I'm getting really tired of greenwashing, so much so that I've creating a new category called "greenwashing" dedicated to these sorts of incidents:
A false or misleading picture of environmental friendliness used to conceal or obscure damaging activities. 
There are many people out there who fight Darwin's theory of natural selection because it makes them feel "small," it makes life "meaningless" or it causes only despair. In the February/March 2010 issue of Free Inquiry Magazine, Christopher Hitchens substitutes the word "stoicism" for "despair," then poses several questions in response:
[I]s this Darwinian stuff really the goods or is it not? You can't take a position against it on the mere ground that might make humans feel small. (Incidentally, isn't religion supposed to make people feel small and worthless: mere sinners created from dust by an angry and jealous deity? Our own well charted descent from lowly amoeba and bacteria is surely nothing as humiliating as that.) I suppose you could argue that my next question is to some extent a matter of taste and therefore ultimately undecidable, but how is it more uplifting to human beings to compare themselves to well-tended but helpless farm animals, grateful for any favor from the owner and not believing themselves able to manage any sustenance without a corresponding guardianship?The point Hitchens raises has puzzled me for many years. How could any life feel worthwhile without a sense of autonomy? As soon as one hands one's fate over to Someone Else (who is guided by God-knows-what), it would seem that the "meaning" of one's life exists merely in the hand-over of control, and not in one's many earthly choices, no matter how impressive they might seem.
I didn't realize that a spin-off project of Wikipedia is, Wikispecies, a free directory of life, that already includes 209,875 taxonomic entries. For instance, would you quickly like to review the taxonavigation of Homo Sapiens? It's all here, all the way up from eukaryota.
How can one really justify a salary of $1 Million to run a charity? Consider the case of Brian A. Gallagher, who is paid $1,037,140 to run The United Way. Or consider the American Red Cross, which pays its top person, Gail J. McGovern, $495,187 per year. These are stats from 2009 provided by Forbes. Here's how you fix this problem: Pass a law to make all charities disclose the salaries of its top ten highest earning officers and employees on all solicitations for donations.
President Obama has recently announced that he will allocate $8 billion ($4 billion each year, over two years) to develop a new system of high-speed passenger rail service. This is an excellent idea. The new rail lines will be created within 10 geographical corridors ranging from 100 to 600 miles long.
Note, however, that the high-speed rail line system will be an extremely expensive project, and that the $8 billion bill will need to be paid by 138 million tax-paying Americans. Dividing the $8 billion cost by the number of taxpayers, we can see that, on average, each taxpayer will pay almost $60 ($30 per year, for two years) to support this massive new high-speed rail service.
Again, this high-speed rail project will cost an immense amount of money. Consider, though, how small this pile of rail money looks when compared to the amount of money we are wasting in the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. For 2009, the United States spent approximately $87 billion for Iraq and $47 billion for Afghanistan. The fiscal 2010 budget requests $65 billion for Afghanistan operations and $61 billion for Iraq. the cost of these two "wars" together is $126 billion for 2010.
Compare these expenditures on a bar chart:
