Environmentalism is an Attack on the Common Person

[square]

The common people today have a great life in terms of access to things that make their lives easier and more fulfilling. Technology has increased the quality and availability of goods and services and also brought down their cost greatly.

In the past, and in many places today, the typical common person lived their lives almost exclusively in one area. Travel was a luxury they could not afford. They could only eat food which was grown locally and in season so their diet lacked variety, particularly at certain times of year. In many places, the common person had very limited access to animal protein. They were forced to use dirty forms of energy like wood and dung, compared to clean (for the end user) forms of energy like electricity and gas. Lack of access to technology powered by cheap energy meant they had to labour long and hard.

Environmentalists want to wind back the clock on all of these advances. They propose either heavily taxing fossil fuels or replacing them with much more expensive forms of energy, which would put them out of reach of the common person and make everything more expensive. They want people to reduce or give up travel, and want people to return to a poorer diet based on local seasonal produce containing little or no meat. The rich can afford to pay so would still have access to all of these things but to common people, these things which they recently gained access to would be taken away from them and again become luxuries they could only dream of.

Environmentalism seeks to take away all of the things which have improved the life of the common people. Environmentalism is really an attack on the common people.

[Cbug]

LOL did I trigger this OP?!

[square]

LOL did I trigger this OP?!

Yes. You got me thinking.:)

[stuck]

Everything that requires social change ends up being borne primarily by the lower classes- the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution...now even the digital revolution has required low-wage factory workers and towns in china where the waste from our computers is processed, creating pandemics of birth defects and cancers.

Environmental degradation overwhelmingly affects the poorest people, who live on the edge of dumps, or have their homes (the amazon) torn down to make charcoal for american steel.

Sadly, yes, they would likely bear the brunt of an environmentalist policy. This doesn't mean that environmentalism is wrong. It simply means we labour under an unjust economic system. To the end of alleviating both problems, greens tend to combine social justice with environmentalism.

[Cbug]

Yes. You got me thinking.:)

Well, thinking is always good... I think.

[last_caress]

...
Environmentalism seeks to take away all of the things which have improved the life of the common people. Environmentalism is really an attack on the common people.

like dioxin?

[Alfredo]

The common people today have a great life in terms of access to things that make their lives easier and more fulfilling.

How do you figure that?


In the past, and in many places today, the typical common person lived their lives almost exclusively in one area. Travel was a luxury they could not afford.

Who is the typical common person you're referring to?

Also this:


They propose either heavily taxing fossil fuels or replacing them with much more expensive forms of energy, which would put them out of reach of the common person and make everything more expensive. They want people to reduce or give up travel, and want people to return to a poorer diet based on local seasonal produce containing little or no meat.

Doesn't really support this:



Environmentalists want to wind back the clock on all of these advances.



Environmentalism seeks to take away all of the things which have improved the life of the common people. Environmentalism is really an attack on the common people.

You didn't really name all the things that have improved the quality of life for the common people and certainly didn't prove that it's an attack on them

Environmentalists aren't necessarily Amish, just so you know.

[mancroft]

Environmentalism is really an attack on the common people.

Am inclined to agree.

[zago]

The common people today have a great life in terms of access to things that make their lives easier and more fulfilling. Technology has increased the quality and availability of goods and services and also brought down their cost greatly.

In the past, and in many places today, the typical common person lived their lives almost exclusively in one area. Travel was a luxury they could not afford. They could only eat food which was grown locally and in season so their diet lacked variety, particularly at certain times of year. In many places, the common person had very limited access to animal protein. They were forced to use dirty forms of energy like wood and dung, compared to clean (for the end user) forms of energy like electricity and gas. Lack of access to technology powered by cheap energy meant they had to labour long and hard.

Environmentalists want to wind back the clock on all of these advances. They propose either heavily taxing fossil fuels or replacing them with much more expensive forms of energy, which would put them out of reach of the common person and make everything more expensive. They want people to reduce or give up travel, and want people to return to a poorer diet based on local seasonal produce containing little or no meat. The rich can afford to pay so would still have access to all of these things but to common people, these things which they recently gained access to would be taken away from them and again become luxuries they could only dream of.

Environmentalism seeks to take away all of the things which have improved the life of the common people. Environmentalism is really an attack on the common people.

Nice post. Reminds me of something. If you told someone 1000 years ago that the world today would have 7 billion people, they would probably freak out, saying that we were headed for certain destruction. Of course, we have developed the appropriate technology to support such a population along the way. Or also reminds me of how horses are actually more polluting than today's cars. If everyone in the country had a horse instead of a car, we'd be swimming in horse shit.

[zago]

Everything that requires social change ends up being borne primarily by the lower classes- the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution...now even the digital revolution has required low-wage factory workers and towns in china where the waste from our computers is processed, creating pandemics of birth defects and cancers.

Whereas before, the pandemic was starvation.

[Dark Razor]

Look OP, you are stuck on stupid. Fix it.

[Ferrus]

Yup. And the effects of resource collapse and environmental destruction will be most keenly felt by the lower classes too. But anyway, continue with your delusions. It will make the eventual disaster all the sweeter.

[Flatchett]

I said, "Pretend you've got no money." She just laughed and said, "Oh you're so funny.

[zago]

Yup. And the effects of resource collapse and environmental destruction will be most keenly felt by the lower classes too. But anyway, continue with your delusions. It will make the eventual disaster all the sweeter.

Your argument relies solely on making the OP feel guilty and inferior. You should try giving him an actual reason to care about what you care about.

[LongSilence]

I said, "Pretend you've got no money." She just laughed and said, "Oh you're so funny.

I said "Yeah" and then made a point that common people would debase themselves into the dirt if they thought a rich person would sleep with them for it.


Your argument relies solely on making the OP feel guilty and inferior. You should try giving him an actual reason to care about what you care about.

Oh come on zago. You have read some of Ferrus' posts haven't you? If the OP wants to have a shedload of material on this topic to look at he just needs to type Ferrus' name in the forum search bar.

[Ferrus]

Your argument relies solely on making the OP feel guilty and inferior. You should try giving him an actual reason to care about what you care about.
That's a fascinating interpretation of my post.

Oh, wait, sorry it's not fascinating at all. Never mind.

[stuck]

If everyone in the country had a horse instead of a car, we'd be swimming in horse shit.

Bicycles, however, are better than both.


Whereas before, the pandemic was starvation.

Ironically enough to your underlying critique, the pandemic of chinese starvation was in most cases due to the wealthy manipulating loans on the peasant subsistence farmers.

They would have loved horse manure. It was common in pre-revolutionary rural china to have one's outhouse at the edge of the property closest to the road to attract rogue shitters to deposit their humanure.

[barrylevon]

Your argument relies solely on making the OP feel guilty and inferior. You should try giving him an actual reason to care about what you care about.

Because when the resources are gone, they're gone. It won't matter how much this or that was in the air, or how much "this" was the issue not "that", or who was being attacked by who. Gone is gone... the end.

Take the Ogallala aquifer for example, should we just keep using it as a never ending resource? What happens when the "well" runs dry? That'll result in some good times for all.

[zago]

Bicycles, however, are better than both.

But no one uses them when there are better options. Also, if you want to cripple your productivity, bicycles are definitely the way to go.


Ironically enough to your underlying critique, the pandemic of chinese starvation was in most cases due to the wealthy manipulating loans on the peasant subsistence farmers.

Free market competition wins again! Good thing we came in and saved them from that.

[Ferrus]

But no one uses them when there are better options. Also, if you want to cripple your productivity, bicycles are definitely the way to go.
Although using up all one's natural resources is probably going to be a bigger slam on productivity than cycling to work.

[stuck]

Free market competition wins again! Good thing we came in and saved them from that.

what?

[ciphersort]

Bicycles, however, are better than both.


Bullshit. I just sold my Cannondale and Specialized... keeping my cars.

I do agree that environmentalists should give up their cars and everything else that oil makes possible (more for the rest of us to run them down in the streets with).

[zago]

what?

Sounds to me like these starving, abused subsistence farmers saw improvement when this kind of work came their way.

[zago]

Although using up all one's natural resources is probably going to be a bigger slam on productivity than cycling to work.

Like I said before, you are failing to account for new and more efficient technologies. When we switched from coal to nuclear power, for instance, we shifted from powering a city with a trainload of coal every day to a traincar load of nuclear fuel a year. When we develop fusion power, or something even better than that, we'll expend even fewer resources for much greater output. We don't live in the technological climax of human civilization. Today's technologies will seem primitive very soon.

[stuck]

Sounds to me like these starving, abused subsistence farmers saw improvement when this kind of work came their way.

i'm talking about pre-revolutionary china, so there was at least a half-century gap between the two events.

[stuck]

Bullshit. I just sold my Cannondale and Specialized... keeping my cars.

I do agree that environmentalists should give up their cars and everything else that oil makes possible (more for the rest of us to run them down in the streets with).

I hope you bought a barrel of crude with your bike. -To pour on some homeless people.

[zago]

i'm talking about pre-revolutionary china, so there was at least a half-century gap between the two events.

All I'm saying is that these low-wage factory workers wouldn't otherwise have jobs at all. It's like the Mexicans who come to the US and work for well below minimum wage... this can be framed as a human rights violation when real citizens get minimum wage, but still, the immigrants are making more than they did before, which is why they came here.

[!diom]

Ban plz.

[stuck]

All I'm saying is that these low-wage factory workers wouldn't otherwise have jobs at all. It's like the Mexicans who come to the US and work for well below minimum wage... this can be framed as a human rights violation when real citizens get minimum wage, but still, the immigrants are making more than they did before, which is why they came here.

Since we're drifting into the hypothetical world...

They might have jobs if, instead of a pitched battle between two giant ideological states- totalitarian communism and darwinist capitalism- the last century had been a period where workers and farmers somehow managed to form small, non-exploitative, self-governing collectives.

It's not actually 'like' the situation of under-the-table immigrant labor because you can't meaningfully compare a hypothetical situation to a real one without a caveat.

[kendoiwan]

Yes, who cares if the planet goes to hell in a handbag, as long as the "common man" is fulfilled.

[ciphersort]

I hope you bought a barrel of crude with your bike. -To pour on some homeless people.

Hilarious. I took a homeless person to a free clinic in one of my cars today. Are you saying don't do things like that?

[camille]

The common people today have a great life in terms of access to things that make their lives easier and more fulfilling. Technology has increased the quality and availability of goods and services and also brought down their cost greatly.

What goods?

There is a dramatic decrease in the quality of goods. Everything from food to lawnmowers to cars to the quality of music. Today, it is simply easier to toss something away than repair it. That makes life easier and more fulfilling? To be unable to provide for oneself or meet and know people in the community who can help you?

And the goods? That creates a problem in and of itself. People are maxed out in debt trying to buy the next best thing. Doesn't mean they are more affordable, it just means people now buy more stuff on credit. People buy homes which they can barely afford, then spend the majority of their time and money trying to compete with people who live in the same communal area who CAN afford those things. Not like it used to be where the Jones family made the same income you did.


In the past, and in many places today, the typical common person lived their lives almost exclusively in one area.

The during life of Jesus? LOL People used to be nomadic. Agriculture secured most to one spot.


They could only eat food which was grown locally and in season so their diet lacked variety, particularly at certain times of year. In many places, the common person had very limited access to animal protein. They were forced to use dirty forms of energy like wood and dung, compared to clean (for the end user) forms of energy like electricity and gas. Lack of access to technology powered by cheap energy meant they had to labour long and hard.

All of this screams at me I want more of all kinds of stuff but don't want to work for it.

Since when did work become something people should never have to do? It amazes me that people spend many long grueling hours working to buy stuff like TVs and computers and Ipods and that's okay and acceptable. It's understood. But who wants to work to eat? To build shelter? To clothe the body?

Someone says, Hey, I've decided that I'm going to build my own house, grow my own food, and spin my own wool, and they are looked upon are zealots for working that hard.

Yet another can say, I work seventy hours a week and have a $250,000 home and $75,000 car and it's commendable.


They want people to reduce or give up travel, and want people to return to a poorer diet based on local seasonal produce containing little or no meat.

Again, what food do you speak of? The common folks I know are eating boxed mac-n-cheese and take-out made of crap.


Environmentalism seeks to take away all of the things which have improved the life of the common people. Environmentalism is really an attack on the common people.

I don't want anyone to give up computers, or electronic music players or cars or TVs. But it has become increasing difficult to find people who don't live in excess of everything and abuse and waste.

Too many people are depressed and feel useless/worthless. Too many people overweight. Too many children who have no sense of value or respect. Too many people who don't know how to find or make clean drinking water.

These are real issues that can only be fixed with work and a sense of accomplishment.

Even the arts have suffered.

EDIT: And another thing. This whole campaign on TV for the ultra soft four ply toilet paper drives me insane. You use it for like three seconds and that's worth cutting down tree after tree of virgin wood? Are we that demanding and sensitive about something with which we wipe our behinds? Throw away everything....diapers, bibs, plates, forks, cups. Too much.

[Resonance]

Like I said before, you are failing to account for new and more efficient technologies. When we switched from coal to nuclear power, for instance,
wait, when did that happen?

[barrylevon]

Hilarious. I took a homeless person to a free clinic in one of my cars today. Are you saying don't do things like that?

I'd say it wouldn't really matter how many homeless people you had driven to a clinic if there wasn't air to breathe, food to eat, water to drink etc.

Helping one person directly does not equal indirectly helping humanity further its existence.

[stuck]

Hilarious. I took a homeless person to a free clinic in one of my cars today. Are you saying don't do things like that?

Really? That's rad. I've done stuff kinda like that.

EDIT: I had to go in for chlamydia testing anyway. What am I, a monster?

[square]

I am seeing two sorts of responses to my OP - 1) Unfortunately we do need to wind back the clock because our current lifestyle is simply unsustainable. 2) Life for common people was not so bad in the past and is not so good now.

Many people would agree with 1) and I can see where they are coming from. However, I do not believe our current lifestyle is unsustainable. The way we do things will change in future as technological and economic conditions change, but I think a high tech, high energy and high population world is both desirable and sustainable. The reason I am characterising it as an "attack" is because it is something that will make the life of common people significantly worse off yet is totally unnecessary (based on my belief that our modern lifestyle is sustainable).

In relation to 2) : Yes, the life of some common people is not as good as it could be because they eat too much fast food and because they have gotten deep into debt to buy consumer goods, but that is not really the issue. Healthy and low cost food choices are available if they want to take them. They should be more responsible managing their money. People in those situations are in them through their own choice.

As an aside, the problem with fast food is not so much what is in it but what people are missing out on (vitamins, minerals and fibre) by eating a diet high in fast food. I understand why poor people in western countries eat so much fast food. Money is always tight for poor people and fast food represents excellent value for money in terms of calories and protein provided.

There are a lot hardships and very limited opportunities for people living in technological and energy poverty. Which way is population moving in the world? Are people in China moving from the cities to rural villages, or are they moving from rural villages to the cities? Are people moving from 3rd world countries to 1st world countries or the other way around? People in China are moving from rural villages to the cities and from 3rd world countries to 1st world countries. They are moving because they want a modern lifestyle with all the convenience and opportunities it offers. Millions of people around the world are voting with their feet. Please take off your rose-coloured glasses and consider the realities of life for people living in technological and energy poverty.

[camille]

I'll have more tomorrow, but tonight's question....

Are you capable of sustaining your life? Have you set yourself up in a situation where you could grow your own food and build your shelter?

Read more.

I am not against technology. I am against people not being self reliant and not teaching their children how to provide and find their basic needs. If everything collapsed tomorrow, I could provide for my family without today's electronic technology. I could live on a 1/5 of an acre and survive. I could skin a squirrel or field a deer, and I've been a veggie since I was eleven.


Yes, the life of some common people is not as good as it could be because they eat too much fast food and because they have gotten deep into debt to buy consumer goods, but that is not really the issue.

Not some, but the majority. How can life be better when the majority of the common cannot make good decisions when it comes to providing basic necessities?

Rose coloured glasses, forgive me.

EDIT: to the quote, how can that not be an issue?

[Kleptocracy]

I always thought environmentalism was about trying not to destroy the earths environment. :stupid:

[Architectonic]

tomkinsp, your post appears to be one big non sequitur since you haven't properly characterised "environmentalism", you haven't provided any basis for the thoughts which you have projected onto environmentalists.


What goods?

There is a dramatic decrease in the quality of goods. Everything from food to lawnmowers to cars to the quality of music.

Today, it is simply easier to toss something away than repair it.

That has little to do with quality. Quality comes at a price. If you pay the same inflation adjusted prices for goods such as lawnmowers etc from yesteryears, you can be sure that they will be better quality due to improved materials, design (as in all of the design faults from inexperience have been ironed out) and better quality control. Music is definitely something that is much better quality (excepting pop music), from the instruments used, the degree of creativity in designing timbre in electronic music, to recording technologies (phonograph? vinyl?), to the performance ability of orchestral musicians.

The romanticism of yesteryear has little basis in fact.

The only difference is that individuals now have much more choices, therefore are more liable to make bad ones, at least in absolute terms.

But as with my reply to tomkinsp, romanticism of yesteyear also has less to do with potential outcomes of environmentalism itself.

[!diom]

Money is always tight for poor people and fast food represents excellent value for money in terms of calories and protein provided.



No. They'd be far better off buying stuff like quinoa, lentils, brown rice, beans, oats, TVP, etc.

[square]

I always thought environmentalism was about trying not to destroy the earths environment. :stupid:

I see two types of environmentalism.

First, there is the "old school" environmentalism which tries to reduce pollution in order to improve human health. (I am not considering CO2 to be a form of pollution here.) It tries to conserve fish stocks to ensure there are enough fish for people to eat. Humans are very much the focus of this type of environmentalism. I would characterise it as "business as usual but tidy up here and there when we make a mess". I am in full agreement with this type of environmentalism.

Second, there is the "new school" environmentalism. It claims that the sky is falling (so to speak), humans are the problem and we need to regress technologically and decrease the population. I reject the claim that the sky is falling so totally reject this type of environmentalism.

[!diom]

and we need to regress technologically

No. Technological and scientific advancement is a driving force behind progress in sustainability. We don't need to "regress". We need to get smarter.

[stuck]

No. They'd be far better off buying stuff like quinoa, lentils, brown rice, beans, oats, TVP, etc.

This is accurate.

The reason is because food preparation costs money, no matter how shitty the raw material is.

I could feed you a balanced/organic/vegan/local meal for less than 2 dollars/massive serving. I could do this in several different cities I've lived in all over the country. It's not because I'm special, it's because it's not hard to do. My meals take 10 minutes of effort/40 minutes of waiting.

Fast food isn't a value. It degrades your health, addicts you to fat and refined carbohydrates, and acclimates you to spending extra money for food. It seems to be a value because of how it's marketed.

I'm not being a snob-I've eaten it all. I have lived off of taco bell. I'd spend three-five bucks and think I was getting a deal. I honestly spend way less money on feeding myself now.

The hidden costs of not eating local are massive- from shipping costs, from the vulnerability to our society from relying on such an expensive method, from the effects to our soil of using so much corn, from environmental destruction from hog and cattle farms, from the health care costs of diabetes and obesity...

With our big populations, there's no reason why we couldn't have thriving local produce markets almost everywhere.

It's not a class thing either. Organic urban co-ops feed and empower the poor.

[Kleptocracy]

I see two types of environmentalism.

First, there is the "old school" environmentalism which tries to reduce pollution in order to improve human health. (I am not considering CO2 to be a form of pollution here.) It tries to conserve fish stocks to ensure there are enough fish for people to eat. Humans are very much the focus of this type of environmentalism. I would characterise it as "business as usual but tidy up here and there when we make a mess". I am in full agreement with this type of environmentalism.

Second, there is the "new school" environmentalism. It claims that the sky is falling (so to speak), humans are the problem and we need to regress technologically and decrease the population. I reject the claim that the sky is falling so totally reject this type of environmentalism.

But what if you are wrong?

This seems to make the thread title look a bit misleading.

[square]

Are you capable of sustaining your life? Have you set yourself up in a situation where you could grow your own food and build your shelter?

Yes and no. I have the skills and knowledge but I am not established now. I have access to land and could get access to seeds, livestock and tools. It would take time to get established. If I could obtain enough stores to last me until I became established then I may be able to survive. However, survival in Australia is a very different proposition to survival in other countries. Rainfall is variable and droughts are common in many parts of Australia, so using a low-tech approach, there would be a very high chance of failure.


Not some, but the majority. How can life be better when the majority of the common cannot make good decisions when it comes to providing basic necessities?

It depends on which country you live in. Australia is not that bad yet in both regards. Australia will undoubtedly get fatter and unhealthier. I don't think debt to pay for consumer goods will necessarily increase in Australia. I am unsure on this one.

There are many problems with the modern western lifestyle. We are too fat and too inactive. As cities grow, we lose our sense of community and become more individualistic and selfish. I fully agree. There definitely are downsides to the modern western lifestyle. You are right. People in western countries are developing an interest and pursuing sea changes and tree changes. (Sea change is a term we use in Australian meaning "move to a quite seaside town to escape the rat race". Tree change is a term we use in Australian meaning "move to a quite rural town to escape the rat race".)


Rose coloured glasses, forgive me.

I am a very forgiving person. :)


How can that not be an issue?

It definitely is an issue. I said it wasn't the issue. My point is that the modern western technological lifestyle is not perfect but it a lot better for the common person than the life of a poor peasant in a 3rd world country, which is the equivalent of what life was like in western countries in the past when people did not have easy access to energy and technology.

People are questioning the value of western society because of the social disintegration, mental stress and health problems associated with modern life. I have a lot of sympathy with these views and would love to make a tree change myself.

People in the first world might chose to escape the rat race and move to a rural property to live a simpler life, but I don't think they would chose to live a low energy, low tech existence like a rural person in a third world country. In almost all cases, they would want to maintain their access to energy and most technologies.

We do need some perspective...

First world person: "I'm worried about children getting fat."

Third world person: "I'm worried about children dying from malnutrition and disease."

[jyng1]

However, survival in Australia is a very different proposition to survival in other countries. Rainfall is variable and droughts are common in many parts of Australia

Wanna have some of our rain? We've got plenty: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/galleries/gallery/special-news/107583/deluge-floods-north-otago

[Cbug]

I think there are too many different types of environmentalism to be able to make sweeping dramatic statements about what their common goals and objectives are and how they intend to reach them. The irrational types are always going to be louder and more prominent, just like anything else. Tomkinsp - there are more than two that's for sure. You are thinking in black and white terms too much.

I also think it's funny when people say with conviction that our societies are sustainable for the long term. Sustainability is not the natural course of things, all organisms are on the edge of overexploiting their environment - why would humans not be also? And of course we are sustainable at this point in time, otherwise we would be experiencing a population crash. We want to prevent a future collapse, and improve the quality of life now. Well, that is my version of environmentalist thinking.

[jyng1]

Environmentalism seeks to take away all of the things which have improved the life of the common people. Environmentalism is really an attack on the common people.

I'm interested in your definition of 'the common people?' Since most of the worlds population lives in poverty and a lot don't have access to clean water let alone technological advances to improve their lives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty I would generally catagorise the bulk of the worlds population as 'common' and most of the western world as affluent and therefore not that common. How is environmentalism an attack on the common person?

I understood global warming, overpopulation, lack of water etc were what was attacking the common person.

[square]

No. Technological and scientific advancement is a driving force behind progress in sustainability. We don't need to "regress". We need to get smarter.

I can agree with this. I don't accept that the sky is falling but I do accept that some things humans are doing are unsustainable and others may be unsustainable. I don't have a problem with doing things which are unsustainable. What I think we need to do, which could be included in what you are suggesting, is make use of technology to do things in a new way whenever something looks like it will no longer be sustainable. Down the track, when fossil fuels are close to running out, we'll need to switch to another source of energy. If fish stocks become so depleted that world-wide fish catches start to drop significantly, we'll need to switch more and more to aquaculture. (Aquaculture based on piscivorous (fish-eating) fish has its limits if it relies on wild-caught fish as and input, but there are alternatives.)

However, there are plenty of environmentalists who would disagree with you. What I detect with some environmentalists can be summed up in the phrase "technological fix". They shoot down any proposed technological solution. [We can't keep using fossil fuels. -> We need to switch to biofuels. -> We need subsidies to promote biofuels. -> Biofuels kill babies in 3rd world countries. -> We can't use biofuels. -> We need to stop using fuels.] The idea they promote is that we can't solve environmental problems by applying technological solutions because technology is the problem. They say we are addicted to technology and need to break our addiction and learn to live in harmony with nature. This is environmentalism as a religion. It is very big in Europe.

[!diom]

And of course we are sustainable at this point in time, otherwise we would be experiencing a population crash.

No. If we weren't sustainable, then we wouldn't crash immediately. A sustainable system is one that can be maintained indefinitely given it's environment. The current state of humanity is unsustainable, meaning that our rate of resource consumption cannot be maintained indefinitely, because we're zapping our ability to provide for future generations by over-exploiting forests, fisheries, fresh water, etc.

[square]

Wanna have some of our rain? We've got plenty: http://www.odt.co.nz/news/galleries/gallery/special-news/107583/deluge-floods-north-otago

You build a pipeline half way across the ditch and we'll build it the other half. :)

(For those of you who don't know, the ditch is a colloquial expression used to describe the Tasman Sea, the body of water separating Australia and New Zealand.)

[Cbug]

However, there are plenty of environmentalists who would disagree with you. What I detect with some environmentalists can be summed up in the phrase "technological fix". They shoot down any proposed technological solution. [We can't keep using fossil fuels. -> We need to switch to biofuels. -> We need subsidies to promote biofuels. -> Biofuels kill babies in 3rd world countries. -> We can't use biofuels. -> We need to stop using fuels.] The idea they promote is that we can't solve environmental problems by applying technological solutions because technology is the problem. They say we are addicted to technology and need to break our addiction and learn to live in harmony with nature. This is environmentalism as a religion. It is very big in Europe.

You're confusing luddites with environmentalists. They aren't the same.

[zago]

You're confusing luddites with environmentalists. They aren't the same.

Actually he isn't. Luddites think that technology will take everyone's jobs because it is more efficient at the same work than humans can be.

[Cbug]

No. If we weren't sustainable, then we wouldn't crash immediately. A sustainable system is one that can be maintained indefinitely given it's environment. The current state of humanity is unsustainable, meaning that our rate of resource consumption cannot be maintained indefinitely, because we're zapping our ability to provide for future generations by over-exploiting forests, fisheries, fresh water, etc.

I guess it depends on your definition...

I was looking at it from the view of population dynamics, which we do have empirical evidence for. We can't actually say whether we are acting sustainably or not atm, you would need to be able to forsee the future, and we can't. It depends on what level of per capita resouce use you consider to be adequate. The western level, or the African? This is where things start to get messy. And it also assumes an equal share for everyone.

[square]

This is accurate.

I agree there are options that are cheaper and healthier than fast food. However, these are not traditional for working class people in Western countries.

In Australia, traditional working class home-cooked evening meal would be meat (beef or lamb) and three types of boiled vegetables (potatoes, carrots and cabbage for example). When you compare fast food with this traditional working class food, the fast food option is often cheaper, quicker and tastier.

This traditional Australian working-class diet is better for health than fast food, but is far from perfect. It lacks variety and needs more fibre, vitamins and minerals.


With our big populations, there's no reason why we couldn't have thriving local produce markets almost everywhere.

If a person in Canada wants to eat a mango, should they be allowed to? If so, should they be allowed to eat an imported mango or should they only be allowed to eat a mango grown locally in a greenhouse? (Assuming it is actually possible to grow mangoes in greenhouses in Canada.)

[esthim8]

Attack? No, Threat? Yes. Is it therefore a bad thing? No. Are my hypothetical questions annoying? Yes. Does an infinite amount of retarded answers wrapped into a tight little box of emotional irrationality make for a fun read? Somewhat.

[!diom]

We can't actually say whether we are acting sustainably or not atm, you would need to be able to forsee the future, and we can't. It depends on what level of per capita resouce use you consider to be adequate.

We know the rough amount of biologically productive land and water on Earth (~13.4 billion hectares), and we know the Earth's population (~6.7 billion). This means that if we wanted to sustain our current population indefinitely, then we'd need to cut our per capita resource usage to ~2 hectares. As of 2008, the ecological footprint of humanity is at ~2.7 hectares per person, meaning that we're using up our natural resources and creating waste at ~1.35x the rate that the earth can handle. This means that we're globally unsustainable by almost any definition or standard.

Being unsustainable means that we're over-exploiting our natural resources, destroying them and decreasing the amount of biologically productive land and water. So, the ~13.4 billion hectare figure will go down while our ~6.7 billion population will probably go up, which means the rate of ~1.35x will go up, which means that the ~13.4 billion hectare figure will go down even further.. So, the sky is not only falling, but it'll fall at a faster and faster rate unless we get smart.

[Cbug]

We know the rough amount of biologically productive land and water on Earth (~13.4 billion hectares), and we know the Earth's population (~6.7 billion). This means that if we wanted to sustain our current population indefinitely, then we'd need to cut our per capita resource usage to ~2 hectares. As of 2008, the ecological footprint of humanity is at ~2.7 hectares per person, meaning that we're using up our natural resources and creating waste at ~1.35x the rate that the earth can handle. This means that we're globally unsustainable by almost any definition or standard.

Being unsustainable means that we're over-exploiting our natural resources, destroying them and decreasing the amount of biologically productive land and water. So, the ~13.4 billion hectare figure will go down while our ~6.7 billion population will probably go up, which means the rate of ~1.35x will go up, which means that the ~13.4 billion hectare figure will go down even further.. So, the sky is not only falling, but it'll fall at a faster and faster rate unless we get smart.

Yes I definitely agree we are currently using resources at an unsustainable rate. But I can also see how a non-environmentalist like Tomkinsp might question whether this matters at the moment, if he believes we are able to adjust resource use and rebalance just when we need to. Personally, I think this would be a dangerous way to approach it, but some don't agree with approaching risk in a cautious manner. At least, I think this is his position. He has said before that he thinks we can fix pollution after it has happened and that we can find new resources if we run out.

[square]

Here is what I originally said:


However, there are plenty of environmentalists who would disagree with you. What I detect with some environmentalists can be summed up in the phrase "technological fix". They shoot down any proposed technological solution. [We can't keep using fossil fuels. -> We need to switch to biofuels. -> We need subsidies to promote biofuels. -> Biofuels kill babies in 3rd world countries. -> We can't use biofuels. -> We need to stop using fuels.] The idea they promote is that we can't solve environmental problems by applying technological solutions because technology is the problem. They say we are addicted to technology and need to break our addiction and learn to live in harmony with nature. This is environmentalism as a religion. It is very big in Europe.

Here is what you said:


You're confusing luddites with environmentalists. They aren't the same.

I am surprised you haven't come across this form of environmentalism before. Followers of the New Age religion really want to return to a past age where humanity supposedly lived in harmony with nature. The New Age religion is an extension of one of the more extreme forms of environmentalism. They are definitely talking about low population and low technology.

I remember an elective subject at high school called General Studies. The teacher often used the phrases "technological fix" and "appropriate technology". Technological fix is the idea that high tech solutions can no longer work so we need to regress technologically for the sake of the environment and humanity. Appropriate technology is the idea that low-medium tech used on a small scale is better than high tech used on a large scale. These were ideas that were around when I was in high school back in the late 1980s.

The way of expressing it has changed. Try googling "Humans are like a virus". Read up on the New Age religion and the Gaia hypothesis.

[Kameraad Eksteen]

What I think we need to do, which could be included in what you are suggesting, is make use of technology to do things in a new way whenever something looks like it will no longer be sustainable. Down the track, when fossil fuels are close to running out, we'll need to switch to another source of energy. If fish stocks become so depleted that world-wide fish catches start to drop significantly, we'll need to switch more and more to aquaculture. (Aquaculture based on piscivorous (fish-eating) fish has its limits if it relies on wild-caught fish as and input, but there are alternatives.)

You sound like an environmentalist.

[Cbug]

I am surprised you haven't come across this form of environmentalism before. Followers of the New Age religion really want to return to a past age where humanity supposedly lived in harmony with nature. The New Age religion is an extension of one of the more extreme forms of environmentalism. They are definitely talking about low population and low technology.

I remember an elective subject at high school called General Studies. The teacher often used the phrases "technological fix" and "appropriate technology". Technological fix is the idea that high tech solutions can no longer work so we need to regress technologically for the sake of the environment and humanity. Appropriate technology is the idea that low-medium tech used on a small scale is better than high tech used on a large scale. These were ideas that were around when I was in high school back in the late 1980s.

The way of expressing it has changed. Try googling "Humans are like a virus". Read up on the New Age religion and the Gaia hypothesis.

I am familiar with this type of thinking, I see it as a synthesis of many different ideas eg. neo-luddism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism). I just don't think you should name these people environmentalists, they are so much more than that. New Age is a much better term to encompass all this. Your rant is about these people, not environmentalists.

[square]

I am familiar with this type of thinking, I see it as a synthesis of many different ideas eg. neo-luddism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism). I just don't think you should name these people environmentalists, they are so much more than that. New Age is a much better term to encompass all this. Your rant is about these people, not environmentalists.

I thought you were referring to a new example of old school luddism, which was not really the point I was trying to make. I'd never heard of neo-luddism. I really am showing my age. :reading:

[NoahFence]

Environmentalists want to wind back the clock on all of these advances.This is the fallacy common to most conservative mindsets: there is One Enemy, and he is Legion. It is ludicrous, blind, and an intellectual cop-out that avoids thinking about difficult topics.

In short: don't lump me in with the Aquarian Agrarians and don't call me a dirty hippy for being pissed off that I'm supposed to swallow the idea of an Air Quality Index and happily stay inside when it goes Orange just so a bunch of greedy fucks in nice clothes don't have to pay for the mess they make. I do not buy your premise that if they were forced to pay for such things that their business model would crumble and we would all suddenly be paying a million dollars for shoes, that is bullshit coming right from the very people who will tragically be forced to make do with only four homes instead of five.

I know it was mentioned before that clean, responsible use of technology and industry is what environmentalism is about, rather than some drug-addled plan to go live in a cave (until we recall that it sucked so bad we built a civilization from scratch to avoid it), but I felt that the previous denial of this comment lacked a certain vehemence which underscores the psychological warfare constantly being waged in our society.

[Cbug]

You sound like an environmentalist.

Admit it tomkinsp. Your whole argument was flawed. When it comes down to it - you do agree with the essentials of the environmentalist view.
You used to be an environmentalist - remember? What changed?


First, there is the "old school" environmentalism which tries to reduce pollution in order to improve human health. (I am not considering CO2 to be a form of pollution here.) It tries to conserve fish stocks to ensure there are enough fish for people to eat. Humans are very much the focus of this type of environmentalism. I would characterise it as "business as usual but tidy up here and there when we make a mess". I am in full agreement with this type of environmentalism.;

Actually you already said it.

I think the problem is you're being too hasty in concluding that it is even possible to clean up after we make a mess, and that we will be able to find new resources when old ones run out.

[Madrigal]

The common people today have a great life in terms of access to things that make their lives easier and more fulfilling. Technology has increased the quality and availability of goods and services and also brought down their cost greatly.

In the past, and in many places today, the typical common person lived their lives almost exclusively in one area. Travel was a luxury they could not afford. They could only eat food which was grown locally and in season so their diet lacked variety, particularly at certain times of year. In many places, the common person had very limited access to animal protein. They were forced to use dirty forms of energy like wood and dung, compared to clean (for the end user) forms of energy like electricity and gas. Lack of access to technology powered by cheap energy meant they had to labour long and hard.

Environmentalists want to wind back the clock on all of these advances. They propose either heavily taxing fossil fuels or replacing them with much more expensive forms of energy, which would put them out of reach of the common person and make everything more expensive. They want people to reduce or give up travel, and want people to return to a poorer diet based on local seasonal produce containing little or no meat. The rich can afford to pay so would still have access to all of these things but to common people, these things which they recently gained access to would be taken away from them and again become luxuries they could only dream of.

Environmentalism seeks to take away all of the things which have improved the life of the common people. Environmentalism is really an attack on the common people.

Are you dumb? The lower classes are the ones who most suffer from bad environmental policies in general. Do you think the rich breathe contaminated air, drink polluted water, suffer from radiation etc? The first to benefit from environmentally safe industry will be the lower classes.

That said, I prefer to talk to a worker about socializing the food industry than about how it's better for him to have an onion souffle on Sundays instead of his traditional barbeque. Middle class vegetarians can get with the program or piss off.

[kendoiwan]

Stupid trees!!! :rant:

[Chunes]

Environmentalists want to wind back the clock on all of these advances.

Some of us think a negative growth rate for a while is a better idea—keep your toys.

[square]

Are you dumb? The lower classes are the ones who most suffer from bad environmental policies in general. Do you think the rich breathe contaminated air, drink polluted water, suffer from radiation etc? The first to benefit from environmentally safe industry will be the lower classes.

No I am not dumb. :sadbanana:

I agree that the lower classes are the ones who suffer most from bad environmental policies or a lack of environmental policies.

There is good environmentalism which seeks to create a clean environment for the health and wellbeing of all humans. This type of environmentalism is clearly not an attack on common people. I can see who someone arguing that could be considered to be stupid. That really isn't my point.

There is a more extreme form of environmentalism that seeks to turn back the clock and go to a low technology, low energy, low population society. My point is that this type of environmentalism is bad for the common people because it reverses many of the gains they have achieved. This argument is based on the premise that our current lifestyle is fundamentally sustainable, so turning back the clock is unnecessary and harmful.

The alternative view is that our current lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable, so failing to turn back the clock will have dire consequences for all. That is a reasonable view to hold if you accept the premise that our current lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable. I don't accept that premise but many people do.

It is my view that all environmentalism is gradually becoming the more extreme form. Concern regarding the burning of fossil fuels used to centre around the fact that it produced oxides of sulfur and nitrogen which caused acid rain. The environmental message used to be "keep using fossil fuels but do it more cleanly to avoid producing acid rain which is affecting trees and lakes in certain locations." The environmental message now is "reduce and ultimately stop burning fossil fuels because the act of burning fossil fuels is destroying the whole planet." The new message is much more extreme but has become mainstream and fairly widely accepted.

You might feel that environmentalism is not about turning back the clock, but this view is becoming more and more explicit. All processes aimed at changing people's attitudes must be gradual ones. That is what I see happening when I look back at how environmentalism has changed over the years. If it has become more extreme over time, then it is not unreasonable to assume that it will continue to become more extreme as time goes on.

If releasing CO2 is fundamentally bad then do you think that people can save the planet just by turning appliances off at the wall? I think that is ridiculous. In my view, advocating turning appliances off at the wall is a consciousness raising technique to get them to accept the idea that CO2 is a pollutant in way that is palatable to them. If someone wants to convince people to stop releasing CO2, then they need to first convince them that CO2 is a problem. I see a lot of consciousness raising going on.

[stuck]

That is a reasonable view to hold if you accept the premise that our current lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable. I don't accept that premise but many people do.

So what's your response in face of evidence to the contrary, especially the consensus among a majority of the scientists who are studying the environment?

And btw, you already said your argument clearly enough.:)

[Resonance]

You might feel that environmentalism is not about turning back the clock, but this view is becoming more and more explicit.
Except, we have computers now.

[square]

And btw, you already said your argument clearly enough.:)

I had thought so too, but it's hard to judge. I'll stop now. :)

You have identified the central question - "Is our current lifestyle fundamentally sustainable or unsustainable?" If it is unsustainable, we should turn back the clock. If it is not fundamentally unsustainable, then we should not turn back the clock (for environmental reasons).


So what's your response in face of evidence to the contrary, especially the consensus among a majority of the scientists who are studying the environment?

1. My view on global warming is not entirely based on an examination of the scientific evidence. I take a long view of history and can see similarities with environmentalism and other "isms" that have come and gone. This makes me suspect that environmentalism might be just one more "ism".

2. The name has been changed from global warming to climate change. This is significant. Anything can now be presented as evidence that rising CO2 levels are detrimental. A lack of evidence of temperature rises is no longer taken as evidence against the idea that CO2 is bad. Now that warming appears to have stopped, we have gone from concern about catastrophic warming to concern for coral dieing due to ocean acidification.

3. I just don't find the evidence compelling. I get the impression that people are trying very hard to make a case by collecting and interpreting data that supports their case and ignoring evidence that does not support their case.

The "evidence" mostly consists of the following:

a) Warnings of extreme climate conditions in the future. (This is not evidence at all. Evidence must be something actual in the present or past.)

b) Computer models. (This is not evidence at all. A computer model can be made to produce any result by altering a few parameters. It would be possible to get a model to predict future cooling and still be consistent with past climate history by adjusting a few parameters.)

c) Temperature proxies. (These are very unreliable. Temperature is just one factor affecting the proxy. This is not a big issue because it now seems obvious that CO2 did not drive climate in the past.)

d) Al Gore's correlation. (Correlation does not prove causation. I think that rises in global temperatures have caused the historical rises in CO2 levels through ocean outgassing. That seems to be the consensus now among climate scientists.)

e) The world is warming. (We have been coming out of an ice age for a long time now. Glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years but we look at it now and call it a problem. It is more reasonable to attribute recent global warming to whatever caused us to come out of an ice age than to CO2 emissions in the last 50 years. There is so much noise, variability and uncertainty with climate that it would be impossible to reliably identify any additional signal on top of natural warming. The world has not been warming for about a decade now.)

f) CO2 is a greenhouse gas so, logically, increasing CO2 must warm the earth. We will eventually reach a tipping point. (A tipping point is purely hypothetical. Hypothesis is not evidence. I think it is more likely that there is a saturation point where adding more CO2 will have a smaller and smaller effect, so we'll never reach a tipping point.)

My response to the evidence is that it is not really evidence at all. We are constantly told that the evidence is overwhelming and now accepted by the majority of scientists. In my view, the whole case for global warming basically comes down to truth by reputation and truth by consensus. However, truth is independent of reputation and consensus, as was shown by Galileo.

[!diom]

:facepalm:

I think I should just start killing people.

[stuck]

1. My view on global warming is not entirely based on an examination of the scientific evidence. I take a long view of history and can see similarities with environmentalism and other "isms" that have come and gone. This makes me suspect that environmentalism might be just one more "ism".

2. The name has been changed from global warming to climate change. This is significant. Anything can now be presented as evidence that rising CO2 levels are detrimental. A lack of evidence of temperature rises is no longer taken as evidence against the idea that CO2 is bad. Now that warming appears to have stopped, we have gone from concern about catastrophic warming to concern for coral dieing due to ocean acidification.

3. I just don't find the evidence compelling. I get the impression that people are trying very hard to make a case by collecting and interpreting data that supports their case and ignoring evidence that does not support their case.

The "evidence" mostly consists of the following:

a) Warnings of extreme climate conditions in the future. (This is not evidence at all. Evidence must be something actual in the present or past.)

b) Computer models. (This is not evidence at all. A computer model can be made to produce any result by altering a few parameters. It would be possible to get a model to predict future cooling and still be consistent with past climate history by adjusting a few parameters.)

c) Temperature proxies. (These are very unreliable. Temperature is just one factor affecting the proxy. This is not a big issue because it now seems obvious that CO2 did not drive climate in the past.)

d) Al Gore's correlation. (Correlation does not prove causation. I think that rises in global temperatures have caused the historical rises in CO2 levels through ocean outgassing. That seems to be the consensus now among climate scientists.)

e) The world is warming. (We have been coming out of an ice age for a long time now. Glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years but we look at it now and call it a problem. It is more reasonable to attribute recent global warming to whatever caused us to come out of an ice age than to CO2 emissions in the last 50 years. There is so much noise, variability and uncertainty with climate that it would be impossible to reliably identify any additional signal on top of natural warming. The world has not been warming for about a decade now.)

f) CO2 is a greenhouse gas so, logically, increasing CO2 must warm the earth. We will eventually reach a tipping point. (A tipping point is purely hypothetical. Hypothesis is not evidence. I think it is more likely that there is a saturation point where adding more CO2 will have a smaller and smaller effect, so we'll never reach a tipping point.)

My response to the evidence is that it is not really evidence at all. We are constantly told that the evidence is overwhelming and now accepted by the majority of scientists. In my view, the whole case for global warming basically comes down to truth by reputation and truth by consensus. However, truth is independent of reputation and consensus, as was shown by Galileo.

I'm not going to tackle the evidentiary stuff. Maybe someone else might.

1. capitalism? cubism? post-situationism? cronyism? I see this as a subtle anti-intellectual bias.

2. no, the primary danger is that we may be making the weather system much more erratic, meaning more hurricanes, the shifting of global currents, that kind of bad stuff.

3. an 'impression'.

Valid scientific revolutions are relatively rare, so the chances of your Galileo analogy being correct are small. And remember, this current scientific cycle is kicking ass. They deserve more credit than a totalitarian theocracy.

[!diom]

Onanism.

[Kleptocracy]

I had thought so too, but it's hard to judge. I'll stop now. :)

You have identified the central question - "Is our current lifestyle fundamentally sustainable or unsustainable?" If it is unsustainable, we should turn back the clock. If it is not unsustainable, then we should not turn back the clock (for environmental reasons).



1. My view on global warming is not entirely based on an examination of the scientific evidence. I take a long view of history and can see similarities with environmentalism and other "isms" that have come and gone. This makes me suspect that environmentalism might be just one more "ism".

2. The name has been changed from global warming to climate change. This is significant. Anything can now be presented as evidence that rising CO2 levels are detrimental. A lack of evidence of temperature rises is no longer taken as evidence against the idea that CO2 is bad. Now that warming appears to have stopped, we have gone from concern about catastrophic warming to concern for coral dieing due to ocean acidification.

3. I just don't find the evidence compelling. I get the impression that people are trying very hard to make a case by collecting and interpreting data that supports their case and ignoring evidence that does not support their case.

The "evidence" mostly consists of the following:

a) Warnings of extreme climate conditions in the future. (This is not evidence at all. Evidence must be something actual in the present or past.)

b) Computer models. (This is not evidence at all. A computer model can be made to produce any result by altering a few parameters. It would be possible to get a model to predict future cooling and still be consistent with past climate history by adjusting a few parameters.)

c) Temperature proxies. (These are very unreliable. Temperature is just one factor affecting the proxy. This is not a big issue because it now seems obvious that CO2 did not drive climate in the past.)

d) Al Gore's correlation. (Correlation does not prove causation. I think that rises in global temperatures have caused the historical rises in CO2 levels through ocean outgassing. That seems to be the consensus now among climate scientists.)

e) The world is warming. (We have been coming out of an ice age for a long time now. Glaciers have been retreating for 10,000 years but we look at it now and call it a problem. It is more reasonable to attribute recent global warming to whatever caused us to come out of an ice age than to CO2 emissions in the last 50 years. There is so much noise, variability and uncertainty with climate that it would be impossible to reliably identify any additional signal on top of natural warming. The world has not been warming for about a decade now.)

f) CO2 is a greenhouse gas so, logically, increasing CO2 must warm the earth. We will eventually reach a tipping point. (A tipping point is purely hypothetical. Hypothesis is not evidence. I think it is more likely that there is a saturation point where adding more CO2 will have a smaller and smaller effect, so we'll never reach a tipping point.)

My response to the evidence is that it is not really evidence at all. We are constantly told that the evidence is overwhelming and now accepted by the majority of scientists. In my view, the whole case for global warming basically comes down to truth by reputation and truth by consensus. However, truth is independent of reputation and consensus, as was shown by Galileo.

Where is your evidence that man made climate change does not exist and what might be the consequences if your opinion turns out to be false?

[Cbug]

This argument is based on the premise that our current lifestyle is fundamentally sustainable, so turning back the clock is unnecessary and harmful.

Like I said before, I think you could question this premise more closely before jumping to conclusions.

Climate change is not the only environmental problem worth considering. Other problems you might check would be the unsustainable management of natural resources such as water, soil, fisheries and forests, as well as the depletion of the net pool of genetic resources.

[wote]

Sorry but it seems to me the OP is arguing from a position of total ignorance about the diversity of environmentalist viewpoints, and who it is exactly that is fearful of the future. First, there is a huge problem defining what "the common people" is supposed to truly mean, then we have environmentalists equated with luddites (... and luddites who hate the poor, no less), then we're inexplicably lumped in with "the New Age religion" (which is also apparently a monolithic entity), then a mysterious and irrelevant aversion to "isms," distrust of a change in terms that has no effect whatsoever on climate science itself, and an attempted "criticism" of the evidence that contains zero examples of the actual "evidence" supposedly under attack. Al Gore may be a hypocrite, and the IPCC may have had some shamefully vindictive people running it, but that doesn't disprove the large bodies of research that lead to general agreement among most of the world's climate scientists, geologists, biologists, physicists, et cetera (a multi-disciplinary effort). Does it not sound a bit ridiculous to be saying thousands of the world's scientists are in favour of turning back the clock on science and technology?

The Chinese government sees green technology as their ticket to a bright economic future. As I mentioned in another thread, Panasonic is investing a billion this year in developing NEW "green home" technology. There are also scientists who are constantly working to improve efficiency from solar panels. For goodness' sake, even evil companies like BP have seen the writing on the wall and are getting in on the action (http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9020417&contentId=7038242). There is money to be made from wind power, geothermal energy, various fuel cells, carbon sequestration schemes, etc., etc. Wall street traders must be dying to sink their teeth into a cap and trade-type policy (in which they can ride a nice fat bubble of rising carbon costs as oil and coal supplies fall), but there are also alternative economic models for how to make the transition more smooth for everyone (http://www.capanddividend.org/). You might hear some environmentalists bemoan the fact that, for example, the US was almost weaned off of oil back in the 1980s, just before Reagan implemented his energy policy, or that more people should grow their own food (what is so wrong with encouraging that???), but it doesn't mean that we're all atavistic zealots.

[camille]

...that more people should grow their own food (what is so wrong with encouraging that???), but it doesn't mean that we're all atavistic zealots.

Hub and I are huge fans of victory gardens.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/13492v.jpg/220px-13492v.jpg

Fear will often times keep people from providing for themselves. Sometimes it seems too overwhelming. I understand this. I have lived in the city on 'no plots' before. But I have also grown peppers and tomatoes and potatoes in five gallon buckets. Every little bit helps.

Just sad for me.

I spent all day in various parks in Indiana and Illinois. Back on the trail tomorrow. I just can't imagine being so separated from my natural habitat that I fear working it to my benefit without damaging it.