Rude clerk tells old woman she did not care about the environment, her response is golden!

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment. The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”

The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

The older lady said that she was right — our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on to explain:

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.

Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books.

This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then.

We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.

Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts.

Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.

Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a r azor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the”green thing.”

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person.

We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off… Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much.

Source:
This has been circulating online for a few years now. We can’t find who wrote it, but bless his/her heart because this is connecting with lot of people — both young and old. If you do know who wrote it and there is strong evidence, please let us know so we can give him or her proper credit.

https://positiveoutlooksblog.com/2018/09/10/rude-clerk-tells-old-woman-she-did-not-care-about-the-environment-her-response-is-golden/

One Of Our Least Favorite Members Of The U.S. Government, Secretary Zinke, Expands Hunting & Fishing at 30 National Wildlife Refuges in The United States – World Animal News

By WAN –
September 10, 2018
Sadly, one of our least favorite members of the U.S. government, Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, will open more than 251,000 acres of land to new or expanded hunting and fishing at 30 national wildlife refuges across the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wildlife Refuge System. This will shockingly bring the number of units where the public can hunt to 377, and the number for fishing to 312.
This will open more acres to the hunting and fishing of many threatened species, many of which are on the brink of extinction in the United States. These species need to be able to recover before they could be wiped out, not only by hunting, but by illegal poaching as well.
Zinke’s final rule outlines expanded hunting and fishing at 136 national wildlife refuges. The changes will be implemented in the 2018-2019 hunting seasons. This is an urgent matter that all U.S. citizens should be able to voice their opinions about.
A shocking quote comes from Cynthia Martinez, Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System: “Hunting and fishing are family activities that pass down from generation to generation. National wildlife refuges provide all Americans with places to hunt, fish, observe the natural world firsthand, and experience the great outdoors.” Really?
“Hunting and fishing are not family activities and should not be taught to children of any age. The last thing that this world needs is to teach children that killing and violence is acceptable. What we really need to be teaching our children is to have more compassion to save our planet and it’s species for future generations to come,” stated Katie Cleary, President of Peace 4 Animals & WAN.
Secretary Zinke, an avid hunter, said in a statement: “The last thing I want to see is hunting to become an elite sport, rather than a tradition passed on from generation to generation. Today’s announcement protects critical ‘CON-servation’ funding, and ensures sportsmen have access to public lands for generations to come.”
“This couldn’t be more false. Hunting is not a tradition and we are not living in the stone age. We are a progressive world that needs forward-thinking leaders who care about the welfare of the species of who it is our job to protect as the stewards of this planet,” continued Cleary.
The amount of funding brought in from eco-tourism and photo safari’s worldwide is much greater than that of what hunting brings in per year. A 2017 report, commissioned by Humane Society International and conducted by Economists at Large, found that the total economic contribution of hunters is at most an estimated 0.03 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). In Botswana, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe, hunting brings in just 0.78 percent or less of the overall tourism spending and has only a marginal impact on employment in those countries, providing approximately 0.76 percent or less of overall tourism jobs. It is estimated that roughly 105.3 million U.S. travelers prioritize vacations dedicated to giving back to our environment, planet, and animals, than not.
Findings from the report include:

While overall tourism in the eight study countries is between 2.8 percent and 5.1 percent of GDP, the total economic contribution of trophy hunters is, at most, an estimated 0.03 percent of GDP. As the report’s author explains: “In terms of the wider tourism economy, which relies heavily on wildlife resources, trophy hunting is relatively insignificant.”
Trophy hunting brings in less than $132 million in tourism spending to the eight study countries out of $17 billion annual tourism spending, or just 0.78 percent. Safari Club International (SCI) wrongly alleged that trophy hunting-related tourism contributes $426 million annually.
Trophy hunting has only a marginal impact on employment in the eight countries, estimated between 7,500-15,500 jobs. Even when using inflated SCI estimates of direct employment contribution from trophy hunting (19,733 jobs), this is still only 0.76 percent of 2,589,000 average jobs generated by overall tourism.
Non-hunting tourism industry is growing much faster and has a much brighter future in Africa. Between 2000 and 2014, overall tourism spending in the eight study countries grew every four months by as much as the annual claimed direct value of the entire trophy hunting industry ($326 million).
Foreign trophy hunters make up less than 0.1 percent of tourists in the studied region.
Non-trophy hunting tourism employs 132 times more people than trophy hunting.
The average increase in tourist arrivals over 54 days in Namibia and 60 days in South Africa exceeded the total of annual foreign trophy hunter arrivals. The growth over a year in general tourist numbers is about six times larger than a year’s worth of hunting tourists.
Because trophy hunting is a tiny part of overall tourism sector, with little scope for sustained future growth, even a small effect of trophy hunting deterring growth in other tourism uses (like eco-tourism) may overwhelm its own economic benefits.

Facts:
As well as being cruel, trophy hunting is detrimental to conservation because:

Hunters kill the strongest animals that are critical to strengthening the gene pool.
Hunting quotas are frequently set without a solid scientific basis.
Age restrictions for hunted animals are ignored so that, for example, lions are killed as juveniles before they can contribute to the genetic pool.
Corruption prevents trophy hunting funds from making it to conservation.
U.S.-based SCI is one of world’s largest pro-trophy hunting organizations with 50,000 members. It keeps a record book of kills and offers awards in dozens of categories, such as Bears of the World, South American Indigenous Animals, and the World Hunter of the Year for which a hunter must kill more than 300 animals across the globe.
SCI’s 2017 convention featured more than 900 international hunting outfitters and auctioned off almost 1,000 mammals in global hunts valued at over US$5.3 million. In 2015, this convention brought in nearly US$14.4 million. Some of the most shocking SCI 2017 auction items offered up were a Canadian polar bear hunt (valued at USD $72,000) and two Namibian elephants hunts (valued at USD $25,000 and USD $35,000).

Sadly, per Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, hunting and/or fishing will expand or be opened on the following refuges:
Arkansas

Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird, upland game, and big game hunting.

California

San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird hunting, and open sport fishing for the first time.

Florida

Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge: Opens wild turkey hunting for the first time.

Illinois

Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird, upland game and big game hunting.

Illinois and Missouri

Great River National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird, upland game and big game hunting.

Illinois and Wisconsin

Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge: Opens migratory game bird, upland game, and big game hunting to all legal species in the State of Illinois.

Indiana

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird, upland game, big game hunting, and sport fishing

Maine

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird, upland game and big game hunting.
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing white-tailed deer and wild turkey hunting.

Maine and New Hampshire

Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge: Opens wild turkey hunting for the first time, and expands existing migratory game bird, upland game, and big game hunting.

Maryland

Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird and big game hunting.
Patuxent Research Refuge: Expands existing white-tailed deer and wild turkey hunting.

Michigan

Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge: Opens hunting of certain migratory bird, small game, and furbearers, and expands existing migratory game bird and big game hunting.

Minnesota

Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge: Opens certain gamebird and small mammal hunting for the first time, and expands existing migratory game bird, upland game, and big game hunting.

Montana

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing big game hunting.
Swan River National Wildlife Refuge: Opens big game hunting for the first time.

New Jersey

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge: Opens wild turkey and squirrel hunting for the first time, and expands existing migratory game bird and big game hunting.

New Jersey and New York

Wallkill River National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird hunting and sport fishing.

New Mexico

Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge: Opens Eurasian-collared dove and Gambel’s quail hunting, and expands existing migratory game bird hunting.

North Dakota

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge: Opens moose hunting for the first time.
Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge: Opens moose hunting for the first time.

Ohio

Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge: Opens white-tailed deer hunting for the first time.
Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge: Opens hunting of certain gamebirds, small mammals, and furbearers for the first time, and expands existing migratory game bird and big game hunting.

Oregon

Cold Springs National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird, upland game, and big game hunting.
Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird hunting.
William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing sport fishing.

Pennsylvania

Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird, upland game and big game hunting.
John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum: Opens white-tailed deer hunting for the first time.

Utah

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge: Expands existing migratory game bird and upland game hunting.

Wisconsin

Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge: Opens hunting of certain gamebirds, small mammals, and furbearers for the first time, and expands existing migratory game bird and big game hunting.

Please contact The U.S. Department of the Interior and tell them why you oppose opening up more National Wildlife Refuges to hunting and fishing.
Mailing Address:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240
Contact Form HERE!
Phone (with employee directory): (202) 208-3100
National Parks Service
Office of Communications
1849 C St NW
Washington DC 20240
202-208-6843
Contact Form HERE!
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Office of Public Affairs
Office: (703) 358-2220
Fax: (703) 358-1930
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA
22041-3803
Contact HERE!

https://worldanimalnews.com/one-of-our-least-favorite-members-of-the-u-s-government-secretary-zinke-expands-hunting-fishing-at-30-national-wildlife-refuges-in-the-united-states/

© Copyright 2018 – WorldAnimalNews.com

Petition · FWC Crack Down On Land-Based Shark Fishing · Change.org

OneProtest started this petition to FWC Commissiner Chairman Bo Rivard and 9 others

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) is seeking public input on rules and regulations regarding land-based shark fishing.

This controversial hobby amongst recreational “sport” fishermen has drummed up attention after numerous reports of illegal activity, wanton waste, and public safety concerns. Globally shark populations are under extreme pressure; due in part to overfishing. Although, land-based shark fishers practice catch and release the stress often proves too much for the shark. Sharks that swim away may suffer later from post-release mortality which can occur several hours or days later.

There has been no research conducted on the environmental impacts of land-based shark fishing, the effects LBSF has on shark populations, or the potential risks involved with beachgoers in the same vicinity as land-based shark fishers.

We need to let the FWC know that we want more rules, regulations, and enforcement when it comes to protecting our beaches and wildlife from the thrills of land-based shark fishers.

https://www.change.org/p/fwc-crack-down-on-land-based-shark-fishing?utm_source=embedded_petition_view

For more information visit: https://www.floridasharks.org/

Who’s Behind the Claim that Coconut Oil is Pure Poison?

Openhearted Rebellion

By Dr. Mercola, Waking Times

Chances are you’ve seen the recent headlines claiming coconut oil is “pure poison.”1,2,3 That declaration was made in a lecture posted on YouTube by Karin Michels, Ph.D., professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and director of the Institute for Prevention and Tumor Epidemiology at the University of Freiburg in Germany.

In the lecture,4 which is given all in German and was posted on YouTube July 10, 2018, Michels proclaims that coconut oil is “one of the worst foods you can eat.”

Such statements fall right in line with advice from the American Heart Association (AHA), which last year sent out a Presidential Advisory5 to cardiologists around the world, telling them to warn their patients about the dangers of saturated fats such as butter and coconut oil.

View original post 3,669 more words

Petition · Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Costco: Remove Roundup From Your Shelves! · Change.org

Dear Craig Menear, Chairman and CEO of Home Depot; Marvin Ellison, President and CEO Lowe’s; and Walter Craig Jelinek, CEO Costco:

As the leaders of the most successful retail outlets in the US and around the world, we, your customers, request that you protect us and our communities by removing Roundup products from your shelves.

The California EPA Prop 65 Carcinogen List mandated that all products in California containing the chemical glyphosate, a key ingredient in Roundup, must carry a WARNING label, identifying them as cancer and reproductive harm-causing products, by Saturday, July 7, 2018. Monsanto sued and has temporarily stopped this 30-year practice of labeling. Yet, the judge in that case agreed to keep glyphosate on the Prop 65 List, acknowledging that glyphosate is a carcinogen, but not requiring a warning label. Thus, glyphosate, carries no warning label today. Unacceptable!

We think everyone deserves to know! These products should not be sold to the public!

We call on Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Costco today to protect us, your customers, and stop selling Roundup (and all glyphosate herbicides) now, due to its carcinogenic effects and lack of labeling.

Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, a 46-year-old grounds keeper for the Benicia, CA Unified School District, and father of three young boys, is currently in court in San Francisco putting Monsanto on trial for causing his Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma cancer because the glyphosate products he used at work carried no cancer warning label.

By the end of the year, over 10,000 people are also expected to sue Monsanto for the same kinds of exposures that Lee Johnson experienced using glyphosate-based products. There are many safe, non-toxic alternatives on the market today. There is no need to sell a known carcinogen.

The customer care representatives that we have spoken with at your stores have taken our calls very seriously. We hope you do, too. Will you remove Roundup from your shelves?

Thank you!

From,

Moms Across America and USA Consumers

Contacts:

Craig Menear, Chairman and CEO of Home Depot 800-466-3337 press 7, 5 (customer care) Email teamdepotpr@homedepot.com Twitter: @HomeDepot

Marvin Ellison, President and CEO of Lowe’s 704-758-1000 (press 3) Email info@lowes.com Twitter: @Lowes

Walter Craig Jelinek, CEO, Costco Tel: 800-774-2678 (and Press 6) or 425-313-8163 (425) 313-8100 Twitter: @CostcoTweets Email: clilly@costco.com

https://www.change.org/p/home-depot-lowe-s-and-costco-remove-roundup-from-your-shelves/sign?utm_medium=email&utm_source=aa_sign_human&utm_campaign=420226&utm_content=&sfmc_tk=Y65ELrEVwnOSO7%2bDYTtOcbHuWKiNu47EioSDvjZsRDtitIgsnE9%2bAprSMPmZiLGf&j=420226&sfmc_sub=61374949&l=32_HTML&u=65356021&mid=7233053&jb=579

Yikes! Study Finds Dolphins Have Potentially Harmful Plastic Additive In Their Bodies

unnamed(2)

onegreenplanet.org
Aleksandra Pajda

A new study conducted by researchers from the College of Charleston and Chicago Zoological Society have found phthalates, chemical additives used to make plastics more flexible, to be present in the bodies of bottlenose dolphins. During their study, researchers collected and tested urine samples from 17 dolphins from Sarasota Bay in Florida. The tests allowed for the researchers to see if the animals had been exposed to phthalates within the past three to six months, and sadly, they discovered for the first time that the dolphins did indeed have this harmful additive in their systems, highlighting once again the danger of what can happen when our plastic waste ends up in the environment.

Plastics are now known to leach chemical components, and considering the fact we dump around 8.8 million tons of plastic into the oceans every year, it figures that phthalates would eventually end up polluting the marine environment.

Studies conducted in the past have found a connection between phthalates and some forms of cancer and reproductive issues, National Geographic reports. Like BPA, phthalates function as endocrine disruptors and have been linked to altering the ability of the body to produce and maintain proper levels of hormones. Some of the other health risks associated with phthalates include the development of asthma in children, lower IQs for developing fetuses, and ADHD. Phthalates have also been associated alongside BPA as a possible cause for infertility, especially for males attempting to conceive a child.

While the connection between phthalates and human health are starting to be more understood, there is little known about how they might impact dolphins.

“We weren’t surprised to detect exposure, but what was surprising were the levels we were detecting,” said Leslie Hart, the study’s lead author.

Alarmingly, at least one form of phthalate was found in as many of 71 percent of the tested dolphins.

Since the research was the first to use urine samples to detect the presence of these chemicals, Hart pointed out that the team is still establishing what can be considered as normal and what as anomalous. Nevertheless, some of the animals were found to have levels of phthalate metabolites comparable to concentrations detected in people. It is very surprising since humans presumably come into contact with objects that contain phthalates more regularly. The next phase of research will try to find how dolphins are metabolizing the chemicals.

Hart’s research is also part of an ongoing project which focuses on the study of the health impacts of phthalates and how they end up in the environment. Thanks to rising awareness, more people are actively looking for personal care products that do not contain phthalates, and fortunately, studies following these behaviors have shown that when people avoid phthalates, the chemical traces decrease in their bodies.

As we learn more about the negative impact that plastic has on our lives and the environment, it becomes more important to remove this ingredient from our lives. To learn how you can use less plastic and what alternatives you have, check out One Green Planet’s #CrushPlastic campaign.

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/dolphins-potentially-harmful-plastic-additive-bodies/?utm_source=Green+Monster+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=977e9b56c1-NEWSLETTER_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_bbf62ddf34-977e9b56c1-106049477

Image source: Guillaume Meurice/Pexels