Johnboy writes:
Hey, if Saskboy et al want us to go back to living in caves etc..fine. No more heated homes, no more coal generated electricity to run their esspresso machines, no gas for their 1969 VW van, and David Suzuki and Al Gore will have to adjust to travelling by foot. Just don’t expect me to be giving you any of my wooly mammoth meat. And the Libs will be crying as their girlfriends ditch them in favor of conservatives with guns that can “bring home the bacon”. Bring on the stone age…yet another era where conservatives will prove to be superior.
Quite the opposite of what you suggest johnboy (of SmallDeadAnimals comments section), I want us to use technology more, not go back to living in low tech “cave” housing. Stop equating efficiency with cave-living. Exxon wants us to STAY in caves, metaphorically speaking, because that’s how they see themselves making the most money.
That’s one reason I’m proud to help write Off The Grid, and will keep looking for technology and techniques to help individuals and Canada increase energy and resource independence.
==
“You drive, don’t you Saskboy?
Posted by: Kate at December 5, 2006 10:25 AM
Eh… and you also realize that CO2 isn’t a pollutant?”
I don’t drive in order to pollute Kate, I drive to get from A to B. I unfortunately don’t have the ideal vehicle class I want (who does right, unless they are rich or can build their own?), because Exxon is part of the societal movement to keep better technology that relies less on their polluting product, out of the hands of average consumers with limited influence - like I. There’s NO difference between making a plug-in hybrid, and a combustion engine vehicle, yet the obviously inferior product remains on the market past the point the new one is tested and known to everyone. There are obvious forces holding back progress, and it’s important we ask why it’s hard to get technology that is better than what the big guys decide we want.
Vehicles are a means of transporting mass from point A to point B, using energy. If you spend more on energy than you have to on creating the vehicle and operating/maintaining it, then you and the whole system loses efficiency, because energy is money/what-people-want-to-have-more-of. Pollution increases the cost of the system, because it’s an unwanted byproduct put into a random place the operator doesn’t want it to go - and it takes energy to put the byproduct back into the ideal place (like deep underground, or inside plants we don’t eat).
And Kate, you do realize that burning gasoline creates more than just CO2 as a polluting by-product? I know you don’t think CO2 is a pollutant, but I’d be interested to hear what you have to say about the OTHER pollutants from combustion that we could reduce by going to better technology.
I have to ask johnboy and all, “Who is actually being anti-technology in this discussion?” I’d put it to you that the line, “Bring on the stone age..” answers who actually doesn’t care if we move backwards. And I will not ever say, “Bring on the stone age because I alone will survive it.”
–
Denis at SDA: “If consumers want it, the auto makers will give it to us.”
That’s where I think your logic (which is how things should work in the free market) falls down in reality. It’s like saying Communism is the best political system - it ignores what happens in real life.
There are all sorts of products on the market with “features” that the consumer doesn’t demand, yet there are enough of them buying them because there IS NO REALISTIC alternative. Who in their right mind buys an MP3 player with DRM? No consumer wants DRM, it’s completely forced on us from the top down. It’s the same thing in the Big Oil/Auto market, they are parasites able to exploit us with their product - Big Auto doesn’t have to invest in new equipment for better technology and makes more money, and Big Oil doesn’t have to sell less gas - they both win, and we all lose!
–
Arcolaura has some required reading for reality based humans interested in their health and wellbeing and why our economic system “sucks”.
==
From Brem is word of the Green Route, abandoned railway tracks converted to bike paths in Quebec.
==
A Slashdot commenter mentioned this poem from England, which sums up how poor people in LA were treated last year when their community garden was plowed under.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Dodos | 27-Jan-07 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
Hehe. I think it’s amusing that when people criticize the current energy order of things (oil, coal, gas), the assumption is that we don’t want to use any energy at all. As you say, we want to find new forms of energy and use what we have more efficiently. We want to utilize the supposed technological superiority of civilization to move beyond oil, gas, and coal.
Let’s face it. A lot of people won’t give up living this way, using as much energy as we do, without a serious fight. They simply do not want to come to terms with the fact that how we are doing things is wrong and ultimatley, damaging. Some of us may be willing to conserve and use energy more efficently on our own, others will have to be mandated into doing so. We just need enough people to get legislation enacted that will lead us down that road.
Mike | 27-Jan-07 at 7:52 pm | Permalink
So some one at SDA is claiming you want us to live in caves?
Insert ironic joke here about people who post at SDA already living in caves….
Ba-doom-boom.
Some people just don’t get it.
(I had intended to compare the folks at SDA with Neanderthals to make the point but decided that this would have been insulting to Neanderthals, even after 35 000 years of extinction.)
sheena | 27-Jan-07 at 10:54 pm | Permalink
I’m not a big fan of telling people how to live, but I do sometimes lose my patience with those around me who whinge globally but ignore locally. “Kyoto Kyoto Kyoto, but don’t dare ask me to live without central air in the summer”. I have a bad habit of eye rolling at the dinner table.
That being said, I’ve been able to triple my monthly savings by not buying a car to replace my dead beater, but chucking the equivalent amount into the bank anyways. Surprising more tight ass suburbanite tax cut evangelists haven’t clued into this angle.
Saskboy | 27-Jan-07 at 10:56 pm | Permalink
Telling people how to live is fun though ;-) you should try it more often. I particularly like when someone tells me I have to drink polluted water and breathe foul air because it makes them lots of money/gives them their drugs, etc.
Rosie | 28-Jan-07 at 9:17 am | Permalink
I guess people don’t realise that a COLLECTIVE effort to reduce by all can make a big difference. That when you have a choice, choose the one that has less environmental impact. It only has to be small changes, and when every one makes them, everyone benefits. I was reading Garth Turner’s blog at the time when the rumours were flying about him joining the green party, and one commenter named catherine was accusing Elizabeth May of wearing a gold necklace and therefore supporting bloodshed in africa (must have been watching blood diamonds). I mean, environmentalists drive, take hot showers, go to the bathroom, heat their homes and so forth. But to tell you the truth, most do it a little more efficiently than others. I geuss you can make the argument that its hypocritical for most of the present cave-dwellers to be so concerned about children’s well-being (pro-life, Pro”family”) when they are destroying the Earth their children are living in without a care or thought, and in fact nothing but chagrin for the people (environmentalists) trying to give their children a better life.
Anyhow, I could rant for hours on this subject but won’t.
Rosie | 28-Jan-07 at 9:20 am | Permalink
one more thing “if consumers want it, automakers will give it to us” comment (I am roughly paraphrasing)……..tell me why there is such a LONG waiting list to get a hybrid right now? I’ve heard people waiting six months to get theirs. So much for the “free market”!
And now, ford, GM and god knows who else are all starting to make hybrids. Go figure.
sheena | 28-Jan-07 at 9:35 am | Permalink
There is no such thing as a collective effort. Only many personal individual efforts. There is a difference. Hybrid cars are an easy way out. Still doesn’t change the fundamental destructive habits.
Saskboy | 28-Jan-07 at 9:39 am | Permalink
Sheena, I don’t think hybrids are an “easy way out”. They aren’t perfect in that they still consume a lot of gas, but on average about half of what is typically consumed by a $35K vehicle. So long as the buyer doesn’t get a Hummer to ‘balance things out’ then they are making an effort that uses half as much gas. 50% savings is a good place to start.
sheena | 28-Jan-07 at 9:52 am | Permalink
The problem is that the population sits around moaning and whining about availability of hybrid cars, putting the blame on automakers instead of looking at their own habits. Passing the buck. Making excuses.
Saskboy | 28-Jan-07 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Sheena, people these days are pretty helpless, and we have leaders that have no vision other than to stay in power at almost any cost. There are some things an individual simply cannot do without the help of government. Those things include:
- Building ecologically friendly infrastructure and transportation systems (which include offering services within reach of communities rather than forcing people to drive 2 hours round trip or otherwise move).
- Making locally grown food less expensive than the same food shipped in from thousands of kilometers away. (This includes ensuring producers get a fair price, instead of just the middle men distributors and retailers.)
- Legislating pollution standards for manufactured goods, and recycling programs for used up goods (Starting Feb. 1, you can recycle computers in Sask.)
People can’t just start building their own hybrid cars or designating their own safe bike routes. And most people I’d argue have never canned a vegetable in their life.
sheena | 28-Jan-07 at 10:07 am | Permalink
You’re right. We’re clearly f**ked now if we’ve lost the basic sense to survive.
Rosie | 28-Jan-07 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Sheena, I agree that we must change our lifestyles, but only a select few are actually willing to do that. Cutting consumption is the best way to go about it, but when the majority refuse there has to be alternatives, thus, products like hybrid cars. The comments about reverting to caves is a perfect demonstration of this kind of attitude.
Saskboy | 28-Jan-07 at 12:17 pm | Permalink
If we keep blaming undisciplined “individual consumers” we’re going to get exactly no where. It’s the government’s job to protect us, and if consumers are the reason the environment is being pillaged, then it’s time to lay down the law.
It so very typical of modern society. A child takes candy from a store, and the parent looks on and says, “Little Stevie, you can’t do that, or I’ll have the store owner stock less candy.” Stevie stuffs the stolen treat into his mouth and grabs for more while the parent shrugs. They tried voluntary limits after all, it’s not the parent’s fault it didn’t work.
The Green Filter » Sustainable design videos | 28-Jan-07 at 2:05 pm | Permalink
[...] of kilometers away. For those people who think environmentalism means tree-hugging and “going back to living in caves,” the fact is a lot of good could come from slower and more careful construction of buildings [...]
Miss Cellania | 28-Jan-07 at 3:21 pm | Permalink
I have the same sort of discussion with a left-wing friend of mine who believes in free markets. Free markets are fine as long as everyone involved has a certain level of ethics! In theory, manufacturers would make a ton of money giving the customer what he wants, but a quicker and easier way to riches is to just keep doing the same thing they’ve always done. Plus, screwing the customer is profitable up to a point, as long as your competition has the same mindset, and innovators who want to try a new system have comparitively limited startup funds.
Saskboy | 28-Jan-07 at 3:39 pm | Permalink
That’s exactly it Miss C, from the crowd that bashes Communism because in practice the ethics of the leaders become corrupt, comes a denial that leaders of the free market can similarly be corrupted. They’ll say that Communism always fails because the leader becomes a Castro or Stalin, but they’ll in the same breath praise the system that supported Ken Lay of Enron’s economic model. GE, News Corp, and Disney aren’t any better, they just have been ripping people off the “legal” way so far.
sheena | 28-Jan-07 at 7:49 pm | Permalink
BS. You are giving excuses for those who choose not to think and act for themselves.
Saskboy | 28-Jan-07 at 9:36 pm | Permalink
Sheena, it’s not an excuse, it’s the truth. There’s only so much an individual can do; that’s why we have governments, they set laws to protect us when individuals try to exploit the public.
sheena | 28-Jan-07 at 10:32 pm | Permalink
But that is the point, saskboy. Individuals who subscribe to that defeatest mindset don’t bother to change anything they do. They’re looking for daddy to take care of it for them. Cripes, are my efforts in giving up my car, power consumption, etc etc down the tubes because they were my choice and not some faceless institution? You disrespect those who care enough to make difficult personal choices outside of official bureautic sanction. Why discourage individual efforts which over time might actually add up to something worthwhile? While we wait (in vain, I believe) for slow moving bureaucracies and corporations to shift course?
Jason Bo Green | 28-Jan-07 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
People aren’t helpless, and to claim that they are is just making excuses.
I bike all year round, except for about 3 of the very snowiest days. I have more in the bank than just about anyone I know - and I earn less than many of them. Your individual efforts make a difference, Sheena is right.
When people take more personal accountability for themselves, things change. My neighbours - in the same buildings, in the exact same apartments, are deeply impressed with my hydro bills. Hey, they can have them, too - it’s not like I’m living in the dark here.
I’m not perfect - but I’m improving, and over time I’ve developed a pretty good lifestyle that reduces my “environmental footprint”, as they call it. I’ve reduced my garbage, reduced my water usage substantially, reduced my energy use, and it’s quite rare to find myself in a car - usually it is to a family event in a rural area without transit.
I don’t expect other people to take care of my accountablity - I do it myself.
Jason Bo Green | 28-Jan-07 at 11:08 pm | Permalink
Seeing all the comments, I agree again with Sheena - it is disrespectful to those of us who have made a strong difference in our lives to just throw up one’s hands and say, “People are helpless!” I’m not - why are you?
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 8:13 am | Permalink
“Individuals who subscribe to that defeatest mindset don’t bother to change anything they do.”
Sheena first of all I’m not a “defeatist environmentalist”. I believe in empowering people, and leading by example. I also admit when a problem is greater than I alone can tackle. It doesn’t matter if I buy two, three, or even 50 hybrid cars, any more than one is pretty much a waste, and one hybrid car sale is not going to make GM decide that they need to scrap the Hummer line. Rather than discouraging people from doing their daily eco-saving routines, I’m hoping to point people in the direction of politics, which is one way of affecting change across a broad base of people, through a small group of individuals taking action against a problem.
That’s not defeatism, it’s acknowledging when a problem is too great for I alone to carry. For example, I see potholes everywhere I drive. I could either take hours of my day to fill them, and probably lose my real job in the mean time, or I could pressure or join government so that they do their job to fix it. I’ll still fill in the pothole at the end of my driveway, but that won’t fix Highway 32, 15, or 368…
Grumpy | 29-Jan-07 at 9:17 am | Permalink
I’m scared as hell when I see how many Canadians know better than I how I should live my life. And are chomping at the bit to prove it. Legislate it. Mindless fucks.
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 9:25 am | Permalink
Grumpy, it depends a lot on what you consider to be “too intrusive” legislation.
I’d consider the government telling people who can and can’t get married, too intrusive. Telling an individual that they can’t sell leaded toys to children, that’s not too intrusive.
The government telling people they can’t burn gas, that’s too intrusive. The government legislating that gas burning vehicles have to meet emissions standards, that’s important to the continuation of life.
Jason Bo Green | 29-Jan-07 at 8:06 pm | Permalink
Look, I’m as in favour of taxing gasoline, and investing that revenue into transit as anyone can be. Clinton screwed us by giving us the SUV - I’m all for the government demanding/requiring mandatory fuel efficiency, and even mandating all-electric cars as a percentage of factory models. The government (federal) should assist in creating wind power through tax incentives and any other reasonable measures, etc. etc. etc. etc. The government has a place.
Still - people are not “helpless”, and MUST take account for their own actions if there’s to be a change.
Saskboy | 29-Jan-07 at 9:26 pm | Permalink
Jason, again, people aren’t helpless about what they do for themselves, but unless they influence their friends, or get into government, they aren’t going to change the world. We’re talking about two different levels of responsibility - personal versus civic.
Jim Elve | 30-Jan-07 at 9:04 am | Permalink
People do need to change attitudes but I think they are doing so. We’re seeing a shift from consumers clamouring for the biggest SUV to consumers demanding fuel-efficient vehicles. People are installing high-efficiency furnaces, cutting down on AC use, practicing the three R’s, etc.
At the same time, big business is recognizing that regulations and controls are essential. At Davos last week, the world’s leading industrialists pushed for more government regulations and emissions caps to deal with anthropomorphic climate change. They are not debating the fact that man is having an adverse effect and we can alter the course. That debate is over.
I think personal choices tell a lot about how a person really feels about environmental issues. I was pleasantly surprised to hear about a number of green initiatives being practiced by John Baird. I think I heard something about CTV Newsnet going to see how Dion’s personal life jibes with his green image.
Saskboy | 30-Jan-07 at 11:52 pm | Permalink
I think we’ve improved a lot since the 1990s initiative to start recycling everything [which is when I can remember back to well enough]. Although I dismay at some failed recycling programs, with paper and tires being SK examples. They are starting SWEEP on Thursday though to collect computers and TVs, so that’s a good start, but the fee structure for new equipment will need to be fixed as it’s too high right now.