[Rob Hood]

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=128569

Article is posted in case the link is bad -

SACRAMENTO, California — The state of California will require all 2009 model and later cars to be labeled with stickers giving their global warming score, starting at the beginning of the year. The labels will rate vehicles on a scale of 1-10 — with 10 being the best and 5 an average number — based on direct emissions and emissions related to fuel production, and will let consumers make comparisons between models.

California vehicles already are given a Smog Score, in which new models are rated on a 1-10 scale for emissions. The labeling will be displayed side by side on new vehicles sold in the state. Consumers can also look up detailed information on the Drive Clean Web site.

New York can expect a similar sticker law for new models starting in 2010.

What this means to you: Environmental-impact stickers: not just for refrigerators anymore.

[00 Trans Ram]

Environmentalists have to be some of the most self-centered, egotistical people on the planet.

Why would I say that? Here's why. They talk about "greenhouse gasses" raising the temperature of the planet. Plants make up the vast majority of life on the planet, and they happen to like the greenhouse effect. It is good for their groth and proliferation.

They talk about CO2 emissions. Well, CO2 is also good for plants. It also promotes growth and proliferation

What about global warming? Let's assume this is true, although a growing number of scientists are disagreeing. Global warming is expanding the temperate zones of the world. It is also expanding the tropical and sub-tropical zones. These are the areas of the planet where most life exists. Therefore, it is expanding their habitat.

But what about the the ice melting and the seas rising? The oceans make up 99% of the inhabitable space on earth, and contain 90% of the groups of major living things. Every single drop of water contains life, whereas polar ice is almost barren. Life likes water.

So, why is all this bad for Earth? It's not. It's bad for HUMANS. All of those things above are bad for us, but good for the earth. So, for environmentalists to say that "we're killing Mother Earth" is a flat out lie. We're making the Earth a less habitable place for ourselves, perhaps. If we want to be self-serving and "look out for #1" then we need to all drive solar cars and sing Koom By Yah. But, if we want to do what is in the best interest of all life on earth, we'll just keep on keepin' on!

[DRD T-bone]

Environmentalists have to be some of the most self-centered, egotistical people on the planet.

Why would I say that? Here's why. They talk about "greenhouse gasses" raising the temperature of the planet. Plants make up the vast majority of life on the planet, and they happen to like the greenhouse effect. It is good for their groth and proliferation.

They talk about CO2 emissions. Well, CO2 is also good for plants. It also promotes growth and proliferation

What about global warming? Let's assume this is true, although a growing number of scientists are disagreeing. Global warming is expanding the temperate zones of the world. It is also expanding the tropical and sub-tropical zones. These are the areas of the planet where most life exists. Therefore, it is expanding their habitat.

But what about the the ice melting and the seas rising? The oceans make up 99% of the inhabitable space on earth, and contain 90% of the groups of major living things. Every single drop of water contains life, whereas polar ice is almost barren. Life likes water.

So, why is all this bad for Earth? It's not. It's bad for HUMANS. All of those things above are bad for us, but good for the earth. So, for environmentalists to say that "we're killing Mother Earth" is a flat out lie. We're making the Earth a less habitable place for ourselves, perhaps. If we want to be self-serving and "look out for #1" then we need to all drive solar cars and sing Koom By Yah. But, if we want to do what is in the best interest of all life on earth, we'll just keep on keepin' on!

Interesting idea. I'd argue that the basis of environmentalism quite the opposite; it's the sacrifice of select human "luxuries" in the pursuit of maintaining a prosperous life sustaining environment for all of the species; hardly selfish.

The expansion of temperate zones has the general effect of moving habitats towards the poles, whether this is "good" or "bad" for each species depends on each species' ability to adapt. Ultimately those species that do survive would in theory be better adapted for survival of any other major changes in climate or other hardships, but the philosophical question of the day is, "Is this Darwinian natural selection that is (supposedly) driven by human industrialization actually "unnatural" selection?" Environmentalists say, no, human industrialization should not force the extinction of entire species of animals, no matter how significant or insignificant the species. I argue that the two are not mutually exclusive; we can easily thrive and prosper as industrialized humans while keeping the "animal kingdom" largely undisturbed. If people could back away from the negative stigmas of hippies singing around campfires and reevaluate what they want the world to look like for the future generations I think we can continue making serious progress. Likewise, those seated around the campfire should probably get up and get a job trying to make actual social or environmental progress.