Posted on 08/09/2008 3:00:18 PM PDT by PROCON
How to Stop the Flood of Catalogs (and Help Save the Climate)
A report by the group ForestEthics estimates that destroying forests to make paper for junk mail releases as much greenhouse gas pollution as 9 million cars.
Another way to look at it: Junk mail produces as much pollution as seven U.S. states combined, or as much as heating 13 million homes each winter.
While the estimates may or may not be accurate, the point is indisputable: Junk mail is a waste. (To most people, it's an annoying part of the trip to the mailbox, anyway.)
Not convinced? NASA climate scientist James Hansen, one of the most respected voices on the issue of global warming and our need to do something about it, had this to say about the report
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailygreen.com ...
I suspect the Sunday edition of the New York Times alone would come close. And that is even more of a waste.
Now here is a target I could get behind reducing.
These people are idiots! Hansen lost his credibility A LONG TIME AGO!
I have tried everything I know to stop my flood of junk-mail. NOTHING works. I get several pounds of paper crammed in my mailbox weekly.
Now, let’s see how many posts it’ll be before some doofus starts babbling about the 1st Abendment, or about the jobs that this garbage creates.
Probably every piece of printed paper any of us has ever seen in our lifetime has come from a huge tree farm somewhere in the northwest, so pretending it has anything to do with the primitive types hacking away in the beloved Amazon is as much of a scam as CO2 “emissions”.
That said, I hate the endless coupons, ads, and other cheap crap constantly being hawked via my mailbox. The reason this stuff exists is that is massively subsidizes the post office’s delivery of regular mail.
This on top of the massive subsidies the post office gets every year as it hemorrhages billions. Naturally, nobody has to put up with this from FedEx/UPS/DHL because they have to earn your business voluntarily instead of by gov’t fiat.
So the solution is to shut down the job-mill known as the US post office. There really is no reason for its existence.
Quick quiz:
Who knows which of mans activities produces the greatest amount of CO2?
Hint: the answer is not hard to find, and it has absolutely nothing to do with fossil fuels.
I'll say breathing.
Do I win something?
Only if you were right!
but... keep trying!
Their stupidity is matched by their chicken sized brains.
If you really want to get people on board, calculate how much glo-bull warming email spam causes. Now THAT’s a cause I could get behind.
Or the heck with spam, how about the waste of electricity these flash banners use? Surely that’s contributing to man-made glo-bull warming?
Algore? Are you there? After all, you did invent the danged internet, why don’t you fix it?
Ok, it's got to be the Karl Rove weather machine!
seems to me if these people believe that the planet is really in peril, they would all give up eating meat - and give up their pets - and boycott malls, theaters and sports arenas
but i guess that would be ‘inconvenient’
I don’t believe CO2 is a problem, as plants naturally absorb it and by doing so grow and emit oxygen.
That said, I think everyone would like to receive less junk mail. But don’t tie the two unrelated items together under the global warming hoax.
These folks pile lies on top of lies...seems like just to test our gullibility level.
1 - The Greenhouse Effect is not a bad thing...without it Earth would be uninhabitable because it would be too COLD.
2 - CO2 is NOT pollution, plants consume it and produce O for us to breath, without it we would all die.
3 - CO2 comprises less .04% (less than 1/25 of 1%) of "Greenhouse Gases" (Nitrogen and Oxygen account for over 99% of "Greenhouse Gases").
4 - Respiration (predominantly exhaling) accounts for most of the CO2.
My research indicates that if all of the global warming activists would just SHUT THE HELL UP...they would reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 25 States.
I have read it on a couple sites and went to verify it. So there seems to be some dispute.
Production of concrete.
(no net gain in CO2, though, because as the concrete sets, it re-absorbs the CO2 back out of the atmosphere)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.