Small Ways to Fix a Big Problem

This article basically states that we should all the things that everybody has already been told about being eco-friendly.
However, most people pretend they didn't hear anything because ignorance is bliss.

My grandfather is a cattle rancher and has been for his entire life. Wolves eat cattle, and that costs money. Are you telling me my grandfather should just let them kill his livestock??? He has no 401K or retirement fund of any kind. Are we to just throw him, and people like him, to the wolves just because we THINK this will help? No! We need more sensible and REALISTIC methods of lowering our carbon footprints.

Some good Ideas.
But,
Did anyone else notice that the first two items on the list (and presumably the most important) will do NOTHING other than indoctrinate more youth into their "Correct" way of thinking.

I beleive that Hitler went after the youth in a similar way.....

The article suggests that the earth is losing 3 species an hour. Assuming that is true and not scare tactics - please list the species that have been lost in the last 24 hours.

"• Skip the bacon cheeseburger. Eat farmed fish and poultry instead of beef and pork."
- I really dunno if this is really help reduce harm to the environment at all. Farmed fish is worser than raised cattle and pigs in those super big ranches. The farmed fish gotta get fed somehow, and the only way to do it is fishing more food from the ocean than just catching them in the open waters. Plus like cattle or any types of farmed animals to worry about is diseases which can quickly spread in close quarters. So this argument doesn't really provide a better solution. I say, just eat less than you would normally do, and try to eat locally most of the time. That would reduce resources on feeding cattle, and less cattle to raise by demand... in simple broad terms.

and to counter the comment from monkey buttons: I've read articles and seen on tele about how cattle ranchers argue to the local government to permit them to hunt wolves and other potential predators in order to protect their cattle. But I wonder if using sheep dogs to protect cattle from wolves a better both sides solution to this problem? It seems like a good idea. Sheep dogs just only herd sheep, they also act as guard dogs from any outside hostiles, even wolves. If I was a wolf, I rather get an easy meal elsewhere than deal with pissed off man's favorite companion.

How 'bout turning the lights off in that "art gallery". I see at least 20 fluorescent tubes so one person can look at a dead tree.

Jaxstuff: i assume they mean average so maybe 6 one hour none the next.
Freewi11: You're comment is junk, cows pollute with their methane emissions. as for the wolves part, build a better fence.
JRS ONE: SOLAR POWER!

Macro820
Your reply indicates that you have bought into the 3 species lost per hour nonsense.
If you can't name one of the 3 species that died last hour - how about naming one that died in the last 24 hours?

"We media types are doing a much better job nowadays of publicizing what human beings stand to lose in this experiment (breathable air, sufficient food, clean water, etc.)."

Breathable air - Mostly a local problem, globally our air quality has improved drastically since the late 1800s (think of a city where each building is burning un-scrubbed coal)

Sufficient food - The people that starve in today's world do so mostly because of political reasons. Thanks to nitrogen rich fertilizers, we can and do produce more than enough food for everyone and then some. This is why food is so cheap.

Clean Water - Our waterways are much cleaner than the late 1800s (see above). As for clean drinking water, it is just a matter of processing (except for New Jersey which does have a clean drinking water problem due to contamination). Under the worst of circumstances, it would cost a lot due to the need to boil water instead of just filtering it.

I criticize the media for spreading gossip and not truth regarding the environment. Read "Skeptical Environmentalist" - Bjorn Lomborg if you want a better, comprehensive understanding of our environment.

I love articles like this. It points out "feel-good" things we can do to save the planet. Not much thought is put into the consequences of these "feel-good" actions. Indoctrinating kindergartners "about the value of nature" equates to scaring them with pictures of polar bears floating on icebergs. There are already reports of children waking up in the middle of the night terrified of global warming killing the polar bears.
(washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041501164_pf.htmL)Producing "biofuels from native grasses, not from monoculture crops" completely ignores the fact that droughts happen infrequently. We don't know when another will happen. Relying on biofuels for our energy needs puts us at the mercy of ever changing and natural climate variances.