Why I'm not an Environmentalist
Posted 02-03-2009 at 01:17 PM by mattW
Tags environment, green living
My concern for the environment started when earth, fire, wind, water and heart combined to fight the forces of corporate greed and irresponsibility. Yes, Captain Planet was my hero. I’ve had quite a lot of greening influences in my life, from cartoons, to a kid’s solar experimentation kit, to my friend’s parent’s weird composting toilet. I’ve developed quite an awareness of global environment issues, especially to do with energy and I think make a decent effort to change my lifestyle in order to reduce my impact on the world. But I don’t call myself an environmentalist, not in a million years. How can I care about the environment on one hand yet refuse to join the ranks of like minded individuals on the other? The reason is that calling yourself green is about as definitive as calling yourself the world’s best street fighter. Within 24 hours of making such a claim you are almost guaranteed to be in a hospital ward after being well and truly schooled by a Thai underground kick boxing champion, or in this case a vegan Greenpeace activist who lives in a solar powered mound of dirt.
The eco-hypocrite police are the most far reaching, swift and strict global task forces the world has ever seen. Al Gore gives up his political career and devotes his life to try and educate people about climate change and gets slammed for his electricity bill. Sting puts his neck out for the environment and gets stung for his less-than-green Police concerts. The Toyota Prius is one of the most efficient and least polluting cars on the market but is somehow accused of producing acid rain. Call yourself green and you could well have reporters sifting through your garbage for un-optimised recycling practices, or calling you an eco-terrorist because you still eat meat. I’m trying my best to care for the environment; I’ve changed my light bulbs, I fill my recycling bin, I’m even planning on building an electric car to reduce my energy consumption, but I doubt that qualifies me for the elusive title of green. Frankly I think I have better chances going for best street fighter.
Maybe its time we start rewarding people for the positive contributions they have made to the environment rather than digging up dirt on them so we don’t feel as bad about still using toilet paper. The green movement can keep moving forward towards a better earth through spurring each other on. Or we can tear each other apart for not changing our entire lives for the better in one single burst. What do you think? Is there a place for being critical of other people’s green efforts or is it better to just focus on the progress they have made?
The eco-hypocrite police are the most far reaching, swift and strict global task forces the world has ever seen. Al Gore gives up his political career and devotes his life to try and educate people about climate change and gets slammed for his electricity bill. Sting puts his neck out for the environment and gets stung for his less-than-green Police concerts. The Toyota Prius is one of the most efficient and least polluting cars on the market but is somehow accused of producing acid rain. Call yourself green and you could well have reporters sifting through your garbage for un-optimised recycling practices, or calling you an eco-terrorist because you still eat meat. I’m trying my best to care for the environment; I’ve changed my light bulbs, I fill my recycling bin, I’m even planning on building an electric car to reduce my energy consumption, but I doubt that qualifies me for the elusive title of green. Frankly I think I have better chances going for best street fighter.
Maybe its time we start rewarding people for the positive contributions they have made to the environment rather than digging up dirt on them so we don’t feel as bad about still using toilet paper. The green movement can keep moving forward towards a better earth through spurring each other on. Or we can tear each other apart for not changing our entire lives for the better in one single burst. What do you think? Is there a place for being critical of other people’s green efforts or is it better to just focus on the progress they have made?
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Total Comments 166
Comments
-
If you were to cut military acquisition spending in half, the military would be -better-. I typed up a bunch of personal experiences I've had, but it's not appropriate for me to post them publicly so I took them out... I'll say this though: It's #$@#ed, completely #$@#ed.Quote:Originally Posted by PhantomPholly
This tells me that, aside from the military, we could easily have a government less than 10% as expensive as it is today and still do everything IMPORTANT that it does - maybe better.
My wife is from Germany (the U.S. immigration process is ridiculous by the way), and she -hates- their government. Especially their universal health care system, education system, welfare system, tax system, etc.. etc..Quote:Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman
but i think you Americans just need to know this. Europa isnt a great place to be. not anymore.Posted 08-27-2008 at 01:15 PM by ClintK 
-
You will not get an argument from me on that - that would reduce U.S. Federal spending on the Military to a reasonable 2% of GDP, the same as Japan's. I expect that that will happen anyway - see the trend of U.S. military spending over the past 50 years here.Quote:Originally Posted by ClintK
If you were to cut military acquisition spending in half, the military would be -better-. I typed up a bunch of personal experiences I've had, but it's not appropriate for me to post them publicly so I took them out... I'll say this though: It's #$@#ed, completely #$@#ed.Posted 08-27-2008 at 01:29 PM by PhantomPholly
-
Sea Ice May Be on Increase in the Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due to a Lot of 'Hot Air'?Quote:Originally Posted by jlsawell
Sorry Paker, you're being too simplistic.
The problem with global warming isn't the warming. It's the melting of the polar ice, which dilutes the salt water content of the North Atlantic Current.
The stream carries warm equatorial water to the north atlantic (off Scotland) and warms Europe's climate, and gives England it's wet weather.
With Greenland melting, the danger is that the Current will shut down, preventing the warm weather from reaching Europe. We don't know enough about it to tell WHEN it will shut down, but the conditions would be something like a critical salt/fresh water mix threshold being crossed.
So Global warming, droughts, carbon, all those issues aren't really the problem. It doesn't even matter if burning coal and carbon causes warming. The glaciers are melting along with the polar ice caps. The last chunk that broke off Antarctica was the size of Rhode Island, and that polar ice is all fresh water - busily melting and diluting the currents.
That's the reality. What are we doing about it? Arguing about who will pay...
A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...t/sea_ice.html
Western Greenland Ice Growing; Still Global Warming
The lynchpin in the anthropogenic global warming theory is the shrinking Arctic ice, but now that some of that ice is actually increasing, scientists claim, without a trace of irony, it is normal for temperatures and ice sheets to fluctuate.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lyn...global-warmingPosted 08-28-2008 at 04:32 AM by paker
-
Wow...I'm stunned to hear you say that. The media here paints Europe as "the place to be" and that the U.S. is so behind the times in terms of government programs, environment, health care and education (and a host of other issues)
I was also under the impression that most Europeans support belonging to the EU. Is this not true? As one guy, I realize that you can't speak for all of Europe but your opinion is of interest.Posted 08-28-2008 at 07:18 AM by EVBug
-
As a military member, I'll say that it's not the costs, it's the choices of where the money goes that pisses me off. We spend so much money on high tech warfare in an attempt to eliminate the need for sheer numbers of boots on the ground. Our military hasn't been this small since 1917. We already hold a gross technical edge in nearly every method of war, but we don't have nearly enough humans in the military. Why? Because humans require health care and retirement plans. When a plane, tank or ship wears out, you just recycle it. We don't need sexier aircraft, ships and tanks, we need people. We've nearly contracted ourselves right into the ground.Quote:Originally Posted by PhantomPholly
You will not get an argument from me on that - that would reduce U.S. Federal spending on the Military to a reasonable 2% of GDP, the same as Japan's. I expect that that will happen anyway - see the trend of U.S. military spending over the past 50 years here.
History also shows that governments that resort to mercenaries (like Blackwater) always fail.Posted 08-28-2008 at 07:22 AM by EVBug
-
Lol..are you kidding? Nearly everyone in America doesn't understand that we're not (and not supposed to be) a "democracy". If you ask the average Joe or Jane on the street, we are a democracy. You should see the looks I get when I try to explain that we're a Republic.Quote:Originally Posted by PhantomPholly
Sorry for your pain. The problem is that once a Democratic country has half of it's people working for the government you will NEVER vote to make government smaller.
That's why the writers of the Constitution did not want a Democracy. They knew it was a trap.Posted 08-28-2008 at 07:24 AM by EVBug
-
Agreed, but what about the flat income tax vs. the Fair Tax (or Federal Sales Tax)? Instead of having the gov't pay to send out a check for "essentials" each month, wouldn't this be better? Or at least, wouldn't it be better to make food and maybe certain clothing items tax exempt?Quote:Originally Posted by PhantomPholly
The new slavery is economic slavery; contrasting what the government does for you vs. what you could do for yourself is a no-brainer. When the politicians can persuade the people to argue about WHAT to tax, the people have already lost the battle for freedom. Politicians win when they can tax so many little things that we are no longer aware of the total level of taxation burden placed upon us - and even when one tax is successfully defeated, it is simply moved around. That is why a solution like (if not exactly) the FairTax is the only hope of reclaiming our freedom - because they cannot hide the taxes when they only have 2 numbers (the prebate amount, and the tax rate) they are allowed to quibble over.
By this measure, there are almost no free countries left on earth - and it will get worse, not better.
But, I still want electric cars...Posted 08-28-2008 at 07:30 AM by EVBug
-
First and foremost, thanks for your service!Quote:Originally Posted by EVBug
As a military member, I'll say that it's not the costs, it's the choices of where the money goes that pisses me off. We spend so much money on high tech warfare in an attempt to eliminate the need for sheer numbers of boots on the ground. Our military hasn't been this small since 1917. We already hold a gross technical edge in nearly every method of war, but we don't have nearly enough humans in the military. Why? Because humans require health care and retirement plans. When a plane, tank or ship wears out, you just recycle it. We don't need sexier aircraft, ships and tanks, we need people. We've nearly contracted ourselves right into the ground.
History also shows that governments that resort to mercenaries (like Blackwater) always fail.
My 9 years were in the Air Force, flying F-4 Phantoms (like my sig?) half of that and fighting beside the Army with Motorola as my weapon of choice the other half.
I think we're good on the "mercenary" angle. We still have plenty of young Patriots like yourself willing to enlist to get the job done. And, from the perspective of protecting the homeland, the recent re-affirmation of the 2nd Amendment means that we STILL have the world's largest standing militia! Now, if people would only remember the OTHER reason for the 2nd amendment...
Don't rush to poo-poo Blackwater. Most of them are true professionals who cut their teeth in the U.S. Military, and they have their place. There are definitely situations which call for paramilitary not-in-uniform security forces, and as a soldier you simply cannot fill that role (you MUST wear the uniform).
And again I'm a bad boy for helping this thread stray so far from Electric vehicles. Am I clever enough to tie it all together?
Ah, let's try this. Political stability is critical in these times of organized terrorism so that governments can keep their focus on assisting our inevitable transition off of Petroleum and on to clean renewables. Thus, while not a signatory to the bogus extortion money for carbon bragging rights Kioto Protocols to further fund the evil growth of the Useless Nitwits (U.N.), the United States provides leadership both through application of limited military intervention to stop eco-terrorists and through it's example of minimizing pollution from existing energy sources while encouraging competitive development of clean electric alternatives.
Posted 08-28-2008 at 08:02 AM by PhantomPholly
-
Check your PM's, let's take it off line. Don't wanna get banned already for politics!Quote:Originally Posted by EVBug
Agreed, but what about the flat income tax vs. the Fair Tax (or Federal Sales Tax)? Instead of having the gov't pay to send out a check for "essentials" each month, wouldn't this be better? Or at least, wouldn't it be better to make food and maybe certain clothing items tax exempt?
Posted 08-28-2008 at 08:25 AM by PhantomPholly
-
Sorry for your pain, but that's not the case yet.Quote:Originally Posted by PhantomPholly
Sorry for your pain. The problem is that once a Democratic country has half of it's people working for the government you will NEVER vote to make government smaller.
That's why the writers of the Constitution did not want a Democracy. They knew it was a trap.
There really is still hope for a fair and better Holland, trust me.
Here, this is what is on the subsidized (?) channels right now :
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/2240...reporting.html
Our dirty ass left wing government is PRO Obama and is really indoctrinating people with it. They all fund these channels for there idea.
People know this.
If this is also on American TV, don't believe it, that's not the opinion of Dutch people, it really is not.
It's all government funded crap what you see on TV these days.
Maybe you heard about Pim Fortyun and Theo van Gogh from Holland ?
Both assisinated, smart guys they where, and still a huge influwence today with many debate's.
This is a video from them when the EU was formed, they discussed it.
Anyway, interesting stuff, and I think more people should/must see this video. It's only 8 minute's long, very/the best video with 2 great and clear mind's. ( yes, it's got good american subtitle's )
The real hero's of freedom of speech, killed. You should watch it.
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=bv8CiW6xX3U
After they got killed, we have never seen this kind of program's on TV.
Discussing and explaining EU parliament in this clear way.
It explains almost everything. In just 8 minutes...
Maybe you heard about Geert Wilders to ? ( im sure you have )
Well, he is kind of nuts, but everyone understand's his idea's ( don't stare at the Islam issue only, like government does to break him )
He is a clear an fair man, maybe not the smartest guy in the world, but he is fair, talk's what he thinks, spot on, without any words around the topic.
Just a straight guy who isn't afraid of anything.
I think he won't be the next president of Holland, but he's influwence is going to skyrocket.
He is the opposite of today's minister's, but people are very interested with him, we like his idea's.
Of couse some of his idea's are really radical, and there is no way these idea's are going to happen.
But he points in the right direction, maybe a bit to much to explain, but he is against the wasting money government we have today, enough for me to vote for him.Posted 08-28-2008 at 09:56 AM by The Flying Dutchman
-
Almost sounds to me like they killed off the moderates so that only the extremists (or at least seen as extremist) voices are left to oppose the standing government. This makes it a simple matter of choosing the lesser of two evils as far as the average voter is concerned and that usually means supporting the current government.
We had the conservative political movement nearly wiped out in the early 90s here in canada. That was mainly because they were in power for a while, and did some things that were unpopular (like introduce the GST) and when the outgoing prime minister retired, his replacement was a complete idiot and suffered the worst political defeat in canadian history. She was the only female prime minister canada ever had.
The right wing of Parliament was then split into several parties and fought each other as often as the ruling liberals. It took over a decade before the conservative movement finally joined forces again and we now have a conservative minority government. They are far from perfect, but at least they make some effort to keep campaign promises. Currently vote splitting is happening on the left wing of Parliament allowing right wing to come up the middle and get in office (barely).
I agree that the rest of the world would certainly vote for obama if given the chance. But in america, the republican leader has all but vaporized his lead in the polls with a few simple but effective attack ads. Now the real race is about to begin. Lets face it, the world can think whatever it wants, but the real decision is that of the american voter to make.
Sorry to hear about the crap the EU has brought you. I was under the impression that things would get better with europe more united, but I guess thats not the case and I would sooner trust the word of some one that has to live there than what the news media tells me here. Not really a big surprise I guess. The UN is full of corruption in spite of all the nice things they claim to be doing for the world.
Those of you that can still vote make sure you cast that ballot next time around. Its not much of a real free democracy but its all we have for now. Sooner or later I may have to take a bigger role in my governments affairs and I would encourage anyone else to try and do the same if they can. Leaders need to be reminded of their place and if we let them, they will screw us over. We will only have ourselves to blame if we allow them to take away what little freedom we have left.Posted 08-28-2008 at 11:10 AM by david85
-
Yeah, i just had to post this, I already thought that (most) American's where ''looking up'' to the ''smart'' EU.
Don't get fooled, things aren't great here, we are really being screwed.
Especially ''mighty tiny'' lands like Holland, Belgium, and Luxemburg (the BeNeLux)
The BeneLux WAS probably the most powerfull and richest part of Europa, just because of the simple fact that we don't like spending money, we really (especially Hollanders) save alot of money, we don't like spening it on small things, save alot, and then make 1, of 2 good buys that are worth there value and last.
But now, the BeNeLux is also being ''upgraded'' ?
And now a small powerfull region of Germany want's to join..
yay, can't wait when the German's want things and demanding things..
Our tiny little 'ol trusty Holland is getting smaller and smaller by the day/week.
Maybe it's a little radical to say, but my country is being sold.
It's got no real identical anymore, no more windmills, wooden shoes, tulps, and cheese, whore's and redlight destrict and drugs.
Redlight district is now illegal, and Amsterdam want's to get rid of it.
( wow, nice big Holland culture thing sold, gone, vanisted right there.. )
Not that I ''like'' the Redlight district or something But is was part of Holland.
Living free, doing what ever you want.
That's all changing, we alway's loved working hard, we did'nt mind, we love it, because it was good for the country, it always was, our great grand parents did it, with a lot of succes, and we are following them, also with a lot of succes. So no bothering about hard work, cause it pay's itself.
But now, since the 1 EU thing, we are being FORCED to work hard.
Ofcouse, forcing people to do things alway creates the opposite.
I still love working, but there are moments that I think, what the hell am I doing ? Im working hard, and all the EU politician F*CKS are doing nothing usefull and trowing my hard earnt money away.
Should'nt I be protesting ? or something to get rid of those d*mned politicans ?
And these kind of story's are beginning to show up more and more, even my grandpa (who has absolutly no harm in himself, and always is positive about things) is complaining.
No wonder, he is seeing how his land, wich he build up after WW2 is being ruined.
If the next parliament ( over 2 years we may vote again, or sooner I hope ) is not the good one, Holland really is lost, sold to the big EU...
It's really sad to see, and alot of Hollanders basically say the same thing about this.
A well, i quit now saying all this politics crap, cause it don't make me happy'erPosted 08-28-2008 at 11:50 AM by The Flying Dutchman
-
True - that, and the fact that the international bankers created quite a deal for themselves in Lux.Quote:Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman
The BeneLux WAS probably the most powerfull and richest part of Europa, just because of the simple fact that we don't like spending money, we really (especially Hollanders) save alot of money, we don't like spening it on small things, save alot, and then make 1, of 2 good buys that are worth there value and last.
Just "accurate." Welcome to the new world order.Quote:Maybe it's a little radical to say, but my country is being sold.
You can find all those (except the red light district, and maybe that's there, too) in Holland, Michigan. Love the tulips...Quote:It's got no real identical anymore, no more windmills, wooden shoes, tulps, and cheese, whore's and redlight destrict and drugs.
Oh, they are doing something useful - for themselves. And, they thank you most sincerely for your vote...Quote:But now, since the 1 EU thing, we are being FORCED to work hard.
Ofcouse, forcing people to do things alway creates the opposite.
I still love working, but there are moments that I think, what the hell am I doing ? Im working hard, and all the EU politician F*CKS are doing nothing usefull and trowing my hard earnt money away.
Should'nt I be protesting ? or something to get rid of those d*mned politicans ?
Democracy is the flip side of Socialism. America was great BEFORE it was a Democracy, when it was a Representative Republic. It arose in PROTEST over the international bankers, who were/are corrupt and were/are attempting to subjugate the world.
Don't expect another independent Republic to arise soon - not until someone invents an easy way off this rock or a big enough bomb to subdue the subduers.Posted 08-28-2008 at 12:21 PM by PhantomPholly
-
It will be... jefferson saw the inevitablity of the government growing massive and stupid/lazy in a democracy where EVERYONE no matter their intelligence or value to society has the right to vote.Quote:Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman
Sorry for your pain, but that's not the case yet.
There really is still hope for a fair and better Holland, trust me.
Oh come on, when has power being unified EVER helped anything... ever. Even the US federal government vs. state run governments the way jefferson wanted is a disaster (epic one).Quote:I was under the impression that things would get better with europe more united, but I guess thats not the case and I would sooner trust the word of some one that has to live there than what the news media tells me herePosted 08-28-2008 at 12:57 PM by Technologic
-
I will say that canada was not always a single "dominion" as stated on the constitution, but we are better as a nation being united even if there is the odd squabble every now and then.Quote:Originally Posted by Technologic
Oh come on, when has power being unified EVER helped anything... ever. Even the US federal government vs. state run governments the way jefferson wanted is a disaster (epic one).
The american civil war was a major reason why canada was given a strong central government when it was first being pieced together.
The indian continent was more or less peaceful when under control of the british empire (one main language and one set of laws), but as soon as they left fighting broke out again. To this day they're still killing each other.
That does not mean that uniting different nations or peoples is always a good idea, but generally its better than fighting each other.
Posted 08-28-2008 at 01:11 PM by david85
-
You're talking about a means to stave off violence (which is a necessary thing historically for nations to keep sane/prospering). War/violence keeps the nation active and alert, growing and thriving.Quote:Originally Posted by david85
I will say that canada was not always a single "dominion" as stated on the constitution, but we are better as a nation being united even if there is the odd squabble every now and then.
The american civil war was a major reason why canada was given a strong central government when it was first being pieced together.
The indian continent was more or less peaceful when under control of the british empire (one main language and one set of laws), but as soon as they left fighting broke out again. To this day they're still killing each other.
That does not mean that uniting different nations or peoples is always a good idea, but generally its better than fighting each other.
However, centralizing government is ALWAYS a "short" term stop gap for whatever crisis (name one... they've all been used as the excuse) that ends up being permanent (duh). I'd rather millions of people die a year in the US from wars between states (unlikely as hell anyway) than see civil liberties where they are today (and where they're going to inevitably head to, feudalism)Posted 08-28-2008 at 01:17 PM by Technologic
-
I want to try and be careful how I respond to that. Are you saying that war and violence is a good thing? Or just a necessary evil to keep us on our toes? I'll admit there are times when it may be warranted ugly though it may be....Quote:Originally Posted by Technologic
You're talking about a means to stave off violence (which is a necessary thing historically for nations to keep sane/prospering). War/violence keeps the nation active and alert, growing and thriving.
However, centralizing government is ALWAYS a "short" term stop gap for whatever crisis (name one... they've all been used as the excuse) that ends up being permanent (duh). I'd rather millions of people die a year in the US from wars between states (unlikely as hell anyway) than see civil liberties where they are today (and where they're going to inevitably head to, feudalism)
Didn't think it was that bad in the states, at least not yet.
What I meant about canadian federalism is that most of the power is at the federal level, but the provinces still have local jurisdiction. The criminal code for example is strictly set by the national parliament, but the provinces are responsible for paying for services like health care (with some federal funding). Far from perfect but it seems to work well enough.Posted 08-28-2008 at 09:52 PM by david85
-
If I owned property in two different states, and those two states went to war, would I have to kick my own @$$? Hur hur hur....
Posted 08-29-2008 at 07:44 AM by Telco
-
I'm saying that violence/war is a necessary evil and attempts to stop it from happening completely (which is socialism's goal) will only end in the quiet deaths (ie. starvation) of entire nations of citizens.Quote:Originally Posted by david85
I want to try and be careful how I respond to that. Are you saying that war and violence is a good thing? Or just a necessary evil to keep us on our toes? I'll admit there are times when it may be warranted ugly though it may be....
Didn't think it was that bad in the states, at least not yet.
What I meant about canadian federalism is that most of the power is at the federal level, but the provinces still have local jurisdiction. The criminal code for example is strictly set by the national parliament, but the provinces are responsible for paying for services like health care (with some federal funding). Far from perfect but it seems to work well enough.
The way canada is set up is how the USA is, with several more socialistic things going on that are screwing your economy up than here. It only appears to work for a generation or two before collapsing in upon its own parasitical nature.
Centralization causes 2 things:
Inflation (inevitably this will kill it's economy at some point unless the central government is overthrown)
and taxation into poverty.Posted 08-29-2008 at 09:34 AM by Technologic
-
What sort of socialism in canada are you referring to?
Posted 08-29-2008 at 10:32 AM by david85
