Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please read the Announcement
concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
It's not positive... well, depends what you mean by positive? positive as in: we're not china; then yes, that's positive.
I however think we should have somewhat higher standards before we go about saying that something is positive. As it is said, in the cities, the air quality has gone down over the years. Yes, factories are cleaner... things in general are more eco-friendly, but the cities are not good at all. They're still not as bad as the east coast of China... but we shouldn't really aim to go down that road.
Certain "grab and go" stores in my area have posted signs for fines if you leave your car running. This is a total joke. I have yet to see everyone obey the signs or see anyone get fined.
Whenever I see people using disparaging and derogatory terms in an effort to cut down those who are super concerned about the environment I feel slightly taken aback. There are all kinds of causes all over the world that need people to support them and educate others about what's going on.
The next time you think about using the word "green", or "greenie", or "tree hugger" (or something worse) as an attempt to demean another person's views and concerns on environmental issues, please reflect on this:
Reminds me of the book "The Sheep Looked Up" by John Brunner - at the end of the book, as the US is burning up from riots and whatnot, an expert is talking about how to save the planet; he says something like "We need to get rid of the 200 million most wasteful people....and that's happening now".
If the green eugenicists are ever given their head and get to impose their mythical rustic idyl on us I suspect the consequences for humanity will be far greater than that sadly
The imagery occurred to me from the video you recommended in post #23, a woman's voiceover starting at around 28 seconds:
"So they're gonna get rid of people like.. or in their minds it would be ideal to get rid of people.. the average American. People like my husband and I and our children, and people in third world countries, like in Africa."
It also recalled to mind the occasion on which - on the basis of a claim that because (with malaria no longer an issue there) the US banned DDT in 1972, all malaria deaths worldwide since then are the fault of environmentalists - you yourself likened environmentalists to the Nazis. From your thread "Environmentalism is now primarily about stifling basic human aspiration":
#######################
#######################
Excellent point - I'd considered that myself, and it certainly could be an environmental disaster if poorly managed ('virtuous' cycle noted ). But while I'm no expert, I'm not sure it needs to be that way. Seems to me consumption is based on three things: The need to purchase goods, the desire to do so, and the ability to purchase them.
Overconsumption in the rich world obviously isn't based on need. And as you note, the ability to consume more depends on increased wealth. But the desire to purchase new stuff - new clothes or phones every few months, and cars or computers every few years - is to no small extent artificially created via advertising, starting right from childhood. Most kid's shows are tailored specifically towards the marketability of associated toys, in some countries there's even efforts to get advertising into the schools, and this persists into adulthood when you can rarely even watch a movie without some product placement.
That's primarily because of over-production, and that is because cheap labour is so readily available overseas (and to a lesser extent even domestically). With labour so cheap - and of course, to the topic of the thread, environmental costs often largely unaccounted-for even in first-world countries - it's easy to produce endless crap which can be marketted and sold to the upper and middle classes of wealthy nations. A fairer distribution of global wealth would probably (as it has in most first-world countries) lead to the introduction of minimum wage and environmental protection laws, and drastically reduce that opportunity for over-production, and hence much of the marketting and incentive for over-consumption.
Of course I'm not saying I have all the answers, by any means - and I couldn't deny that some environmentalists' views are just as clumsy and ill-considered as some right-wing, left-wing, conservative, liberal, religious or secularist views - but the notion that environmentalism is anti-human is frankly absurd. Like I say, there certainly are some folk (of any political persuasion) with genuine or professed environmental concerns who emphasise over-population as a primary concern largely because they can feel good about how few children they or their country tend to have. And a few environmental extremists too, no doubt.
But as the overwhelming general rule, in my experience at least, environmentalists also tend to be far more vehement advocates of global justice, civil rights and democracy than the folk whose contribution to political discourse amounts to nothing more than dumping crap on everyone they disagree with.
I experienced quite a few crap dumps myself.:mrgreen:
The basic problem is that in their zeal for justice the environmentalists will cripple the economic process that is the only way to lift people out of poverty. And btw, I don't agree that most consumption is driven by advertising.eace
The imagery occurred to me from the video you recommended in post #23, a woman's voiceover starting at around 28 seconds:
"So they're gonna get rid of people like.. or in their minds it would be ideal to get rid of people.. the average American. People like my husband and I and our children, and people in third world countries, like in Africa."
It also recalled to mind the occasion on which - on the basis of a claim that because (with malaria no longer an issue there) the US banned DDT in 1972, all malaria deaths worldwide since then are the fault of environmentalists - you yourself likened environmentalists to the Nazis. From your thread "Environmentalism is now primarily about stifling basic human aspiration":
If you don't like having your views associated with the content you recommend and the rhetoric you indulge in, a little more prudence in what you post might be worthwhile. Don't even begin to pretend that many of your posts regarding environmentalists have not also been deliberately inflammatory and provocative.
That said, if you're genuinely offended by my own responding rhetoric - which I acknowledge was not strictly accurate - I apologise.
If you don't like having your views associated with the content you recommend and the rhetoric you indulge in, a little more prudence in what you post might be worthwhile. Don't even begin to pretend that many of your posts regarding environmentalists have not also been deliberately inflammatory and provocative.
That said, if you're genuinely offended by my own responding rhetoric - which I acknowledge was not strictly accurate - I apologise.
That's primarily because of over-production, and that is because cheap labour is so readily available overseas (and to a lesser extent even domestically). With labour so cheap - and of course, to the topic of the thread, environmental costs often largely unaccounted-for even in first-world countries - it's easy to produce endless crap which can be marketted and sold to the upper and middle classes of wealthy nations. A fairer distribution of global wealth would probably (as it has in most first-world countries) lead to the introduction of minimum wage and environmental protection laws, and drastically reduce that opportunity for over-production, and hence much of the marketting and incentive for over-consumption.
Of course I'm not saying I have all the answers, by any means - and I couldn't deny that some environmentalists' views are just as clumsy and ill-considered as some right-wing, left-wing, conservative, liberal, religious or secularist views - but the notion that environmentalism is anti-human is frankly absurd. Like I say, there certainly are some folk (of any political persuasion) with genuine or professed environmental concerns who emphasise over-population as a primary concern largely because they can feel good about how few children they or their country tend to have. And a few environmental extremists too, no doubt.
But as the overwhelming general rule, in my experience at least, environmentalists also tend to be far more vehement advocates of global justice, civil rights and democracy than the folk whose contribution to political discourse amounts to nothing more than dumping crap on everyone they disagree with.
I experienced quite a few crap dumps myself.:mrgreen:
The basic problem is that in their zeal for justice the environmentalists will cripple the economic process that is the only way to lift people out of poverty. And btw, I don't agree that most consumption is driven by advertising. eace
Buying a new iPhone just because a new one has been released, or even just a new one every year or two, certainly isn't consumption driven by need. I know dozens of people who'd fall into that category. Or several other folk in their late teens or early twenties who've spend 15 or 20 thousand dollars on a brand new first car. In one case, a fellow who already had a second-hand car bought a new one with a loan that he'll wind up paying over 50 thousand dollars on - and this on a fast-food industry wage, though I imagine they're more reasonable in Australia than the US. Clothes and makeup are another biggie, in the younger circles I move in at least. A huge part of our culture is image-oriented, bombarding us with messages about how we should look and all the latest accessories we should possess. It's not just explicit advertising, granted, but heavily influenced by it and as I've mentioned such marketting can be found even implicitly in movies or kids shows (not to mention sporting events!). Even the non-consumerist joys of life, such as family and nature, are frequently co-opted as props, things which can only be really enjoyed when you've got the right camera or lounge-room furniture.
Not intending to rant there, but while I'd agree that a lot (perhaps even a majority) of rich-world consumption is based on real or perceived needs, I think it's all but indisputable that advertising has produced and perpetuates a consumer culture which strongly promotes over-consumption. But the root cause, or at least a big part of the reason it has become a problem, is overproduction; and that is facilitated both by wealth inequality (cheap labour in third world countries, and to some extent even domestically) and by limited, ineffective or nonexistent regulation of the impacts which production has on local or global environments and communities.
A few months back I saw a documentary on clothing manufacturing (on the Australian ABC's Four Corners), naming some of the leading brands sold in Australia as well as the US. While not hugely relevant in environmental terms, as far as the documentary emphasised at least, conditions of workers included wages around $3 (and usually less) per day and virtually zero health and safety regulations; in one building, the all-female employees were told to remain at work even though cracks were appearing in the building, and when it collapsed hundreds were injured or killed. This was in Bangaledesh I think, or possibly Thailand. But the point is, it hardly takes a genius to recognise that if the manufacturers had to abide by reasonable health and safety regulations and dish out wages closer to first-world norms, we would probably see a corresponding decrease in advertisements pushing us to buy 'brand-name clothes at low-low-prices' - at the very least, those prices would not be quite so tempting!
As for economic processes to lift people out of poverty, what we've got going on these days is pretty much the exact opposite of that. In unregulated competition rich countries, like rich people, have huge comparative advantages over the poor. For example one of the few areas in which poor countries have some advantages over the rich is agriculture, since many/most poor countries lie in more tropical latitudes than the likes of the US, Japan, Europe or Canada. But of course American and European (and for that matter Australian) governments can afford to support their struggling farmers with massive subsidies. In some cases that is no doubt a good thing. But in many others it leads to massive overproduction in the wealthy countries and consequently the dumping of that product into third-world markets which (thanks to the WTO's 'preferential treatment') have been coerced into lowering their trade protections or import tarrifs. A particularly nasty example was a large subsidy for US cotton farmers which ended up reducing global prices by some 20% or more and drove many already-struggling third-world farmers over the edge. That one was referenced to an Oxfam report; I've looked up a lot of these references in the past and can do so again if need be, but on a Friday evening I don't have the inclination just now :lol:
Government subsidies for industries is another key concept, again in theory prohibitted by WTO regulations. Monbiot states that the wealthier countries have repeatedly assured the poor that every imposition made on them would be matched by the commitments of wealthier nations. As those commitments are consistently broken by the rich countries, the trade talks at Seattle were left unresolved (2000/2001?- I'm sure Monbiot gives a date, but be darned if I can find it, and obviously can't look it up without internet). For example, on the subject of subsidies one of Monbiot's references (#108) is "Oxfam International, 2002b. Cultivating Poverty: The Impact of US Cotton Subsidies on Africa. Oxfam Briefing Paper 30, Oxford." I mention the full reference because of the utter absurdity of the example; in 2002 the United States government gave 3.9 billion dollars in subsidies to a mere 25,000 cotton farmers. Spending three times as much as its aid budget for the whole of Africa, in other words, those worthy workers were awarded an average $156,000 each in that year. Since this allowed the export of American cotton or cotton products at less than the cost of production, the net effect was to reduce world prices by an estimated twenty-six percent. This, in turn, essentially destroyed the livelihoods of millions of cotton farmers in the poor world, who were already living on the edge of desperation. That pattern repeats across many fields of agriculture, and the injustice is amplified not only by the poorer countries' far smaller ability to subsidize if they break the rules also, but especially by the fact that agriculture is far more important to poorer economies; in poor nations agriculture generally gives employment to majorities or near-majorities of their populations, compared with less than one in ten workers in the rich world.
That page doesn't have any real referencing (I wrote it without internet access, and uploaded it at work), though like I say on later occasions I have double-checked many of the facts and it probably wouldn't hurt to triple-check. Unlike global warming, this is an area where I've already learned quite a bit and could really start to get long-winded if I'm not careful, though I'd certainly do well to learn even more. A lot of the specific detail and nuance is still somewhat lost on me :3oops:
But what I particularly wanted to mention is that since wealthy nations have these huge competitive advantages, a system which puts the whole burden of improving their economy on poor nations - and, by mechanisms such as the WTO, coerces them into attempting to do so in open competition with rich (and often cheating) nations - is ultimately doomed to failure. That is, failure if we were so naive as to imagine that they were ever intended to promote general prosperity. However towards the end of WW2 there was an alternative and highly-regarded approach available, championed by the UK and proposed by the great economist John Maynard Keynes. Here's a snippet (hand-typed due to copy/paste problems, so forgive any errors), the whole of which can be found here (Ctrl+F for bancor to find the beginning):
16. The proposal put foward below differs in one important respect from the pre-war system because it aims at putting some part of the responsibility for adjustment on the creditor country as well as on the debtor. This is an attempt to recover the advantages which were enjoyed in the nineteenth century when a favourable balance in favour of London and Paris, which were the main creditor centres, immediately produced an expansionist pressure in those markets, but which have been lost since New York succeeded to the position of main creditor, the effect of this change being aggravated by the breakdown of international borrowing credit and by the flight of loose funds from one depository to another. The object is that the creditor should not be allowed to remain entirely passive. For if he is, an intolerably heavy task may be laid on the debtor country, which is already for that very reason in the weaker position.
Of course at the time Britain was heavily indebted to the United States, so whatever Keynes' own intentions it must be acknowledged that the UK was decidedly representing it's own interests in the Bretton Woods conference. But that conference led not to Keynes' envisaged International Clearing Union, since the US team ultimately had its way; instead it laid the foundations for the modern International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Instead of promoting the prosperity of all countries by encouraging nations in surplus to purchase from those in deficit, we're left with a system in which each country seeks only their own biggest surpluses - and indeed, coerces bad economic policies onto the countries unable to resist. It's all somewhat over my head, so I'm honestly not yet sure why Keynes said that his system was actually beneficial to the creditor nations also:
But as far as this discussion goes, the point is that after the Great Depression and WW2, our parents or grandparents had uniquely historical opportunities to build a better world. Environmentalism wasn't really on the agenda until the 60s I gather, but even so, as I've suggested, a fairer distribution of global wealth in the past 68 years quite probably could have lead to the same reduced birth rates in most or all countries that we see in currently developed countries; less wealth inequality and exploitable labour and hence less opportunity or incentive for gross over-production; and similar environmental laws across the board as have since been implemented and enjoyed in developed countries.
Environmentalists are not anti-human or even anti-progress, not by a long shot. They simply are not as short-sighted as those who think only of the profit-margins for the next year or decade. I myself only began to learn about this stuff when I was seventeen or so, around the turn of the millenium, and began to realise that my generation and those after me were inheriting a world in which the previous generations (or at least those ruling and shaping them) had given little or no thought to the future.
It is those who entertain the inexplicable fantasy that a finite planet can support unlimited growth who give every indication of not giving a damn about future generations - or for that matter the struggling billions of their own period.
Re: Do we really want to bash the "Greenies" all the time????
I was in Minocqua, WI a couple years ago and went to one of those places where a whole lot of "second hand" goods dealers are all in a building - all have their stalls.
The sheer amount of STUFF - still in good condition - was amazing/appalling. If we never manufactured another dish, another glass, another coffee cup, another pair of salt & pepper shakers for the next five years - there's plenty out there to keep us going.
I know our consumer society does keep a lot of people employed and a lot of money flowing.
But oh my, the waste!
I try not to replace things just because there is something newer. My cars were 2002, 2003, 2004 models and I have no plans to replace them any time soon. But I'm sure I buy stuff I don't really need and I buy it new when I should be looking for it used; none of us are perfect.
But the amount of STUFF in that building... wow. And I'm sure there are buildings like that in most towns in our country....
Buying a new iPhone just because a new one has been released, or even just a new one every year or two, certainly isn't consumption driven by need. I know dozens of people who'd fall into that category. Or several other folk in their late teens or early twenties who've spend 15 or 20 thousand dollars on a brand new first car. In one case, a fellow who already had a second-hand car bought a new one with a loan that he'll wind up paying over 50 thousand dollars on - and this on a fast-food industry wage, though I imagine they're more reasonable in Australia than the US. Clothes and makeup are another biggie, in the younger circles I move in at least. A huge part of our culture is image-oriented, bombarding us with messages about how we should look and all the latest accessories we should possess. It's not just explicit advertising, granted, but heavily influenced by it and as I've mentioned such marketting can be found even implicitly in movies or kids shows (not to mention sporting events!). Even the non-consumerist joys of life, such as family and nature, are frequently co-opted as props, things which can only be really enjoyed when you've got the right camera or lounge-room furniture.
Not intending to rant there, but while I'd agree that a lot (perhaps even a majority) of rich-world consumption is based on real or perceived needs, I think it's all but indisputable that advertising has produced and perpetuates a consumer culture which strongly promotes over-consumption. But the root cause, or at least a big part of the reason it has become a problem, is overproduction; and that is facilitated both by wealth inequality (cheap labour in third world countries, and to some extent even domestically) and by limited, ineffective or nonexistent regulation of the impacts which production has on local or global environments and communities.
A few months back I saw a documentary on clothing manufacturing (on the Australian ABC's Four Corners), naming some of the leading brands sold in Australia as well as the US. While not hugely relevant in environmental terms, as far as the documentary emphasised at least, conditions of workers included wages around $3 (and usually less) per day and virtually zero health and safety regulations; in one building, the all-female employees were told to remain at work even though cracks were appearing in the building, and when it collapsed hundreds were injured or killed. This was in Bangaledesh I think, or possibly Thailand. But the point is, it hardly takes a genius to recognise that if the manufacturers had to abide by reasonable health and safety regulations and dish out wages closer to first-world norms, we would probably see a corresponding decrease in advertisements pushing us to buy 'brand-name clothes at low-low-prices' - at the very least, those prices would not be quite so tempting!
As for economic processes to lift people out of poverty, what we've got going on these days is pretty much the exact opposite of that. In unregulated competition rich countries, like rich people, have huge comparative advantages over the poor. For example one of the few areas in which poor countries have some advantages over the rich is agriculture, since many/most poor countries lie in more tropical latitudes than the likes of the US, Japan, Europe or Canada. But of course American and European (and for that matter Australian) governments can afford to support their struggling farmers with massive subsidies. In some cases that is no doubt a good thing. But in many others it leads to massive overproduction in the wealthy countries and consequently the dumping of that product into third-world markets which (thanks to the WTO's 'preferential treatment') have been coerced into lowering their trade protections or import tarrifs. A particularly nasty example was a large subsidy for US cotton farmers which ended up reducing global prices by some 20% or more and drove many already-struggling third-world farmers over the edge. That one was referenced to an Oxfam report; I've looked up a lot of these references in the past and can do so again if need be, but on a Friday evening I don't have the inclination just now :lol:
Government subsidies for industries is another key concept, again in theory prohibitted by WTO regulations. Monbiot states that the wealthier countries have repeatedly assured the poor that every imposition made on them would be matched by the commitments of wealthier nations. As those commitments are consistently broken by the rich countries, the trade talks at Seattle were left unresolved (2000/2001?- I'm sure Monbiot gives a date, but be darned if I can find it, and obviously can't look it up without internet). For example, on the subject of subsidies one of Monbiot's references (#108) is "Oxfam International, 2002b. Cultivating Poverty: The Impact of US Cotton Subsidies on Africa. Oxfam Briefing Paper 30, Oxford." I mention the full reference because of the utter absurdity of the example; in 2002 the United States government gave 3.9 billion dollars in subsidies to a mere 25,000 cotton farmers. Spending three times as much as its aid budget for the whole of Africa, in other words, those worthy workers were awarded an average $156,000 each in that year. Since this allowed the export of American cotton or cotton products at less than the cost of production, the net effect was to reduce world prices by an estimated twenty-six percent. This, in turn, essentially destroyed the livelihoods of millions of cotton farmers in the poor world, who were already living on the edge of desperation. That pattern repeats across many fields of agriculture, and the injustice is amplified not only by the poorer countries' far smaller ability to subsidize if they break the rules also, but especially by the fact that agriculture is far more important to poorer economies; in poor nations agriculture generally gives employment to majorities or near-majorities of their populations, compared with less than one in ten workers in the rich world.
That page doesn't have any real referencing (I wrote it without internet access, and uploaded it at work), though like I say on later occasions I have double-checked many of the facts and it probably wouldn't hurt to triple-check. Unlike global warming, this is an area where I've already learned quite a bit and could really start to get long-winded if I'm not careful, though I'd certainly do well to learn even more. A lot of the specific detail and nuance is still somewhat lost on me :3oops:
But what I particularly wanted to mention is that since wealthy nations have these huge competitive advantages, a system which puts the whole burden of improving their economy on poor nations - and, by mechanisms such as the WTO, coerces them into attempting to do so in open competition with rich (and often cheating) nations - is ultimately doomed to failure. That is, failure if we were so naive as to imagine that they were ever intended to promote general prosperity. However towards the end of WW2 there was an alternative and highly-regarded approach available, championed by the UK and proposed by the great economist John Maynard Keynes. Here's a snippet (hand-typed due to copy/paste problems, so forgive any errors), the whole of which can be found here (Ctrl+F for bancor to find the beginning):
16. The proposal put foward below differs in one important respect from the pre-war system because it aims at putting some part of the responsibility for adjustment on the creditor country as well as on the debtor. This is an attempt to recover the advantages which were enjoyed in the nineteenth century when a favourable balance in favour of London and Paris, which were the main creditor centres, immediately produced an expansionist pressure in those markets, but which have been lost since New York succeeded to the position of main creditor, the effect of this change being aggravated by the breakdown of international borrowing credit and by the flight of loose funds from one depository to another. The object is that the creditor should not be allowed to remain entirely passive. For if he is, an intolerably heavy task may be laid on the debtor country, which is already for that very reason in the weaker position.
Of course at the time Britain was heavily indebted to the United States, so whatever Keynes' own intentions it must be acknowledged that the UK was decidedly representing it's own interests in the Bretton Woods conference. But that conference led not to Keynes' envisaged International Clearing Union, since the US team ultimately had its way; instead it laid the foundations for the modern International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Instead of promoting the prosperity of all countries by encouraging nations in surplus to purchase from those in deficit, we're left with a system in which each country seeks only their own biggest surpluses - and indeed, coerces bad economic policies onto the countries unable to resist. It's all somewhat over my head, so I'm honestly not yet sure why Keynes said that his system was actually beneficial to the creditor nations also:
But as far as this discussion goes, the point is that after the Great Depression and WW2, our parents or grandparents had uniquely historical opportunities to build a better world. Environmentalism wasn't really on the agenda until the 60s I gather, but even so, as I've suggested, a fairer distribution of global wealth in the past 68 years quite probably could have lead to the same reduced birth rates in most or all countries that we see in currently developed countries; less wealth inequality and exploitable labour and hence less opportunity or incentive for gross over-production; and similar environmental laws across the board as have since been implemented and enjoyed in developed countries.
Environmentalists are not anti-human or even anti-progress, not by a long shot. They simply are not as short-sighted as those who think only of the profit-margins for the next year or decade. I myself only began to learn about this stuff when I was seventeen or so, around the turn of the millenium, and began to realise that my generation and those after me were inheriting a world in which the previous generations (or at least those ruling and shaping them) had given little or no thought to the future.
It is those who entertain the inexplicable fantasy that a finite planet can support unlimited growth who give every indication of not giving a damn about future generations - or for that matter the struggling billions of their own period.
A tropical climate is not superior to a temperate climate for agriculture. The option to buy what we want beyond what we need is the fruit of hard work and a free society. We owe no one anything for that; nor does it need to be justified.eace
A tropical climate is not superior to a temperate climate for agriculture. The option to buy what we want beyond what we need is the fruit of hard work and a free society. We owe no one anything for that; nor does it need to be justified.eace
Ironically, when formerly poor countries improve their citizens' lives, the first thing that occurs is that people start buying what they want, in addition to what they need! Human nature must be contagious! :mrgreen:
Ironically, when formerly poor countries improve their citizens' lives, the first thing that occurs is that people start buying what they want, in addition to what they need! Human nature must be contagious! :mrgreen:
People just won't do what the environmentalists want! A little freedom, a little money, and they start acting like their own desires matter! Who do they think they are?:lamo
People just won't do what the environmentalists want! A little freedom, a little money, and they start acting like their own desires matter! Who do they think they are?
Go ahead, laugh at environmentalists. And when you strangle on the pollution fumes and have to pay lots of money for clean water, please be sure to blame yourself, not the environmentalists.
Go ahead, laugh at environmentalists. And when you strangle on the pollution fumes and have to pay lots of money for clean water, please be sure to blame yourself, not the environmentalists.
Go ahead, laugh at environmentalists. And when you strangle on the pollution fumes and have to pay lots of money for clean water, please be sure to blame yourself, not the environmentalists.
You know I've never considered the enormous success of our species as tragic
Go ahead, laugh at environmentalists. And when you strangle on the pollution fumes and have to pay lots of money for clean water, please be sure to blame yourself, not the environmentalists
The environment in most Western countries is cleaner than at any time since the industrial revolution so I suspect we'll be more than OK. China will be too once it gets its act together
I don't buy a new cell phone every year. My cars are 10+ years old. I live off-grid. When I had to get a new refrigerator, I chose the most energy efficient one I could from Sears. We've "slimmed" down most of the energy-consuming items in our house - i.e. our audio/visual equipment is all as low-powered as we could get it, for example, and when we replace something power use is ALWAYS part of the decision. We don't do a lot of driving and stack our errands together rather than running out in the car multiple times. I don't run the a/c all summer long, I don't run the furnace all the time in the winter. I don't have TVs in every room, I don't have a large freezer, I don't put on a huge Xmas lights display. We use compact florescent bulbs (which, yes, have some mercury so not impact free but when they finally die we recycle them responsibly). My washer is a front-loader, low water use washer.
And actually, no - I don't have to "give up" stuff to live a life where I'm not adding a lot to pollution, nor using up a lot of finite resources. I'm living a comfortable life; but I'm cognizant of my impact on the environment and am careful in my choices when I do buy something. It amazes me that people will leave lights and TVs on when they aren't in the room. I can't understand running the a/c or furnace overnight unless you are in an extreme climate. Turn off the PC overnight. None of this will ruin your lifestyle.
I don't buy a new cell phone every year. My cars are 10+ years old. I live off-grid. When I had to get a new refrigerator, I chose the most energy efficient one I could from Sears. We've "slimmed" down most of the energy-consuming items in our house - i.e. our audio/visual equipment is all as low-powered as we could get it, for example, and when we replace something power use is ALWAYS part of the decision. We don't do a lot of driving and stack our errands together rather than running out in the car multiple times. I don't run the a/c all summer long, I don't run the furnace all the time in the winter. I don't have TVs in every room, I don't have a large freezer, I don't put on a huge Xmas lights display. We use compact florescent bulbs (which, yes, have some mercury so not impact free but when they finally die we recycle them responsibly). My washer is a front-loader, low water use washer.
And actually, no - I don't have to "give up" stuff to live a life where I'm not adding a lot to pollution, nor using up a lot of finite resources. I'm living a comfortable life; but I'm cognizant of my impact on the environment and am careful in my choices when I do buy something. It amazes me that people will leave lights and TVs on when they aren't in the room. I can't understand running the a/c or furnace overnight unless you are in an extreme climate. Turn off the PC overnight. None of this will ruin your lifestyle.
I don't buy a new cell phone every year. My cars are 10+ years old. I live off-grid. When I had to get a new refrigerator, I chose the most energy efficient one I could from Sears. We've "slimmed" down most of the energy-consuming items in our house - i.e. our audio/visual equipment is all as low-powered as we could get it, for example, and when we replace something power use is ALWAYS part of the decision. We don't do a lot of driving and stack our errands together rather than running out in the car multiple times. I don't run the a/c all summer long, I don't run the furnace all the time in the winter. I don't have TVs in every room, I don't have a large freezer, I don't put on a huge Xmas lights display. We use compact florescent bulbs (which, yes, have some mercury so not impact free but when they finally die we recycle them responsibly). My washer is a front-loader, low water use washer.
And actually, no - I don't have to "give up" stuff to live a life where I'm not adding a lot to pollution, nor using up a lot of finite resources. I'm living a comfortable life; but I'm cognizant of my impact on the environment and am careful in my choices when I do buy something. It amazes me that people will leave lights and TVs on when they aren't in the room. I can't understand running the a/c or furnace overnight unless you are in an extreme climate. Turn off the PC overnight. None of this will ruin your lifestyle.
Between my AGW-mocking brother and I, we probably average out a little worse than you :lol: Perhaps neither you nor I are really good enough - I would say that in general we do have to give up some luxuries and conveniences for a sustainable future - but the notion that we have to give up everything to avoid environmental hypocrisy is obviously pure nonsense.
If everyone did what I do, would we have a good world?
Even I personally can't be sure of my answer to that. I take refuge in the fact that 'good' and 'bad' are merely social constructs.
But the whole trend of right-wing rhetoric and ideology seems a determined attempt to persuade themselves of an answer to it in the face of all evidence Witness Jack's earlier comment that excessive consumption is "the fruit of hard work and a free society" after I'd explained how his clothing was probably made by a $2-a-day Bangladeshi worker at risk of building collapse.
Between my AGW-mocking brother and I, we probably average out a little worse than you :lol: Perhaps neither you nor I are really good enough - I would say that in general we do have to give up some luxuries and conveniences for a sustainable future - but the notion that we have to give up everything to avoid environmental hypocrisy is obviously pure nonsense.
If everyone did what I do, would we have a good world?
Even I personally can't be sure of my answer to that. I take refuge in the fact that 'good' and 'bad' are merely social constructs.
But the whole trend of right-wing rhetoric and ideology seems a determined attempt to persuade themselves of an answer to it in the face of all evidence Witness Jack's earlier comment that excessive consumption is "the fruit of hard work and a free society" after I'd explained how his clothing was probably made by a $2-a-day Bangladeshi worker at risk of building collapse
Well said! And yes, I'm not claiming to be perfect by any means; I could still do a lot better (I have friends who do better than me! and some who do a lot worse...). But I think stories like mine show that a lower consumption lifestyle doesn't mean "giving up" anything.
You're right that good/bad are subjective. But the world has been around for a very long time, and I like to think I'm not hurting it much. It's treated us well; I do what I can to keep the world going.
Air like in the Central Valley in California shows us we all have further to go - but again, we can do it without living in caves and gnawing on raw vegetables (and to the raw foodies of the world: yea for you! I like most of my food cooked, I admit)
Oh, and Jack - Yes, I AM fun at parties, as a matter of fact! You should hear my bear stories...
Air like in the Central Valley in California shows us we all have further to go - but again, we can do it without living in caves and gnawing on raw vegetables (and to the raw foodies of the world: yea for you! I like most of my food cooked, I admit)
Hehe.. I considered/tried to be a vegetarian 7 or 8 years ago, but ultimately I love my meats almost as much as I love noodles, chips and pizza. That lesson laid the foundations for what has since become one of my Nine Guidelines for life ("Live in such a way that, if all lived as you, all would be well" being another of 'em): Don't try to be perfect, just try to be better
It must be acknowledged that in the understandable (and no doubt often effective) attempt to 'shock' people into recognising problems and acting on them, greenies may well have indirectly or inadvertently contributed at times to the extreme zero-impact image which opponents are so keen to knock down. But turning off lights or appliances when you leave the room is not a very high target to aim for, as you've noted - and can help to build habit patterns which will further reinforce environmentally-friendly behaviour, without any of those nasty socialist conspiracies we hear so much about :lol:
Re: Do we really want to bash the "Greenies" all the time????
I like your guideline! and yeah, I like meat a bit too much to ever go vegetarian, even though I know for moral and health reasons it would be a good thing to do... sigh.
Like you said, I just try to be better where I can.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
). But while I'm no expert, I'm not sure it needs to be that way. Seems to me consumption is based on three things: The need to purchase goods, the desire to do so, and the ability to purchase them.
eace
