Green Living | Green living tips and advice

Homemade Eco Friendly Cleaning products?

I want to start cleaning my home with eco–friendly cleaning products.But what are some easy ones I can make using stuff I can find in my kitchen?Any recipes?

Eco friendly products?

What are some affordable eco friendly/ go green products? And in what stores can you buy them? Various examples please!!

I was wondering what others thought of eco friendly product lines?

I was wondering what others thought of eco friendly product lines made from recycled materials like tires, and soda pop bottles? I get the feeling some people are really into it and other dont really care at all.

http://hautehideout.goodbarry.com/_catalog_38708/Eco-Friendly_Products

eco friendly products…?

for this project, we have to be as eco friendly as possible. the project is to sell our own products and i was thinking to get eco friendly packaging stuff. is there any place where i can get recycled or some kind of eco friendly packaging stuff?

is there money to be made in eco-friendly products?

nowadays the new “thing” is protecting the environment, reducing pollution and our carbon footprint. wherever theres a new way of doing something, theres money to be made, right? but is it most likely that people are already doing this and by the time i have the money to do it the market will already be saturated!?

How ‘sustainable’ will the London Olympics really be?

The London bid for the 2012 olympics pledged to be the greenest games so far. But will it be delivered? The planning documents and environmental statement for the Olympic Park suggest that no energy performance requirements further than current building regulations will be enforced, leaving it to the building’s developers’ to incorporate sustainability measures. Furthermore, London 2012 nor the ODA have released details on their carbon offsetting plans for the travel aviation emmisions released during the games. Marketing material suggest that the Olympic Park will be fueled by renewable energy, whereas a CCHP plant is planned running on fossilfuels, again leaving any implementation for solar, wind and biogas energy up to the constraints of the developer’s construction programmes and budget. It seems yet again that the UK authorities are issuing spin giving a misleading impression, whilst missing a unique opportunity to ensure a truly environmentally sustainable olympics.

How ‘sustainable’ will the London Olympics really be?

The London bid for the 2012 olympics pledged to be the greenest games so far. But will it be delivered? The planning documents and environmental statement for the Olympic Park suggest that no energy performance requirements further than current building regulations will be enforced, leaving it to the building’s developers’ to incorporate sustainability measures. Furthermore, London 2012 nor the ODA have released details on their carbon offsetting plans for the travel aviation emmisions released during the games. Marketing material suggest that the Olympic Park will be fueled by renewable energy, whereas a CCHP plant is planned running on fossilfuels, again leaving any implementation for solar, wind and biogas energy up to the constraints of the developer’s construction programmes and budget. It seems yet again that the UK authorities are issuing spin giving a misleading impression, whilst missing a unique opportunity to ensure a truly environmentally sustainable olympics.

Is the current prevalent market economy and resulting consumerism in the west really sustainable development?

If the consumerism of the west would be equally present in the rest of the world, then additional five earth-like planets would be necessary to have enough resources to uphold this ideal. Is this kind of market economy really sustainable development? Wouldn’t a tighter plan economy and increasingly socialist policies, be needed to combat this and create sustainable development?

Thanks for your thoughts.

How is high speed rail in the UK sustainable?

I’ve heard that high speed rail in the UK is sustainable. Obviously I know it hasn’t been built yet but the government say it will be sustainable? How so? And also what is the argument about it? WHY IS IT CAUSING SUCH A STIR?

how to look ahead to a sustainable future?

What is going on with a sustainable future? What are the problems associated with this and what can be done to solve it? What are real world examples?

please summarize this article?

you dont have to read the whole thing, thank you!!

Democratic countries in the developing sector, such as Poland and South Africa, are losing out in the race for American export markets and American foreign investment. Dictatorships such as China or semidictatorships such as Indonesia are winning.

And the trend is growing. As more of the world’s countries adopt democracy, more American businesses appear to prefer dictatorships.

If trade and investment strengthen developing countries, then U.S. businesses may be weakening the very countries they say they most want to help.

These are the conclusions of a report recently released by the New Economy Information Service (NEIS), a think tank set up to gauge the effects of globalization.

“The democratic countries in the developing world are losing ground to more authoritarian countries when it comes to competing for U.S. trade and investment dollars,” NEIS said.

“This finding,” it said, “raises the question of whether foreign purchasing and investment decisions by U.S. corporations may be inadvertently undermining the chances for survival of fragile democracies.”

NEIS compiled the report using U.S. government and World Bank figures on trade and investment. It borrowed political ratings compiled by Freedom House, a human rights organization that ranks countries as “free,” “partly free” or “not free” based on the level of their political rights and civil liberties.

In 1989, when the Cold War ended, democratic countries accounted for more than half–53.4 percent–of all U.S. imports from Third World countries, not counting oil. Today, with more democracies to choose from, the democratic countries supply barely one-third–34.9 percent–of U.S. imports from the Third World, it said.

After the same decade, democracies got 28 percent of American manufacturing investment in developing countries, up from 26.2 percent when the Cold War ended. This slight improvement–1.8 percentage points– paled beside the 5.7 percentage-point growth in U.S. investment reported by dictatorships, especially China.

China, which ranked 18th among recipients of U.S. investment in 1989, is in fourth place now, ahead of long-established democratic partners such as Argentina and South Korea.

The NEIS report asked why dictatorships are outbidding democracy for the American market, but said it does not know. “We are left with as many questions as answers,” the report said.

“Something is going on, and it’s worth pursuing,” said NEIS Executive Director David Jessup. “We can’t say that U.S. businesses have an absolute preference for authoritarian countries. I doubt that the issue of democracy-or-no-democracy is on businessmen’s minds when they make an investment decision. But maybe it’s an unconscious preference.”

Wages tend to be lower in dictatorships than in democracies, giving businesses in dictatorships an advantage on selling exports abroad. The investment question is more complex than that, Jessup said, but the report suggested a combination of factors–lower wages, easier environmental laws, bans on labor unions–that give dictatorships an edge.

Such rulers tend to be strong leaders who can provide quick decisions, deliver results and stamp out opposition. These qualities can appeal to many business leaders, who themselves operate in a non-democratic structure.

When Indonesia overthrew its dictator, Suharto, and installed a less authoritarian leader, investors tended to sit on their hands. One currency expert, Ron Leven of J.P. Morgan, was quoted as saying that “democracy is a desirable form of government, but it’s not necessarily the most efficient form of government.”

There is an “amorality” here, said Thomas I. Palley, assistant director of public policy at the AFL-CIO and a member of the NEIS team. “Profits and morality don’t mix very well.”

Palley noted that dictators, not having to answer to voters or a legislature, can often deliver investment incentives–such as tax breaks, freedom from environmental laws and a docile work force–that are powerful lures for foreign corporations.

But the U.S. government is part of the reason democracies come up short in luring investors, Palley said. “It says that, if you deal with these guys (dictators), you make them more open. This provides the moral reasoning that businessmen want.”

The result is a boom in investment and trade with China in the interest of “engaging” the Communist regime there.

Charity choices vs. social pressures?

Just wondering what “the people” think about this. I’ve worked for a few companies in my career and everyone donated to charity. This is great and I think more big businesses should donate their millions of profit to the more needy, hell, I even donate what little money I have plus my time. Here’s my issue with their (big business) logic…

Every company donated to foundations that help the kids of Africa or some other third world country, buying food and cloths for the people of “X” who don’t have the benefits we have here (they walk to water, we truck our fat butts to the fridge for ours….. we have “FUBU” cloths that cost an arm and leg and they have hand woven sweaters which are logo free). I’ve talked to the people within these companies that deal with the donations (out of personal interest) and out of all these companies that donated to 3rd world country’s, not one donated to a foundation in its own country! (other than heart&stroke and other medical groups which do help world wide but their efforts there are greatly shadowed by the other donation)

At first glance it looks like these companies have the biggest hearts giving a few hundred grand (a SMALL percent of their annual profit) to these charities yet I walk by hungry, cold, homeless, uneducated (due to lack of money cause university defiantly is not cheap) people where ever I go in my own country!! Our funding to environmental initiatives are minimal and our own country is in a less than perfect state.

Are these companies donating to these charities because they truly feel that they are doing good or are they giving this money and making public who they donate too to get the support of their customers for future business? Again, helping anyone out is great, no matter how big or small the contribution, but shouldn’t we get our own sh*t together first. Take care of our own? If my family was hungry I would feed them first….. but in the public eyes, you are a “better” person if you donate to Indigenous groups than if you help the man sleeping on your corner.

Just a discussion topic….

Wha are you views on the UN? Where is the future of this complex organization?

The UN was paralyzed by the Cold War. The five veto wielding members, permanent members, which are superpowers have also served national interest during and after the Cold War. What are your thoughts on the world organization? Share what you think the pragmatic future is, the ideal future, and also-if you have one-you’re favorite Secretary-General. An example is below. Share anything.

I believe the UN will get weaker due to national interest. I believe that IMF and World Bank are cancers within the UN and will widen the North-South divide between developed and developing nations. The UN might sadly fall apart if drastic steps to reform aren’t taken.

These are my ideals. Like Albert Einstein Einstein said the General Assembly should be superior the other UN bodies. In my opinion the General Assembly shall assume the role of the Security Council. The Security Council will dissapear. 2/3 of the countries represented in the General Assmebly are developing nations. When the General Assembly is the executive body it will open door for development and improve global justice, which the lack of is the cause of terrorism, and therefore will be a security measure. The veto is not needed because Cold War is over. An issue of trust won’t get in the way of clean water in Israel and Palestine.

My fave Secretary-General is U Thant. Not afraid to be against apartheid in South Africa, Vietnam War, the US entanglement in the Mid-East, and was an advocate of the Non Aligned Movement in Bandung–before he became Secy-General. He opened the UN Development and Environmental Programmes. He ended Congolese Civil War. He also won the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding.
Those who dislike the UN, completely that is, please don’t answer. Not to be rude or exclusive but I’d just prefer people who prefer such an organization to nothing at all. It’s for a project.

Why do enviornmentalists and poverty advocates ignore the fundemental problem of overpopulation?

The media, social welfare types , humans in general but especially , enviornmentalists, seem to gloss over this issue and vehemently fight the effects of overpopulation like dwindiling wildlife areas and wildlife populations, increased pollution, globalwarming/cooling/climate change/whatever, deforestation and dwindling resources and completely overlook the fact that the human population is expanding, people are living much longer infant mortality rates are much lower even in regions that they are traditionally high.

The human population is getting exponentially larger , millions upon millions ahead of the death rate every year. Each one of these surplus people I guess you can call them for now, will consume a lifetime of resources, food, gas, electricity, plastics, paper, everything. And generate a lifetime of waste. Each person will demand a certain amount of space to live as well. You cant tell some poor guy in Africa hey don’t build your tiny family sustaining farm there, we need to preserve the environment. Or maybe you can but for how long?

Its very obvious to me that looking forward there will come a point where the struggle to prevent poverty and conserve the environment will become useless because the rate of conservation and poverty reduction will be surpassed by the growth of the human population. Any gains made will be cancelled out by new people generating more waste and demanding more resources and space. Trying to reduce the effects of overpopulation can only at the very most slow the inevitable fate of total environmental destruction and a Catastrophic loss of human life from famine, war, starvation disease.

Let me create a picture to illustrate my point

Imagine the world with twice as many people as there are today?( this is coming by the end of this century). I see a place where everything costs much more, more waste much less resources to go around starvation war animal extinction, habitat elimination.

Now imagine the world with only half as many people as there are now? Everything is cheaper resources are abundant poverty is miniscule because everyone has jobs and education is affordable, plenty of room to live for wildlife and humans, waste is manageable and can realistically be eliminated etc, etc…

I know some might say we can eventually populate other planets but to that I say who will go? Who will want to live on Mars in a bubble where there’s only 1/3 of earths gravity?? or on the moon? or on some giant space ship where you know you will die long before you reach a new world . The human race will of destroyed ourselves by the time we figure out some way to get to other stars quickly. That’s if a way even exists.

So I ask why is this fact ignored and instead everybody chases global warming or climate change or whatever it is now. And the other effects of overpopulation??
Optimus I agree with your fundemental argument but Humans will not stop reproducing “until” it is unsustainable by that point the enviornment will already have been destroyed.
Kelly, that does not answer anything! race, spices whatever, take your anger somewhere else please.

Anti Immigration in Britain, Racist?

I am am concerned about the overcrowding of England as it is way above the norm in Europe:
(check the stats)

England
People per sq Mile: 1022

Germany
Per sq Mile: 602

Spain
Per sq Mile: 235

France:
Per sq Mile: 305

I am concerned about the environmental aspect of allowing millions of more people to settle. Surely this will have an adverse effect on England’s wildlife as well as an increase in human waste and the nation’s carbon footprint.

There has been a dramatic increase in diseases due to immigration from countries experiencing endemics: (2007) The Hepatitis B Foundation estimates that the numbers infected by the disease in Britain have almost doubled in the past five years, to 326,000. More than half of these people are immigrants from Africa, Asia, Russia and the new EU nations

(2008) The majority of people actually diagnosed with HIV in the UK in 2008 (58 %) had been infected through heterosexual sex, Two thirds of those infected heterosexually were black African and the vast majority (87%) of these people had probably acquired HIV overseas.

Do these opinions make me a racist? As whenever immigration is discussed the issue of racism is automatically bound to all possible concerns no matter how unrelated to hatred of another’s race and/or customs.

What do you think of Obamas past votes, as opposed to what he is saying now?

Why on the BIG issues that were put before him in office, did he choose NOT TO VOTE. But he voted and pushed for little meaningless things like “Congradulating the White sox on winning the World Series??”

Examples:

2/28/08 Vote 35: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to H.R.3221; New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act and the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 : NOT VOTING

2/26/08 Vote 33: On the Cloture Motion: Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 2633; A bill to provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq. NOT VOTING

2/7/08 Vote 10: H R 5140: H.R. 5140 As Amended; Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 : NOT VOTING

4/10/08 Vote 95: H R 3221: Ensign Amdt. No. 4419; To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the limited continuation of clean energy production incentives and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a lapse in the tax law. NOT VOTING

4/4/08 Vote 91: H R 3221: Voinovich Amdt. No. 4406 As Modified; To protect families most vulnerable to foreclosure due to a sudden loss of income by extending the depreciation incentive to loss companies that have accumulated alternative minimum tax and research and development tax credits. NOT VOTING

4/3/08 Vote 87: S RES 501: S. Res. 501; A resolution honoring the sacrifice of the members of the United States Armed Forces who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. NOT VOTING

Yet he did vote inbetween all those votes for things like:

3/14/08 Vote 82: S CON RES 70: DeMint Amdt. No. 4339; To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for providing an above the line Federal income tax deduction for individuals purchasing health insurance outside the workplace. VOTED NO

3/13/08 Vote 77: S CON RES 70: Kyl Amdt. No. 4372; To protect small businesses, family ranches and farms from the Death Tax by providing a $5 million exemption, a low rate for smaller estates and a maximum rate no higher than 35% VOTED NO

Im confused, if he is so for or against these like he says, why didnt he vote? And if he is for small falmilies and those needing insurance, why did he vote against them?? Any help ??

Australia will have a Carbon tax next financial year?

Well the carbon tax didn’t sound as bad as I thought it would be on average citizens, but I still don’t really understand why we have it?

I mean within 1 country I get that if the biggest polluters have to fork out the most cash than there is a definite incentive for big business to research and use carbon saving and renewable energy. I have no issue with the creation and installation of new technologies.

So, so far so good.

What I don’t understand is the low impact it is expected to have. Apparently by 2020 it is predicted to lower the Earth’s global warming impact by 0.0002% (not to screw with statistics, it’s also meant to be equivalent to 40mil cars off the road) which sounds like next to nothing seeing China is expected to have a 500% in carbon pollution by 2015 and India set for 350% by 2015.

I don’t get it, is this really about Australia sticking it’s hand up saying “We support a Global Emissions Trading Scheme, hope you guys come along.” ?

If this is the case than the part of the money that doesn’t compensate citizens cost’s of living or go to grants for big business to develop new technologies is for the Carbon Credits.

This is the bit I’, concerned about. I heard the EU trading scheme had significant amount of fraud going on. I don’t see how this will be any different, if not worse, if any country is buying carbon credits off any other country around the world.

So how are the Credits allocated, per capita? So what happens, countries that use a lot of carbon buy credits off countries that use less than their allotted carbon credits to fund projects that save the environment? Will this include paying to keep the Amazon, which is the point that I’m starting to wonder about what the money will be used for.

Thoughts?

Do you think Foreclosure Bill will help the average person?

Thinking this may be a help to consumers? Wait until you read what the people who you elected are going to do.

First of all this bill is ‘bi-partisan’ and was voted ‘yea’ at 84-12. The Senate has proclaimed it as a package designed to help businesses and homeowners ‘weather the housing crisis.’ The supporters of the bill in the Senate also acknowledge it does little to help borrowers losing their homes.

it actually does nothing to help them at all, there are no provisions for those in duress.

For Builders

The plan gives them large tax breaks. Over a three year period no less.

The same guys who made huge fortunes building homes and condos at inflated prices the last 6 years.

For investors

$7000 tax credits for buying foreclosed properties. This can include big businesses like lenders.

Buying a foreclosed home means going to a foreclosure sale. At this time this will mean 99-100% lenders tax credit as no one else will be there.

$4 billion in grants for communities to buy and fix up abandoned homes.

Grants will probably be given to those that can afford to buy lots of those homes, like large investment firms, lenders, and builders. Local Joe Public will see little of this in my opinion

For the oil companies and their ‘renewable energy divisions.’

$6 billion in unrelated tax breaks. This tax break goes against the Senates own rules regarding revenue increases.

Well, you elected corrupt people to lead, what did you expect. The businesses that made the most money in the last 10 years were Oil companies. They are the ones that will get this $6 billion tip. What the heck is this doing in a foreclosure bill?

Other notes

The plan modernizes the FHA to allow more people to refinance into loans back by ‘the depression-era agency.’

So, if you have good credit and payment history, the FHA will be there for you. Of course that helps no one in trouble at all.

Rumors of what the House will do when it receives it.

Try to reject 25 billion in tax breaks to ‘money-losing’ businesses like home builders.

I think, if I were to be cynical, that only ‘money-making’ home builders will get this.

The House seems to want to drop the tax credit for buying foreclosed properties.

Maybe they are afraid too many regular people may be able to buy a foreclosed home?

For the people

$150 billion for pre-foreclosure counseling and stronger loan disclosure requirements.

The only ‘foreclosure counselors’ will be your lenders. The only ones doing disclosure requirements will be your lenders. Lenders, say hello to another 150 Billion, thanks for the memories.

Tax breaks for ‘first-time’ home buyers and investors in low income rental housing.

You could sum this up as ‘Nobody and slum lords.’

A separate house bill would be paired with it that gives $300 billion to refinance loans for 1 million+ homeowners who ‘might face’ foreclosure.

Keyword ‘might’, this means if you are in foreclosure or probably cannot stop heading towards it you will not be eligible. This is a sad joke.

The White House

George Bush, the President, ‘opposes’ the plan but has no plans to veto the final version coming from the House.

Thanks for ‘almost’ George!

The Bush administration countered those plans Wednesday with its own, far narrower, proposal. It would expand an existing FHA program to allow more homeowners who are facing large rate hikes to refinance into more affordable government-insured loans

And this will preclude everyone in trouble or who already faced huge rate hikes

Would you be mad if Congress stole power from You?

Did you know that Congress is Crushing the renewable energy industry?
The govt is turning its back on the solar and wind industries, Congress is set to vote a new energy bill and they left out ALL benefits for the solar+wind industries! All tax credits for these systems are out the window. it reminds of me of how they killed the electric car…

We are at the whim of big oil companies,

SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING, this proves that even congress + the democrats dont REALLY believe we are causing global warming.

you can do something now, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/toby-barlow/news-alert-if-you-love-r_b_71888.html

Can the US economy handle $850 billion in new spending?

If Obama Could Enact All Of His Campaign Proposals, Taxpayers Would Be Faced With Financing Over $850 Billion In New Spending Over One White House Term:

Obama’s Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years.”[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.” (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, “Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage,” The New York Times, 5/30/07)

Obama’s Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To 15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years.”Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of bio fuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)

Obama’s Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years.”[Obama’s] proposed tax cuts and credits, aimed at workers earning$50,000 or less per year, would cost the Treasury an estimated $85billion annually.” (Margaret Talev, “Obama Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/19/07)

Obama’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest. Obama’s tax plan includes: “Increasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The Middle Class,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/8/08)

Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package Will Cost $75 Billion.”Barack Obama’s economic plan will inject $75 billion of stimulus into the economy by getting money in the form of tax cuts and direct spending directly to the people who need it most.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan To Stimulate The Economy,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 1/13/08)

Obama’s Early Education And K-12 Package Will Cost $18 Billion A Year; Equal To $72 Billion Over Four Years.”Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18billion per year.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama’s Plan For Lifetime Success Through Education,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 11/20/07, p. 15)

Obama’s National Service Plan Will Cost $3.5 Billion A Year; Equal To $14 Billion Over Four Years.”Barack Obama’s national service plan will cost about $3.5 billion per year when it is fully implemented.” (Obama For America, “Helping All Americans Serve Their Country: Barack Obama’s Plan For Universal Voluntary Citizen Service,” Fact Sheet, www.barackobama.com, 12/5/07)

Obama Will Increase Our Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion.”Obama will embrace the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015, and he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 53)

Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees.”He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 51)

Obama Will Provide $1.5 Billion To Help States Adopt Paid-Leave Systems.”As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 15)

Obama Will Provide $1 Billion Over 5 Years For Transitional Jobs And Career Pathway Programs, Equal To $200 Million A Year And $800Million Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that implement proven methods of helping low-income Americans succeed in the workforce.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 42)

Obama Will Provide $50 Million To Jump-Start The Creation Of An IAEA-Controlled Nuclear Fuel Bank. Obama:”We must also stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology and ensure that countries cannot build — or come to the brink of building — a weapons program under the auspices of developing peaceful nuclear power. That is why my administration will immediately provide $50million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Ag

How come the liberal entitlement programs are not economically sustainable?

There are great inefficiencies in EVERY single entitlement program passed by liberals in the past like:

– Medicare

– Medicaid

– Social Security

– Welfare

– Food Stamps

– Section 8 housing
@Gee Willy – Even if I wanted to, it’s going to be broke by the time I retire which is in 44 years.

how to solve the world food shortage in the long term?

This isnt going to happen overnight. Lets say you have 100 years to fix this mess

You can make any policies you want, but they must be sustainable (and not just demanding big nations to pay for all the starving countries)

why is food so expensive EVERYWHERE?

I would understand if the price were going up in some areas alone..but if food prices are going up everywhere, how is that even sustainable, who profits?
and why is this a global problem?

I need a creative name for a whole food bar.?

Open to suggestions. The bar is all natural, made with local produce, and the companies thing is being sustainable. Also, it is handmade in the mountains.
Open to suggestions. The bar is all natural, made with local produce, and the companies thing is being sustainable. Also, it is handmade in the mountains.

If you can tell me how to transfer them, I will pay 50 points to the winner.

ridiculous sign posted in “hippy” health food store?

In my town there is a health food store called “new leaf” that sells only organic, sustainable, earth-friendly foods and I love their products. However, I read a sign posted in one of the aisles that read “we do not have cameras in this store; everybody should have access to quality, earth-friendly foods”. I’m sorry, but I don’t care how “liberal/hippyish/etc” a store is, are they out of their minds?

Natural, Organic and Eco-Friendly Products?

i wanted to know if anyone would know some Products that are natural or organic or Eco – friendly but most inmortently they have NO ANIMAL TESTING! thank you
P.S. if you do know a product please say what compeny it’s from

can you tell me of a website that provides Eco friendly baby products?

i was so shocked to learn of all the chemicals in things like johnsons baby shampoo ect. i want to wash my baby in soap that has hardly any chemicals that really work.

Just what is eco-friendly products? another one of Gores pipe dreams?

I read this gobledy goop tripe all over Q&A, so how does something qualify for eco–friendly? Does it just appear? And when you finish with it does it just disappear? What requires nothing? Grass, sand, water? What purpose could it serve if it contains nothing, does nothing, and ends up as nothing? Or as with most things that make no real sense do you have different levels of “eco–friendly” if it only uses this much oil, than its this, or if it is hauled on a donkey cart by a kid in Mexico it is “this eco–friendly” Everything must be made, transported, and sold. Even if it is just the money issue, you still use either cash, check or charge all of these use fuel to move, ship, travel etc. Is this not just another level of hypocrisy from the “wacko” enviromentlest? Even the Internet uses elec. from coal-fired power plants, rubber encased cables, screens that contain mercury and so on. I know, I know, its the THOUGHT that counts, not the actual benifit.

Will eco friendly products march over thier polluting conterparts in coming years?

Eco Friendly Products And Incentives?

Recycling and purchasing eco friendly products is an easy way for each of us to do our part in combatting climate change and protecting the earth. It is discouraging, however, when taking such initiatives is made more expensive or otherwise difficult than being lazy and not doing anything. What are some good products or programs you know of that promote environmental consciousness by offering incentives for eco friendliness?
Castle Ink offers eco friendly printer ink at a huge discount, making purchasing printer ink inexpensive and good for the environment: http://www.castleink.com/

Strong economy or solutions to environment and social issues?

We have social and enviromental problems in the UK, US, Western Europe but we seem to be happy if our economy is strong.

I understand that economic growth has resulted in healthcare, enough to eat and a home for almost everybody – this is a good thing. However, social and environmental issues are often not tackled and are negected due to the economics and trying to become more “wealthy “as a country.

Now we all have enough to eat, have a home and have healthcare…should we now tackle our problems with society and environment?
Terrorism: It is a social issue.

Environmental issues: Global warming (I am ignoring the first comment but not the peer reviewed articles on the subject), smog, acidic rain, polluted rivers, deforestation, extinction of plants and animals, polluted seas etc. etc.

Why do the left wing nuts keep ranting about Global Warming causing sunamis?

When everyone know that they are caused by Earthquakes. And to use mercury filled lightbulbs to save the earth when these bulbs will find their way to landfills and cause even more pollution? Why won’t they consider nuclear power when its been shown to be safe in our country for years? Now I here that they say that having a third child is as bad as driving an SUV or not recycling? The more these radical environmentalists say the less credibility they are going to have when there really are environmental issues that need to be addressed. We need environmental solutions that we can really use on a wide scale rather than scare tactics or poor solutions to environmental issues that will come back to bite us in the ass.

When will Yahoo allow us users -their very reason to be- to post our comments?

EXTRA!!! Victims pay for The Media crimes.

We are in a democratic society, right? Well. I’m begining to doubt it. There is hardly a single, high traffic place in the web where you can comment on the news, politician statements, environmental issues etc. What is this? a Media DIctatorship? May be Hugo Chavez is right. We are hardly allowed any feedback at all on the streaming, overwhelming garbage we get everyday from the e-media. Wake up folks, we are in the 3D millenia. Open up the democratic windows!

I just read about Beatles’ “All You Need is Luvs” diapers ad. The author probably suffered a brain meltdown with his/her effort. Goodness Gracious!!! how cheap and low “art”.

Rather than abusively try to profit from someone else’s fame take a creative development intensive course.

Sadly there is no longer a place in YAHOO to comment on this. Shame on… someone.

How can I contact U2 for a social justice appearance?

We are planning a 2007 Social Justice Forum in Atlanta Georgia and are interested in talking with U2 to see how we can get them envolved.

UNITED STATES SOCIAL FORUM

www.ussocialforum.org

JUNE 27- JULY 1, 2007 – ATLANTA, GEORGIA

be a part of this historic moment

The Forum plans to address four key current issues—the Gulf Coast Crisis, Immigration, Environmental Justice, and War/Violence at home and abroad—through the lens of white supremacy, local/global economic justice, culture, and movement building. There will also be space for self-organized workshops that fall outside of the four issues, but are still deeply connected to the overarching lens.

At the ussf WE will……

· Convene more than 20,000 individuals from across the United States (we expect lots of international visitors) in Atlanta, Georgia.

· Strengthen the relationship between and among United States based organizations

· Provide space for political and economic education on issues facing all of us living in the Global South, especially the long-term effects of the Gulf Coast disaster and the War in Iraq.

· Provide an opportunity for essential leadership development of those in our community bases who are most affected by economic and racial injustice.

· Build a progressive infrastructure of grassroots and community-based organizations across the US South for long-term movement-building work.

What is the environmental impact of the 73 million pet dogs in the United States?

“# There are approximately 73 million owned dogs in the United States
# Thirty-nine percent of U.S. households own at least one dog
# Most owners (60 percent) own one dog
# Twenty-five percent of owners own two dogs
# Fourteen percent of owners own three or more dogs
# On average, owners have almost two dogs (1.7)
# The proportion of male to female dogs is about even
# Sixteen percent of owned dogs were adopted from an animal shelter
# On average, dog owners spent $211 on veterinary visits (vaccine, well visits) annually”

from http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/pet_overpopulation_and_ownership_statistics/us_pet_ownership_statistics.html

===============================================

Dogs consume natural resources just like humans, don’t they?

===============================================

How is water connected to sustainable prosperity and sustainable development?

Social Studies grade ten question.

What was the first book to clearly lay out the concept of ‘sustainable development”?

2 more questions here! – What was their definition of the term? and do you think this definition is adequate?

How can I know if a house have a good structure like providing a sustainable development?

I plan to buy house in Panama and I want to know if it is a good one or not..

Are there any communities in India, related to environmental issues and sustainable development?

If I can get the details to connect with them that will be great.
I am looking for the resources in south INdia and issues can be any relating environmental /sustainable development/design.

What does Jesus tell you to do or even think about over population and sustainable development?

Or are your discussions with Jesus based strictly on your personal life as if the world around it somehow doesn’t matter?

Why can’t we just use all the alternative energy sources that were developed on Clinton’s watch?

We had plenty of money back then. Enron was building baseball stadiums. Hummers were a common sight on our highways. We were swimming in Ponzi scheme money. Madoff was stealing like mad, but nobody cared because his Ponzi scheme was puny compared to the Enron Ponzi scheme.

We must have developed all kinds of alternative energy sources back then. We had the money, and everybody had plenty of free time, after the New Economy persuaded us to give up our jobs to foreigners in anticipation of all the vast new industries that would spring up.

Yep, any minute now, those new industries will start SPRINGING up. Watch for it now. Any minute now — don’t blink, you might miss it…..
Jack, so you’re saying Bill Clinton invented nuclear power? ROTFL!

how many jobs will be created by off shore drilling and how will that boost the economy?

How many jobs will be created by the overall increase in oli drilling and research into alternative energy sources?

Is there an alternative to Red Bull brand energy drink that will give me lots of energy, but without the wings?

I find them unsightly and my job demands I maintain a professional appearance!
I didnt know Monster gives you wings, too!

I guess it really turns you into a monster!

if both(McCain and Obama) are for off shore drilling and not alternative energy. then we the people are in

serious troble,why isn’t any-one listening to the people whose concerns are about the children who they have already left with nothing after we die.hugh bills , no jobs,no future as is and now no way to survive winters, come-on washington, get a clue, we can invest in ourselves but not on a grid again.what is wrong with solar energy and wind power, each home should have it’s own units.leave something for our youth in case of emergency.

What is a good area of science to study to work in an alternative energy field?

I’m fifteen and I’m trying to choose my college major, and I want to do something in alternative energy. What is one field of scientific study that would have a role in developing all of these alternative energy sources?

1) Solar (both photovoltaic and solar thermal)

2) Wind

3) Hydroelectric and Tidal

4) Biofuels

5) Biomass

6) Nuclear power

Just wondering, would someone with a Doctorate in Applied Physics be able to find a niche (and job) in all of these energy sources? What else could someone with a doctorate in Applied Physics do in the green technology field? If Applied Physics doesn’t fit the bill, what is one other field of study that would be used very widely in alternative energy and green technology?

How much electricity will it take to feed the world’s estimated population in 2050?

My question is this: How much electricity would vertical farming take to feed the worlds 9billion people in 2050?

The artificial lights take up a high amount of energy but i’m wondering how much. Condescending question: Would all the renewable energy available that we are technologically capable of right now suffice for the artificial light we would use in 2050 for our food? If not, if our efficiency on these renewable energies grew to suffice the demand of the light how much would our efficiency need to increase?

What if the govenrments of the world stopped spending money on hiding the truth?

What if the govenrments of the world quit spending money on hiding things from their own people and the other governments around the world. Now throw in the military/espionage budgets. Now imagine if we were organized and started working together toward common goals like renewable energy/space travel. What kind of things could we accomplish and in what timeframe?

Why are so many conservatives against Global Warming or preservation/renewable energy?

I do not understand why so many conservatives or Right Wings are so skeptical of climate change. I know many industries, corporations, and politicians have monetary and political gains at stake but what do citizens have to benefit from denying global warming? Let’s just say the earth is in fact warming because it is going through its natural cycle…okay so is it still right that we pollute the earth with hazardous materials and emittents? What is so wrong about trying to use renewable energy and making an effort to preserve and conserve our natural resources. We aren’t saving the planet for the planet, we are really just trying to save ourselves. What’s so wrong about environmentalism? I just want to ask and get an honest opinion and please no fanatical theories or end of the world sh#$.
Like I said before no fanatical b.s. Obviously you morons can’t read and mac can take your techno-clubbing looking avatar and shove it up your own bum. I wanted truthful answers that explained it not misogynistic tirade. Back up your statements with facts not propaganda.
My question is why are the majority of conservatives against stringent environmental regulations, I never said all were. I know that hazardous materials aren’t the case of climate change but I am speaking about the conservative mind set on environmentalism in general.
New word for global warming is climate change. Doesn’t necessarily have to be warmer.

How come none of the automakers are interested in finding a renewable energy source?

I have approached several auto makers US and Japanese with a thought process concerning renewable energy in cars.
I do believe that it is possible and that this should be a mechanical process.
From the US automakers not even a sound of acknowledgment while from the Japanese car makers I received invitations to share my thoughts with them and the fact that they offered protective rights for me.
This is so frustrating.

Here in the US if your not part of the redneck circle or the Buddie circle your screwed and so are any good Ideas.
Sad very sad and we wonder why we will lose our position in the world market.

Climate change or energy security?

Governments, NGOs and lobbyists are demanding the world moves to renewable energy sources in order to reduce carbon emissions and alleviate climate change. What actual difference “on the ground” would it make if they insisted the world moves to renewable energy sources because the oil and gas reserves are diminishing and demand is starting to exceed supply?