Over and over we hear politicians say they can't spend our tax dollars on environmental protection when the economy is so fragile.

My lens of choice was always the 35 mm. It was more environmental. You can't come in closer with the 35 mm.

All we can hope for is that the thing is going to slowly and imperceptibly shift. All I can say is that 50 years ago there were no such thing as environmental policies.

This is absolutely bizarre that we continue to subsidize highways beyond the gasoline tax airlines and we don't subsidize we don't want to subsidize a national rail system that has environmental impact.

I always thought we had an environmental problem but I hadn't realized how urgent it was. James Lovelock writes that by the end of this century there will be one billion people left.

In the environmental movement every time you lose a battle it's for good but our victories always seem to be temporary and we keep fighting them over and over again.

Economists treat economics as if it is a pure science divorced from the facts of life. The result of this false accountancy is a willful confusion under cover of which industry wreaks its havoc scot-free and ignores the environmental cost.

Factory farming is one of the biggest contributors to the most serious environmental problems. The meat industry causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars trucks planes and ships in the world.

Moreover the practical recommendations deduced from ecological principles threaten the vested interests of commerce it is hardly surprising that the financial and political power created by these investments should be used sometimes to suppress environmental impact studies.

We now see numerous examples of brands working together to address issues such as environmental degradations climate control pollution poverty and disease.