Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident 2B
If there was a negative impact to the environment from leaving the current canopy in place, I would want it fixed at once...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrc
Tearing down a perfectly serviceable and functional canopy, just to replace it with a more aesthetically pleasing has a negative effect on the environment. All the carbon released to deconstruct the existing canopy, dispose of it, manfacture the new canopy and install it will contribute to global warming for no social benefit.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
As both a gasoline refinery operator, and a retailer, I vote for Cumby to donate $15,000 to the automotive training at the Huot Vocational Tech in Laconia, and $15,000 to the marine technician training at Lakes Region Community College in Laconia.
|
I find it interesting that not one of you addressed the question I posed of "Where does the slippery slope to ignoring the government begin?" I understand that the re-do will negatively effect the environment (so..if scumbys didn't have to do this, all that equipment would have been shut down and not doing anything else, thus not expelling carbon?
) but what about visual pollution? Do we know that the CORRECT AND APPROVED canopy will not cause less visual pollution then the current INCORRECT AND UNAPPROVED one? If it was an infraction that effected the environment, but no one caught it, is that OK? Where do we draw the line before everything becomes a "opps, didn't see that before, my bad but I guess we shouldn't waste money doing it the CORRECT AND APPROVED way?"
I still say a fine and a fix is in order.