Hybrids are a good example. Spend a mere $3k to save a barrel of oil, you'll be helping the environment. I read that they aren't as efficient as they claim so they are training drivers to drive more efficiently. Slow start and long braking. That saves fuel with any car and you don't need to spend $3k.
Kyoto doesn't appear to be working; most countries involved increased emissions much more than the US in the last three years. http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=46616 Overall it sounds like you're against capitalism. Blame the merchants for good marketing. And for the record I never owned a pet rock or an invisible dog lease. On 2/28/06, Ken Fused wrote: > I take it to mean that just because you are making more doesn't mean you can > actually afford more as many would have you believe. I make far more than my > parents did at my age, however, I am not sure that in comparable dollars I am > any better off. They paid $24,000 for our 3 bedroom 2 bath house in 1975. > Today my 2 bedroom one bath house is valued at over $400,000. My dad > probably made $12,000 - $15,000 a year. So his house was roughly equal to 1.5 > - 2 years of income. My house is worth roughly 7.5 years of my income. > Alhtough I am making more money than I have ever made before and much more > than my father made at my age there might be an arguement that I am actaull > not as well off. > > Progress is not necesarily evil. However, is carrying a $500 rat sized dog > around in purse progress? How many (mostly useless) household items does the > average person have? How many are really necessary? What great invention > brought to you by K-TEL or some infomercial is sitting unused in your > cabinets? I take it that he is talking about commercialization of society. > The average person is not the one who benefits from commercialization it is > the upper crust who own the companies and factories. They benefit from our > reckless spending and they do what they can to perpetuate it. It's in their > best interest why wouldn't they. However, the hoi polloi don't seem to see > that they are being misguided as to what is actually in their real best > interest. > > We are being told that it is too expensive for industry to follow the > guidelines set forth in the Kyoto Accords back in the mid - late 1990's. So > in order to keep cheap items on the shelf we are willing to pollute our > environment. Maybe we should spend less on frivilous items and being > willing to spend a little more on required items that are constructed in > factories that are more environmentally friendly. But that would mean fewer > sales, less profits and that is not in the best interest of the upper crust. > > Likewise, we want SUV's but are unwilling to pay an extra $3,000 - $5,000 for > more fuel efficient SUV's. So we burn more fuel, pollute more etc... all so > we can afford to trade in our cars, SUV's every 3 years. Which in equals > higher profits for those at the upper end of the economic scale. > > > >Hmmm........if i've got more wages and can afford to buy more now than ever > >before......how is that a "slogan"? Either I do have more, or I don't. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198272 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
