Everyone should ride the bus so that I can drive.
The Environmental Protection Agency is conducting a seven-hundred-thousand-dollar study to see if Alaskan trees are polluting Oregon forests. You can tell Republicans are in power. Pollution? It's those damn trees.
The industrial processes in use today were developed at a time when no one had to consider what the environmental impact was. Who cared? But making ecological concerns matter to a company's bottom line will help it do the research and development that will reinvent everything we buy.
Why should we not expect self-designated environmental leaders to practice what they preach?
We forced Richard Nixon and the Congress who established, and thanks to your leadership, we supported you and we got the Environmental Protection Act and Agency.
. . . placing economic activity in the context of the whole earth requires attention to the question of scale. Bigger is obviously not better, so the optimum scale of human economy in relation to the total economy becomes basically a question of sustainability. When the effects of the economy on the environment undercut the possibility of its own continuance, the scale is too large.
The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide.
"Thank You for Being Late" pinpoints 2007 as the year what he calls the, quote, great acceleration began, ushering in a dizzying and disorienting era of change - technological, economic, environmental. Dealing with that change, the challenge of our time, says Tom Friedman. He's here to explain it right now.
Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.
We must conserve our environment and pass it on to our children in as good or better condition than it was passed to us.
Almost all these hotspots around the world, most have been destroyed to the point where there is no wildlife and very little of the natural world left.
Today when the public thinks of the products of science it is likely to think about environmental problems, an unproductive armament industry, careless or dishonest 'scientific' reports, Livermore cheers for 'nukes forever' and a huge amount of self-serving noise on every subject from global warming to 'the face of God'.
We don't control everything. There are genetic influences. There are environmental exposures we don't control. I cannot guarantee anyone I counsel that by following what I hope is the good advice I offer them, they will live long and prosper. That's what I'm hoping for but I can't guarantee that. What I can tell them is this: "Look, I can help you firmly grip the wheel, and you can steer the ship. You're never going to control the winds and you're never going to control the seas. But if you sail well you can get through just about anything. "
To be modern is to destroy nature.
The government should set a goal for a clean environment but not mandate how that goal should be implemented.
Moral codes adjust themselves to environmental conditions.
Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.
The problems that we are facing are multiplying on the planet - economic, environmental, social, political upheaval, the list goes on. It's a time of change and transition and, as I see it, we are entering a new state of consciousness. It's a transition between one state of consciousness and another. It's an evolutionary leap that is happening.
What a country chooses to save is what a country chooses to say about itself.
Why would anyone believe it is possible to lay down such barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life? They should not be called insecticides, but biocides.