a bacteria, botulin, and ricin from the castor beans.
c) Well by your own confession a lot of the greens are pot smoking hippies.
d) I was originally a believer in man induced global warming, but now Iâm a skeptic. The major problem I have is that at the concentration of carbon dioxide we have in the atmosphere carbon dioxide causes only a very small increase in green house warming. The major greenhouse gas is water vapour. So the modellers have to assume that an increase in carbon dioxide is going to cause a positive feed back in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. This is an unproven assumption. As a scientist you get a feeling for shonky science and this seems to me to be shonky science. I have since found that there are many other scientists who are skeptics or agnostics about global warming.
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth_experts.cfm
including de Freitas a professor of geology at Auckland University. You can read his reasoning in the paper publiished in Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology:
Here is an interview with Freitas in the New Zealand herald:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=3516831
The greens only get votes by garnering fud, fear uncertainity and doubt.