|
By Janet Evans
Sunday, Sep 7 2008, 04:00 PM
Cow plop!
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says we should stop eating meat one day a week. After that, we should even eat it less than that. If he has his way, I suppose we should be come vegetarians.
Anything for the sake of preventing further global warming.
I’m in…how about you?
Rewind…I’m not in.
Sorry…I don’t care how much gas those cows or beef steer are “burping,” or how much people are burping after they eat a huge plate of beef for that matter. I’m going to eat all the red meat I want.
I think Dr. Pachauri is forgetting to tell us to eliminate some other items from our diet…maybe because there would be a huge uproar in the medical world. You see, physicians aren’t going to argue with him about telling us to eliminate red meat…they want us eating turkey or pork or fish anyway (I know, Pachauri says to eliminate "meat"). But there’s something else those belching cows eating grass are producing …it’s called milk.
Got Milk?
If you‘ve got that, then you’ve got strong bones. You don’t want to see a bunch of menopausal women with an increase in broken hips, do you? We don ‘t want to tell people to reduce the amount of yogurt and cottage cheese they re eating, now do we? And it’s been proven that increasing dairy in your diet helps to lose weight, too. I wonder if Dr. Pachauri works for any pharmaceutical companies. Just a thought.
"People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world's leading authority on global warming has told The Observer.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.
His comments are the most controversial advice yet provided by the panel on how individuals can help tackle global warning.
Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said. "
Enlighten yourself with the entire article HERE
Burpless grass cuts methane gas from cattle
|
By Janet Evans
Tuesday, Jul 15 2008, 12:16 PM
People like to blame George Bush for everything nowadays…well, for the past seven years anyway. Being a Conservative and a Republican, and a fan of President Bush (for the most part) I’m not going to be playing that game.
I have also noticed that besides President Bush being blamed for everything under the sun….yes, the sun, the warm, warm sun…global warming climate change is next in line for being blamed for everything wrong in the world.
So, I’m happy to say that last May and June as I was withering in pain equal to if I would have birthed my two children at the same exact moment in time, when I could have been cursing George Bush….it really was global warming that was to blame.
You see, global warming is now thought to be to blame for increasing kidney stones! Who knew?
So maybe I better think about moving someplace much cooler, because even though I'm currently not in an at-risk state, I’ve got a s*#%load more of them lingering there just waiting.
And while I thought perhaps President Bush might do something before November to really get me going….you know, get me so upset, so riled that those stones would implode....I'm worried global warming is going to really heat things up.
Go figure.
Read about it on ABC News É here
|
By Janet Evans
Friday, May 16 2008, 11:48 AM
That CRAZY global warming issue…..
Is there anything that can’t be attributed to causing “climate change?”
Well hang on to your Big Mac, because if you are over weight, you are being picked on again…..
“Obesity contributes to global warming, too."
"Obese and overweight people require more fuel to transport them and the food they eat, and the problem will worsen as the population literally swells in size, a team at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine says.This adds to food shortages and higher energy prices, the school's researchers Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts wrote in the journal Lancet on Friday."We are all becoming heavier and it is a global responsibility," Edwards said in a telephone interview. "Obesity is a key part of the big picture."
Read the entire article from Reuters
Obesity contributes to global warming: study ç here
Phew…I don’t think this one is President Bush’s fault, do you?
Just for you, once again here is the BMI calculator
This time it's to help save the planet!
|
By Janet Evans
Thursday, May 1 2008, 07:18 PM
We know how nice it would be to have sidewalks available for our children to be able to walk to school, parks and other locations, along with helping to cut transportation costs.
That’s just one feature that should be lining our streets.
But what about trees?
I’m not talking about a few trees dotting the landscape for decoration.
dbTechno
There may be a very good reason we may want to consider lining our streets with more trees, besides just the benefit of their shade and their beauty.
According to a new study, kids who live on streets that are lined with trees are less likely to develop asthma compared to kids who live on streets without trees on them.
Researchers looked at rates of asthma among children aged between 4 and 5-years old.
They also looked at the number of kids up to the age of 15 who were brought to the hospital due to asthma.
They found that the highest rates of asthma were in poor urban communities.
The rate of childhood asthma from 1980 to 2000 jumped to almost 50%. New York City was one of the hardest hit locations.
Read about it in Science Daily
Tree-lined Streets Mean Lower Rates Of Childhood Asthma, Study Suggests í here
So forget about moving to Arizona if your child has asthma….let’s get some trees planted.
|
By Janet Evans
Monday, Nov 26 2007, 08:25 PM
Why can't we have Green Burial Cemeteries like this in Franklin?
Mourners gather around a natural pine casket at a green burial.
US funeral homes each year put nearly 1 million gallons of embalming fluid into the ground along with the departed, wrap them in tons of metal and concrete—and charge a fortune for it. All of which makes “green burial” a sensible and fast-growing alternative. Green burial sites replace tree-cleared cemeteries with woodlands, eliminate embalming, and use simple pine caskets. Traditional funeral directors complain that makeup is difficult to apply for viewing without embalming, which also prevents spreading of disease. But picturesque headstone-free eco-cemeteries, now in many states, are increasingly popular. Grave markers are usually flat stones natural to the area, and the money spent on plots is used to fund a trust to preserve the land.
Markers for "green burials" are flat and simple,
chosen from naturally occurring stones in the area.
Galisteao River Basin Preserve Green Cemetery  ◄Green Burial Council
"Unglued?" .... only when my cheap pine casket falls apart on the way to the cemetery. Actually I want to be cremated, but they say my "fillings" will let off too much mercury pollution .... You would think I would be dead by now if I had that much mercury in my filliings! Go figure ....
What do you think?
Would you want a Green Burial?
"Green burial provides us with a way of getting in sync with the natural process of death, decay, and regeneration, rather than having to stave it off, as conventional deathcare demands."
|
By Janet Evans
Friday, Nov 23 2007, 09:59 AM
Meet the women who won't have babies -
because they're not eco friendly
“Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy. But the very thought makes her shudder with horror. Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.”
Read the full story here from the Daily Mail ◄
Quotes from another Enviro-nutcase in the article, Sara Irving:
"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do." What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."
_______________________________________________
What is WRONG with these women?
Aborting your baby to save the planet? Right ....
You made a big difference, didn't you, Toni?
Maybe your baby would have been the next great scientist.
Fine if you don't want to have any more children in the future.
It's probably better for the world that YOU are not a parent in the first place.
I have heard of many reasons to abort a child, but this one really has me "Unglued."
"When I tell people why I don't want children, they look at me as if I was planning to commit murder. "
You Toni are either fooling yourself, or you are a selfish freak of the environment you want to protect . . . .
A baby is not a disposable item for the environment . . . .
Alright ... so go back up and read the article if you didn't.
Then, let's get ready for the DEBATE.
I know there will be one.
WHAT DO YOU THINK???????????
|
More Posts
|
|
