ENERGY COMPROMISE CALLS FOR BURNING
FOSSIL FUELS, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS
Alternate "Green Fuel" Non-Renewable, But Won't Require Drilling
Washington, D.C. — In a compromise that calls for the left and right to work together, energy company executives today proposed burning both fossil fuels and environmental activists, who officials estimated may be able to provide 2 percent of the country's energy output "for a couple of hours, anyway."
"It doesn't sound like much, but I think the environmental lobby would agree that every little bit helps," said Giles Fermat, president of the National Energy Producers Association, which will voluntarily foot the bill to refit plants.
Environmentalists, however, were split over their use as so-called "green fuel." In California, Sierra Club spokesman Martin Gallagher blasted the proposal as "another short-term fix" that would do little to decrease the nation's energy dependence. Like oil, he insisted, people who closely follow environmental issues are a non-renewable source of energy.
"The burning of environmental activists will provide only a brief respite, and may eventually discourage others from becoming environmental activists," said Gallagher. "Once we've been depleted, what then?"
"Then we'll drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," replied Fermat.
"Over my dead body!" countered Gallagher. "Oh... right."
At an emergency meeting of Greenpeace, meanwhile, officers conceded the plan would encourage the group's 2.5 million members to be "really, really active activists — well, for a short while." They also noted the alternative source of energy would not require the harmful drilling or strip-mining used to extract other forms of fuel.
Several members, however, complained that vehicles used to transport activists to power facilities would further pollute the environment. The issue was settled when members voted to walk to the plants.
Copyright © 2002, SatireWire. :p
FOSSIL FUELS, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS
Alternate "Green Fuel" Non-Renewable, But Won't Require Drilling
Washington, D.C. — In a compromise that calls for the left and right to work together, energy company executives today proposed burning both fossil fuels and environmental activists, who officials estimated may be able to provide 2 percent of the country's energy output "for a couple of hours, anyway."
"It doesn't sound like much, but I think the environmental lobby would agree that every little bit helps," said Giles Fermat, president of the National Energy Producers Association, which will voluntarily foot the bill to refit plants.
Environmentalists, however, were split over their use as so-called "green fuel." In California, Sierra Club spokesman Martin Gallagher blasted the proposal as "another short-term fix" that would do little to decrease the nation's energy dependence. Like oil, he insisted, people who closely follow environmental issues are a non-renewable source of energy.
"The burning of environmental activists will provide only a brief respite, and may eventually discourage others from becoming environmental activists," said Gallagher. "Once we've been depleted, what then?"
"Then we'll drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," replied Fermat.
"Over my dead body!" countered Gallagher. "Oh... right."
At an emergency meeting of Greenpeace, meanwhile, officers conceded the plan would encourage the group's 2.5 million members to be "really, really active activists — well, for a short while." They also noted the alternative source of energy would not require the harmful drilling or strip-mining used to extract other forms of fuel.
Several members, however, complained that vehicles used to transport activists to power facilities would further pollute the environment. The issue was settled when members voted to walk to the plants.
Copyright © 2002, SatireWire. :p