?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Eco-Rant [entries|friends|calendar]
eco_rant

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Sign the petition against global warming! [14 Mar 2007|03:12pm]

andreya
Dear fellow environmental enthusiasts!
Sign this global petition and help spread the word!
Only 4 days to go, and they have 93,731 signed already! 100.000 is the goal - be part of it!

Mucho love!
Andreya
*** OFFICIAL TEXT ****
This Thursday, the environment ministers from the G8, the world's biggest contributors to climate change, will be meeting in Germany. The outcome of this meeting is crucial to world's response to global warming.

Avaaz.org has been invited to attend this meeting to present our climate change petition. A strong voice for action could help set the agenda for the G8. To help seize this opportunity, click below:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/climate_action_germany/tf/php
Read more...Collapse )
post comment

[30 Oct 2006|04:44pm]
marissa8
Hi, I'm new to this community. I was curious to know your views on the use of hybrid vehicles. Do you feel as though the government should take part in supplying a sort of incentive to buyers of a hybrid? Do you feel hybrids should become more popularized due to the benefits they have on our economy and our pockets?
1 comment|post comment

hi i just joined... [30 Jul 2006|09:14pm]

t_anderson
hello, I first just want to say that i am not a huge environmentalist or anti-corporations person, I found this community and joined it for another reason:

I personally don't drive at all and I am truthfully fine with it, but sometimes, it really feels like I am the ONLY person on Earth who doesn't, and it just makes me look "weird", so, I typed in "anti driving" in the interest search section, and this was all that came up. Even though it looks like this is more about how cars pollute the environment, and that they do, I still have a good feeling there are a few other non-drivers in here, here's a bit more of my story on why I don't:

I am 21, I tried the permit test a few times when I was 17, never really got around to it when I was 16, and well, I thought the questions on it would all be pretty easy, but, they weren't, so, I didn't do too good, and, eventually I just stopped going, and I haven't been back since, and I really don't want to go back... here are my reasons on why I choose not to drive:

1. I HATE THE DMV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT! it is the SLOWEST place on Earth, they must call up one person every 6 hours! and, the people that work there, well ehr, most of them, are rude and unfriendly

2. Gas prices: enough said here, who needs to waste 3 or 4 dollars on gas?

3. Idiotic drunk drivers: I do not want to put myself in the paths of these idiots

those are pretty much my top 3, and well, the other true reason is that I'm just kind of afraid of it... I had a hard enough time handling a go-kart when I was a kid, I can't imagine myself getting comfortable in an actual car..

ok I won't say too much more, I just want to know if there is anyone else in this community who doesn't drive and is fine with it, that way I wouldn't "stand out" so often just because i dont have a driver's liscense... thanks!
6 comments|post comment

[31 Oct 2005|02:32pm]
shaolin_dagger
ello all. here is a tone downed rant i wrote a while ago.

-------

I went to the Tall Grass Prairie Nature Reserve in Oklahoma. It was amazing to see the rolling hills full of beautiful native grass!

Throughout the trip, I went around taking pictures of plants so that I could identify them later. While I was doing this, I felt like my senses were coming a little more into tune. I could concentrate a lot more and could see a new plant as I passed it, instead of missing it. It felt really good. Surprisingly, the hot weather didn't bother me, because I was having a blast.

But (the original curse word), I got to thinking like I always do about National Reserves. Before the settlers came to America, the prairies covered most of the central United States. Now, since most of the land has been converted to farmland and cattle land, only 10% of the original prairie land is left. My point is this: most people think of natural reserves as if they are some kind of great thing (and to an extent, yes, they are a good thing), but I really think that reserves are for the most part about Pleasure and Capital. These preserves don’t stop the conditions that caused the destruction of the forests, prairies, streams, etc, which once surrounded them. They really are here just to admire what's left.

Strangely, when I was in the park, I had a feeling that the devastation everywhere on Planet Earth was solved. I thought, look at all this prairie! This must mean that there must be more! I thought, the forests are back from their 500-year cold spell! I knew I was dreaming. You often get that kind of feeling when you are around something so beautiful. National parks give me the illusion that everything is OK. After all, these national parks are ours. There is a unity! We’re all in it together! We all want to save the world from our own technology! Right? But! Lest you forget, this land isn’t ours and neither are the national parks. They are someone else’s. Whose you ask? Oh, those Indians are always complaining. In case I sound too sarcastic, my point is that the National Parks aren’t even ours in the sense that we’ve never had control of what happens to them and in the sense that we are not Native to this land.

So, principle purpose of Natural Parks, it seems to me, is not to particularly preserve the land, but to say: This is what we decided to leave "untouched" for you're viewing pleasure. Hence, "nature" is a sort of a television show. TV makes everything look big and pretty. We go to the spots in the preserve that are socially agreed upon as "pretty spots," and then we leave.

When I was in Yosemite, one of the first things I saw was a golf course. I also saw pop machines and restaurants. Later on, I saw an article in the paper that said that wireless internet connection is now possible in the wilderness. All these things made Yosemite look like a city in the wilderness. In fact, a volunteer at Yosemite National Park told me that most of the people spend an average of two hours in side of the park. Is this a choice? Or is it mindset? I think it's a mindset, because it was not always this way.

As more and more people become accustomed/conditioned to the concrete wastelands called Cities, we become less accustomed to the Real World—the earth. Cities, the defining characteristic of all civilizations, were originally built to keep the barbarians (rebels) and the natural world out and to keep the citizens inside. The modern city is essentially the same thing, but now the barbarians are nowhere to be found and everyone seems keen on living in the cities (many have been forced to move into cites, because they have had (more than likely) their homes destroyed in the name of Progress. You can see this now in Brazil, where millions of people have been forced to leave their homes in the rainforest, because of the ever increasing destruction of the forest—once their home now civilization’s “divine right” of conquest).

With this separation from the planet comes the man-made concept called Nature. Nature is a representation and a creation of civilized man. Sort of like art is a representation of an idea. Civilized humans like their Nature to be pretty and not to muddy. We don't like to have mice in our homes, nor spiders, nor any other bugs (no bugs, no hassles), so we kill them. No mushrooms in our yards, either. Even though, all these things are EXTREMELY important to the eco-system. In fact, our homes are not even designed for these beings. They are designed to keep them out. I would get rather mad if I counted the amount of people who are so proud of the non-indigenous grass they have in their front lawn.

Let’s take an example of what the illusion called Nature really is. Yellowstone National Park is home to the last free roaming wild Buffalo (and the herd isn’t herded by any farmer) herd that hasn’t yet been domesticated or killed. But, sadly, they are being killed because the USDA claims that many of these Buffalo could transfer a disease called brucellosis to cattle that are at the edge of the National Park. Brucellosis is a disease that causes abortions in cattle. With this claim in mind, the state of Montana has killed 3,922 Buffalo; for fear that they will transmit the disease to cattle. Here’s a small note: There has never been a real case or any kind of evidence that Buffalo can even transfer this disease. In another National Park called Grand Teton National Park, cattle and buffalo have mingled together for 45 years, and there has been no cases of disease transfer to cattle.

Right now, as the Buffalo migrate out of the park (towards cattle land), there are hunters who are allowed (by the state of Montana) to shoot any Buffalo that walk out of the boundary of the Park. Basically, any Buffalo that follows her migratory instincts can be shot. This is Nature: Cattle are more important than the ecosystem.

Pretty soon, Earth will become a planet of weeds. Weeds, meaning, something that only hurts the ecosystem. Pretty soon, the main animals of the earth will be cows, chickens, dogs and cats. And plants will follow suit—corn, wheat, rice. In fact, all of this is already true. As of now, civilization has affected 50% of the land on Earth. It has turned billions of acres into human mass (agriculture, cities, roads, etc). This is Nature, a mindset and man-made destroyer. Now, the man made tragedy that will fell the walls of Babylon.

We destroy the Earth like it's some kind of toy to be modified. We've become so bored of the Earth. We splice animal genes in corn, that’s already grown on an already impoverish soil, and we forget how small we as a species really are. On and on and on and on. We become arrogant. Arrogant people don’t often want to give up what they have.

I believe that the destruction of the planet goes much, much deeper than what we are doing to the air. Deeper than global warming. Deeper than any so-called solutions we are presented with (recycling, riding bikes, bio-diesel, etc). Some say that the domestication of humans is what brought on the original trauma that separated us from the planet. I tend to agree with this. When we are wild, in the sense that we adapt to our environment, we are completely immersed in the planet’s cycles.

Throughout my experiences in at Tall Grass, I kept thinking: this is the most peaceful place I've ever been to! Guess what? This is what Tulsa, Oklahoma used to look like! And you can see the plants from the long lost prairie growing in the places where no one mows their lawns or where the pavement allows a plant to grow.

We need to ask ourselves: What is more important? Civilized humans or the planet? This isn't theoretical, either. It’s real. It's the question that should have been asked for 10,000 years. Are the metals in our cell phones (of which the mining has basically caused the killing of millions in the Congo) more important? Most people will say no, but the actions we take are completely different from the answers. Is human chauvinism more important than the Earth? Are 6 billion people, in this over-populated planet, more important than the Earth? The Earth that could kill us in a heartbeat. The Earth that can’t even support all of us (unless, of course, we use pesticides on an already depleted soil and then when we’ve screwed that land up, we can expand; preferably by cutting down another rainforest). The Earth that we’ve betrayed.

What is more important? Seriously. I’m going guilt anyone into this question. I’m only going to lay it out straight. All you need to do is think about.
4 comments|post comment

Why not develop your rant into an essay? [11 Aug 2005|04:26pm]

lanternbooks
Lantern Books is proud to announce our first annual essay contest.
The aim of our essay competition is to allow new thinking to emerge
on the key subjects of Lantern's publishing program and to encourage
new voices to step forward to shape the debate of the future. Please
read the rules and guidelines below.
Read more...Collapse )
post comment

Redhill and Hamilton [27 Nov 2004|12:42pm]

redhillvalley
The city of Hamilton continues its wonderful work in trying to beat down those opposed to the dieway. Hamilton now says it is opposing and charging those involved with any kind of opposition.

See links for more info.
http://environmenthamilton.org/CATCH/articles/art_0411/art_041117lashout.htm

Why can't citizens know more what is happening at city hall?
http://environmenthamilton.org/CATCH/articles/art_0410/art_041024secrecy.htm

Lawsuit against Ottawa
http://environmenthamilton.org/CATCH/articles/art_0409/art_040930lawsuit.htm

The city tries again....


http://hamilton.indymedia.org
post comment

Hamilton, Ontairo, Canada, is illegal in soo many ways..REd HIll [16 Oct 2004|01:04am]

redhillvalley
Hamilton, ONtario, Canada was given an environmental award the award by Ministry of Transportation.

The city has polluted, ignored ministry laws in many areas. The largest area of concern is the REdHill Valley. Hamilton has taken the largest greenspacei n the city and is putting through a road, with illegal and noncomplete environmental assessments. They are realigning a creek that has caused problems already. The water in the east end of the city became polluted and undrinkable due to this project.

There is a new forum called http://www.livejournal.com/community/redhillhamilton

for links regarding this issue check out
http://www.hwcn.org/link/forhv/

Also, there are issues regarding this being Native land that was not surrendered to the government. The city has built(is plannign to build) through a Native village site (Haundenaushaunee) over 700 years old!
With burials.

Check out

http://hamilton.indymedia.org

http://www.keepersofthesacredfire.com

THanks
RedHill Lives
post comment

Hey All You Ranters... [16 Sep 2004|09:55am]

violentsteph
[ mood | aggravated ]

If any of your ranters in here want to check out another rant community, me and my Best friend Shina made one so come check it out:



We're only a community of 3 right now, but I would like fellow bitchers to join!!

Thanks and keep Ranting,
Violentsteph

post comment

[27 Jun 2004|09:57pm]

ikyschd
I hate my van. It sucks. It's huge, it eats my gas, and eats my money. I just got a moped, and I hope to be able to drive that whenever I drive alone. Not only is it fun, but it's way cheaper. Cheaper to manage (because hardly nothing can brake), cheaper for gas at 100+ mph, and just overall more efficiant because I'm not pulling out a heap of metal.
1 comment|post comment

[29 Mar 2004|08:16pm]

ikyschd
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees & then name streets after them.
2 comments|post comment

The uses of vehicles [24 Mar 2004|09:29pm]

ikyschd
Cars -
I hate people that waste money on "improving" their engines. Cars do not need to go over 80mph EVER, not even 70. They might as well donate that money to burning some other chemicals while they are at it. Other than fast engines, cars are not all that bad. Most people don't need that extra wagon space, because seriously who uses a car for more than driving to work or the store often enough to haul that extra metal? My ideal vehicle would be a small car, incapable of going over 80mph, with only enough room for 2 and a little bit of gear, or food.

Trucks -
I abhor trucks. Trucks has absolutely no purpose other than to transport wood, rock, mulch, dirt, etc in the bed. With that said, dually trucks (the kind with 4 back wheels) are absolutely horrid. The only time they need that feature is on a tow truck. I hate people that own trucks and don't use the bed on a daily basis.

SUVs -
These have no purpose at all. If you want to transport people, rent a van. They just guzzle gas and drive these huge vehicles through the city with no purpose.

Vans -
Vans aren't too horrible. If a single person drives one just cause they like the space than that is an issue, but I think typically vans are only bought by families with kids that need to be brought to sports games and whatnot. However, company vans are usually not necessary, and a larger car usually works just as well as a van. I can fit 4 people and their gear for a weekend winter camping in a Subaru Legacy (not even wagon) so basically a van is overkill.

Jeeps -
The purpose of a jeep was to drive across all sorts of terrain in war. Obviously everyone with a jeep doesn't drive across battlefields everyday. I can see how some people use them as a sport vehicle to drive through mucky roads and whatnot, but other than that they are incredibly pointless.

What it all comes down to, is that hardly anyone really needs the car that they have/use for their purposes. The majority of them could use a VW Beetle and still have plenty of room. At least Europe has some sense and buys much smaller cars. That sounds like a much better solution than widening roads all the time. I wish the gov. would stop widening roads, let the traffic build up to extremes, and then people would be forced to buy smaller cars, or use alternate forms of transportation like trains and buses. That that's a whole 'nother subject...
1 comment|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]