MyCommunityNOW.com
Blog Home |  About this Blog       Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join
Browse By tag All Tags » POLITICS » ENVIRONMENT (RSS)

Related Tags

Why the EC Bugs Me

By Janet Evans
Thursday, Dec 20 2007, 08:05


Photo courtesy of cirrusimage.com


((YAWN))

I stopped over at the Environmental Commission meeting at City Hall at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday.

By the time it was 8:10 p.m. I was really "bugged" and had to sneak out of there (well, I had been to the School Board meeting prior to the EC meeting).

Remember back at the beginning of November, when Kevin Fischer said he had run into Kristen Wilhelm, Chairperson of the EC, and she just "smiled" and said something like "we never do anything," after Kevin asked her what was going on with the EC?

Well, after hearing the "tapes" of the meeting from last month, and experiencing over an hour of the meeting this month, I can see why nothing ever gets done.

Kristen Wilhelm does not know how to run a meeting.  I have nothing against her as an individual.  She seems like a good person.  That's not what this is about.  It's just there is so much whining about City Government and whining about the lack of funds for the EC (which appears to be zero, so go make your copies at City Hall and stop whining about it).

And to hear that something as basic and simple as Policies and Procedures has been in the works since May of 2001, and they are still not approved.  Hello .... it's 2008 in a couple days!

Then there is so much bloviating during the meetings.  Some of it seems way beyond the scope of what our EC is capable of doing.   I almost wonder if the Mayor and Alderman realize this and are sitting there chuckling to themselves as this is going on. 

See, I really think the problem with this group is that they don't want to take the time to meet in special committee meetings.  Maybe they are just too busy to commit to the Environmental Commission they care so much about.  Because what they really should be doing is breaking up into small committees during the month to do the long projects, then coming back to the main meeting to quickly report and vote on them.  Sounds simple, right?

That is what a Policy  and Procedures Committee would have done.  Meet to go over, line by line, of the proposed policies, then present it to  the Commission as a whole, and then finally to the Common Council.  Instead, they had the nerve to sit there and start going over the policies and procedures line by line during a regular meeting!  I was shocked. 

I was the only citizen in the audience.  Could you imagine if the place was full?  Also, the Mayor was there.  I had to leave ... what they were doing was just too much to comprehend.  I was embarrassed for them.  I was once on a By-laws committee.  It's a simple procedure when two people work on it.  It does not take six years!  The Mayor was  rolling his eyes when he asked how long this has been taking.

By the way, they have decided the change the name of the Environmental Commission to the Conservation Commission (CC). It's a much friendlier name, don't you think?  Titles are so important.  I know it changes my impression of how I feel about the Environmental Commission.

 


 

Save the Planet...Tax Our Babies

By Janet Evans
Monday, Dec 10 2007, 01:30 PM


Here we go AGAIN . . .

More Enviro wackos spewing GREEN bile. 

And once again, it's related to CHILDREN.

COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

And couples who were sterilized would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilization procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

"As doctors, I believe we need to think this way," he wrote in a letter to the journal.

"As Australians I believe we need to be less arrogant.

"As citizens of the world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India or China."

Family groups rejected the calls, saying larger families used less energy than smaller ones and should not be penalized.

Read the article from news.com.au  Baby Tax needed to Save Planet    ç here

_________________________

So now it's "medical experts" going ENVIRO on us. 

The family "unit" is becoming "unglued" because of these loons.

I guess we're just supposed to stop having children! 

Eventually all of the parks will be filled with old people and no children playing in them. 

Have a baby, plant a tree . . .


 


 

Save the Planet .... Abort Your Child....

By Janet Evans
Friday, Nov 23 2007, 09:59

 

Meet the women who won't have babies -
because they're not eco friendly
 


“Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy. But the very thought makes her shudder with horror. Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.”


Read the full story here from the       Daily Mail    ◄

 

Quotes from another Enviro-nutcase in the article, Sara Irving:

"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

 What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."

_______________________________________________


What is WRONG with these women?  

Aborting your baby to save the planet?  Right .... 

You made a big difference, didn't you, Toni? 

Maybe your baby would have been the next great scientist.  

Fine if you don't want to have any more children in the future. 

It's probably better for the world that YOU are not a parent in the first place. 

I have heard of many reasons to abort a child, but this one really has me "Unglued." 


"When I tell people why I don't want children, they look at me as if I was planning to commit murder. "


You Toni are either fooling yourself, or you are a selfish freak of the environment you want to protect . . . .

A baby is not a disposable item for the environment . . . .

 
Alright ...  so go back up and read the article if you didn't. 

Then, let's get ready for the DEBATE. 

I know there will be one.
 

 WHAT DO YOU THINK??????????? 

 



     

 
More Posts