YOUR COMMENTS

Good revelations Brian. You're right, the IPCC, just like the Obama administration are truly just a big bunch of socialists trying to bring down the world and redistribute wealth.

You've got to be kidding me.....
- Mark, Hooksett

Kristina

It is then Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. When the word government is in the title science goes out the window and politics goes in. This panel is not a bunch of scientists trying to save the world it is a bunch of politicians and activists from around the world trying to redistribute money. Many of it's chapters have zero yes zero scientists. Also many of the scientists credited in the IPCC are not climate researchers. They are just left leaning activists who want to redistribute wealth around the world. Oh and if you think Al Gore is some noble hero trying to save the planet look up Generation Investment Management. Al like General Electric are putting out Green Propaganda in an effort to make money.
- Brian, Wakefield

I would encourage all to honor Earth Day by not utilizing commercially processed toilet paper and instead wiping their backsides with the UL.
Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.
- Liz, Milan

The EVIDENCE that already exists can be found in the large amount of data that has been recorded in ice cores, tree rings, and even the calcium ration in the shells of certain oceanic organisms. If you haven't had the opportunity to read up on this, then maybe do a bit of "homework" and check it out. The overwhelming amount of actual scientific data will set you free from your uneducated standpoint. As for the IPCC - this body is made up of scientists! Do a quick "google" search and you will be brought to their web page where you can find this out on your own. It's funny how one can take an entire course and read through many books, data, charts, EVIDENCE of this issue, and yet there are still people who sadly refuse to believe it.
- Kristina, Manchester

This article pointed out that some recyclables cost more in energy to reuse than making new plastics. What it neglects to leave out of their decitful math is the cost to cover landfills that are filling up and the cost to the environment as waste products are produced in the manufacturing process of new goods. This ranks right up there with such Union Leader comments as "there's no proof that smoking causes cancer", "we don't need regulations to govern the dumping of toxic waste in our rivers and oceans...that costs jobs....it's only a little cancer" and "this internet thing is only a fad, it will never compete with newspapers."

PT Barnum was right....
- Jules, Manchester

I for one am extremely glad that this piece was published today! I am having the best time reading everybody's comments.
- Sheana, Chester

My time is money, so I generally do not want to calculate all the costs, as I do not want to waste the time.

So, recyclng without doing the calculations is cheaper for me. Forgive me, UL, if I am using/wasting too little!
- Tom Labrie, Rochester

This is exactly the type of simplistic Union Leader nonsense that organizes the less well educated and the fringe and the hard right into a froth, while doing the dirty pro-GOP work that this paper exists for.

Cost cost cost; well most of the costs of waste and overuse of resources are hidden, such as the cost of waiting. If American car makers had given us cars that got 30+ mpg in 1962, we'd be decades ahead of the problems we have now, right? That's a cost that was not calculated at the time, but we pay now.

So the UL wants you to do quick scratch math and feel happy about yourself, because it benefits republicans. The fact is measuring the REAL COSTS requires more thought and calculation. As such recycling and such is always a good choice.

It's the basic principle of moderation at work. Moderate your use and waste, the math will work in your favor whether or not you do the calculations.
- Art, Manchester

Kristina, Manchester , you and Gary from Chichester need to come down to earth before you can see what, if anything is having a negative effect on it (not her). Just search any papers archives, no wait any non biased paper, no wait just Google "scientist against global warming" and you will come up with thousands of scientist who will tell you the truth. One sight alone list the names of 31000+ of real scientist who disagree with the science, not egotistical intellectual challenged people like Al Gore, B.A. Government (no science degree), Alanis Morissette, High School Diploma, Bill Maher, B.A. English (no science degree),Bono (Paul Hewson), High School Diploma, Daryl Hanna, B.F.A. Theater (no science degree), Ed Begley Jr., High School Diploma, Jackson Browne, High School Diploma, Jon Bon Jovi (John Bongiovi), High School Diploma, Oprah Winfrey, B.A. Speech and Drama (no science degree). You won't do it though. You are afraid to. The truth shall set you free, then what will you do. By the way, the earth is not my mother, I am it's caretaker, given that privilege by it's creator, and only He can take that privilege away! Now go out there and enjoy your life. You are not big enough (though your ego obviously is) to destroy what God has created.
- Allan, Rochester

Rich, Manchester

You should be doing YOUR homework. It's global warming, not hemispheric warming. Half a clue is not enough.
- Josey, Dover

Kristina of Manchester - if you think the planet is toast in 10 years it's you who really needs to do some more thinking. As for the IPCC - this is mostly a political, and not scientific body. And again I say - consensus is NOT evidence. Statements do not make truth. There is NO evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. None whatsoever. It's all just theories driven by politics and ideology. It's not science - it's religion.
- Mark, Amherst

As the author notes, "If we use more energy to recycle something than to make a new one, we've done more harm than good."

From a practical and ecological standpoint, this is true. There is a trade-off. Cost, too, should be factored in when making these decisions. I would resent a government that sticks me for an additional $50 a month for a "green pick-up" by a truck that spews pollutants into the air. Besides being hoodwinked, this seems to defeat the whole purpose.

A responsible government "for the people" would be more sensitive and pragmatic, rather than callous and idealistic, concerning the laws and taxes it imposes on its citizenry--especially during hard economic times.
- Susie Nickerson, Horseshoe Bay, TX (NH native)

This just may be the most ignorant and non-fact based article that I’ve ever read. What I find most comical about it (or scary?), is the fact that the author bases his climate change/fossil fuel facts on the research of one person from one institute. May I add that the Manhattan Institute even states on its own website that its mission is “to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice.” What a great, unbiased and scientific source to base all of your fossil fuel and climate change research on!....Why not instead, think and do a little research on your own. Have you heard of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? This organization is comprised of thousands of scientists whose life career it is to research and study the Earth. The most well known scientist from this group –James Hansen- has stated multiple times that if humans do not reduce our carbon emissions largely within the next ten years, our one and only planet is “toast.” This panel of scientists from all over the world has also stated that there is overwhelming consensus that climate change is caused by humans, and essentially from the burning of fossil fuels.

So I must say that I agree- people should be doing a great deal more thinking. People should be thinking not just about their own immediate bubble and economic resources, they should be thinking of the entire future of our species and our planet. Do you have children? Will you have grandchildren some day? How selfish is it to suggest that we should only consume less and recycle more if there is an economic gain to it? This editorial disgusts me, yet it doesn’t surprise me that it’s an editorial in this paper.
- Kristina, Manchester

To Dan in Auburn:

1) Carbon does not cause temperatures to rise. Water vapor in the atmosphere does. Do your homework.

2) Global warming is taking place over the Northern Hemisphere, not the Southern Hemisphere. As we replant forests and they destroy them, we change the water vapor balance which affects warming and cooling. Do your homework.

3) If you belive that CO2, a naturally occuring gas necessary for plants to survive is a pollutant, perhaps you should stop exhaling. Do your homework.

4) Use your head and spare us the emotional diatribes. Do you homework.
- Rich, Manchester

I'm going to have a bon fire at 5 p.m. (in the rain) to celebrate Earth Day. The carbon dioxide from the fire is good for the trees. I'll make sure to exhale a bit extra just to make sure all the carbon dioxide I could possibly produce is released into the atmosphere.
- Andrew J. Manuse, Derry, NH

Think First? C'mon, there is no room for thinking when you're on the left. You need to "Feel First."
- Wayne S, Manchester

This editorial is refreshing to read in a day and age where majorities of newspaper owners and editors toe the government and politically correct line instead of rationally thinking things out. Who in their right mind likes polluted roads, lakes and rivers? We have nice bike and walk trails in my town with creeks and sadly, long standing trash all around. I'm all for removing it. It's long overdue and I'm even thinking about volunteering to do my little part to help. But I am firmly repulsed by government and pseudo environmental "experts" saying lowering thermostats, reducing water usage and recycling will save the planet. Only in recent years has this been an issue. There is no global warming, period, and over 31,000 truly scientific experts have rejected it - Google this info to see for yourselves. It's all about controlling all aspects of our lives. Sooner or later you libs backing this rubbish may eat your words if Obama gets his way and your utility bills are spiked by $200 a month or more. You'll feel the full effects of it and who knows, you may not be able to continue living in your homes and apartments. And at that time you'll be reminded that you voted for someone who growing numbers of Americans say may not even have been constitutionally qualified to be president. So be careful what you wish for because you might just get it. Wake up, folks! This is serious stuff.
- Nedd, Portage, IN

I find the first paragraph very insulting:

"Today is Earth Day, the fake holiday on which the government attempts to guilt us into "saving the planet."

Everyone should do their part in keeping our earth clean...totally common sense!
Don't lose that logic! Your children & grandchildren will suffer otherwise!
- JJS, Concord

Mark (Amherst),

According you your logic, human feces and urine are not pollutants. We excrete these materials "every minute of every day to LIVE", yet it doesn't mean that they aren't harmful in certain places and above certain concentrations.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When it resides in a HIGH ENOUGH concentration it will absorb and hold heat. Data has shown that CO2 concentration in the atmposhere has spiked since the onset of the industrial revolution. At many points around the globe (glaciers, icesheets, etc), there is empirical evidence of warming. The data is irrefutable.

You can choose to deny the reality, and live your life as if nothing is wrong, or you can accept the truth and decide to play a role in reversing the trend. Unfortunately, your inaction will likely not adversely affect you, just the lives of your children and grandchildren.
- Dan, Auburn

I love how Patrick in Compton has single-handedly discovered that asthma is caused by pollution. While it is one theory, no one knows what causes it. It's no different than saying that immunization shots cause autism. There's no conclusive evidence to back it up. That's the whole point of this article. Use your head, think first. It's a good message. I'm just amazed by some of the comments here.
- Alex, Nashua

I agree with the title of the editorial, 'Think First'. If we do think first, we follow the first two of the three Rs, Reduce/Re-use/Recycle, before we recycle.

I know this is sacrilege to a consumer-based economy, but the real way to provide for a sustainable future is to reduce our consumption and re-use our materials and resources. Only after we have attempted to minimize our demand for resources, do we need to recycle those resources.

Thanks, UL for guiding us to a more sustainable existence.
- Dan, Auburn

Is it morality or economics? Maybe neither. I think it comes down to survival of the human species, other species and our ecosystem. That's scientific fact, not government agenda or religious fervor. Every time Andrew Cline and the Union-Leader publisher and editorial board (supposed members of our human species) take a breath of air, they should ask themselves where that air comes from, and then give thanks to the much-maligned "tree huggers" of our world.
- Kathy, Sandown NH

Fox News would probably make this editorial its lead story.
- Ed, Manchester

I agree with the sentiment of this article. The author isn't saying don't recycle, don't conserve, and don't reuse, he's saying think about it before you do. If the author is conserving only for economical reasons, so...he/she is still being a conscientious consumer.

Think about the economic reprocussions before viewing all environmental policy as win/win. Chances are the policies are win/lose, and weighing what that loss could be in an already tough econmy is worth a second thought.
- LD, manchester, NH

This is a great editorial. There is so much propaganda out there right now it is nauseating. Global warming is a joke. Look at the big picture...there is another ice age on the way. Maybe we should increase global warming...
- repubman, Merrimack, NH

this "editorial" seems to go against all virtues of Yankee thrift. This flies in the face of all the qualities I ever learned about conservation and reusing. It's sad when the UL feels like they have to lump recycling and natural resource conservation into a "liberal" cause instead of what it really should be -- a cause for all of us. By taking this out of a pubic forum and making it a 'left v. right' argument, they are missing an opportunity to clean up this state. The point about saving money and economics with recycling is correct, but there's a larger reason to do it -- it just makes sense to reuse our waste, reduce our potential waste, and to recycle what we cannot reuse.
- tim, canaan

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. We are all exhaling it 24x7. To think that carbon is some sort of problem is complete nonsense. It makes up a miniscule portion of so-called "greenhouse gases". To demonize the material we are all made of and produce every minute of every day to LIVE is completely asinine. It's almost as silly as believing that humans can change the climate of the planet. What total foolishness.

Everyone who is celebrating Earth Day should stop the carbon nonsense and walk a street and pick up trash. That would really be change we can believe in.
- Mark, Amherst

Mr. Cline, Any editorial on recycling that does not address:

1. Who saves money/energy (the individual, the town, the EPA, the manufacturers, or the society) by recycling, disposing or building non-disposable to begin with.

2. What are the under-costed secondary impacts of disposal vs. recycling.

is to me, a very poorly thought out essay. Your 3.27 percent figure is so vaguely worded I don’t know what it even means but it sounds unbelievable. You’ve done the Union Leader a disservice.

Jen in Milton,
Like the Democrats weren’t cry babies when Gore lost in 2004?? Turnabout is fair play honey. Republicans have every ‘right’ to undercut and name call President Obama after the way Democrats behaved against President Bush. Of course, having a ‘right’ is different from being right.

Dems and Reps are both a bit wrong, a bit stupid, a bit immoral [aka human] so lets all stop being so one sided.
- Jim, Manchester

Please consider joining volunteers from the Manchester Urban Ponds Restoration Program in a trash clean-up of Black Brook/Maxwell Pond this Saturday, April 25 from 9-12, Stevens Pond, Saturday May 2 from 9-12, and Nutts Pond, Saturday May 9 from 9-12. Visit www.manchesternh.gov/urbanponds for more information. I hope to see you there!


Since 2000, the Manchester Urban Ponds Restoration Program has organized 65 clean-up events.

To date, over 300 volunteers have spent 1,124 hours collecting 1,152 bags of trash! This does not include the items illegally “dumped” such as shopping carts, tires, car batteries, other car parts, construction debris, and other items.

In addition, the value of volunteer time spent at these clean-ups has amounted to over $18,000.00 over the years!

Thank you to all volunteers who helped out over the years!
- Jen, Manchester

No it is not a "really stupid editorial." It suggests that our private choices (and perhaps even our political choices) should be based on whether things work, and on whether things are WORTH IT, rather than what side we want to be on and whether we want to join a global crusade. This wisdom is rare.

Peter Sorrentino, it is not true that "money is the only factor." But money is how we measure a lot of things. The desire to measure is the key.

Some of your readers who disagree with you on policy argue that this expression of opinion will cost you readership--the better to MANIPULATE you. Of course, it won't; just look at the interest it has produced on this web page. And Breyer, as always, scornfully implies that you must be litterbugs or anarchists. Democrats caricature and call names because they cannot analyze.
- Spike, Brentwood NH

Global warming aside, every bit of gasoline, propane, natural gas, or coal burned, creates particulate matter which has a direct impact on everyone's lungs. We all know an adult or a child with asthma -- more than 10% of NH residents have the disease. This is about the health of our population. If we want to keep the species healthy, I would suggest driving less and using less electricity -- it will also save money as you point out. I for one, like my lungs and those of my kids. As a public health professional, I find your editorial as being quite irresponsible. It's not about saving the planet -- she will survive anything we do -- it's about saving us from ourselves.
- Patrick Miller, Campton

You know, back in the 1960's, the tabacco companies embarked on a highly sophisticated scheme to dupe the American public into thinking that smoking does not cause lung cancer or any other types of health complications. Through the use of PR firms and money-hungry lawyers, a large percentage of the public believed this claim. Almost 50 years later, the falsehoods on smoking are over and the health effects it can cause are finally accepted. However, that playbook has been dusted off, and today's big business has begun a whole new campaign to make you believe what they want you to; because it is in the best interest of these companies to deny any wrongdoing when it comes to climate change and their contribution to this problem. SO keep on believin' Union Leader! You will look like absolute fools in 10, 20, 30 years once the lies and deception run their course...
- John, Portsmouth

This editorial is spot on! I find that throwing my garbage out my window onto the streets is way more cost-effective than buying a garbage toter. Why should I waste my money and my time putting trash into plastic containers? No, my garbage goes right onto the sidewalk, or my neighbor’s yard. Problem solved. I’m economically sound. When will these hippies understand that saving money is waaaay more important than saving our surroundings?
Granted, recycling saves money and energy (as compared to creating from new) and that savings will come back to us in the long run. But only extremists think that far in advance. I only care about me!
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to dump some motor oil in the Merrimack River. Why would I pay $$$ to dispose of it “responsibly?” The river just takes it away and I’ll never have to worry about it again. That’s what I call morally responsible and economical!
- Breyer S., Manchester, NH

It's hard to see how anyone could disagree with this very sensible editorial. Eco-religion has deteriorated to the point that logic no longer is relevant.

Obama's proposed carbon cap-and-trade is the very definition of managerial insanity: tremendous cost and absolutely no benefit. The green people would have us commit economic suicide with no possible benefit from our actions.

Scratch that. The cap-and-trade will have tremendous benefits - for China, India, and Mexico.
- Tom, Campton

Seriously? You can't see any point in recycling and conserving resources unless it saves you money? The stupid in this editorial is overwhelming.

The bitterness at Obama's presidency is showing your true colors, Union Leader. Your guy lost, fair and square. At least have the dignity to lose like adults. Tim from Gilmanton is right--no wonder your readership is down.
- Jennifer, Milton

I have some disagreements with this editorial. Reducing, reusing, and recycyling is about morality and about economics. Those three R's involve stewardship, a noble virtue. Yes, we should ensure that the benefits are worth the cost, and some Earth Day proponents do take Earth Day to extremes. But I see the three forementioned R's as a moral issue.
- Nicholl, Manchester

The editors show their true colors in the first two paragraphs of this editorial. Money is the ONLY factor they consider. They imply that money is the only factor that should be considered.

Although the Union Leader might be in financial trouble, its editors should not allow that to cloud their moral and ethical principles. That is, if they have any left. Rational people understand that conserving natural resources and preserving the planet is not strictly a financial issue.
- Peter Sorrentino, Manchester

I'm a Christian first and foremost and I have for as much of my 37 years as I can remember looked at environmental stewardship as a morality issue. God gave us this planet and the way we take care of it is appalling. I am repulsed at this editorial. It's terrible, even by UL standards.

I'm ok with your highlighting the financial savings realized with recycling and turning off lights, but can't you just leave it at that? And keep your absurb foolish remarks to yourself.
- gregory, concord, nh

Reading this today was a breath of fresh air. Thank you for inserting some common sense into all the doom and gloom speech of tree huggers. People have been so indoctrinated that even when you present them with the truth (the earth has been on a cooling trend for the past 10 years, and this is not the result of man's actions) they stop up their ears and scream close minded. Thank you for this article.
- Matt, Manchester

A good example of the fallacy involved in some of the feel good environmental efforts that are undertaken with little thought is the production of ethanol. It takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to produce one gallon of ethanol. This editorial is right on!
- Brian, Farmington

that is a totally stupid editorial - and you wonder why readership is down?
- tim, gilmanto

It is really hard to believe that you wrote this editorial dribble. But, then again, your anti-democrat political stance seems to be stronger than your environmental logic. It is obvious to me that you were born to the anti-environmental, throw away, "me-first" society.
If I were a betting man (which I am not), then I'd guess that your parents made you clean your room and now you are rebelling! Mother Earth needs to be respected and this editorial shows me that you have no respect for her or your elders.
- Gary L. Kerr, Chichester

Sadly, Earthday for far too many people is but a once a year deal. Given the amount of trash I pick up while walking my dog it seems a lot of Goffstown residents think that once the stuff hits the garbage or recycling bin its gone, even if it misses the truck and blows back on thier lawn ( or most likey thier neighbors lawn where they'll let it sit rather than bend over and pick it up) . Come on folks, stop throwing stuff out the car window, and that includes cigarette butts for you dopey fools who still smoke. If you are going to an out door party, you packed it in, its lighter when its drained, pack it out before the NO TRESSPASSING signs pop up.
- jeff, Goffstown