gunter wrote:Oh sorry, Ray. I'd forgotten that cigarettes were the cause of climate change. My badd.
“It all upsets me because I feel like we keep losing sight of simpler, smaller things,” Shields told Pop Tarts.
The actress and supermodel lives here. She also owns a couple of homes in New York City, one recently purchased, according to the link below.
“I don’t know what is true or not, I only know what I can do on a daily basis because I believe in it. Whether I am turning the water off in between brushing my teeth, which my little daughter is the police of, or I am recycling, or switching my products or using an energy saving washing machine…. I just have to do the best that I can do and keep doing more.”
Shields stars alongside Brendan Fraser in the new family comedy “Furry Vengeance” which is centered around a real estate developer who has to go up against a clique of angry animals when his new housing subdivision encroaches on their habitat. Led by a raccoon, the woodland critters seek revenge to stop the construction and teach the developer about the environmental consequences of humankind invading nature.
“There’s an eco message but it is not something that we’re preaching,” Shields explained. “We hope it spurs conversation with our kids about Mother Nature, the environment and the animals and how they can respect that.”
The campaign will focus on further advocating the message of wildlife and habitat preservation in over 16,000 schools across the country and educate pupils on the effects everyday decisions have on their terrain.
ryguy wrote:It would be interesting to see how much energy the movie production process consumes. Given the staff, equipment and resources required, I would bet that it's substantial.
The city of Los Angeles is principally famous for two things: glittering movies and suffocating smog. Now researchers have found that the two are not unconnected. A study by the University of California Los Angeles shows the film and television industry to be the second largest polluter in the Los Angeles area. Only the region's oil refineries pump more pollutants into the air, it says.
The two-year study estimates that the industry emits 140,000 tonnes a year of ozone and diesel particulate emissions.
But the main culprit for Hollywood's pollution problem lies with the use of multiple sub-contractors and short-term production companies to provide everything from special effects to catering. The report noted that "the industry's structure and culture hamper the pace of improvements".
While many studios have individual programmes to establish recycling quotas, prevent air pollution and conserve natural resources, there is little regulation.
gunter wrote: So good luck in your endeavors- and adios. I'm out of this discussion.
Among other things, the group, known as the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), found:
• U.N. efforts at setting internal guidelines on environmental housekeeping and management across its sprawling network of global organizations are "uncoordinated ad hoc efforts" that "continue to be scattered."
• Most of the environmental measures implemented by the central organs of its many funds and programs, not to mention the central U.N. secretariat, "are not based on any specific guidance and are not documented in a clear and transparent way."
• Almost all U.N. organizations, when queried, could not break out financial data on any measures or specific spending on environmental measures on their own account. One consequence, according to the inspectors: "the economic and ecological advantages to be derived" from new, efficient energy or recycling technologies "were not recognized" in U.N. bookkeeping.
• When it comes to the U.N.'s own contributions to solving the global greenhouse gas problem, the organization's efforts are, according to the inspectors, not only unsystematic but sometimes indecipherable. The U.N. generates the equivalent of 1.741 million metric tons of carbon dioxide — defined by the U.N. itself as the world's most prevalent and pernicious greenhouse gas — every year (more than such countries as Mauritius, Guyana and Laos). But it apparently doesn't have any administrative framework to handle the purchase of carbon offsets to balance its emissions, or even a systematic way to purchase or account for them.
• When it came to paying the tab for its own carbon emissions, U.N. accounting is incoherent, or opaque, or both. According to the inspectors, that tab could run to about $34.2 million annually at mid-2009 prices, but when it came to seeing how those carbon offset purchases were made across the U.N. system, the inspectors "have not been able to sort them out either in attribution of budget lines used for this purpose, or in terms of sources of financing."
To be fair, the JIU inspectors do not see ill-will on the U.N.'s failure to "walk the talk" of green citizenship. Instead, the inspectors blame bureaucratic inertia, internal anarchy, lack of careful thinking, and especially lack of clear, system-wide rules as the main reasons for the high-minded mess
What's the point in arguing when there's no prospect of an understanding? I'll gladly let the Pythons have the stage.Yes, I know... when one can no longer argue their point cogently, it is best to invoke the time-honored tradition espoused by your friends, the Pythons: "RUN AWAY!"
gunter wrote:What's the point in arguing when there's no prospect of an understanding? I'll gladly let the Pythons have the stage.
gunter wrote:Notice any difference?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest