Environ--de-mentalists

When the term ‘environmentalist’ comes to mind, I thinkrecycling, water conservation, reusable shopping bags NOT setting fire toluxury homes because the homebuilders claim the homes were built in anenvironmentally-friendly fashion yet you don’t think so. This seems to be the story behind fires set by a group protesting the environmental-friendliness of a group of luxury homes in a Seattle suburb.

So you call yourself an environmentalist, disagree that ahome was built within environmentally-conscious guidelines so the bestand greenest course of action – as an environmentalist – is to burn the faker down?

What the fak kind of demented logic is that? Have the oxymoronically environmental arsonists considered the fact this wise move oftheirs might not be so environmentally-friendly either? Don’t burning housing materials pollute the air? What about the embers of the disputed environmentally friendly materials? So you think the homebuilder used vinyl flooring instead of the biodegradable non-toxic type and that’s bad for theenvironment. Ok, point taken and I agree with that BUT how much more toxic does that vinyl flooring become when you aim your flame at it in the name of Mother Earth? Isn’t burning plastic and glue and total house contents kind of a bit problematic to the air quality? What if you intend to merely flick your Bic to the exorbitant resource-sucking luxury homes BUT the fire decides to do whatfires love to do by nature: spread? What if it spreads to a car in the vicinity and kaboom goes the gas tank? Yeah petrol fires fantastically beneficial to the air quality. Like a breath of fresh air after a spring rain: NOT! What if the fire charges past your intended residential targets to the forest nearby? You know how fires can be with minds of their own. Now, you set the forest on fire, and you’re an environmentalist, and aren’t you supposed to want to protect those? Ever hear the term ‘tree hugger’? Burning down forest a no-no for the environmentalist.

How about all of the water wasted to fight these fires? Every good environmentalist knows along with recycling, you’re supposed to encourage water conservation so how the fak does setting fire to houses reinforce your environmental intentions when water consumption NOT conservation is required to fight the fires? Can these eco-terrorists – oxymoron #2 of the story – explain that one to me? I can understand protesting in order to bring your points to light or writing lettersto the homebuilders demanding they verify materials used to back their environmental claims or working with REAL environmental groups to ensure there are viable standards met when builders make claims structures are built to environmentally-friendly standards. These all good approaches to the imposition and enforcement of environmental building standards. Burning the homes down because you disagree they’ve been built to greener standards does NOT an environmentalist make you stupid fak.

I love when people join a group and have NO faking idea what membership is about. Maybe they simply need a hobby and don’t really care what the cause is or everyone else is doing it and they don’t understand but don’t want to be the only one on the block that’s not a member like those book club members who don’t read the books and show up every week unprepared and continue to attend the meetings only because they don’t want to be left out. What is the faking point if you haven’t read the book, huh?