probably gonna have to go with Lucca from Chrono Trigger.

Maxio there just basically repeated what i just said to my girlfriend after reading this article, and I will be dropping this feed from my reader as well. This has nothing to do with environmentalism or conservation or green politics. Although i'm sure the treehugger and animal-lover interest groups have a lot of crossover, there's no need to encourage the assumption that both are just shades of ignorant pacifist hippie-ism that want everyone to live in peace and love, man.
Hopefully there's a blog out there that covers real political ecology and not just fluffy its-cool-to-be-green first-world environmentalism.

wow, another classic logo dies - just like the recent UPS and at&t (all lowercase now, right?) "updating" of their logos. Glad IBM is still sticking to its guns. why would you spend decades building up your brand identity and then swap it for something that looks like it represents a taiwanese upstart? foolish. i can't wait for everything to be NOT shiny balls again.

looks like a sega nomad.

whoa - okay, yeah.
take me to gotham, once it gets warm.

the problem with that is that many unintended pregnancies are the products of people in not great financial circumstances. Levying a tax on them would only further their money problems, creating a greater burden on the welfare system and therefore the state, which will have to divert funds from environmental issues in order to prop up the poor.

The correlation between population growth and carbon emissions has been largely dismissed - the correlation is with WEALTH (or, actually, a lack thereof). Wealth post-industrial countries, like Australia and the UK, have high per capita carbon footprints due to lots of importing, high rates of car ownership, moderately low population density (aka suburbs), and a high level of meat consumption. Places like Sao Paulo, Brazil, which
produce a huge quantity for export (lumber, produce, meat) yet have far greater population densities than even London or Sydney have much lower per capita carbon emissions, because their citizens are so poor.

The best Austrailia can do is subsidize the price of local food products to reduce the impact of transportation from foreign lands on their huge, sparsely populated island. And don't forget, populations in first-world countries are holding steady or declining in most cases. In America, our population would likely be shrinking if not for the constant immigration to here. Japan and Russia are shrinking and aging at a huge level. Still, these countries are huge polluters due to their wealth (Russia excluded).

For more, look up "demographic transition" on wikipedia.

"life in debt", came out in the early 90's, illustrates how Amzonian deforestation contributes to urban poverty and the murder of street children. totally essential, not fluffy or corporate in any way.

just got a mac - it needs a little buddy!

chyeah.....