NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm starting to get annoyed with "the Greenies". Which is actually rather strange for me, because I used to be a huge supporter of theirs.

This is not a thread about whether or not global warming exists, it's a thread about what exactly is the appropriate action taken to combat it, on a personal level.

I invite you to have a look (and/or listen) at the following links:
http://www21.sbs.com.au/ecohousechallenge/
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1933224.htm

The first link is about a TV Show that's running in Australia at the moment. They have a few experts who set two families targets for sustainable living. One day they have a "water challenge" where they have to cut their water use by so and so many percent, then an energy challenge, a CO2 challenge and so on.

The big problem I have with this is one word: Percent. The lady openly admitted "Well, it's easier for this family to win the challenge because they were using so much more energy before, so cutting 60% is easy. The other family was already really good with energy, so cutting 60% is very difficult for them."

Maybe this is the economist in me but What the Fuck?!

And it looks almost as though this thinking isn't just confined to a silly TV show. Everyone is these days being asked to use less water, reduce their CO2 emissions and so on and so forth. Some people take it to the point described in the second link, where they don't fly anymore to reduce CO2 emissions. Nevermind that the flight will go no matter whether or not they're on it.

Every week a new coal-fired power station opens somewhere in China. Power generation is the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions. I could basically leave my car running for the entire year and not hope to make the slightest difference to CO2 figures worldwide.

So I suppose my question is: how far should this stuff go? Does it make sense to "get everyone involved", to basically ask everyone to give stuff up, even if the expected pay-off is small?

What have you done to save water, electricity or CO2 emissions, and where would you draw the line?

When the government forces us to live in adobe houses with solar panels on the roofs and produce no waste. That will have been a bit much. Although I know a guy who does that and is pretty happy. Bit of a kook, though. :)

Also, I agree - that show isn't very fair.

I think it's pretty funny that a bunch of movie stars and rock stars are going to have a great big concert "to fight global warming." How much global warming will be caused by their concert? :p

You do what you can.


What is this 'My actions alone can't save the world so why bother?' "I can't do a lot so I won't do a little?"

If you were the only cat on the planet you could power you palatial estate by running ten monster trucks on treadmills 24 hours a day and it wouldn't matter much. But you're not alone, and the efforts that you can make combine with what everyone else can do.

If you really believe there is a problem, the fact that China isn't doing enough about it wouldn't be an excuse for you to not do anything about it, since that still exasperates the situation instead of making it as better as you can.

If you don't fly, it won't make a difference on its own, but if fewer people fly there will eventually be fewer flights-c'mon, you're a devout capitalist, that's basic.

I don't agree with what China and India have been doing, yes-they do have right to build and grow, but why would they not chose to learn from our mistakes? Why not build a more renewable base now, when they are building their base, and be ahead of the game instead of spending this money now to be behind the game, in essence to build the things that we now are facing having to tear down? Why do that? It might be cheaper now, but in the not too distant future it will be far more expensive. I don't know why they would do that.

It's futile; just lie back and accept that the choice is really in the hands of the majority (democratic or otherwise). Now, I believe in at least a gradual step-down approach to such a problem and I'm not saying people got to start drinking their own filtered pee, but an equilibrium where we are far less harmful to the environment. People don't want to give up any of their "necessities" such as air travel. Which, yes, if enough don't ride they will not ride as often.

Third base.

No, wait...all the way. Definitely all the way.

They should put everyone who isn't green enough into camps!

*pours green paint all over him. read 'lead based paint' on can*

Ahh crap.

As far as I wish it to go...

Third base.

No, wait...all the way. Definitely all the way.

That all depends... on where we take enviornmentalism on the first date.

Here's a simple formula:

McDonalds/Burger King: First Base
Denny's/IHOP: Second Base
TGI Fridays/Bennigan's: Third Base
Olive Garden: HOME RUN BABY!!!

Those breadsticks get 'em every time. :cool:

I work for a large environmentalist group, and I hear about things most of the public doesn't. In Long Island New York, where I live(d), oil companies Shell and TransCanada are in plans to build a gas barge the size of four football fields in the neighboring Sound between Connecticut. My fear is that if this is built, every gas company is going to want their own barges for gas storage in the waters, turning our ocean into industrial parking lots. Its pretty sick if you ask me. So for me, using as much alternative energy as possible is a way of showing opposition to what the future of oil dependency may hold. I would much rather have my grandchildren look out to the waters and see an offshore wind-park powering all of Long Island than a huge barge floating and killing the marine life. Then I could say that I was part of something good, that I fought for something that made a difference.

I work for a large environmentalist group, and I hear about things most of the public doesn't. In Long Island New York, where I live(d), oil companies Shell and TransCanada are in plans to build a gas barge the size of four football fields in the neighboring Sound between Connecticut. My fear is that if this is built, every gas company is going to want their own barges for gas storage in the waters, turning our ocean into industrial parking lots. Its pretty sick if you ask me. So for me, using as much alternative energy as possible is a way of showing opposition to what the future of oil dependency may hold. I would much rather have my grandchildren look out to the waters and see an offshore wind-park powering all of Long Island than a huge barge floating and killing the marine life. Then I could say that I was part of something good, that I fought for something that made a difference.

Ok ummm, do you have any proof of this beside your own word, because really your own word means as much as what my cat leaves in the litter box.

The biggest problem with the Kyoto protocol is that China, because it is a developing country, does not have to do anything at all. So they are pumping out a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

And people refusing to fly are stupid. A plane with say 300 people on it is better for the environment then 300 cars travelling the same distance.

Ok ummm, do you have any proof of this beside your own word, because really your own word means as much as what my cat leaves in the litter box.

Courant.com (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-plchayden0204.artfeb04,0,6603344.story)
Savethesound.com (http://www.savethesound.org/LNG/BWold.htm)
Broadwater (http://www.broadwaterenergy.com/) (which is apparently what it's called)
Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzbroad5228971may25,0,7011102.story?coll=ny-business-print)
WTHN.com (http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=6548746)
The Connecticut Post (http://www.connpost.com/localnews/ci_5950397)
The Day (http://archive.theday.com/store/itm.aspx?re=ae99d56f-1dc6-4031-a977-2891b2d6984d&itm=art)

Now, I support the call for sources most times, but when it's that damn easy to look up, insinuating that the dude made shit up might make you look foolish, or at the very least prove his point for him.

You do what you can.
But that's precisely the point. Is it my decision how much I "can" do? Does it even matter what I "can" do?

The thing is, global CO2 levels don't care where the emissions come from, or how many percent that person reduced them. CO2 emissions are an aggregate thing, so the overall level matters, nothing else. As such it would be most efficient to reduce emissions where the greatest effect can be achieved at the lowest cost - and that certainly doesn't imply that everyone get involved.

What is this 'My actions alone can't save the world so why bother?' "I can't do a lot so I won't do a little?"
I emit probably roughly 0% of the world's CO2 emissions. Say I give up on the things that I like. What has been achieved?

The big polluters in the world are big organisations, companies and government. Households make up a much smaller fraction - so how does it make sense to have a go at their throats first? If this process is a painful one, then why does everyone have to be involved in it? Wouldn't it make sense to minimise the pain caused as much as possible by concentrating on big ticket items that hurt relatively few people?

But you're not alone, and the efforts that you can make combine with what everyone else can do.
Yeah, but it ain't gonna happen, will it. I can stop driving, and stop flying and put solar panels on my roof, all at my expense.

And in future I will sit on a bus watching all the other people still drive around.

If you really believe there is a problem, the fact that China isn't doing enough about it wouldn't be an excuse for you to not do anything about it, since that still exasperates the situation instead of making it as better as you can.
So where's the effectiveness, the fairness or the efficiency in that?

If you don't fly, it won't make a difference on its own, but if fewer people fly there will eventually be fewer flights-c'mon, you're a devout capitalist, that's basic.
But people won't give up flying. Some people actually do have things to do and actually do want to see the world.

But that's precisely the point. Is it my decision how much I "can" do? Does it even matter what I "can" do?

The thing is, global CO2 levels don't care where the emissions come from, or how many percent that person reduced them. CO2 emissions are an aggregate thing, so the overall level matters, nothing else. As such it would be most efficient to reduce emissions where the greatest effect can be achieved at the lowest cost - and that certainly doesn't imply that everyone get involved.
Who says there isn't pressure on them? Who says we don't want the largest polluters to cut down? But why shouldn't you do your part? It wasn't you as an individual that caused the problem, its us as a collective. Why do you think that that same collective isn't capable of doing something it's already done?


I emit probably roughly 0% of the world's CO2 emissions. Say I give up on the things that I like. What has been achieved?

The big polluters in the world are big organisations, companies and government. Households make up a much smaller fraction - so how does it make sense to have a go at their throats first? If this process is a painful one, then why does everyone have to be involved in it? Wouldn't it make sense to minimise the pain caused as much as possible by concentrating on big ticket items that hurt relatively few people?


Yeah, but it ain't gonna happen, will it. I can stop driving, and stop flying and put solar panels on my roof, all at my expense.

And in future I will sit on a bus watching all the other people still drive around.
If you do something because if you don't, someone else will, you're just that someone else. It's a closed loop, you're your own justification, your own enemy.


So where's the effectiveness, the fairness or the efficiency in that?
Where's the fairness that the planets poorest will have to pay the greatest cost of the excess of the planet's richest? Yeah, somethings aren't fair. Let me shed a tear...


But people won't give up flying. Some people actually do have things to do and actually do want to see the world.
But there will be fewer. Once again, where does this "I can't do it all, so I shouldn't to anything" philosophy stem from?

thanks Cannot Think. Yeah, Broadwater is a pretty major problem/issue in certain areas of Long Island, but it should be known nationally. It's the first time that public waterways have become privatized without consent.

thanks Cannot Think. Yeah, Broadwater is a pretty major problem/issue in certain areas of Long Island, but it should be known nationally. It's the first time that public waterways have become privatized without consent.

Not a problem...though that's not the most flattering abbreviation of my name...

The big polluters in the world are big organisations, companies and government. Households make up a much smaller fraction - so how does it make sense to have a go at their throats first? If this process is a painful one, then why does everyone have to be involved in it?

It DOESN'T make any sense, so SOMEBODY somewhere is making a pretty penny off it.

Also, the government wishes to micro-manage private citizens' lives.

Wouldn't it make sense to minimise the pain caused as much as possible by concentrating on big ticket items that hurt relatively few people?

Yes, that would make sense, so you can bet your life it won't happen, considering the government's track record on doing things that make sense.

It wasn't you as an individual that caused the problem, its us as a collective. Why do you think that that same collective isn't capable of doing something it's already done?
The collective as such doesn't do anything. We all did something that was good for ourselves, and that caused the problem on a wider scale. The problem is with now getting everyone to do something that is bad for themselves but good for the world as a whole. I don't see how it's going to happen in a fair or equitable way, at least not if we keep going like focussing on the wrong mindset.

At the moment this "everyone must do their part" seems to be entirely about the principle and not at all results-orientated.

If you do something because if you don't, someone else will, you're just that someone else. It's a closed loop, you're your own justification, your own enemy.
Well yeah. And I recognise that fact. I just don't see how me hurting myself will break that loop. It's sorta like a prisoner's dilemma, except on a huge scale.

Where's the fairness that the planets poorest will have to pay the greatest cost of the excess of the planet's richest? Yeah, somethings aren't fair. Let me shed a tear...
"Excess" is the wrong word to use. Climate change is an unexpected and unwanted side effect of our development, which was based on burning stuff.

But it would be a mistake to blame the fact that we are economically developed for problems. Blame CO2, don't blame the fact that we're wealthy.

But there will be fewer. Once again, where does this "I can't do it all, so I shouldn't to anything" philosophy stem from?
There's basically two reasons: The first is my belief that you cannot sacrifice economic efficiency for fluffy idealism that is largely based on Greenies wanting to feel better about having "won" the argument.

The second is that if we let this go through, in a few years there will be no more F430s, Gallardos, Zondas, AMGs, M5s or GT3s. Not because if there were none we would slow or stop global warming, but simply because they are convenient scapegoats.

The collective as such doesn't do anything. We all did something that was good for ourselves, and that caused the problem on a wider scale. The problem is with now getting everyone to do something that is bad for themselves but good for the world as a whole. I don't see how it's going to happen in a fair or equitable way, at least not if we keep going like focussing on the wrong mindset.

At the moment this "everyone must do their part" seems to be entirely about the principle and not at all results-orientated.
It's the most realistic approach, because it's not going to be a magic wand that does it, but several small efforts combined.

You're so focused on this being 'fair,' and I would argue that considering what's at stake, that is the wrong mindset.

And I don't buy the argument that it's bad for ourselves. Energy effeciency saves you money in energy spending. Making fuel efficient cars sailed Toyota past GM as the largest auto manufacturer. Over the long run, renewable resources are cheaper and more stable to run than non-renewable ones. This spectre of cost seems remarkably short sighted. Are we that concerned that we keep the currently rich, rich? Because the only ones I see being in danger are those who are banking on non-renewable resources as somehow defying their own definition.


Well yeah. And I recognise that fact. I just don't see how me hurting myself will break that loop. It's sorta like a prisoner's dilemma, except on a huge scale.
Well, you can be the solution or the problem. How fair is it if someone else bears your burdon for you because you didn't want to give up the potential to own an exotic car?


"Excess" is the wrong word to use. Climate change is an unexpected and unwanted side effect of our development, which was based on burning stuff.

But it would be a mistake to blame the fact that we are economically developed for problems. Blame CO2, don't blame the fact that we're wealthy.
One follows the other, in fact can't be done without the other.


There's basically two reasons: The first is my belief that you cannot sacrifice economic efficiency for fluffy idealism that is largely based on Greenies wanting to feel better about having "won" the argument.
Then you don't really understand what's at stake, if you think that that is all there is to the argument.

The second is that if we let this go through, in a few years there will be no more F430s, Gallardos, Zondas, AMGs, M5s or GT3s. Not because if there were none we would slow or stop global warming, but simply because they are convenient scapegoats.
Look, dude, I'm as big a fan of racing and fast cars as you are, probably more. But you know what racing has always been good at? Improving the breed. We started racing to test the cars, and then to make them better. They've led safety innovations, there is nothing saying that they can't lead alternatives as well. Audi raced and dominated in synthetic diesel race car last year at Le Mans, this year Peugot will be fielding a diesel. BMW and Porsche have both increased horsepower and gas mileage. BMW is a few years out from the turbosteamer, a system that uses exhaust heat to power an electric boost motor which adds horsepower, clean emissions, and increases gas mileage. The Tesla Roadster is a serious sports car that's all electric. Frankly I see the future of speciality vehicles to be very exciting, including giving people who don't give a shit for all that a way to realistically opt out of cars.

Maybe I have more faith in that industry than you do. But these are all marketing factors, filling needs. You're the capitalist, man. Where's the faith?

This spectre of cost seems remarkably short sighted.
And yet it doesn't look like more sustainable living is the preferred option for a lot people. There have to be subsidies, tax breaks and all sorts of other incentives thrown into the mix.

I agree that in the long term sustainability is the economically superior option. But I'm not sure that people necessarily follow that argument in real life.

Well, you can be the solution or the problem. How fair is it if someone else bears your burdon for you because you didn't want to give up the potential to own an exotic car?
Just as fair as it is the other way around. Given some safe level of CO2 emissions, every unit of CO2 I save someone else won't have to give up (and with the current trend, that someone is the Chinese government).

The choice is between hurting me and hurting them. I just ask for a justification for why it has to be me.

One follows the other, in fact can't be done without the other.
In which case we can't possibly hope to change anything no matter what, unless you want to keep Indians, Chinese and everyone else in the developing world poor.

Look, dude, I'm as big a fan of racing and fast cars as you are, probably more. But you know what racing has always been good at? Improving the breed. We started racing to test the cars, and then to make them better.
And you think the people who have for decades campaigned against everything with four wheels and less than 40 seats will suddenly turn around and quit bitching?

BMW and Porsche have both increased horsepower and gas mileage.
And yet Greenies in the EU are threatening all sorts of things because their cars still have high average CO2 emissions.

Maybe I have more faith in that industry than you do. But these are all marketing factors, filling needs. You're the capitalist, man. Where's the faith?
I saw what happened to the VW Lupo 3l.

But besides that, I'm not sure you see the logic behind the "everyone do their part" argument. It won't matter that BMW has a turbosteamer, Audi has a diesel and Porsche has a hybrid. There'll still be cars that produce less emissions, or use less fuel or otherwise do less to attract the attention of the mob. So they will always continue pressuring. It's not about the total, it's about the relative dimensions. A GT3 won't be compared to a last generation GT3, it will be compared to a Nissan Micra. And they won't stop until there are no GT3s left.

And yet it doesn't look like more sustainable living is the preferred option for a lot people. There have to be subsidies, tax breaks and all sorts of other incentives thrown into the mix.

I agree that in the long term sustainability is the economically superior option. But I'm not sure that people necessarily follow that argument in real life.
Incentives have driven a ton of things. We give incentives to start businesses or fill other needs that might help a greater good. Why is it bad now? All the incentive does is help out the initially high cost of conversion, making it more accessible. Why is this bad, again?


Just as fair as it is the other way around. Given some safe level of CO2 emissions, every unit of CO2 I save someone else won't have to give up (and with the current trend, that someone is the Chinese government).

The choice is between hurting me and hurting them. I just ask for a justification for why it has to be me.
The real question is how much hurt do you want and when do you want it. "None" isn't an option, and the longer you put it off, the worse it gets.


In which case we can't possibly hope to change anything no matter what, unless you want to keep Indians, Chinese and everyone else in the developing world poor.
I already addressed this hysteria.


And you think the people who have for decades campaigned against everything with four wheels and less than 40 seats will suddenly turn around and quit bitching?
You think there is an end to bitching?


And yet Greenies in the EU are threatening all sorts of things because their cars still have high average CO2 emissions.


I saw what happened to the VW Lupo 3l.

But besides that, I'm not sure you see the logic behind the "everyone do their part" argument. It won't matter that BMW has a turbosteamer, Audi has a diesel and Porsche has a hybrid. There'll still be cars that produce less emissions, or use less fuel or otherwise do less to attract the attention of the mob. So they will always continue pressuring. It's not about the total, it's about the relative dimensions. A GT3 won't be compared to a last generation GT3, it will be compared to a Nissan Micra. And they won't stop until there are no GT3s left.
One way or another, it won't matter, the outcome will be the same. There's only so much oil, even if you don't take any of the rest of the argument, that's the truth. And either the GT3 starts to run on something else or it goes away and thats that. We've done a fuckload of adapting and there's very few that would really want to 'go back.'

Ultimately I don't buy the 'first they came for the jews' argument with supercars. Can Am cars where cool, but it's not some grand tragedy that they don't exist anymore. I'll live.

Why is this bad, again?
It's not bad at all. It just demonstrates that it doesn't look like people will choose to be green by themselves.

There's a difference however between incentives to make it more attractive for people to do something and simply forcing them to do it. And that includes social pressures.

The real question is how much hurt do you want and when do you want it. "None" isn't an option, and the longer you put it off, the worse it gets.
But that's sorta the crux of the problem. The pay-off I eventually receive is completely divorced from the costs I have now.

If I don't change my consumption habits, there'll some level of climate change and I'll be hurt by a some amount. If I do change my consumption habits, that won't affect the level of climate change and I'll still get hurt. For me it's the choice between hurting myself now and being hurt later and not hurting myself now and being hurt later.

I already addressed this hysteria.
Well, if you're gonna say wealth must come with environmental catastrophe, ie you blame our wealth for climate change, then I would say that the hysteria comes mainly from you.

You think there is an end to bitching?
The difference is that today they are being listened to.

One way or another, it won't matter, the outcome will be the same. There's only so much oil, even if you don't take any of the rest of the argument, that's the truth. And either the GT3 starts to run on something else or it goes away and thats that.
Though the difference of course is that this is a direct, physical limitation. But the thing can continue to emit CO2 for all eternity without ever satiating the atmosphere or anything.

We've done a fuckload of adapting and there's very few that would really want to 'go back.'

Ultimately I don't buy the 'first they came for the jews' argument with supercars. Can Am cars where cool, but it's not some grand tragedy that they don't exist anymore. I'll live.
I wish I had your confidence.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200305%5CFOR20030528d.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html

I'm not a fan of SUVs, but you don't actually think they'll stop with them, do you?

It's not bad at all. It just demonstrates that it doesn't look like people will choose to be green by themselves.
Or don't have the means for the upfront cost.

There's a difference however between incentives to make it more attractive for people to do something and simply forcing them to do it. And that includes social pressures.
Incentives are social pressures.


But that's sorta the crux of the problem. The pay-off I eventually receive is completely divorced from the costs I have now.

If I don't change my consumption habits, there'll some level of climate change and I'll be hurt by a some amount. If I do change my consumption habits, that won't affect the level of climate change and I'll still get hurt. For me it's the choice between hurting myself now and being hurt later and not hurting myself now and being hurt later.
You're still fixated on that if you're actions alone can't solve all of the problem you shouldn't do any of it and I fail to see the logic in that.


Well, if you're gonna say wealth must come with environmental catastrophe, ie you blame our wealth for climate change, then I would say that the hysteria comes mainly from you.
I didn't say that. I said that excess is only possible from wealth.


The difference is that today they are being listened to.
Today they have a point.


Though the difference of course is that this is a direct, physical limitation. But the thing can continue to emit CO2 for all eternity without ever satiating the atmosphere or anything.
You're still looking for that one valve that we can shut off and that would solve the problem. It's not a Captain Planet issue, we're not going to find that guy with the pig nose who is manufacturing refridgerators only to smash them and go, "Ah, that's it. Now we've stopped the problem." It's lots of little things, like H2s or GT3s that got us here and it will be a lot of little things that get us back.


I wish I had your confidence.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200305%5CFOR20030528d.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/10/france.suvs/index.html

I'm not a fan of SUVs, but you don't actually think they'll stop with them, do you?
If it doesn't do enough to solve the problem, no. And good on them.

Comparing the output of greenhouse gasses produced by China or India with that of the developed west is akin to comparing current western ouptuts with that of western areas circa 1900. Areas like India and China are still in the midst of an industrial revolution, it's going to be a couple of decades more before they're anywhere near us. Meanwhile we're going to be developing more efficient technologies which will become more and more cost effective to utilize. Eventually they will be adopted by other less developed nations as they become more and more developed. However, none of this is going to happen quickly. It took over a century to get where we are now. You'd have to be a complete and utter fool if you think we can make a dent in a decade. Hell, we didn't switch from draft animals to the internal combustion engine over night.

Punative taxations on polluting technologies aren't the way to go. Punative taxation on anything isn't the way to go on anything. That just serves to feed the coffers of government, which has a tendency to refuse to relinquish sources of income. Cleaner technologies will become cheaper as our experience with them grows. Keeping the costs of operation artificially low via subsidies will only force technologies that aren't quite ready onto a market that isn't quite ready to handle them.

My biggest gripe with enviromentalist, or at least some, is their short sightedness. They'll ridicule any half way feasible plan that takes decades as too little too late and hail anything that takes five years as a path to a green utpoia. Some of these people's perception of time is similar to that of children.

How far should environmentalism go?As far as it takes to still have an environment in 100, 500, 1000 years.

As far as it takes to still have an environment in 100, 500, 1000 years.

But by 1001 years, we'd already be bored with the environment and you can do whatever you want with it. :p

But by 1001 years, we'd already be bored with the environment and you can do whatever you want with it. This is not funny, retard.

How far should environmentalism go?

Belgium. Then we don't have to worry about it anymore.

Seriously, if coal plants are the biggest issue, why not just replace them with nuclear plants?

This is not funny, retard.

Ah, it was a little funny. There's no reason we should become completely humorless. It didn't invalidate your point.

Belgium. Then we don't have to worry about it anymore.

Seriously, if coal plants are the biggest issue, why not just replace them with nuclear plants?

huh? why do they have to come to Belgium?

because of the nuclear waste.

because of the nuclear waste.

Just bury it in the middle of nowhere. France does it with its nuclear plants now; they pay Russia to take their waste and store it in Siberia. The chance of it leaking is so low that it's not even a remotely significant risk; coal plants produce far more radiation than nuclear plants do, to say nothing of the effects of improved reprocessing technology on nuclear waste.

Nuclear power is clean, safe, and abundant. If you're looking to cut CO2 and fossil fuel consumption, nuclear and renewables is the way to go.

Ah, it was a little funny. There's no reason we should become completely humorless. It didn't invalidate your point.

And surely there are more imaginative retorts than "retard" . . .

Incentives are social pressures.
I mean incentives as in subsidies.

You're still fixated on that if you're actions alone can't solve all of the problem you shouldn't do any of it and I fail to see the logic in that.
Well, there either is big ass climate change or there isn't. I suppose there's the chance of there being small ass climate change as well.

Which outcome you get has virtually nothing to do with my choices though. That's a fact. It's not that difficult to understand that if my emissions make up a grand total of 1^-100 of global CO2 levels then whether or not I get involved doesn't make more than a 1^-100 difference.

I suppose I should ask you back: Where is the logic in your point of view? Why does it matter whether or not I make significant cutbacks to my lifestyle to reduce global emissions by that tiny, tiny fraction? How do you see the cost and the benefit of that adding up?

It's lots of little things, like H2s or GT3s that got us here and it will be a lot of little things that get us back.
But the lots of little things still make up the minority of the actual emissions. As I said, power generation is the biggest part, transport follows in third or fourth place (not sure about the exact stats). On the whole households are a small part of the overall output.

Even if we completely did away with all that, I'm not at all convinced that it would stop or even significantly slow climate change.

The thing is that in a few years, we're gonna have environmentalist lawmakers coming to our houses and telling us to "do our part" by taking away stuff we like, just so that China can build more coal power stations. I don't see why I should welcome that.

Even if we completely did away with all that, I'm not at all convinced that it would stop or even significantly slow climate change.Completely irrelevant - fossil 'fuels' (oil specifically, but coal & gas work as well) are a necessity for the petrochemical industry. Setting them on fire is by far the stupidest waste of a natural resource in history, and once they're gone, you can effectively say bye-bye to, erm, more or less everything you live with (Short of biological substances replacing oil - but this would be exceedingly area- and energy intensive, and you'd not get to keep present population densities in any way, shape or form, not to mention that given the tendency of plastics to not rot, you're also going to eat up biomass until it becomes unsustainable).

The climate change is a problem - short term effects are likely to be catastrophic, although long term effects could yield positive results (The sahara for example, tends to dry out during cold periods as a lot of moisture is locked in the form of ice), the extinction of a few dozen specialised species, and the very real possibility of human intervention preventing a lot of plantlife from springing up (We are killing rainforests as a popular sport, after all) aside. But the petrochemical industry dying off because there's no more oil/ coal/ gas would throw us back to ~ 1860. Sans steampower, so make that ~ 1760.

This is not a good thing. Well, not unless you're among the... Odd people who believe that oil's going to permanently replenish itself, because it totally didn't take tens-to-hundreds of millions of years in exceedingly biomass-rich (The carboniferous period comes to mind) environments with rather unique overall conditions to form them. Which I suspect you're not.

People should use a bucket of water to clean themselves in then use it on the rest of the family then use it for the washing.

Well i think that is what some family was advocating on tv today...

How far should environmentalism go?

This far:

http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chiacarfz3.jpg

And probably no further. :)

How far should environmentalism go?

This far:

http://www.angelfire.com/moon/chiapet/chiacar.jpg

And probably no further. :)Angelfire?

Angelfire?

It's a pic hosting site. Why?

How far should environmentalism go?

This far:

http://www.angelfire.com/moon/chiapet/chiacar.jpg

And probably no further. :)
Yeah dude, why don't you just UPI us?
Meanie.:(

It's a pic hosting site. Why?

It just loads up as the angelfire icon, I think that's why though it may be a subtle joke that flies way over my head

It just loads up as the angelfire icon, I think that's why though it may be a subtle joke that flies way over my head

Well, that's odd. I can still see it.

Oh well. Here's a link:

http://www.angelfire.com/moon/chiapet/chiacar.jpg

Environmentalism should go very far. As far away from me as possible. Im not having any of this nonsense about the rights of future generations to have an environment suitable for their well-being. Global warming is fine by me, I'd quite like Britain to have a Mediterranean climate. Oh, and please none of this nonsense about global warming changing the Gulf Stream and making the weather colder here, thats just liberal media environmentalist propaganda. Or part of a conspiracy engineered by the freemasons and the homosexuals.

I suggest you take it as far as you can without sacrificing your living standard. Don't turn off the light but next time you buy new lights go for low energy ones. Don't turn down the heat but consider improving the isolation in your house and get an energy efficient heat pump to reduce heating costs. Keep driving to work if public transport sucks where you live but next time you buy a new car please get one of the most fuel efficient ones on the market. Get those water saving shower heads, reshargeable batteries and efficient or reuseable stuff in general to reduce waste and save money in the long run. Most importantly try to save yourself some money by not impulse-buying orange shoes and other useless stuff you are never going to use.

What you do does matter even if it's just a drip in the sea because millions of others do what they can too and many small streams adds up to a river. It's the same paradox as with voting. Your vote alone is never going to change who wins an election yet it is still votes like yours that decides who wins.

You are responsible for the pollution even if you pay someone else to do it for you instead of doing it personally. It is individual consumers that cause pollution. Sure it is factories that pollute the rivers and those factories are powered by coal plants that pollute the air. But why are they doing it? So consumers can buy their stuff! When you buy jeans for example it's your fault that a factory somewhere is coloring a river blue with chemicals to produce those jeans for you.

Well, that's odd. I can still see it.

Oh well. Here's a link:

http://www.angelfire.com/moon/chiapet/chiacar.jpgThe pic doesn't show. Can you please upload it to http://www.imageshack.us or so...

The pic doesn't show. Can you please upload it to http://www.imageshack.us or so...

http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?image=chiacarfz3.jpg

I really hope it was worth it. ;)

Completely irrelevant - fossil 'fuels' (oil specifically, but coal & gas work as well) are a necessity for the petrochemical industry. Setting them on fire is by far the stupidest waste of a natural resource in history, and once they're gone, you can effectively say bye-bye to, erm, more or less everything you live with...
I agree with you.

But that's a secondary problem I'm not directly involved with. Oil is largely traded on a free commodity market, so the quantity available determines the price of it. As oil becomes less and more expensive to extract, the price rises and alternative technologies become relatively more attractive. And this is a process which will stretch over decades. I think that unless governments get all silly and subsidise oil until they run out of money, leading to a sudden spike, society is adaptable enough to develop and introduce alternatives to oil.

CO2 emissions are different because there is nothing to be traded on a market, there isn't even a set quantity limit of any kind. There are no fixed physical boundaries so you end up with policies setting them, and that's prone to error or (at the moment) hysteria of the "everyone must take part" kind, regardless of efficiency or fairness.

I'm starting to get annoyed with "the Greenies". Which is actually rather strange for me, because I used to be a huge supporter of theirs.

This is not a thread about whether or not global warming exists, it's a thread about what exactly is the appropriate action taken to combat it, on a personal level.

I invite you to have a look (and/or listen) at the following links:
http://www21.sbs.com.au/ecohousechallenge/
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1933224.htm

The first link is about a TV Show that's running in Australia at the moment. They have a few experts who set two families targets for sustainable living. One day they have a "water challenge" where they have to cut their water use by so and so many percent, then an energy challenge, a CO2 challenge and so on.

The big problem I have with this is one word: Percent. The lady openly admitted "Well, it's easier for this family to win the challenge because they were using so much more energy before, so cutting 60% is easy. The other family was already really good with energy, so cutting 60% is very difficult for them."

Maybe this is the economist in me but What the Fuck?!

Yep. That's the economist in you. That's the economist fighting against nonsense. Economics may be very bodgy science, but it's better than any "science" you'll see on TV.

And it looks almost as though this thinking isn't just confined to a silly TV show. Everyone is these days being asked to use less water, reduce their CO2 emissions and so on and so forth. Some people take it to the point described in the second link, where they don't fly anymore to reduce CO2 emissions. Nevermind that the flight will go no matter whether or not they're on it.

And that's the economist in you dying. Have you forgotten that planes fly because, not in spite of, people buying a ticket to fly on them?
Sure, one person not buying a ticket won't ground a flight.
But ... why do commercial flights fly?

Every week a new coal-fired power station opens somewhere in China. Power generation is the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions. I could basically leave my car running for the entire year and not hope to make the slightest difference to CO2 figures worldwide.

So I suppose my question is: how far should this stuff go? Does it make sense to "get everyone involved", to basically ask everyone to give stuff up, even if the expected pay-off is small?

You just said yourself: what one person does is insignificant. "Everyone involved" their contribution is significant and ... pay attention now: when an individual has made a personal sacrifice for a cause, they expect others to do the same. People will do that in the way that involves the minimum possible effort or disruption to their own lifestyles, by voting for it.

The media has adopted "global warming" as their cause celebre, their "white man's burden" and looking out across the wasteland of shallow consumerists they have created, now they feel the need to turn them to higher things.

The links you quoted (I'm sure you know, but for non-aussies) are from state-owned or state-sponsored television. When the commercial channels get ahold of this do-your-bit-for-the-planet craze, it will be far more trivial and demeaning. They'll be paying people a years wage to wear sackcloth for a week, with a whole lot less facts slipped in. They will totally trivialize this issue to the point where people will assume the problem is solved because that's the old show, and now we're watching people take the cloning challenge, or whatever is the issue of the day.

Back to the books mate. Television is chewing-gum for the eyes (quote?) and it won't do anything but mess with your emotions and persuade you without informing you. If you want power (and I think you do) then what you need is knowledge. Knowledge is gained by curiosity, by reading and listening, by questioning and arguing and above all by thought. It's language-based, not "seeing is believing."

That you are offended by television is a sign of hope for you yet. Stop watching while you still can. It's addictive, and it persuades without informing.

What have you done to save water, electricity or CO2 emissions, and where would you draw the line?

As you pointed out before, electricity = CO2 emissions. Anyway, I flew around the world a lot when I was young, but now I shake my fist at every jet that flies over. I hate and distrust nothing in the world so much as "fly-buy points."

What have I done? Not enough, and I thank you for goading me on that.

EDIT: No answer required. I see you're doing something worthwhile.

Completely irrelevant - fossil 'fuels' (oil specifically, but coal & gas work as well) are a necessity for the petrochemical industry. Setting them on fire is by far the stupidest waste of a natural resource in history, and once they're gone, you can effectively say bye-bye to, erm, more or less everything you live with (Short of biological substances replacing oil - but this would be exceedingly area- and energy intensive, and you'd not get to keep present population densities in any way, shape or form, not to mention that given the tendency of plastics to not rot, you're also going to eat up biomass until it becomes unsustainable).

The climate change is a problem - short term effects are likely to be catastrophic, although long term effects could yield positive results (The sahara for example, tends to dry out during cold periods as a lot of moisture is locked in the form of ice), the extinction of a few dozen specialised species, and the very real possibility of human intervention preventing a lot of plantlife from springing up (We are killing rainforests as a popular sport, after all) aside. But the petrochemical industry dying off because there's no more oil/ coal/ gas would throw us back to ~ 1860. Sans steampower, so make that ~ 1760.

This is not a good thing. Well, not unless you're among the... Odd people who believe that oil's going to permanently replenish itself, because it totally didn't take tens-to-hundreds of millions of years in exceedingly biomass-rich (The carboniferous period comes to mind) environments with rather unique overall conditions to form them. Which I suspect you're not.

I would laugh but I know all too well that a lot of people think this way.
The sky isnt falling chicken little. Relax.

Oil is not in limitless supply - all but a handful of loonies think that, but most people realize that having a couple hundred years worth is effectively more than we really need right now. While oil becomes more difficult to extract, the price will rise. This will make alternatives more attractive and reduce demand for oil. Since we are already pushing away from petroleum, and it is still relatively cheap, there really isnt a sudden 'oh noes, we ran out of oil' panic in the future.

The petrochemical industry is reliant upon petroleum - wow... who would have thought. Thats like saying the dairy industry is reliant upon milk. This is not a big problem anyway. The only reason why petroleum is used to make plastics and such is because it is cheap. Every product made from petrochemicals can be made from other things, just slightly more expensively.

Milk solids, tree sap, certain strains of bacteria, and much more can be used to make plastics of various grades. Petroleum getting more expensive is not going to reduce us to mid 18th century living standards.

I'm starting to get annoyed with "the Greenies". Which is actually rather strange for me, because I used to be a huge supporter of theirs.

This is not a thread about whether or not global warming exists, it's a thread about what exactly is the appropriate action taken to combat it, on a personal level.

I invite you to have a look (and/or listen) at the following links:
http://www21.sbs.com.au/ecohousechallenge/
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/notes/s1933224.htm

The first link is about a TV Show that's running in Australia at the moment. They have a few experts who set two families targets for sustainable living. One day they have a "water challenge" where they have to cut their water use by so and so many percent, then an energy challenge, a CO2 challenge and so on.

The big problem I have with this is one word: Percent. The lady openly admitted "Well, it's easier for this family to win the challenge because they were using so much more energy before, so cutting 60% is easy. The other family was already really good with energy, so cutting 60% is very difficult for them."

Maybe this is the economist in me but What the Fuck?!

And it looks almost as though this thinking isn't just confined to a silly TV show. Everyone is these days being asked to use less water, reduce their CO2 emissions and so on and so forth. Some people take it to the point described in the second link, where they don't fly anymore to reduce CO2 emissions. Nevermind that the flight will go no matter whether or not they're on it.

Every week a new coal-fired power station opens somewhere in China. Power generation is the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions. I could basically leave my car running for the entire year and not hope to make the slightest difference to CO2 figures worldwide.

So I suppose my question is: how far should this stuff go? Does it make sense to "get everyone involved", to basically ask everyone to give stuff up, even if the expected pay-off is small?

What have you done to save water, electricity or CO2 emissions, and where would you draw the line?

I draw the line at where it begins to be more harmful to people than helpful to the environment.

CO2 emissions are different because there is nothing to be traded on a market, there isn't even a set quantity limit of any kind. There are no fixed physical boundaries so you end up with policies setting them, and that's prone to error or (at the moment) hysteria of the "everyone must take part" kind, regardless of efficiency or fairness.
EU had a wonderful idea to solve that but failed completely to implement it.

The idea was that there is a total set quantity of maximal sustainable CO2 emissions. Each government slices up their share of the total sustainable quantity into smaller quantities or CO2 rights and sells them to the highest bidders among their industries, who can then use or resell those CO2 rights. Any industry that emits more CO2 then they bought rights for is fined. The more the demand to emit CO2 exceeds the supply of CO2 rights the more expensive it will be to buy the rights and the more profitable it will be for the industry to become cleaner. The free market takes care of the problem.

But they failed to implement it for two reasons. First they realized that if there is a shortage of rights to pollute some industry will end up empty handed in the trade and have to stop polluting entirely which means close the shop. So each government based their share of the "sustainable" quantity on what they are emitting today plus a little extra to make sure it doesn't run out, thus failing to decrease emissions. Then they realized their industries would suffer a competitive disadvantage from the extra expense so they gave away CO2 rights for free, thus failing to create the market that was supposed to take care of the problem.

This is not a thread about whether or not global warming exists, it's a thread about what exactly is the appropriate action taken to combat it, on a personal level.For the most part, it isn't going to be done on a personal level, it will be done via legislation. If hemp is used for paper instead of trees, that would help, but of course the government would have to legalize hemp paper first.
The government should also offer subsidies to people to implement alternative energies.
With that said, it will also take people doing it on a personal level for it to work. It would be silly to advocate someone else doing something unless you yourself do it.

My biggest gripe with enviromentalist, or at least some, is their short sightedness. They'll ridicule any half way feasible plan that takes decades as too little too late and hail anything that takes five years as a path to a green utpoia. Some of these people's perception of time is similar to that of children.This assumes that we have decades before catastrophe occurs.

For the most part, it isn't going to be done on a personal level, it will be done via legislation. If hemp is used for paper instead of trees, that would help, but of course the government would have to legalize hemp paper first.
The government should also offer subsidies to people to implement alternative energies.
With that said, it will also take people doing it on a personal level for it to work. It would be silly to advocate someone else doing something unless you yourself do it.

This assumes that we have decades before catastrophe occurs.

There is nothing illegal about hemp paper. It is illegal to grow cannabis in most states in the US because ensuring no THC bearing plants are mixed in would be difficult. Making products out of hemp fibers is not illegal. Strangely enough North Dakota seems to be at the forefront of industrial production and next year will begin a major push towards huge commercial hemp projects.

Also, just how do you figure changing to hemp paper instead of wood pulp would reduce CO2 levels? The demand for wood encourages companies to plant out huge tree farms. Those tree farms soak up a lot of CO2. This is one reason why recycling paper makes no environmental sense - it is just a popular misconception that lacks any practical reasoning.

Government subsidies are usually counter-productive. They shift focus onto whatever some bureaucrat or politician takes as his own special interest cause rather than the focus being on what actually works.

There is nothing illegal about hemp paper. It is illegal to grow cannabis in the US because ensuring no THC bearing plants are mixed in would be difficult. Making products out of hemp fibers is not illegal.Then I suppose they would need to pass laws making it less difficult to do so - perhaps allowing a small amount of THC to be present per page.

What you said is contrary to what I've heard, though.

Also, just how do you figure changing to hemp paper instead of wood pulp would reduce CO2 levels? The demand for wood encourages companies to plant out huge tree farms. Those tree farms soak up a lot of CO2. This is one reason why recycling paper makes no environmental sense - it is just a popular misconception that lacks any practical reasoning.Because those tree farms would still be there as opposed to occasionally being cut down.

Government subsidies are usually counter-productive. They shift focus onto whatever some bureaucrat or politician takes as his own special interest cause rather than the focus being on what actually works.And if what actually works won't happen (quickly enough) without government subsidies?

How far should environmentalism go?

Allllll the way up to and including the complete eradication of human race. :D

*sigh* A girl can dream. ;)

Every week a new coal-fired power station opens somewhere in China. Power generation is the biggest contributor to CO2 emissions. I could basically leave my car running for the entire year and not hope to make the slightest difference to CO2 figures worldwide.
Looks like somebody doesn't think his bread and circuses are good enough for him.
And, yes, I am one of those conspiracy types who thinks that much of the modern green movement is being organized by businesses and governments as a distraction to keep people who start feeling concerned about the environment busy angsting out over whether they should use paper or plastic shopping bags, rather than looking for actual, effective action/legislation.

The environment is all of our problems! If we don't have the environment left after we're done destroying it, we won't have anything else to do but worry about it! there is no other way we can survive on this earth unless we are stewards to the environment. We need to earn our way up in the world until we can make a big difference about it instead of sitting on this forum and bitching about how we care about the environment so much! We need to make a difference! Do we really want to be evil to the earth after it has sustained us for generations? :gundge: