The eco-system strikes back!...or...Oops!

Man, I'm no scientist, but even I saw that episode of the Simpsons. Sometimes I wonder who's running things...
 
Have you tried giving up your bright and cheery incandescent light bulbs to save energy--only to learn that their gloomy-but-efficient compact fluorescent replacements contain mercury? Perhaps you’ve tried to free up space in landfills by foregoing the ease and convenience of disposable diapers--only to be criticized for the huge quantities of energy and water consumed in laundering those nasty cloth diapers. Even voicing support for renewable energy no longer seems to be green enough, as angry environmentalists protest the development of "pristine lands" for wind farms and solar power plants.
Why is it that no matter what sacrifices you make to try to reduce your "environmental footprint," it never seems to be enough?

Well, consider why it is that you have an "environmental footprint" in the first place.
Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature. Every value we create to advance our well-being--every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone we manufacture--is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from altering nature for our own benefit.

From the perspective of human life and happiness, a big "environmental footprint" is an enormous positive. This is why people in India and China are striving to increase theirs: to build better roads, more cars and computers, new factories and power plants and hospitals.

But for environmentalism, the size of your "footprint" is the measure of your guilt. Nature, according to green philosophy, is something to be left alone--to be preserved untouched by human activity. Their notion of an "environmental footprint" is intended as a measure of how much you "disturb" nature, with disturbing nature viewed as a sin requiring atonement. Just as the Christian concept of original sin conveys the message that human beings are stained with evil simply for having been born, the green concept of an "environmental footprint" implies that you should feel guilty for your very existence.
It should hardly be any surprise, then, that nothing you do to try to lighten your "footprint" will ever be deemed satisfactory. So long as you are still pursuing life-sustaining activities, whatever you do to reduce your impact on nature in one respect (e.g., cloth diapers) will simply lead to other impacts in other respects (e.g., water use)--like some perverse game of green whack-a-mole--and will be attacked and condemned by greens outraged at whatever "footprint" remains. So long as you still have some "footprint," further penance is required; so long as you are still alive, no degree of sacrifice can erase your guilt.
 
basspig said:
Have you tried giving up your bright and cheery incandescent light bulbs to save energy--only to learn that their gloomy-but-efficient compact fluorescent replacements contain mercury? Perhaps you’ve tried to free up space in landfills by foregoing the ease and convenience of disposable diapers--only to be criticized for the huge quantities of energy and water consumed in laundering those nasty cloth diapers. Even voicing support for renewable energy no longer seems to be green enough, as angry environmentalists protest the development of "pristine lands" for wind farms and solar power plants.
Why is it that no matter what sacrifices you make to try to reduce your "environmental footprint," it never seems to be enough?

Well, consider why it is that you have an "environmental footprint" in the first place.
Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature. Every value we create to advance our well-being--every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone we manufacture--is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from altering nature for our own benefit.

From the perspective of human life and happiness, a big "environmental footprint" is an enormous positive. This is why people in India and China are striving to increase theirs: to build better roads, more cars and computers, new factories and power plants and hospitals.

But for environmentalism, the size of your "footprint" is the measure of your guilt. Nature, according to green philosophy, is something to be left alone--to be preserved untouched by human activity. Their notion of an "environmental footprint" is intended as a measure of how much you "disturb" nature, with disturbing nature viewed as a sin requiring atonement. Just as the Christian concept of original sin conveys the message that human beings are stained with evil simply for having been born, the green concept of an "environmental footprint" implies that you should feel guilty for your very existence.
It should hardly be any surprise, then, that nothing you do to try to lighten your "footprint" will ever be deemed satisfactory. So long as you are still pursuing life-sustaining activities, whatever you do to reduce your impact on nature in one respect (e.g., cloth diapers) will simply lead to other impacts in other respects (e.g., water use)--like some perverse game of green whack-a-mole--and will be attacked and condemned by greens outraged at whatever "footprint" remains. So long as you still have some "footprint," further penance is required; so long as you are still alive, no degree of sacrifice can erase your guilt.
Click to expand...

A very enlightening response.
 
basspig... that's a well-written post... but I will say that modern CF bulbs can have a nice color spectrum, and use about 82% less electricity... and the next generation CF will contain zero mercury and they'll also use over 90% less electricity... they're coming.

My problem is once again this is an issue with little common sense middle-ground... there are hippies on one side who are as you describe... and there are people on the other side that actually seem OPPOSED to anything green... as is always the case in these situations, logic is the first fatality.

Still, as a guy shooting video within the green industry... I've got a ton of footage that was intended for a show to promote the green industry... and I've considered using it for an expose instead. There's a lot of BS going on... at least there is here in STL.
 
We don't even have to go into the scam that most city recycling program are and how much money, both above the table and below the table changes hands in just that small portion of the green movement. I interviewed three top executives with the E.J. Harrison recycling program, and their attorney. You wouldn't believe the recycling business from the inside. Like everything else that comes to the forefront today, being green has become a commodity market that mostly exists so someone can make a big profit from it.

Basspig, very astute post, you nailed it. The problem isn't really going to be solved by "being green" the only thing that will solve the carbon footprint is population control, there are simply too many people for the planet to sustain.

The CFL thing has been driving me nuts, I hate CFLs, they flicker, are wimpy, you have to wait longer for them to come up to full output and of course, for every one that we throw away, there is that nice little drop of mercury going into a landfill somewhere. Matt, hopefully they are improving the CFL technology (wonder why they had to make the first 5 or 10 billion CFLs with the mercury in them?) and supplementing it with better LED technology akthough we do know that large scale LED technology begins to have the same heat issues that incandescents have.

The best case of green gone amuck are the Prius owners. I bet many of them will be dumping their Priuses when the batteries die and they learn how much Toyota has to charge them to replace the batteries. I wonder what percentage of those Prius batteries are recycled also?

Dan
 
Puredrifting, I read a survey someone did a while ago about Prius owners and why they bought them. Now, it needs to be pointed out that this is Prius specific, and not hybrids in general.

Long story short, something like 70% bought them to make a statement that they cared about the environment... not because they cared about the environment, which was a separate answer one could choose... but they wanted to make a statement that they cared about the environment. It was purely an image thing.

I think that is the problem with much of the "green" movement. People want to be known as being "green", as opposed to be pragmatic and just finding the most workable solution for environmental problems. Hence the Prius, a lot of city recycling programs, the whole ethanol joke, and a lot of the environmental arguments for organic food. In the end, they don't solve anything, but at least you get to "feel good" that you "did something" about the problem and pat yourself on the back... which is why you did it in the first place.
 
The bummer in talking about some of the bogus green stuff... or in doing an expose on some local 2-faced people in green... is that I don't want to give any fuel to the opposing side... that thinks it's ALL 100% crap. It's too bad that you can't point out a problem in hopes of fixing it, because if there's an opposing view they will take that issue and use it as a reason to discount everything.

I'm not saying anybody's doing that... but I don't want the thread to be left with an anti-green message. That's not why I want to make an "expose" video... I want to make an expose video because there are giant companies that make petty efforts and turn those efforts into advertising campaigns... and there are individuals in the STL area who don't actually LIVE green... they just TALK green... and behind public view they have decidedly NON-green life goals.

I've got 100% CFL in my house... 100%... they are Feit Electric from Costco. I've had some CFL in the past that I HATED... but I'm very pleased with the color rendition and performance from the ones I have in now. Does the mercury thing matter? Yeah... but I think that's one of those things that the "anti-green defense" likes to throw out as a reason to avert "progress" (in quotes on purpose)... because I do think that standard incandescent technology needs to fade out in ordinary household applications... which is also why I mention that mercury free CFL is on the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top