I think Greg "Kyoto" Nickels should put his money where his mouth is and advocate for some kind of new regulation that would make all new buildings - or at least all new buildings over a certain size, or something - have green roofs (rooves?).

It would be great if someone would come out and advocate strongly against air conditioning below 70 degrees. Why do we have to waste all this energy in order to make it so I have to wear a sweater to work in the summer?

Thank god the Stranger is so concerned with the environment.

My God you are Hypocrites

let see....

How many trees are used printing a weekly publication, and of course, the Stranger is not printed on recycled paper

Also, as it's a free publication, so there is no way to truly gauge it's actual circulation, so how many copies just go from the printer to the dumpster?

Why are there so many copies printed? In order to attract a dollar per impression cost, the stranger elevates it's press runs in order to charge higher advertising rates.

How much gas is used delivering these issues to news boxes, retail location as well as the dump?

How about gas used by people taking their cars to events advertised in the paper?

How many packs of cigarettes are sold through the advertisements?

And on and on it goes....

Look at me everybody! I'm smarter than anybody else!!!

Elevator Interior:

Bell Hop: Hey, how 'bout this heat?

Karl Rove: Flag Burner!

Judging by that map, it looks like the Bible Belt is sweltering with a huge uptick in heat. Maybe global warming ain't so bad?

Dude, you're reading the Stranger online.

Think about it.

How does that chop down trees.

...

Man, Bushies are so ... um ... incompetent.

You're going to post the same sort of pictures during the big cold snap this coming winter, right? News Flash! Heat waves don't always happen on the exact same date!

Oh, and somebody needs to tell Kimberly that when taking energy used in production, and lifespan into consideration, her hybrid is less energy efficient than a Hummer.

Shoshana's had a name change. Good for her.

BC: You're going to post the same sort of pictures during the big cold snap this coming winter, right? News Flash! Heat waves don't always happen on the exact same date!

Newsflash to BC from Bob Herbert in today's New York Times: "We should keep in mind, as Al Gore has pointed out, that of the 21 hottest years ever measured, 20 have occurred within the last 25 years."

Obviously, this is a desperate attempt to obscure and confuse, which raises the question, what's your motivation, BC?

Postscript to my response to BC. I do actually agree with his/her sentiment concerning hybrids, even though I find the statement comparing their energy use to Hummers dubious.

I also profoundly disagree with Kimberly's claim: "Global warming is caused by Republicans." Global warming is a nonpartisan issue because both parties have completely failed on it. Just, the Republicans are more brazen in their defiance.

I hate George Bush and the Republicans They are to blame for global warming. If we get rid of Republicans there will be no more global warming.

I walk to the grocery store, BC. Think about it.

Besides, Republicans are good at bonfires. Especially fun when you pile on more wood.

"I walk to the grocery store, BC. Think about it."

Will, of course you do. You forgot to finish the sentence though...

It should have read "I walk to the grocery store, BC. Think about it. How could I afford to buy a car when I can barely get by on my food stamps?"

I'm trying to dispute glabal warming in any way, but there are global weather cycles that tke 70 years or more to complete. Looking at the last 6 years alone is like saying that because the last 6 dogs you saw were black, all dogs in the future will be black.

I'm not trying to dispute glabal warming in any way, but there are global weather cycles that tke 70 years or more to complete. Looking at the last 6 years alone is like saying that because the last 6 dogs you saw were black, all dogs in the future will be black.

Assuming President DoucheBag/Retard doesn't kill us all in a nuclear war, it will be interesting to see who climate change deniers cope with the increasingly bad weather.

I'm sure some of them will take it as a sign from God or some such bullshit as they die of exposure or drown, but the others will probably just lose it - as would be expected from the weak-minded individuals who willfully ignore what is going on around them.

I'm an old fart - my life is at least 2/3 over, so I probably won't be here when it all goes down. And I've got no kids, so I don't have to care about that either. And really, when you get right down to it, it would be a fitting way for the species to die off. Greed and gluttony have always been uniquely human - and Americans have raised those characteristics to an art form.

So BC, and Paul and all you other dumbshits - enjoy what you got while you got it. At least MY generation got to make the most of it. You're the ones who'll be the losers.

I agree with doink's first post. Not so sure about his second, though.

Accent on the "or more" however. Global weather cycles can last considerably longer.

Oh, hey! And I walked to the grocery store today, too! It's healthy, and less expensive! I like doing things with proven positive results.

My motivation, Cressona, is to encourage people to put their effort into things with a high probability of improving life for the human race as a whole. Directly cutting CO2 emissions in first-world nations ain't gonna do that, despite what the "Old Man" there seems to think.

baby Paul, face it, I have a car. Heck, my retirement accounts are probably more full than a 60 yo's.

Now, wake up and smell the failure of neocons to clue in to reality.

oh, and directly cutting emissions in first world nations does help. Not only does it reduce emissions, improve visibility, make the air cleaner, it also cuts the supply line of al-Qaeda, who still - yup, today - get more than 90 percent of their funding and their volunteers from Saudi Arabia.

you either hate terrorists, or you're an incompetent Bushie. you can't be both.

Not to turn this into a blog comment one-on-one, but go take an econ 101 class. Reducing first-world petroleum consumption will increase it in the rest of the world, leaving Saudi Arabia's riches relatively intact, as if they didn't already have enough to fund terrorism for the next few centuries. It might impoverish some Albertans, though.

Incidentally, the only significant "pollutant" from newer cars is CO2, which is is invisible and non-toxic. So feel free to take "improve visibility" and "cleaner air" off your list.

Ugh. Stop with the bad science already.

Don't you folks get it? Global warming is real, and it is caused by human activity -- but you can't blame today's weather on global climate trends.

Every time you do this (promote bad scientific reasoning for your own pet causes), you damage real scientific progress.

"Global warming is ... caused by human activity"

Exclusively?

"but you can't blame today's weather on global climate trends."

Why?

More BC: Reducing first-world petroleum consumption will increase it in the rest of the world, leaving Saudi Arabia's riches relatively intact, as if they didn't already have enough to fund terrorism for the next few centuries. It might impoverish some Albertans, though.

Let me see if I have this straight here. If we send more of our money to Saudi Arabia, then they'll have less money to fund terrorism? That's some wonderful logic there.

I also have to praise your wonderful grasp of the law of supply and demand, BC. Has anyone else noticed that the higher the price of oil has risen, the more authoritarian oil-producing countries have become? If they can get so much money out of the ground, why should they invest in their human capital? Just think about it. If Iran is swimming in oil money, why wouldn't they want to fund Hezbollah and build nukes? Tom Friedman of The New York Times has been all over this correlation.

Speaking of supply and demand... The sad irony is that, if the United States hadn't gone on an oil-consuming binge that began in the Reagan years (and yes, continued through even the Clinton years), we wouldn't be seeing $3 gas today.

BC: My motivation, Cressona, is to encourage people to put their effort into things with a high probability of improving life for the human race as a whole.

Come on. What's your real motivation, like whom are you working for? When you start blurting out desperate foolishness like the quote below, your professed noble motives look all the more laughable:

"Global warming is ... caused by human activity"

Exclusively?

"but you can't blame today's weather on global climate trends."

Why?

Someone doesn't wake up and think, "How can I make the world a better place today? By encouraging my fellow Americans to consume as much oil as possible."

I notice you're not willing to answer the questions I pose.

Oh, and take a look into what countries are increasing their petroleum consumption at the highest rate, then tell me if spending a lot of time and effort to reduce first-world consumption is going to change that dramatically.

I told you my motivation. I think people who are focused on direct CO2 reduction are self-obsessed and short-sighted. There are better things humanity can do with its efforts.

Tennis stars photos here: <a href=http://tennisstars.info>Tennis Stars</a>