The environmentalist CV

[rousseau]

We can't and won't be able to do enough, so just have an extra whisky this Friday.

Now THAT'S defeatist.

Of course we can do enough. We just have to stop following our emotions towards narrow but ineffective or counterproductive goals, and get the fuck on with replacing fossil fuels with nuclear fission.

That's not the solution, that's the idea, which is the easiest part. The solution is how we implement the idea, now that's hard in a world that's wholly dependent on fossil fuels and fossil fuel products.

The Paris Climate Agreement Would Be A Great First Step If This Were 1995

I don't mean to be defeatist, but based on what I've seen in terms of data I don't have faith, if you will, that we'll be able to take the proper measures we need to before global warming causes significant problems.

 

[Treedbear]

What can I personally do?

Don't have an additional child.

Haven't participated in the creation of any and never will. I was wondering if that counted.

 

[thebeave]

People have pretty oversimplified views of "being green". I had a girlfriend once who thumped her chest regularly about her diligent recycling of cans, bottles, paper, etc, etc. yet she must have had 50 pairs of shoes...many of which she wore only a couple of times and would probably never wear again. Once, I threw a lid from a yogurt container in the trash instead of the recycle bin, and she became unglued. I then pointed out all the energy and resources that were being needlessly depleted by her shoe habit and she was genuinely confused. It seemed to not even occur to her that excessive and needless consumption had an adverse environmental impact.

Years ago while waiting in the dentist's office, I picked up a copy of Architectural Digest magazine. It featured Jennifer Aniston's new Hollywood mansion, and she was going on and on about how "green" it was. It had some huge number of bedrooms and bathrooms, and it was all for herself. She was particularly proud of a huge wood beam on the living room ceiling that was made from reclaimed lumber. It was all just nonsense virtue signaling, and very poorly done at that.

 

[Malintent]

When firewood was the only energy source, the discovery of coal had people who stood to lose the most in the logging industry speak out the harshest against the "dirty and dangerous" fuel of the future... and those who would profit the most in coal mining were the loudest about the environmental impact of logging... and the dangers thereof...

Then oil... "dirty nasty coal kills people and oil will save us all" versus "oil explodes and is messy, where coal is clean and easier to mine".

Then gasoline...

Then nuclear...

Then solar....

There will always be those most invested in the past that strongly resist the future.

 

[Bomb#20]

Don't have an additional child.

Haven't participated in the creation of any and never will. I was wondering if that counted.

Unless you invent a better solar cell or are in a position to shut down a coal-burning power plant, it counts more than everything else you do put together. To close approximation, your carbon footprint is equal to the number of children you have.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If I lived in Copenhagen then I probably wouldn't own a car, either, and my care factor wouldn't need to change one iota.

But you've chosen to continue to live in a city with bad public transports. You could move to a city where they have good public transport. The fact that you stay, doesn't that show that you don't really care?

My point is, that we tend to compare ourselves to the people we live in the immediate vicinity of. If we're just better than them, then all is fine. But it's not.

 

[bigfield]

If I lived in Copenhagen then I probably wouldn't own a car, either, and my care factor wouldn't need to change one iota.

But you've chosen to continue to live in a city with bad public transports. You could move to a city where they have good public transport. The fact that you stay, doesn't that show that you don't really care?

No, it means that I just value other things more, such as living close to my family. The closest neighbouring city is over 700km away and the nearest city with high-quality public transport is on a different continent.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But you've chosen to continue to live in a city with bad public transports. You could move to a city where they have good public transport. The fact that you stay, doesn't that show that you don't really care?

No, it means that I just value other things more, such as living close to my family. The closest neighbouring city is over 700km away and the nearest city with high-quality public transport is on a different continent.

That's just another way of saying that you only care a little bit. You care about other things. Caring about things is relative. Your care of the environment is not particularly high on the list. You have a long list of things you care more about. That's fine. You're only human. It's not a competition. But you highlighted the main problem. We have the environmental problems we do because nobody gives a shit. It's all about appearing to give a shit, without actually doing anything. It's like Christians saying they'll pray for someone in trouble. If they actually gave a shit they'd do more than praying. You're not willing to give up anything or suffer any inconvenience for the environment. I'm the same way.

I believe the only thing that can fix this is government regulation. Because tragedy of the commons. Which is why I'd like to know what government policies I should support.

 

[bigfield]

No, it means that I just value other things more, such as living close to my family. The closest neighbouring city is over 700km away and the nearest city with high-quality public transport is on a different continent.

That's just another way of saying that you don't really care. You care about other things. Caring about things is relative. Your care of the environment is not particularly high on the list. You have a long list of things you care more about. That's fine. You're only human. It's not a competition. But you highlighted the main problem. We have the environmental problems we do because nobody gives a shit. It's all about appearing to give a shit, without actually doing anything...You're not willing to give up anything or suffer any inconvenience for the environment. I'm the same way. I believe the only thing that can fix this is government regulation. Because tragedy of the commons.

If you think that moving continents to be able to ride a bicycle to work is a mere inconvenience, then perhaps you should make the more minor relocation to a warmer climate in order to avoid the high cost of heating a home at high latitudes.

 

[bilby]

No, it means that I just value other things more, such as living close to my family. The closest neighbouring city is over 700km away and the nearest city with high-quality public transport is on a different continent.

That's just another way of saying that you only care a little bit. You care about other things. Caring about things is relative. Your care of the environment is not particularly high on the list. You have a long list of things you care more about. That's fine. You're only human. It's not a competition. But you highlighted the main problem. We have the environmental problems we do because nobody gives a shit. It's all about appearing to give a shit, without actually doing anything. It's like Christians saying they'll pray for someone in trouble. If they actually gave a shit they'd do more than praying. You're not willing to give up anything or suffer any inconvenience for the environment. I'm the same way.

I believe the only thing that can fix this is government regulation. Because tragedy of the commons. Which is why I'd like to know what government policies I should support.

Yup. Only governments can fix a problem of this kind.

This is why the environmentalist myth that we can all help, and that if only everyone does a little, we can achieve a lot, is total bullshit.

About the only effective thing an individual can do is to vote for politicians who support action to keep the coal in the ground. The various 'Green' parties, while they remain opposed to nuclear power, are exactly the wrong people to support.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's just another way of saying that you only care a little bit. You care about other things. Caring about things is relative. Your care of the environment is not particularly high on the list. You have a long list of things you care more about. That's fine. You're only human. It's not a competition. But you highlighted the main problem. We have the environmental problems we do because nobody gives a shit. It's all about appearing to give a shit, without actually doing anything. It's like Christians saying they'll pray for someone in trouble. If they actually gave a shit they'd do more than praying. You're not willing to give up anything or suffer any inconvenience for the environment. I'm the same way.

I believe the only thing that can fix this is government regulation. Because tragedy of the commons. Which is why I'd like to know what government policies I should support.

Yup. Only governments can fix a problem of this kind.

This is why the environmentalist myth that we can all help, and that if only everyone does a little, we can achieve a lot, is total bullshit.

About the only effective thing an individual can do is to vote for politicians who support action to keep the coal in the ground. The various 'Green' parties, while they remain opposed to nuclear power, are exactly the wrong people to support.

There should be a list of things that we should demand from our elected leaders. Is there such a list?

 

[Malintent]

If I lived in Copenhagen then I probably wouldn't own a car, either, and my care factor wouldn't need to change one iota.

But you've chosen to continue to live in a city with bad public transports. You could move to a city where they have good public transport. The fact that you stay, doesn't that show that you don't really care?

My point is, that we tend to compare ourselves to the people we live in the immediate vicinity of. If we're just better than them, then all is fine. But it's not.

I don't care. Not even a little. I am not invested in the future beyond my (and my partner's) existence.
Your children can go fuck themselves.
No, really. They are just little pieces of shit that I look forward to having suffer the future climate and pollution.
Suck it.

(Not you personally, Dr.Z... All the children.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

But you've chosen to continue to live in a city with bad public transports. You could move to a city where they have good public transport. The fact that you stay, doesn't that show that you don't really care?

My point is, that we tend to compare ourselves to the people we live in the immediate vicinity of. If we're just better than them, then all is fine. But it's not.

I don't care. Not even a little. I am not invested in the future beyond my (and my partner's) existence.
Your children can go fuck themselves.
No, really. They are just little pieces of shit that I look forward to having suffer the future climate and pollution.
Suck it.

(Not you personally, Dr.Z... All the children.)

Trump, is that you?

 

[Jarhyn]

What does this mean? All I've read about this points to that we should be investing heavily in nuclear power. Renewables are good to continue to do research on, but we're nowhere near the point where it is a viable option.

[*]Emissions trading schemes

How do these actually work? To me it mostly just looks like magic with numbers.

Consumer behaviours:
[*]Buy products and food made from ingredients grown using sustainable land management practices.

So no tiger shrimps. But that's it isn't it? Are there any more unsustainable foods? I don't know of any. Oh, yeah... walnuts in California. But that's all the one's I know.

I'm a big friend of GMO. And the environmentalists seem to have this as their main target. Which makes me sad.

[*]Switch from hardcopy bills and paperwork to digital document management.

I wonder about this. I do this anyway. But because it's practical. Not because it saves on the environment. I strongly question whether there's any actual benefits to the environment by switching from paper to high tech screens.

I know that the entire paper recycling project is a colossal waste of time. It doesn't fix anything.

[*]Recycle plastics.

But aren't there plastics and plastics? Are all plastics really alike?

[*]Buy an electric, self-driving car once they are available, use electric taxis and shuttles, or ride a bike to work.

Is there really such a gain from electric cars over gasoline cars? Isn't the polution just moved somewhere else? Isn't the problem the car at all?

[*]Purchase products that are designed for disassembly and maintain them in good repair for as long as possible.

Or buy light-weight disposables that are cheap and easy to make. I wonder whether all these heavy duty high-quality things really help the environment. They are more work to build. And maintenance also require energy. It's hard to do the maths on how much it actually benefits.

I mean, chucking something on a rubbish dump doesn't impact the environment negatively. It might not look pretty. But we can do what we've always done. Cover them up by soil and plant trees on them. And then we get a pretty rubbish forest that is indistinguishable from nature around it. This is not a problem. Also carbon capture.

[*]Purchase reusable products over single-use disposable alternatives; use canvas bags instead of disposable shopping bags.

I recently saw a study on the canvas bags. The cotton industry is horrendously filthy. The plastic bag industry isn't. It's highly questionable whether going for the canvas bags actually has a positive impact. They calculated that you need to use each bag 95 times for it to pay off. I put this in the category of environmentalists thinking it's more important looking like they're doing stuff for the environment than actually doing stuff that helps. And even if you use that canvas bag more than 95 times the actual cumulative gains are so small it's a complete waste of time.



Based on what I've read 2/3'rds of all the energy we use is geared toward heating or cooling our homes and buildings. That's where we should put the greatest effort. The single greatest contribution a private person can do is to move into an apartment building. As well as not having a car. In my mind a person who walks around with a canvas bag but drives a car and lives in a house, doesn't really care about the environment. They just care about appearing that they do. Which is worse than doing nothing because it creates the illusion it's enough.

That last bit. Three words: ground source heating.

I refuse, completely and utterly, to have any setting which I underwrite in which climate controls are to be installed which does not result in a ground source heating installation, from now to the day I die.

It would eliminate my bill half the year entirely, and would eliminate half my bill for the other half.

 

[rousseau]

No, it means that I just value other things more, such as living close to my family. The closest neighbouring city is over 700km away and the nearest city with high-quality public transport is on a different continent.

That's just another way of saying that you only care a little bit. You care about other things. Caring about things is relative. Your care of the environment is not particularly high on the list. You have a long list of things you care more about. That's fine. You're only human. It's not a competition. But you highlighted the main problem. We have the environmental problems we do because nobody gives a shit. It's all about appearing to give a shit, without actually doing anything. It's like Christians saying they'll pray for someone in trouble. If they actually gave a shit they'd do more than praying. You're not willing to give up anything or suffer any inconvenience for the environment. I'm the same way.

I believe the only thing that can fix this is government regulation. Because tragedy of the commons. Which is why I'd like to know what government policies I should support.

I don't believe it has much to do with how much people care, instead it has everything to do with how our world has developed and how we're now dependent on that specific infrastructure. It also has to do with the reality that the world's population isn't currently coordinated to combat energy usage, toward the point either above or below that we need more regulation.

At this stage, as an atomized person in a world of 7 billion people with no legal energy usage restrictions, it doesn't make sense for me to re-orient my entire way of life to make an inconsequential impact on the overall progression of climate change, given that I know billions of other people aren't going to change.

That's on top of the fact in a significant number of cases people aren't actually able to make a big dent in their carbon footprint. They need to heat their homes, they need cars, they need plastic.. and on and on.

Meanwhile, the leader of the free world might actually vote in Trump, so..