I see no point in being at all green

[Pendaric]

Those of you who were at Heathen Hub a year ago may remember this discussion. This is basically my series of posts from there, but I asked a number of questions that went unanswered, and I would be interested in any comments:

I'm not green whatsoever. I have a gas guzzler car, I live a materialistic lifestyle, and selfish or not it's not something that particularly worries me.

It's not particularly 'fuck it, its not my problem let someone else deal with it', it's more a case of I'm not going to change my lifestyle significantly when it's going to make zero difference to the problem.

I accept it's everybody's problem. I just don't believe the answer to it is for individuals whose collective contribution to the problem is negligible to modify their lifestyles. I think a lot of the green lifestyle is more about people feeling smug, self righteous and noble than it is about any minute actual difference they might be making.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert, so shoot me down in flames, but I'm kind of under the impression that with the amount of industrial pollution caused, particularly by airlines and the emerging countries such as China and India, anything individuals can do in the Western world basically isn't worth a gnat's fart. The direction that the world will take will be influenced by decisions made by governments on industrial pollution control, not by anything that individuals do.

On any cost/benefit analysis informed by rationality rather than sentiment I can't see how fuelling my car off recycled sheeps turd is going to make any difference to the planet while China is erecting umpty trillion coal fired power stations a year.

If industrial pollution is tackled then the problem will be sorted and the pollution caused by individuals won't make any difference because there won't be enough overall polution to be an issue. If industrial pollution isn't tackled then the pollution caused by individuals won't make any difference because it is negligible in comparison.

These are genuine questions that I don't know the answer to, although I suspect that they are along the lines I've been talking about.

What proportion of the pollution of the world is changeable by individual actions?

What proportion of the pollution of the world is produced by industry?

If every western citizen became green overnight, what actual difference to the world's pollution problems would it make whilst industrial and developing world pollution was ongoing?

There is a view that every little helps. I don't know that every little does help, actually. If industrial pollution alone represents way more than critical mass, then the little that an individual or even a large group of individuals can do will make sod all difference. Changing deckchairs round on the Titanic comes to mind.

I acknowledge the problem, and that I would wholeheartedly support legislation to force industry in to cleaning up it's act, even if that has a direct impact on the quality of my lifestyle because of added expense and reduction in range of products.

I think pollution needs to be tackled. I just think that the entire bit about individuals doing stuff is a massive red herring that diverts attention away from the actual problem.

Get Kyoto to work. Stop industrial scale deforestation. Spend extra cash on cleaner, more efficient power stations (which would seem to me to suggest the nuclear route, although I'm no expert). Have goverments do the things that will actually make a difference rather than tokenism at an individual level.

Then again - one of you science types confirm this for me. I'm sure I read that the ice caps haven't always been frozen anyway. Part of the natural cycle of the planet is that it warms and cools over an extremely long period of time. We are still technically in an ice age because there is ice at the poles, and there have been periods in history when this hasn't been the case.

Is the above an urban myth or is there any truth in it? Because if the ice melts naturally anyway then it strikes me there isn't a lot of point in getting excited about it.

[Christina]

I agree with you that on a large scale, individual efforts are virtually meaningless and even collective efforts by individuals won't accomplish much. That said, on a micro level in some areas it does make a small difference. For example we all share the same water supply up here so what we dump into the ground and streams matters to each other and we all agree not to use heavy pesticides or herbicides. Some of the streams run through vineyards and places where people graze their livestock.

I do some things green for practical reasons. Garbage pickup is expensive up here and you can't let it pile up until dump runs or it draws coyotes, and recycling is free. I recycle everything they'll take and this way we cut the garbage costs down by at least half. The dog gets all the meat and dairy scraps or leftovers, and I compost the rest because I use it in my garden. I drive a small car because it's cheaper and they're easier for me to drive. I don't get so extreme that I wear things like organic hemp clothing that looks like a potato sack and I don't usually buy recycled products that cost a lot more than regular ones unless it's the only scent-free choice.

[Alethias]

I'm not particularly green, but neither am I all that opposed to the idea.

My car is very thrifty on gas(I drive a honda civic), but more because I'm a cheapskate and was looking for a combination of conservative on gas usage and reducing the number of trips to the car repair shop when I picked it out.

I've read articles that say that Nuclear power is one of the best on producing the least amount of toxins to destroy our atmosphere; Even solar power cells and the batteries to store the energy are responsible for waste products in the production of them.

I don't sort my trash and recycle; but I don't care if others want to.

So you and I aren't much different in this, except that I'm probably more of a cheapskate.

[nygreenguy]

You dont see any current effect in being green because you are privileged. Where do you think you garbage goes? Where do you think you power is produced? These are all located near impoverished areas. So, one reason to be more green is because the pollution has serious effects on people that you cant see.

Actually, the argument has tons of problems in it that ill have to address some other time. Im off to nyc.

[BWE]

Karma.

[Lisa0315]

Karma.

QFT. As a Christian, I would not call it that, but what comes around goes around.

I am not a green fanatic, but I at least appreciate the value of it. I also believe that while one person my not have an impact alone, if everyone has that attitude, well, not good.

I also agree with the nygreenguy regarding the impoverished areas. I also wonder how much of an American thing this might be. In downtown Miami, one of the most impoverished places in the country, there is litter everywhere. In the Mexican bordertown, though, it is far worse, but you know what? Their streets are spotless. I did not see a single piece of trash or cigarette anywhere. They do not have street cleaners either. It is simply how they are.

Plus, you get kisses of greeting, and they make Southern Hospitality into a joke in comparison. Can you imagine the manager of a resturant coming outside to make sure that you knew that it was okay to smoke in his resturant, and pleading with you to come inside? It was as if I had insulted him or hurt his feelings by leaving the building to smoke. Not a waiter, not a busboy, but the manager was alerted by the waiter that a guest had stepped outside to smoke. Perhaps he was afraid that this gringo would litter outside, I don't know.

Taking care of yourself, your own belongings, and yes, the rest of the planet, to me, is a sign of just caring and appreciating the things you have been given, whether great or small. It seems to me that those who have been given the most appreciate it the less. I am speaking of Americans in general rather than the OP.

Lisa

[Alethias]

QFT. As a Christian, I would not call it that, but what comes around goes around.

I am not a green fanatic, but I at least appreciate the value of it. I also believe that while one person my not have an impact alone, if everyone has that attitude, well, not good.

I also agree with the nygreenguy regarding the impoverished areas. I also wonder how much of an American thing this might be. In downtown Miami, one of the most impoverished places in the country, there is litter everywhere. In the Mexican bordertown, though, it is far worse, but you know what? Their streets are spotless. I did not see a single piece of trash or cigarette anywhere. They do not have street cleaners either. It is simply how they are.

Plus, you get kisses of greeting, and they make Southern Hospitality into a joke in comparison. Can you imagine the manager of a resturant coming outside to make sure that you knew that it was okay to smoke in his resturant, and pleading with you to come inside? It was as if I had insulted him or hurt his feelings by leaving the building to smoke. Not a waiter, not a busboy, but the manager was alerted by the waiter that a guest had stepped outside to smoke. Perhaps he was afraid that this gringo would litter outside, I don't know.

Taking care of yourself, your own belongings, and yes, the rest of the planet, to me, is a sign of just caring and appreciating the things you have been given, whether great or small. It seems to me that those who have been given the most appreciate it the less. I am speaking of Americans in general rather than the OP.

LisaSounds like a misunderstanding of terms on my part.

When I go camping, I'm not being intentionally green when I pick up my litter. I simply do it. I leave places nicer when I leave than when I came. If that is green, I guess I'm unintentionally green. Not to be green so much as thinking that I don't like wading thru others garbage, so why should I leave mine for them to wade thru.

It's more simple courtesy to me than being green.

[Lisa0315]

Sounds like a misunderstanding of terms on my part.

When I go camping, I'm not being intentionally green when I pick up my litter. I simply do it. I leave places nicer when I leave than when I came. If that is green, I guess I'm unintentionally green. Not to be green so much as thinking that I don't like wading thru others garbage, so why should I leave mine for them to wade thru.

It's more simple courtesy to me than being green.

I was responding to NYGreenGuy's post, not yours so much. I am pretty much the same way although I do try to do things like recycle cans and such.

Lisa

[Puck]

Do you want to look your daughter in the eye 30 years from now, and she knows you didn't try your best not to contribute to the mess she's inherited?

I don't particularly go out of my way to be green, but I do try. I drive much less. I try to use less. I buy locally as I can. I don't care to have my Grand Daughter look at me some day and tell me it's my fault. I want her to know I gave a damn and tried not to contribute to it too much.

I agree, big business and third world countries are the biggest culprits. That doesn't mean it's okay for me to be selfish, too. It doesn't give me permission to be a pig. I like my mid-sized SUV. I live in the country, and it's not necessary, but super useful. So I drive less. Once or twice a week into town, where it used to be about every other day. I know it won't make that much difference, but I don't want to contribute, either.

[nygreenguy]

I think if you take pendarics attitude, then you must also not vote. The logic is exactly the same. However, we can see that when enough individuals get together, the results can be quite good.

[Joykins]

There are things that you can do that make a difference. Recycling, for example, and CFLs and things like that can conserve energy, and really maximum efficiency is the best way of going green that we have.

I do the green things that make sense in my lifestyle, like recycling, conserving energy around the house, buying a car with high mileage, and taking the bus when practical (and don't mistake me: I like taking the bus).

[Pendaric]

I think if you take pendarics attitude, then you must also not vote. The logic is exactly the same. However, we can see that when enough individuals get together, the results can be quite good.

No, because voting is entirely a matter of individuals. There is no large bloc vote which prevents you making a difference.

If the votes were weighted so that individuals only had 10% of the vote and large corporations had 90%, then that would be more analogous to the situation as I see it. Then there would be no point in voting, at least in terms of the fact that you could not affect the outcome of the election.

[Pendaric]

I repeat these questions, because nobody has even attempted a response and I think they are key:

What proportion of the pollution of the world is changeable by individual actions?

What proportion of the pollution of the world is produced by industry?

If every western citizen became green overnight, what actual difference to the world's pollution problems would it make whilst industrial and developing world pollution was ongoing?

I take the point about environment on a local scale, and on that score we are responsible. We keep our house and gardens in a pristine condition, we pick up our dogs crap, we take our litter home with us if we go on a picnic, all that sort of thing.

[LoneWolf]

I get what you are saying, Pendaric, in comparing individuals to industries. But if all of us individuals were green then we would be far less likely to tolerate the industries' lack of concern in the area. And that could affect their bottom line, which is all the industries really care about.

Oh, and I am only green when it isn't too much of an inconvenience.

[nygreenguy]

No, because voting is entirely a matter of individuals. There is no large bloc vote which prevents you making a difference.

If the votes were weighted so that individuals only had 10% of the vote and large corporations had 90%, then that would be more analogous to the situation as I see it. Then there would be no point in voting, at least in terms of the fact that you could not affect the outcome of the election.

Corporations are not some magical personless entities. They are compromised of people, people who make decisions. And individuals, like the ceo's and stockholders have a say in how the company acts. Everything boils down to the individual.


I repeat these questions, because nobody has even attempted a response and I think they are key:

Why cant you do your own research?

[alien billie]

No, because voting is entirely a matter of individuals. There is no large bloc vote which prevents you making a difference.

If the votes were weighted so that individuals only had 10% of the vote and large corporations had 90%, then that would be more analogous to the situation as I see it. Then there would be no point in voting, at least in terms of the fact that you could not affect the outcome of the election.

No again. After all, not once has your actual vote ever counted in the slightest, unless that election was won or lost by one vote. In contrast, everyone's choices to be more green have made a contribution, however minuscule. And how big a difference would you expect to make anyway? You only drive one gas guzzler amongst millions.

But to say that your actions are irrelevant because they are dwarfed by those of industry simply doesn't follow. If you agree that global warming is a real and present danger, then you should take the actions of industry and the developing world as a signal to act politically, not as an excuse to fail to act personally.

[Notta]

I once did a little research project for a social science class about recycling and conservation of energy, and I found that the deciding factor for the people in my community was whether they had grandchildren. Those who did were far more likely (almost 2 standard deviations) to recycle, reduce, and reuse. The ones least likely to actively attempt to live a 'green' lifestyle were those in their 30s - late 40s. College students and teenagers were aware of the 'green' vs. 'non-green' debate, and tried to be less wasteful and more energy-aware at least 50% of the time.

I'm more green than most of my friends & family members. Environmental awareness has been part of my life since the late 60s, when rivers caught on fire and birds were killed by DDT.

My husband and I installed more insulation in the house we bought last year, installed a heat pump system, keep daytime temperatures low in winter and high in summer, have insulated drapes on every window and keep them closed in the winter, recycle paper, cans, cardboard, and yard waste, compost everything possible, use all fluorescent bulbs throughout the house, have energy-saving appliances, carpool or walk to work, have gas-efficient cars, and combine errands to save on gas.

Sure, there's corporations polluting the air. Around here, the biggest offenders are farmers who let the animal wastes, fertilizers, and pesticides run off into the streams. But I believe that if EVERYONE did a couple small things to help reduce their energy usage, it would reduce a significant amount of pollution. 10% fewer cars on the road would mean a 10% reduction in tail-pipe emissions. 10% less garbage from each household would mean a 10% reduction in how much wasted ended up in a landfill.

Just not buying bottled water would reap enormous benefits -- no need to use hydrocarbons to make the plastic bottles, no need use energy to sterilize, fill, label, and box the bottles. No need to use gas to transport the bottles to the shops, and no need to either recycle them or send them to a landfill.

Anyway, I'm a passionate advocate of being as green as you comfortably can. While I've collected 'gray water' to use during a drought (sink water, run-off from the rain, etc.), I don't do it as a matter of course. And I refuse to live in a house with only one light on at a time. I also use a dishwasher, and a dryer in the winter. But I'm always conscious about my choices when it comes to energy, recycling, and creating waste.

[Goldie]

Penn & Teller: Bullshit on recycling
Parts 1, 2 and 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sp8PzgY7XA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck3WqDPtW0E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA3iWNTQci8&feature=related

[dancer_rnb]

Regarding the costs of buying bottled water. that is something that has only come about in the last few years, and because individuals became convinced
it was better to drink what is often tap water from bottles than from the taps in their own houses.

[Ray Moscow]

What have future generations ever done for me, anyway?

[Christina]

I've lived in places where the water tastes like it has a lot of chlorine in it and at those times I drank bottled water, but I would take jugs to the water store and fill up gallons instead of buying bottles. I used the regular water to do everything else with. Here our water comes from an underground aquifer that has crystal clear looking and tasting water and now the bottled stuff tastes awful to me.

[Puck]

What have future generations ever done for me, anyway?

(they'll run your nursing home)

[Christina]

:D

True. At least one generation will have a chance to get even when we're old, feeble and can't defend ourselves.

[Ray Moscow]

(they'll run your nursing home)

All the more reason to keep them poor, uneducated and cheap to employ.

[Chrisitan mode]And we'll be raptured by then, anyway.[/Christian mode]

Seriously, I'm pretty green: recycling, composting, walking to work, all that stuff. It kind of balances out some of my flying around on business (though probably not nearly enough, actually).

[Goldie]

I compost...because I like compost. The home-made stuff is so much better for your garden. I conserve on water, electricity and natural gas. I make my driving trips useful.
I do these things because it makes economic sense.
I'd recycle cans, if I used them. I don't. We don't drink pop and our beer is from bottles.

I am a reuser. I like making something from nothing because it's fun and cool and often artisic.

We are pretty green by nature. We DO drink bottled water, because the water here sucks. Its full of sulfur. (prior to living here we had our own well with the best tasting water) Bottles make sense for our lifestyle. I still use tap water for everything but straight drinking water...and I am thinking about getting a water cooler. A lot of people do that here. But, I'd still buy bottled water, because we are on the go and it works for us.
I know people who drink bottled pop all day long, but who bitch that I am drinking bottled water. Hello!? Pop is bad for ya. Water isn't. But, that person is somehow superior because what little water he/she drinks comes from the tap? We are both drinking from a plastic bottle.

I REALLY recommend that people watch the You tube Penn and Teller episode that I posted. There are other things we can do to be "green" and I think we do need to do it. But, first I think we really need to get our facts straight.

As far as the OP. Sorry...but I think we should do what we can on a grass roots level, but that also means forcing our goverments to take care of these larger issues, as well.

[Notta]

I compost...because I like compost. The home-made stuff is so much better for your garden. I conserve on water, electricity and natural gas. I make my driving trips useful.
I do these things because it makes economic sense.
I'd recycle cans, if I used them. I don't. We don't drink pop and our beer is from bottles.

I am a reuser. I like making something from nothing because it's fun and cool and often artisic.

We are pretty green by nature. We DO drink bottled water, because the water here sucks. Its full of sulfur. (prior to living here we had our own well with the best tasting water) Bottles make sense for our lifestyle. I still use tap water for everything but straight drinking water...and I am thinking about getting a water cooler. A lot of people do that here. But, I'd still buy bottled water, because we are on the go and it works for us.
I know people who drink bottled pop all day long, but who bitch that I am drinking bottled water. Hello!? Pop is bad for ya. Water isn't. But, that person is somehow superior because what little water he/she drinks comes from the tap? We are both drinking from a plastic bottle.

I REALLY recommend that people watch the You tube Penn and Teller episode that I posted. There are other things we can do to be "green" and I think we do need to do it. But, first I think we really need to get our facts straight.

As far as the OP. Sorry...but I think we should do what we can on a grass roots level, but that also means forcing our goverments to take care of these larger issues, as well.
I know that recycling is not the answer; a reduction in the amount of waste we generate is. Sometimes I use canvas bags at the market (when I remember to put them in my car). I try to reduce the amount of energy I require to have a comfortable lifestyle -- hence the energy-reducing appliances.

I live near a lot of Amish, and have first-hand experience in knowing how to live without electricity, central heat & air, and how to grow your own food. I just choose not to be that way (my grandparents were Mennonite - one step away from the Amish). But I think everyone can reduce their energy consumption by about 5 - 10% with just a few lifestyle changes.

Goldie, my tap water is full of calcium carbonate and chlorine. I have an in-house water treatment system and fill up old soda bottles with treated tap water. At work, my building has very old pipes that produce rusty, odoriferous water. My office rented a cooler and we get spring water delivered in 5 gallon jugs. But the jugs are reused and the spring water comes from a spring that produces millions of gallons a day -- it's not just treated city water as many bottling companies use. (I think the one that Coca-Cola produces is just tap water from an urban area.)

Compost is great! But I clearly remember the year I was surprised by the cantaloupes growing in my flower bed -- the seeds germinated in the compost instead of breaking down!

[Christina]

Compost is great! But I clearly remember the year I was surprised by the cantaloupes growing in my flower bed -- the seeds germinated in the compost instead of breaking down!

I threw one of those decorative thanksgiving gourds in my compost 2 years ago and I've been yanking sprouts up from everywhere I spread the compost ever since. I can't believe that there were so many seeds in one gourd. If they have to volunteer they could at least be edible.

[Goldie]

That water I get comes from Mt Shasta, Weed CA...a place famous for it's water.

If I chose to buy a home here, I would get a home filter. For now, we are renting and I hate the way water tastes from a Britta pitcher.

I'll probably get the cooler with the 5 gal jugs...but reusing plastic drinking bottles is unsanitary, and I think I read that there is something that breaks down in the plastic when you reuse that is unsafe, so I'll probabaly buy one of those metal ones. But...if I don't LIKE the water...I won't drink it, and as you know...I'll suffer greatly for that, with kidney stones. So, I will probably always buy some bottled water. I drink A LOT!

Oh...and I had to laugh about the grocery bags. I have them in my trunk and rember them about 1/3rd of the time. DOH! Somebody told me that you should put a sticker in you car that reminds you not to forget your canvas bags. I really need to do that!


When I lived rurally, I was a compost Nazi! Everything that could be was composted and it didn't get turned into the garden until it was the purest black soil. Black gold!
I still love the smell of perfect compost! :D
I had a gorgeous garden, and I attribute it to my composting efforts. I composted on a mountainous scale! :)

[Goldie]

I threw one of those decorative thanksgiving gourds in my compost 2 years ago and I've been yanking sprouts up from everywhere I spread the compost ever since. I can't believe that there were so many seeds in one gourd. If they have to volunteer they could at least be edible.

I am so weird about stuff like that. I'd transplant the seedlings to someplace better and grow them...seriously. OY!

[Christina]

I did let one or two grow and that's how I found out that they were gourds and not the squash or pumpkins that I thought they might be.

[Stout Drinker]

T
I think a lot of the green lifestyle is more about people feeling smug, self righteous and noble than it is about any minute actual difference they might be making.



In a town in Colorado there was a huge increase in the smug factor when everyone starting to drive a Hybrid Pius.

:D

[Joykins]

Our neighbors had a similar thing happen in their yard with Asian winter melon seeds. The thing grew and grew and took over their whole yard (we have small yards, and these melons can grow to up to 50 lbs!). They shared some with us.

[Cath B]

Living in a way which I hope is compatible with the future of our rich environmental heritage helps to keep me at peace with myself.

I don't drive.
I use my own compost to grow fruit and veg.
I think before I buy about the environmental and human cost of my purchases and their packaging and accordingly try to be frugal.

I also fall short in many ways. I feel bad about my redundant electrical equipment.

I have four children which means that I am in a weak position for trying to appear holier than thou.

I'm not "in your face" with other folk about the wastefulness of western lifestyles, but I do try to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

After my husband died last summer, harvesting the crops he'd grown contributed a great deal to keeping me sane.

[Cath B]

In consideration of the points raised in the OP, it is true that my actions as an individual will have a negligible impact compared with short sighted approaches to environmental issues by governments and big businesses is the "developed" and "developing" nations. when considered in isolation.

I may, however, influence the attitudes and actions of neighbours, some of whom may influence other folk, some of whom may influence those with a significant amount of power and influence.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Seems to me that if you want a difference to be made, all you can do is make as much difference as you can, and the amount that is in the overall scheme is irrelevant.

I rather object to paying taxes. I earned* the money; why should I have some of it stolen by law-backed force (and who made those laws, eh?). More to the point, it costs billions to fund schools, hospitals, road maintenance etc etc. What difference does my few hundred quid a year make? Bugger all, obviously. Therefore, I should not pay my taxes.

* I use the term loosely ;)

[Oolon Colluphid]

Further:

Each can I put in the recycling bin is one less in landfill. It's that simple, really.

[Oolon Colluphid]

According to the DeFRA site's CO2 calculator (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/individual/index.htm), My household produces 7.93 tonnes of CO2 a year. Some of the figures I entered were guestimates, so it could be a bit lower... or might well be higher.
Visualising your Carbon Footprint

Your carbon footprint is enough to fill 727,792 footballs with carbon dioxide.

Another way to think of your carbon footprint is as a volume - in this case we have represented them as footballs. If all of your 727,792 footballs were laid out in rows they would cover 3.34 football pitches.

Not much, in the overall scheme, but still. And that's just CO2.

[Christina]

I wonder how much we're affected by whether we live in an urban or rural area. When I lived in areas with municipal services, water came from a faucet, sewage disappeared down the drain and someone came and hauled my trash away once a week. Gardeners maintained whatever landscaping the complex had. I didn't think about being green all that much. Now my water comes from our well, so it has to be tested and pumps, filters and the tank maintained. Sewage goes into the septic tank which drains into the leech field. Having garbage picked up is very expensive so when you take it to the dump you see the mountains and mountains of garbage that we generate. Pesticides drain into the creeks that are the water supply for people at the base of the mountain and in town. We grow some of our own food here so we care what goes into the ground. I'm far more aware of the effect that our lifestyle has on our land and others than I was before.

[Oolon Colluphid]

And by the same reasoning as in the OP... Tomorrow is Red Nose Day. Well it goes without saying that the couple of quid they'll get off me when I join in the lunchtime quiz we're having will also make bugger all difference in the overall scheme of things. Therefore, I'll not bother to donate.

Indeed, Children in Need, Comic Relief and all the rest are just a big waste of time. Individual contributions make no difference. Forget about the five quid Mrs Trellis gives -- what use is that, eh? What the fools who run them ought to be doing is targeting millionaires and any other 'fat cats'. You know, the big boys who can make a real difference, not individuals.

ETA: Or in short: don't bother giving to charity unless you can give big time -- and we're talking millions or even billions here. It's just futile.

[Oolon Colluphid]

What proportion of the pollution of the world is changeable by individual actions?

What proportion of the pollution of the world is produced by industry?
For the UK:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/images/gafg06.jpg

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/gagccukem.htm
Carbon dioxide is the main man-made contributor to global warming. The UK contributes about 2 per cent to global man-made emissions, which, according to the IPCC, were estimated to be 38 billion tonnes carbon dioxide in 2004. Carbon dioxide accounted for about 85 per cent of the UK’s man-made greenhouse gas emissions in 2007.

In 2007, 40 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions were from the energy supply sector, 22 per cent from road transport, 17 per cent from business and 14 per cent from residential fossil fuel use. Since 1990, emissions from road transport have increased by 11 per cent, while emissions from the energy supply industry have reduced by 12 per cent and business emissions have reduced by 19 per cent.

Since 2006, emissions from road transport have risen by 1 per cent, whilst emissions from energy supply, business and residential fossil fuel use have fallen by 2, 3 and 5 per cent respectively.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Methane:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/globatmos/images/gafg08.jpg

Agriculture and landfill are the main cuprits.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Why bother? (http://www.articlearchives.com/asia/northern-asia-china-southwest-chongqing/1896541-1.html)

The Big Problem is nothing more or less than the sum total of countless little everyday choices, most of them made by us (consumer spending represents 70 percent of our economy), and most of the rest of them made in the name of our needs and desires and preferences.

For us to wait for legislation or technology to solve the problem of how we're living our lives suggests we're not really serious about changing-something our politicians cannot fail to notice. They will not move until we do. Indeed, to look to leaders and experts, to laws and money and grand schemes to save us from our predicament represents precisely the sort of thinking--passive, delegated, dependent for solutions on specialists--that helped get us into this mess in the first place. It's hard to believe that the same sort of thinking could now get us out of it.

[Cath B]

Why bother? (http://www.articlearchives.com/asia/northern-asia-china-southwest-chongqing/1896541-1.html)

Yey! An article by Michael Pollan (http://www.michaelpollan.com/about.php), author of The Botany of Desire (http://www.amazon.com/Botany-Desire-Plants-Eye-View-World/dp/0375760393) and The Omnivore's Dilemma (http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/1594200823)!

[Oolon Colluphid]

Then again - one of you science types confirm this for me. I'm sure I read that the ice caps haven't always been frozen anyway. Part of the natural cycle of the planet is that it warms and cools over an extremely long period of time. We are still technically in an ice age because there is ice at the poles, and there have been periods in history when this hasn't been the case.
Yup, there's been hotter periods when the ice caps have retreated considerably (I'd have to check if they've been entirely absent, though I think they may have been, during the Jurassic). And there's been much, much colder periods, including, perhaps, times where the earth was almost entirely frozen -- see Snowball Earth.

The causes of these are imperfectly understood, because they're so complex. But it tends to be things like the position of the continents as they've drifted around, and how that affects ocean currents.

For example, take the North Atlantic Gulf Stream. Warm current all up the east coast of the North America, up towards Greenland and Iceland. If they weren't there, the warm waters would get even further north, and ice would tend to melt (or not form).

Conversely, if the 'top' of the Atlantic were more shut off, more ice could form. More ice creates a positive feedback loop, as, being white, ice reflects more heat back out into space, leading to cooling, leading to more ice... And the same applies in reverse. Less ice means more heat reaches the earth, which means less ice.

But all of this has previously been over geological timescales, thousands of years if not millions. The changes we've already seen have happened over no more than two hundred. The Earth is warmer now than for at least the last thousand years.:

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg

New Scientist: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html)

[Oolon Colluphid]

From the NS link above: We can't do anything about climate change (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11658)

[SteveF]

But all of this has previously been over geological timescales, thousands of years if not millions.

Well, that's not exactly true. Climate can change extremely rapidly - the events you refer to in the North Atlantic took a few decades and were getting on for 10 degreesC. Some of the changes involved took place in a couple of years and, frankly, make our activities look feeble by comparison.

The most recent, cutting edge stuff here:

Steffensen, J.P. et al. (2008) High-Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years. Science, 321, 680 - 684.

The last two abrupt warmings at the onset of our present warm interglacial period, interrupted by the Younger Dryas cooling event, were investigated at high temporal resolution from the North Greenland Ice Core Project ice core. The deuterium excess, a proxy of Greenland precipitation moisture source, switched mode within 1 to 3 years over these transitions and initiated a more gradual change (over 50 years) of the Greenland air temperature, as recorded by stable water isotopes. The onsets of both abrupt Greenland warmings were slightly preceded by decreasing Greenland dust deposition, reflecting the wetting of Asian deserts. A northern shift of the Intertropical Convergence Zone could be the trigger of these abrupt shifts of Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, resulting in changes of 2 to 4 kelvin in Greenland moisture source temperature from one year to the next.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Smartarse. Can =/ usually does. :p

[SteveF]

Well, to continue the theme, rapid climate change is actually a pretty characteristic feature of late Quaternary climate change and most probably before (we just don't have the resolution). Climate changes naturally at all scales from millions of years, to tens of thousands, to millenial to centenial to decadal. This isn't to say that we aren't responsible for some of the changes in the past hundred years or so (and most of it in the last 3 decades) - we undoubtedly are.

[Cath B]

Even if it's all happened before it could still be bad news for a lot of individual people and a lot of species that live here right now.

As an analogy, an individual can die because of external unpredictable factors.

But is that a valid reason for being careless of one's safety?

[Hex]

I rather object to paying taxes. I earned* the money; why should I have some of it stolen by law-backed force (and who made those laws, eh?). More to the point, it costs billions to fund schools, hospitals, road maintenance etc etc. What difference does my few hundred quid a year make? Bugger all, obviously. Therefore, I should not pay my taxes.

* I use the term loosely ;)

As horrible as I feel saying this, feeling that what you earn you should be entitled to keep, it's a civic duty to fund schools and public works and services (including emergency services). Think about it: If you could opt out of paying for public schooling, and so could everyone else, would you want to live in an area where the majority of children (who will of course grow up to be adults in your area) do not get educated? :eek:

I think it's important for the security and continuity of the community, even if one doesn't have children in school, or drive, or need police or fire ... Overall, the community needs them ...

[frazier]

I rather object to paying taxes. I earned* the money; why should I have some of it stolen by law-backed force (and who made those laws, eh?). More to the point, it costs billions to fund schools, hospitals, road maintenance etc etc. What difference does my few hundred quid a year make? Bugger all, obviously. Therefore, I should not pay my taxes.
As horrible as I feel saying this, feeling that what you earn you should be entitled to keep, it's a civic duty to fund schools and public works and services (including emergency services). Think about it: If you could opt out of paying for public schooling, and so could everyone else, would you want to live in an area where the majority of children (who will of course grow up to be adults in your area) do not get educated? :eek:

I think it's important for the security and continuity of the community, even if one doesn't have children in school, or drive, or need police or fire ... Overall, the community needs them ...
I'm fairly certain Oolon was being ironic, or sarcastic, or something. Please correct me if wrong.

To the OP: It's true, there is very little incentive to be "green" on a personal level. We have a few million years of human development, and a few billion years before that, which tell us very powerfully that the most important thing in life is the next meal. After that, maybe some sex. The idea of sacrificing a small portion of one's welfare so that someone 150 years from now will have a better life, is pretty much a hopeless cause. This, in my opinion, is why human civilization is pretty much fucked.

So Pendaric, don't feel guilty that your POV is shared by 6.995 billion of the earth's 7 billion humans. When the last human who can remember driving a car snatches his rattling last breath, he won't be blaming you personally.

[Cath B]

I'm not sure that acting in an environmentally aware way necessarily involves sacrificing part of one's welfare.

To my mind, driving and shopping is frequently stressful and unpleasant: minimising the acquisition of material goods cuts out the need for much of that.

If you ignore beauty products and fashionable clothes you don't have to concern yourself with keeping up with trends.

Growing vegetables and gathering wild foods is refreshing and satisfying.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I'm fairly certain Oolon was being ironic, or sarcastic, or something. Please correct me if wrong.
You are correct. It was irony (it should have been clear, because if I was serious, my analogy would have been supporting the OP position). I don't mind paying taxes, because I know they go towards stuff that society needs, even though my own individual contribution is a drop in the cliché.

I don't always like the way those taxes get spent, though.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I'm not sure that acting in an environmentally aware way necessarily involves sacrificing part of one's welfare.
Yup. I'm not big on sacrifices. It's more about being aware and doing things differently: you don't have to disadvantage yourself in the process.

If you need some green veg from the supermarket, get the local stuff rather than the green beans that were grown in Malasia. It's hardly any harder to put recyclable rubbish in a separate box than it is all in together. Drive more smoothly, change up sooner, check your tyre pressure regularly, keep weighty junk out of the car... all of which doesn't just reduce emissions: it does so by you using less fuel, and that means you save money. Don't over-fill your kettle, and your tea will be ready sooner.

And a slow cooker not only uses masses less energy than a conventional oven, it also means you can use cheaper cuts of meat and get a damned fine meal. I fed six of us for a special meal a couple of weeks back with six quid's worth of beef shin: ten minutes of gas to soften onions and seal/caramelise the beef, plus 8 hours at 40W/h in the slow cooker, and we had the best Hungarian goulash any of us had ever had.

[Ray Moscow]

Would it be trollist to post,

"I see no point in not being a murderer, as there are billions of people that I'll never be able to kill anyway"?

Because then I won't post it.

[SteveF]

Even if it's all happened before it could still be bad news for a lot of individual people and a lot of species that live here right now.

As an analogy, an individual can die because of external unpredictable factors.

But is that a valid reason for being careless of one's safety?

Sure, I agree. The fact that climate has changed in the past doesn't mean that current climate change isn't serious. Furthermore, just because climate has changed naturally in the past doesn't mean that we aren't in large part responsible now, as sceptics often like to claim. That's like saying that just because lightning used to be the cause of forest fires thousands of years ago, there are no arsonists acting today.

[SteveF]

On the subject of generally being green, a key issue is not simply big global concerns like global warming. It's your local environment. Whilst people may be skeptical about what individual actions can do in response to climate change, there's really no excuse for not acting at the local level. Threats to biodiversity, the natural world etc etc, operate at a variety of scales and we shouldn't lose sight of this in the face of big issues like gloal warming.

There are organisations that work more at the local level - I'm a huge fan of the Woodland Trust, for example. It's these groups that I now try and support the most. One of my favourite charities, Common Ground, is a bit of a quirky one, that looks at the environment and our communities and tries to promote "local distinctiveness". They have some rules - for example:

"Know your place. Facts and surveys are not the same as KNOWLEDGE and wisdom. Itinerant expertise needs to meet with aboriginal, place based knowledge so we can make the best of both worlds."

"Bring the countryside to the town. Keep the fruit, vegetable and local produce MARKETS open and alive. We should be able to buy Norfolk Biffins in Norwich and James Grieves in Edinburgh."

"REVEAL the geology. Use the brick and stone of the locality. Reinforce the colour, patterns, craftsmanship and work of the place."

http://www.commonground.org.uk/distinctiveness/d-rules.html

they have a campaign here:

http://www.england-in-particular.info/particular/e-campgn.html

it includes pieces on allotments, conserving ancient woodland, campaigning against chain stores and so forth. There's a slight feeling of smug middle class-ness with Common Ground, but then there is with most charities and their message is one that really needs to be heard IMO.

http://www.commonground.org.uk

[Cath B]

Sure, I agree.

I knew you did :)

[Hex]

You are correct. It was irony (it should have been clear, because if I was serious, my analogy would have been supporting the OP position).

:o Sorry then ... My bad ... Carry on ...

[nygreenguy]

On the subject of generally being green, a key issue is not simply big global concerns like global warming. It's your local environment.


Speaking of this, I used to know a website which showed your local neighborhoods pollution levels, who the biggest polluters are, contact information etc..

I gotta try to dig that up.

[Cath B]

On the subject of generally being green, a key issue is not simply big global concerns like global warming. It's your local environment. Whilst people may be skeptical about what individual actions can do in response to climate change, there's really no excuse for not acting at the local level. Threats to biodiversity, the natural world etc etc, operate at a variety of scales and we shouldn't lose sight of this in the face of big issues like gloal warming.

There are organisations that work more at the local level - I'm a huge fan of the Woodland Trust, for example. It's these groups that I now try and support the most. One of my favourite charities, Common Ground, is a bit of a quirky one, that looks at the environment and our communities and tries to promote "local distinctiveness". They have some rules - for example:

"Know your place. Facts and surveys are not the same as KNOWLEDGE and wisdom. Itinerant expertise needs to meet with aboriginal, place based knowledge so we can make the best of both worlds."

"Bring the countryside to the town. Keep the fruit, vegetable and local produce MARKETS open and alive. We should be able to buy Norfolk Biffins in Norwich and James Grieves in Edinburgh."

"REVEAL the geology. Use the brick and stone of the locality. Reinforce the colour, patterns, craftsmanship and work of the place."

http://www.commonground.org.uk/distinctiveness/d-rules.html

they have a campaign here:

http://www.england-in-particular.info/particular/e-campgn.html

it includes pieces on allotments, conserving ancient woodland, campaigning against chain stores and so forth. There's a slight feeling of smug middle class-ness with Common Ground, but then there is with most charities and their message is one that really needs to be heard IMO.

http://www.commonground.org.uk

I googled across the commonground website a few months ago after reading Wildwood: a Journey Through Trees by Roger Deakin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/aug/29/guardianobituaries.environment),one of the charity's founders.

A lovely book, looking with sensitivity at human interaction with wood and woodland in the haunts of his adulthood and youth and further afield in Australia and in the walnut and apple orchards of Kyrgyztan and Kazakstan.

[SteveF]

I googled across the commonground website a few months ago after reading Wildwood: a Journey Through Trees by Roger Deakin (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2006/aug/29/guardianobituaries.environment),one of the charity's founders.

A lovely book, looking with sensitivity at human interaction with wood and woodland in the haunts of his adulthood and youth and further afield in Australia and in the walnut and apple orchards of Kyrgyztan and Kazakstan.

Yes, that's how I came across the charity too. I just finished re-reading Wildwood last week. It's an utterly inspirational read and I recommend it to anyone. I want to get hold of his other book, Waterlog as well. Plus the recently released diaries.

[Cath B]

Yes, that's how I came across the charity too. I just finished re-reading Wildwood last week. It's an utterly inspirational read and I recommend it to anyone. I want to get hold of his other book, Waterlog as well. Plus the recently released diaries.

I gave Waterlog to my brother for Christmas but he hasn't given me any feedback .

I intend to borrow it from him sometime.

[Brianna]

I work for an electric company.

I do not care if you are not green.

Just do not call and bitch that your power bill is outlandish because you think your electric heater is going to use as much electricity as a toaster, only to find out it really uses 1000 kwh and makes your bill really high.

:D