Topic: What is environmentalism, really? - page 9. (Read 7902 times)

Most of the posts here indicate that most of you think environmentalism is akin to the idea of "putting a brick in your toilet tank." And maybe that's why some of you (TheBitcoinChemist, perhaps?) think environmentalism is crap. That's too bad, because environmentalism really is an aggregation of all of the following:

- The study of island biogeography
- The study of trophic cascades
- Stopping deforestation
- Declarations of umbrella species
- Climate research
- Dam removal
- Proactive business practices, like those of Patagonia
- NGOs in cooperation with governments at an international level for conservation
- The application of ecological economics
- Regulations (yes, regulations)

Now, with regard to the "brick in your toilet tank", it's explained starting at 6:55 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnOcJpVA88

Perhaps, we should mine limestone from the Pyramids? Maybe create electric wires from the Statue of Liberty?

If it's true, it means man isn't a complete retard that needs to be put on a tyrant's leash.

?

Honestly, how is this relevant, even ignoring the fact that it is completely false?

Rainforests were created by man centuries ago.

Biggest environmental risk

population growth + energy requirements + traditional technology.

Environmentalism is simply a ploy to destroy industrial capitalism, communism failed so they try something else.

I think you're largely wrong here. Yes, it's true that initiative at the individual level is important, but I'd say you're largely unaware of just how successful government programs have been. Most likely, you're confusing your perception of environmentalism with environmentalism in practice.

Environmentalism is simply a ploy to destroy industrial capitalism, communism failed so they try something else.

Environmentalism is simply a ploy to destroy industrial capitalism, communism failed so they try something else.

I'm of the opinion that job losses cannot result from doing something, and the government simply uses it as an excuse to continue its useless propaganda campaign. We don't need a government or a Greenpeace to run the green movement, and I oppose both parties. I believe that the only Green movement that can succeed is the collective cooperation of individuals, not the fascist regulations or harmful acts of terrorism. The true Green movement involves people who care, not organizations concerned more about self-preservation and conflict.

It seems like the environmentalist movement in general is biased toward activist solutions - implement wind and solar power, throw half our waste into a fancy recycling machine, buy the latest new electric car, and we're heavily promoting these types of solutions on both a governmental/economic (ie. subsidies) and cultural level. In the midst of all this, have we forgotten the art of, you know, actually not being wasteful?

Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 2,000 watts – wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back then. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV or radio in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of Yorkshire.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the post, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

We exercised by working, so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right. We didn't have the green thing back then.

When we were thirsty, we drank from a tap instead of drinking from a plastic bottle of water shipped from the other side of the world.

We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor when the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mums into a 24-hour taxi service.

We had one electrical socket in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances.

And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest fish and chip shop.

Remember: Don't make old people angry.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off!!!

Checking out at Tesco, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologised and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The assistant responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right – our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soft drink bottles and beer bottles to the shop. The shop sent them back to the plant to be washed, sterilised and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs because we didn't have a lift or escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocers and didn't climb into a 200-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's nappies because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 2,000 watts – wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back then. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right. We didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV or radio in the house – not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of Yorkshire. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the post, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn petrol just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working, so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right. We didn't have the green thing back then.

When we were thirsty, we drank from a tap instead of drinking from a plastic bottle of water shipped from the other side of the world. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor when the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their mums into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical socket in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest fish and chip shop.

But isn't it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish, grumpy old git who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart-arse young person.

Remember: Don't make old people angry.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off!!!

It's also not true, at least not in any practial sense.  In my own experience, those who "wish to be green" and are willing to use government to compell others to also do as they would wish are religious zealots, not scientists.  They, as a rule, are impervious to new facts or data that may not have been available (or not widely available) at the time of their religious conversion.  I'm no less committed to the environment than I ever have been, I've just come to the conclusion that most of the actions that are proposed by the Green movement are ineffective at best, and terriblely counterproductive otherwise.  Even one of the founders of Greenpeace has done an about face concerning civil nuclear power, and nuclear power was one of the scientific issues that started me down my alternate path.  I love watching "Stosseld" on Fox Business Network each thursday, and this past one had a bit on the EPA that I agree with compeletly.  Stossel (himself a well known former liberal turned libertarian) stated the issue well for myself, by saying that when the EPA was founded, there was much need for it, but since all of the low hanging fruit has been dealt with over the past 40 years, all remaining gains are economicly very costly and thus result in job losses.  I also agree with his libertarian position that, although it's true that in a libertarian world the public could class action sue major industrial polluters, in practice our justice system is too screwed up for that to be a practial solution.  Thus the EPA must continue to exist as a reflection of our society's collective desire to restrict pollution to the economicly necessary minimum possible but no further.  My greatest complaint about the EPA is that they have no authority over the greatest pollutors within the USA, namely government institutions themselves (particularly the US Military), so further gains from federal actions cannot be expected.