#
“The judge identified nine aspects of An Inconvenient Truth, nine core errors, where Al Gore either misstated the IPCC or prejudicially exaggerated what they found.” John Day is the lawyer for a British parent who sued the British Department
of Education when they tried to distribute An Inconvenient Truth to schools.
Hospitals to go green at the expense of patient care?
Written by Kristin McMurray   
Friday, 13 November 2009 12:47
Multithumb found errors on this page:

There was a problem loading image http://jama.ama-assn.org/icons/logo.225x76.gif
The Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle revealed environmentalists advocating for Africans to use only renewable energy, warning them "not to become addicted to fossil fuels".  As a result, the Africans slapped an expensive solar panel on top of their doctor's office and promptly realized they had a choice: they could either turn on the lights in the hospital, or store blood.

This story illuminates that it does take more energy to treat the sick. Yet, a recent study at the University of Chicago touts 10 percent of carbon emissions come from health care entities. Environmentalists say hospitals need to follow green building codes and a recycling program. They say the health care industry needs a "perspective overhaul."

If only environmentalists would overhaul their perspective! Why should hospitals rebuild and reuse when many patients already struggle with the cost of health care? Personally, I would have been happy to see if hospitals were responsible for 20 percent of carbon emissions.  The more energy expounded would have resulted in more lives saved.


Share this page on your favorite Social Websites...

Comments (2)add comment

Will said:

Example
I was hoping the documentary and this site would be a wise voice to the two extremes (environmentalists and industrialists). Unfortunately, based on what I have read so far and the documentary trailer, and please correct me if I am wrong, it seems the documentary and the site are the opposite extreme of the environmentalists. Case in point: "Personally, I would have been happy to see if hospitals were responsible for 20 percent of carbon emissions. The more energy expounded would have resulted in more lives saved." Expending more energy doesn't necessarily lead to something better. It could lead to something better, but wouldn't it be more advantageous to reduce pollution from energy and increase care? Take a look at the growth of Interface Global, a carpet company that set a goal in 1994 to be waste free by 2020. The company has made tremendous reductions in waste and pollution and the company has greatly improved financially. It would be nice to see the stories from those taking a balanced approach to improve the economy, society and the environment, and not the stories of the extremes.
 
November 17, 2009
Votes: -1

Otter said:

...
I have to guess Will has never heard of sarcasm....
 
November 18, 2009
Votes: +0

Write comment

busy