I've grown up with RD's usually in the house and have grown fond of their diversity of information and entertainment--but man, when it comes to journalism they are awfully sloppy! (Unless, of course, we are talking about yellow journalism). This morning I read the article "Conserve Your Energy" in the April 08 edition. Yeah, I recommend skipping it. Save your time for more worthwhile endeavors like picking your nose or watching television.
Let me back off the insults for a second and give a synopsis (although this too, by association, will be a bit of wasted time). The article gives tips for being an armchair environmentalist, i.e. "saving the earth" without inconveniencing yourself. Okay, I’m all for hearing that as long as we stick with the premise, environmental stewardship without the fuss. Here are some of my favorite solutions (along with my retorts in parenthesis):
Tip #1: Skip a trip—planes get terrible gas mileage, why not vacation local?! (Because if you cancel that trip to the Maldives to visit Big Star Lake instead your spouse will kill you!—which, I suppose, does cut carbon emissions. See tip #10 for true irony.)
Tip #5: Use cruise control—using cruise control can improve mileage by 7% (Yep, getting <13 instead of 12 miles per in gallon in that Hummer is gonna save the planet!)
Tip #8: Trade in your desktop computer for a laptop with energy efficient screen (WFT, and take 10 minutes to turn your computer on. Stupid laptops, not to mention all the hassle of moving into a new computer.)
Tip #10: Stay Married—divorce increases CO2 production by having fewer people in more homes. (This study was published in Science magazine, however, including it in this article does not give the author any intellectual cred as keeping bad marriages together for the sake of climate change is certainly not convenient, hence violating the initial criteria. Sounds like George Costanza, “This marriage needs to be about something, and fast. Wait a minute, how about climate change!”)
My conclusion, the tips are all over the place and definately not all armchair friendly suggestions. What I can't comprehend is why if the author felt the need to include things like #10 (which clearly violate the rules) why not go all the way with the obvious suggestions: having fewer children, slashing tires, firing squads, cannibalism... Why, I ask? Because RD can't handle the truth, unless you can.
The article also includes a few things not to do, because of their limited environmental benefit, including recycling and purchasing ethanol. So all readers can easily infer that increasing landfill size and not investing in fuels of the future are big thumbs up for environmentalism. Please. Lay off the zeitgeist and get a proofreader.
*Incidentally, the word zeitgeist is awesome and completely debunks that elementary school crap, "i before e except after c." haha
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment