Greeting Cards Causing Global Warming…



Libs couldn’t be any more miserable if they tried. What a sad, pathetic, gloomy life....



Friday is Valentine’s Day, the most saccharine holiday of the year. Ignoring it is noble social protest but, I can report from experience, risky domestic policy. Which is why, over the next two days, millions of consumers will be buying their significant others ridiculous red cards.

According to the industry’s trade group, some 145 million Valentine’s cards are sold in the U.S. every year. Those cards are ridiculous not just because of the sappy sayings on their covers. They’re ridiculous because, on a planet of seven billion people, it’s nuts to buy a piece of card stock, place it into a paper envelope, and give it to someone who (I love you, honey) will smile at it, stuff it in a sock drawer, and, almost certainly, never glance at it again. It’s even crazier to buy said piece of card stock, drive it to the post office, and have the U.S. mail truck it to an airport and then fly it to its destination.

Sure, you could criticize on environmental grounds all manner of small pleasures, such as eating burgers, or driving gasoline-powered cars, or drinking frostily refrigerated beer (all habits in which I happily engage). Yet sending a greeting card is worse as an example of personal carelessness, because its greener alternative is so painless and, indeed, so much more convenient. I don’t like veggie burgers, I can’t afford a Tesla, and I hate warm beer. But forsaking a paper greeting card for an emailed Valentine? I’m pretty sure I—as well as my family and you—could live with that.

Reason is no match for emotion, of course, so it’s no surprise that the dead-tree greeting-card industry continues to thrive. Sentimental pastimes die hard, and greeting cards aren’t Superfund sites. [...]

One piece of information the Greeting Card Association says it doesn’t have is the impact all those cards have on the environment. The pulp-and-paper industry is a major carbon-dioxide emitter and water user. But an Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman said the EPA doesn’t track numbers for greeting cards.

Among the measures of a product’s environmental impact is its “carbon footprint”: the amount of carbon dioxide that’s emitted in the product’s manufacturing and use. But, as with Britannia Cards’ Amazon ad, measuring a product’s carbon footprint is dicey business, because the answer depends on what’s included in the calculation. Manufacturing? Manufacturing and transportation? Manufacturing, transportation and consumer use? The list of variables goes on and on.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11659...l-travesty

SUBSCRIBE TO
THE NEW REPUBLIC

All readers can read up to eight articles a month for free. Subscribers enjoy access to all premium digital features—unlimited online articles, audio versions of our content, bookmarking, commenting, access to our completely redesigned iPad app—and of course, 20 print issues a year.

It is just too easy. That Rag should pull the plug on their website because the servers require power and electricity to run, and that is bad.

Quote:I don’t like veggie burgers, I can’t afford a Tesla, and I hate warm beer. But forsaking a paper greeting card for an emailed Valentine? I’m pretty sure I—as well as my family and you—could live with that.

So screw the environment when it comes to personal tastes like burgers and cold beer, otherwise, unless if you don't have a girlfriend like this guy, you're a eco terrorist.

I can't even believe someone thought of this crap and miraculously forgot to mention the jobs created by those who manufacture and deliver the cards...not to mention the boost the Post Office gets.

Quote: Ignoring (Valentine's Day) is noble social protest

My goodness, just how much lower can the "noble social protest" bar go?

(02-13-2014 03:20 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

Quote:I don’t like veggie burgers, I can’t afford a Tesla, and I hate warm beer. But forsaking a paper greeting card for an emailed Valentine? I’m pretty sure I—as well as my family and you—could live with that.

So screw the environment when it comes to personal tastes like burgers and cold beer, otherwise, unless if you don't have a girlfriend like this guy, you're a eco terrorist.

I can't even believe someone thought of this crap and miraculously forgot to mention the jobs created by those who manufacture and deliver the cards...not to mention the boost the Post Office gets.

Until it affects them personally, libs are all just talk. They don't care that getting what they want would mean the loss of jobs. They may say they do, but they don't.

Ban Valentine's Day. For once, I agree with a lib rag's conclusion!

(02-13-2014 03:08 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Greeting Cards Causing Global Warming…



Libs couldn’t be any more miserable if they tried. What a sad, pathetic, gloomy life....



Friday is Valentine’s Day, the most saccharine holiday of the year. Ignoring it is noble social protest but, I can report from experience, risky domestic policy. Which is why, over the next two days, millions of consumers will be buying their significant others ridiculous red cards.

According to the industry’s trade group, some 145 million Valentine’s cards are sold in the U.S. every year. Those cards are ridiculous not just because of the sappy sayings on their covers. They’re ridiculous because, on a planet of seven billion people, it’s nuts to buy a piece of card stock, place it into a paper envelope, and give it to someone who (I love you, honey) will smile at it, stuff it in a sock drawer, and, almost certainly, never glance at it again. It’s even crazier to buy said piece of card stock, drive it to the post office, and have the U.S. mail truck it to an airport and then fly it to its destination.

Sure, you could criticize on environmental grounds all manner of small pleasures, such as eating burgers, or driving gasoline-powered cars, or drinking frostily refrigerated beer (all habits in which I happily engage). Yet sending a greeting card is worse as an example of personal carelessness, because its greener alternative is so painless and, indeed, so much more convenient. I don’t like veggie burgers, I can’t afford a Tesla, and I hate warm beer. But forsaking a paper greeting card for an emailed Valentine? I’m pretty sure I—as well as my family and you—could live with that.

Reason is no match for emotion, of course, so it’s no surprise that the dead-tree greeting-card industry continues to thrive. Sentimental pastimes die hard, and greeting cards aren’t Superfund sites. [...]

One piece of information the Greeting Card Association says it doesn’t have is the impact all those cards have on the environment. The pulp-and-paper industry is a major carbon-dioxide emitter and water user. But an Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman said the EPA doesn’t track numbers for greeting cards.

Among the measures of a product’s environmental impact is its “carbon footprint”: the amount of carbon dioxide that’s emitted in the product’s manufacturing and use. But, as with Britannia Cards’ Amazon ad, measuring a product’s carbon footprint is dicey business, because the answer depends on what’s included in the calculation. Manufacturing? Manufacturing and transportation? Manufacturing, transportation and consumer use? The list of variables goes on and on.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/11659...l-travesty

Awwwe, po wittle baybee waybee. Looks like somebody's boyfriend gave him the cold shoulder instead of the room temp dick this Valentine's Day...

(02-13-2014 04:18 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Ban Valentine's Day. For once, I agree with a lib rag's conclusion!

I was thinking the same thing. For different reasons than this guy of course, but the end result is pretty desirable.

Looks like a tortured rationalization for being a cheap bastard, to me.

(02-13-2014 04:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Looks like a tortured rationalization for being a cheap bastard, to me.

In the end, this is one of those simple "think local, act global" things that people can do. So, if his ilk are looking for ways to impact the Earth less, this seems fine by me, although it's pretty obvious.

OTOH, the direct opposition between green's reduced economy and labor push for more jobs is as good as anything WWE could come up with. That's a conflict the GOP would do well to exploit.

I'll add one more thing. Why aren't the eco-warriors offering more simple ideas that would benefit everyone?

Here's one that won't offend anyone on the spectrum. If it's cold where you are (and it's cold most everywhere) take some old plastic containers (reuse your margarine containers, don't put them in landfill) fill them w/ water and make ice outside. Then put them in your freezer.

A full freezer uses less electricity, particularly in the summer. But filling a freezer w/ ice uses electricity, so the savings is small. But, make ice w/ the weather, and you get the full savings.

A full freezer will also keep cold longer during a power outage, so less food loss. It also means your freezer operates less and will last longer.

Savings all around.

(02-14-2014 10:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  I'll add one more thing. Why aren't the eco-warriors offering more simple ideas that would benefit everyone?

Because they are only interested in the changes they can demand of others.