Thank you so much for your recent report on sustainability. It has greatly inspired me, up to the point to where I seriously considered cancelling my subscription to The Oregonian. You see, taking the weight of Friday’s paper at 10.7 ounces as an average, I could save a good 244 pounds of paper each year, maybe even more. (I’ll let your green experts figure out how many trees or partial trees that would make).
A lot of us country folks have been “environmentally friendly” as far back as when “green” was simply a color, not a statement. Back then, it was called “common sense,” “saving money” or just “the right thing to do” (a k a “decency”), and nobody bragged about it.
Nowadays it seems to me that everybody recycling an empty toilet paper roll expects to get a Congressional Gold Medal. Naturally, they would then loudly broadcast the fact that they recycled the bubble wrap it came in.
Possibly Related Posts:
- Origin of the phrase ‘climate change’? Blame it on Bush
- Scientist’s Letter to the Editor: ‘It is simply not logical that controlling a single (and miniscule, by volume) variable such as atmospheric CO2 will allow us to bend the entire global climate to our will’
- Bias? The Oregonian edited a reader’s letter to expunge views skeptical of man-made global warming
- Letter to the Editor: Warmer admits attempt to regulate toilet paper ‘reveals a petty totalitarian impulse in the environmental movement’
- WSJ Letter to the Editor: ‘…solar panels don’t grow on trees’