Make a crazy eco-rule that affects thousands and the mainstream media finds critics – who said it doesn’t go far enough.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome banned city departments from purchasing bottled water, even for water coolers. But that wasn’t good enough for Greenpeace Energy Policy analyst Samantha Rogers.
Rogers told CNN’s “American Morning” fill-in host Rob Marciano she wanted to see the mayor do more than just ban plastic bottles, but to sign a plan championed by global warming doomsayers that would force the city to have more than 50 percent of its energy come from renewable resources by the year 2017.
Marciano joined in and suggested to viewers that “one way everybody could save the environment” is drink tap water instead of bottled water.
The city, built near the volatile San Andreas Fault, is susceptible to earthquakes and has witnessed major earthquakes, notably in 1906 and 1989. Another earthquake could damage the city’s volatile public works structure that delivers tap water to the city’s 700,000-plus population. CNN’s coverage skipped that little possibility.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Im with Rogers! SF should lea
June 25, 2007 - 16:44 ET by bassndudeIm with Rogers! SF should lead the way. A few nuke power plants on the San Andreas Falut, quit drinking water at all. All that leads to waste. Stop eating so toliet paper isint a problem. And stop exhaling! All that CO2 is bad!
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I wonder if that is the same
June 25, 2007 - 16:45 ET by bigtimerI wonder if that is the same reason they are giving for attempting to ban micro-wave pop-corn?
These critters are beyond certifiable...they should be committed permanently in a padded room for life.
Calif may have half a chance if we could enforce it...the other half would be to make illegal aliens go back home and enter legally...after the BORDER is built/enforced.
LOL...
Btw...GreenPeace is one of the most leftist/communistic problems in this world, let alone our country, has been for decades.
I don't mind drinking my tap
June 25, 2007 - 16:49 ET by BlondeI don't mind drinking my tap water...I've had it tested and I know it's just fine (plus I've been drinking the city water since I was a kid and it tastes fine to me).
Having said that...when I get more than a mile or two away from home, give me the plastic water bottle, or the UV'd stuff out of the machine.
What is it with these libs? First "trans-fat"....now they want to ban bottled water? A bunch of commie-crats. They can take my bottled water out of my cold, dead hand (to paraphrase).
but to sign a plan champione
June 25, 2007 - 16:49 ET by nnptcgradAhahahahhahahaha! As soon as they mention wind power, another group will come out from the woodworks to show that it threatens the migratory routes of 15 gazillion species of birds. If ocean, someone will cry that the whales will be harmed/ it will destroy delicate sea life or it will ruin the river's path/interrupt the breeding path of some fish. If solar, where are they going to put the farms? It would destroy acres of land, possibly another group would find that building it would endanger some bacterium. I don't think they can do geothermal. And nuclear? Don't make me laugh.
Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law
NNPC - This has already happe
June 25, 2007 - 18:34 ET by ThisnThatNNPC - This has already happened with the Cape Code Wind Project. See the NYT article by RFK Jr. He said "AS an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas." And here's the but: "Cape Wind's proposal involves construction of 130 giant turbines whose windmill arms will reach 417 feet above the water and be visible for up to 26 miles. These turbines are less than six miles from shore and would be seen from Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Hundreds of flashing lights to warn airplanes away from the turbines will steal the stars and nighttime views. The noise of the turbines will be audible onshore. A transformer substation rising 100 feet above the sound would house giant helicopter pads and 40,000 gallons of potentially hazardous oil.
According to the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the project will damage the views from 16 historic sites and lighthouses on the cape and nearby islands. The Humane Society estimates the whirling turbines could every year kill thousands of migrating songbirds and sea ducks."
It turns out that Nantucket hosts Kennedy's compound, and they just can't stand the possiblity that something might spoil the view from their yachts. Thus the protests. Never mind that the wind conditions are ideal there, as is the depth of water, and the plant would be close enough to the shore to tap into the region's existing power grid.
"Not in my backyard" is the the battle cry of the hypocritical Left, when something doesn't suit them. So much for principles.
That was my point. They claim
June 25, 2007 - 20:09 ET by nnptcgradThat was my point. They claim to be for sustainable energy, yet whenever anybody tries to put it in practice the NIMBY criers come out. And if that's not enough, they'll find some paramicium that is endangered and shut the whole plan down.
Mother nature is a bitch - Ninth Corollary of Murphy's Law
“one way everybody could sa
June 25, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Darth Dutch“one way everybody could save the environment” is drink tap water instead of bottled water.
I have to admit, I'm not a big bottled water drinker, but isn't one of the main reasons people choose to do it because tap water can be dangerous and contain harmful chemicals? Why advocate that people do this if it would in fact harm them?
Dutch
Consider the source...
June 25, 2007 - 17:03 ET by goldenthroatWhat would you have expected from the land of fruits and nuts - and you can interpret that any way you want to!
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
I hate those damn plastic w
June 25, 2007 - 17:48 ET by Night WatchmanI hate those damn plastic water bottles, I see them littered all over
-- it's about the only litter I see on my otherwise pristine rail trail.
My wife gets them, I fill them back up with tap water; she never knows the difference.
At Phillies games they get $3.25 for one and $5 for a 16 oz Bud, guess which one I get?
You mean you get a plastic bo
June 25, 2007 - 18:35 ET by ThisnThatYou mean you get a plastic bottle of beer????
Actually, yes -- you won't
June 25, 2007 - 19:16 ET by Night WatchmanActually, yes -- you won't find glass bottles at any of the ballparks.
I have nothing against plastic bottle per se, just: recycle them, don't litter them, or have freaking water in them.
EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION!This
June 25, 2007 - 18:05 ET by fosstenEVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION!
This is why you do NOT compromise with the left. They will always demand more and more concessions, often right on the heels of the first one. Giving them what they want does NOT satisfy them. So why bother?
Defeat the left, do NOT make deals with them!
We recycle beer and liquor bo
June 25, 2007 - 18:21 ET by 4arrowWe recycle beer and liquor bottles, why not the water bottle that you will have to pry from my cold, dead hand ; )
We recycle too, at work and a
June 25, 2007 - 18:38 ET by ThisnThatWe recycle too, at work and at home. No big deal. No platic bottles in the trash. Nothing littering the lawn.
The Left only has one solution for each issue -- the extreme solution, brought to you with no foresight, no planning, no ability to rationally consider alternatives. They always select the solution that gives them the most control -- and anything else be damned.
These people need to just get
June 25, 2007 - 19:26 ET by drillanwrThese people need to just get on with, chuck it all and join UBL in a cave ... and get the heck out of our lives.
Why I no longer belong to Environmental groups
June 25, 2007 - 19:34 ET by pgrossjrUsed to belong to Nature Conservancy and a couple of others 30 years ago. Came to realize the ultimate goal was to eliminate all humans because it didnt matter how much was accomplished, it was never enough. I like the outdoors and want to see it preserved for my grandchildren and we are doing that. You couldnt fish in the Hudson River when i was a kid and this past month the river was full of boats fishing for strippers up around Albany. AND YET, the local greens still scream we need to do more and GE has been strong armed into spending a billion to clean up PCBs they put in the river years ago,when there is NO evidence that it is doing any harm lying on the bottom of the river and may do more harm in the process of removal. Yet the environmental wackos are patting themselves on the back for the great job.
Water problems
June 25, 2007 - 20:31 ET by dagdaDidn't they almost ban hydrogen dioxide one time because they thought it was a dangerous substance?
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Yep - it can cut, burn and ev
June 26, 2007 - 09:10 ET by FastEdYep - it can cut, burn and even drown 'ya - nasty stuff that - but don't give 'em any ideas - they'll try again - until they find out . . . (" . .it's people - or - it's a cook book!")[same idea, different movies]
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I wish someone would sugges
June 25, 2007 - 21:44 ET by mlongI wish someone would suggest to these rich liberal environmentalist that maybe they should be forced to give up their cell phones,I-pods,Black Berries and lap top computers because of the environmental damage their batteries can do...let's see how well that plays with them. :)
just watch:the liquor stores
June 25, 2007 - 23:14 ET by PKjust watch:
the liquor stores and groceries across the street from the state and city buildings will start a land office business in bottled water sold to the govt. workers on their way to work and at lunch.
C
These folk were not elected,
June 26, 2007 - 08:29 ET by 4arrowThese folk were not elected, so why do they have such sway?
Let's just set aside the issu
June 26, 2007 - 09:01 ET by dscottLet's just set aside the issue of recycling for a moment, if people stop drinking bottled water, which is mostly "done away from home", then wouldn't they just substitute the plastic bottled water with soda in a can or glass bottle? So all you have accomplished is shift the consumption of one product to another because you don't like plastic. How stupid can one be? Obviously, the question is rhetorical.
So is their entire argument based on getting rid of plastic as a material because it uses oil to create it? If so, then you better get rid of the glass and aluminum cans because energy (oil or natural gas) is used to melt and form those products as well.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I for one love plastic bottle
June 26, 2007 - 09:16 ET by Clear thinkerI for one love plastic bottles. One of my hobbies is mineral collecting. Not the kind where you sit at a PC and buy off of eBay, instead I go for the get down and get dirty version and find minerals on my own. Most places I dig has seen human activity for many years and unfortunately humans still leave their trash behind. I am thankful when I'm digging and come across a plastic bottle instead of a broken glass bottle because plastic rarely cuts.
The same thing goes for people that like to walk barefoot. It's rather difficult to cut your foot to shreds on plastic.
Prove you can secure our borders first. The only legislation that counts!
Why doesn't Rogers really ste
June 26, 2007 - 09:15 ET by FastEdWhy doesn't Rogers really step to the plate - have SF go with ALL renewable energy as soon as possible! - this doesn't fit the blame agenda though, by projecting to the future, the wakos can point to the "failure" of planning and short sightedness of the rest of us.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
My husband (former athlete) i
June 26, 2007 - 09:20 ET by 4arrowMy husband (former athlete) is now a diabetic. He carries bottled water to save his life. Who has a problem with that?
In the lib world you must cra
June 26, 2007 - 09:24 ET by dscottIn the lib world you must crack some eggs to make an omlete. He will be an acceptable loss to achieve their ends.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
What's in the water in SF?
June 26, 2007 - 13:11 ET by krismcsherryI think something is in the water in SF's taps so that the mayor may want citizens drinking more of it. Some kind of mind-control thing a la X-Files.
Kidding aside, I'm angered that once again the ecoholics must harm others' livelihoods in order to foist their religious beliefs upon everyone whether they want it or not. It wasn't enough we recycle and change lightbulbs, now no water cooler, no water cooler delivery, no water cooler delivery guy, no water delivery jobs. Hello unemployment line.
Incredibly callous, incredibly sanctimonious, incredibly selfish are the ecoholics.
They are insatiable. They get to keep their jobs, after all, and make a good living telling us what to do.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm doing less recycling now than ever and I'm loving it. I've just plain had it with the fanaticism of these greenies. It's like that person you know will never be happy no matter what you do. After a while, you just stop trying.
Bingo, you got it, all about
June 26, 2007 - 13:29 ET by dscottBingo, you got it, all about power and control. Just like Sherly Crow and the one square of tp, it's not about saving anything, it's about what you will do when you are told to do something. They only way to check to see if you are under their complete control is to tell you to do something idiotic, after all, if you do something logical then it was of your agreement not control. Ever have a relationship with a "controller"? You can do everything this person wants 99% of the time, the 1% where you exercise free will and object to do something different, what is their response? YOU DON'T LISTEN TO ME, YOU DON'T VALUE ME, YOU DON'T LOVE ME, etc... It's a test to verify you are under control. The more ridiculous the test, the greater the verification of your acquiesence to their demands. To such a person, love is submission to their control not seeking your best interest, a very critical subtle difference.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius