Eco- Warriers. Are They All Hypocrites?
Discussion
alock said:
Society typically thinks a black person is best to talk about black issues.
Society typically thinks a woman is best to talk about sexism.
Society typically thinks a gay person is best to talk about gay issues.
Society typically thinks a Muslim is the best person to talk about issues with Islam.
Society typically thinks someone who lives a low-impact life is the best person to talk about environmental issues.
Society typically thinks a woke celebrity with a huge personal environmental impact is the best person to talk about environmental issues.
Society doesn't think any of that. They don't just pick a random gay person, or a random woman or a random black person. It's more effective when it's someone with a high profile that gets called on to front these things. Environmentalism is no different. Society typically thinks a woman is best to talk about sexism.
Society typically thinks a gay person is best to talk about gay issues.
Society typically thinks a Muslim is the best person to talk about issues with Islam.
Society typically thinks a woke celebrity with a huge personal environmental impact is the best person to talk about environmental issues.
Who are people more likely to listen to, Dave from Dagenham or someone really famous? Of course this has the opposite effect on some people who thene start chucking around pointless terms like "woke" to denigrate them.
StevieBee said:
There are plenty of weirdy-beardy, sandal-wearing lentilists that would have us all living in caves, but do not mistake these for those that are actually doing something practical and worthwhile.
The majority of Environmentalists are working on front-line initiatives that make our choices easier. COP26 isn't about a bunch off privileged eco-hypocrites telling us all off. It's about people who have the power and authority to make meaningful and tangible policy changes for the betterment of society.
If you examine the detail you find that it's less about stopping doing things and more about doing the same things differently. Much will be invisible to you except the outcome - which will be beneficial.
I'm working on one small component of COP26. It's a system that enables the standardised collection of Waste Data including the means to identify and quantify plastic leakage (if you're interested: https://unhabitat.org/waste-wise-cities). Without this data, there is no way a city can determine the measures needed to stop it and it needs to be global in its application to work properly. My client (UN Habitat) will be using COP26 as an opportunity to lobby for the system to be ingrained into national policy around the world.
The only tangible impact this will have on you is tastier and cheaper fish and chips - though obviously the benefits are slightly wider reaching than that.
A genuinely straight question - do you feel that the event itself is actually necessary or should it have been conducted remotely (potentially on its planned date of last November)?The majority of Environmentalists are working on front-line initiatives that make our choices easier. COP26 isn't about a bunch off privileged eco-hypocrites telling us all off. It's about people who have the power and authority to make meaningful and tangible policy changes for the betterment of society.
If you examine the detail you find that it's less about stopping doing things and more about doing the same things differently. Much will be invisible to you except the outcome - which will be beneficial.
I'm working on one small component of COP26. It's a system that enables the standardised collection of Waste Data including the means to identify and quantify plastic leakage (if you're interested: https://unhabitat.org/waste-wise-cities). Without this data, there is no way a city can determine the measures needed to stop it and it needs to be global in its application to work properly. My client (UN Habitat) will be using COP26 as an opportunity to lobby for the system to be ingrained into national policy around the world.
The only tangible impact this will have on you is tastier and cheaper fish and chips - though obviously the benefits are slightly wider reaching than that.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I think it's the increasingly binary world some people seem to live in.
If Attenborough or Packham or someone else "jets off around the world" but in doing so massively raises awareness around the environmental challenges we face how do you measure whether they're a "massive hypocrite" or not?
Presumably it's subjective at best.
Likewise as much as it pains me to say this I'm not going to batter Johnson too much for flying to the G7 because I think you have to balance the message to everyone else against the reality that Prime Ministers and Presidents probably do have more of an excuse and justification than lots of others (celebrities leap to mind) do.
Do I think it would have sent a good message if he'd taken the train? Of course. Can I understand why he didn't? Yes.
Binary is a good word to describe the narrative.If Attenborough or Packham or someone else "jets off around the world" but in doing so massively raises awareness around the environmental challenges we face how do you measure whether they're a "massive hypocrite" or not?
Presumably it's subjective at best.
Likewise as much as it pains me to say this I'm not going to batter Johnson too much for flying to the G7 because I think you have to balance the message to everyone else against the reality that Prime Ministers and Presidents probably do have more of an excuse and justification than lots of others (celebrities leap to mind) do.
Do I think it would have sent a good message if he'd taken the train? Of course. Can I understand why he didn't? Yes.
A great deal of my work is focused upon shifting mindsets in regards to Environmental Protect. When doing so, I prefer to define 'environment' as the connectivity that exists between everything on earth. Once you do this, it starts to make a little more sense. Being a 'car-guy' I use motoring as an example.
If you like cars and motor sports then you have to accept that this requires the consumption of oil, of which there is around 50 years worth left to use. However, you can design more efficient engines to require less oil, eking out those 50 years a little further. You can then look at plastic. IIRC, 11% of all oil produced is used to make plastic. Half of all plastic ever made has been manufactured since 2008. Annually, only 9% of this get recycled. So where's the rest of it? So recovering more plastic improves the situation further and doing that positively impacts on many other intensive activities ... and on it goes.
That's why someone like Lewis Hamilton promoting sustainability is not hypocritical except to those without the capacity of critical thinking.
alock said:
Society typically thinks a woke celebrity with a huge personal environmental impact is the best person to talk about environmental issues.
PeteinSQ said:
Who are people more likely to listen to, Dave from Dagenham or someone really famous? Of course this has the opposite effect on some people who thene start chucking around pointless terms like "woke" to denigrate them.
Or someone famous who doesn't tell other people to do what they won't do themselves. I'm trying hard to think of a famous person with a small carbon footprint. Struggling.
alangla said:
StevieBee said:
There are plenty of weirdy-beardy, sandal-wearing lentilists that would have us all living in caves, but do not mistake these for those that are actually doing something practical and worthwhile.
The majority of Environmentalists are working on front-line initiatives that make our choices easier. COP26 isn't about a bunch off privileged eco-hypocrites telling us all off. It's about people who have the power and authority to make meaningful and tangible policy changes for the betterment of society.
If you examine the detail you find that it's less about stopping doing things and more about doing the same things differently. Much will be invisible to you except the outcome - which will be beneficial.
I'm working on one small component of COP26. It's a system that enables the standardised collection of Waste Data including the means to identify and quantify plastic leakage (if you're interested: https://unhabitat.org/waste-wise-cities). Without this data, there is no way a city can determine the measures needed to stop it and it needs to be global in its application to work properly. My client (UN Habitat) will be using COP26 as an opportunity to lobby for the system to be ingrained into national policy around the world.
The only tangible impact this will have on you is tastier and cheaper fish and chips - though obviously the benefits are slightly wider reaching than that.
A genuinely straight question - do you feel that the event itself is actually necessary or should it have been conducted remotely (potentially on its planned date of last November)?The majority of Environmentalists are working on front-line initiatives that make our choices easier. COP26 isn't about a bunch off privileged eco-hypocrites telling us all off. It's about people who have the power and authority to make meaningful and tangible policy changes for the betterment of society.
If you examine the detail you find that it's less about stopping doing things and more about doing the same things differently. Much will be invisible to you except the outcome - which will be beneficial.
I'm working on one small component of COP26. It's a system that enables the standardised collection of Waste Data including the means to identify and quantify plastic leakage (if you're interested: https://unhabitat.org/waste-wise-cities). Without this data, there is no way a city can determine the measures needed to stop it and it needs to be global in its application to work properly. My client (UN Habitat) will be using COP26 as an opportunity to lobby for the system to be ingrained into national policy around the world.
The only tangible impact this will have on you is tastier and cheaper fish and chips - though obviously the benefits are slightly wider reaching than that.
In theory, the net environmental gain that emerges from COP is to a level that places its environmental impact to inconsequential levels - would that same level of gain be achieved through a remote, online event?
There's quite a bit of legal frame working that takes place which requires the physical presence of key individual to pass into law. Though I'm sure that could be addressed.
And having a high-profile physical event provides a strong visual story that would get higher media profile than would be achieved through something done online.
On balance, I'd say a reserved yes, it is beneficial.
durbster said:
I can't decide if the cartoonist is for or against the idea of improving the environment.
pquinn said:
Esceptico said:
If you have resorted to criticising the lifestyle of environmentalists I think it means you’ve lost the argument.
In a 'I think your ideas are bks and from your actions apparently you do too' style of losing?Either they don't believe at all so they're liars, or they don't believe in it for themselves so they're hypocrites. Either way that isn't 'winning'.
Hoofy said:
durbster said:
I can't decide if the cartoonist is for or against the idea of improving the environment.I’m not sure how relevant the comparison to multi millionaires celebs jetting around are with a peasant, but there we go.
Perhaps a radical idea would be for them to use a worldwide reaching technology, I don’t know, say social media, to explain how they are cutting down their excessive lifestyles?
irc said:
PeteinSQ said:
Who are people more likely to listen to, Dave from Dagenham or someone really famous? Of course this has the opposite effect on some people who thene start chucking around pointless terms like "woke" to denigrate them.
Or someone famous who doesn't tell other people to do what they won't do themselves. I'm trying hard to think of a famous person with a small carbon footprint. Struggling.
eg I don't think that Greta Thunberg should always avoid planes. But she is clearly aware that if she gets on one the people who don't like her in the first first place will moan.
105.4 said:
Yes, very much so in my experience.
We know a couple, 100% committed to XR, BLM, Momentum etc. They tore strips off of my Wife for daring to have one child for the damage it would do to the environment.
They have five children
I hope you knocked both of them out.We know a couple, 100% committed to XR, BLM, Momentum etc. They tore strips off of my Wife for daring to have one child for the damage it would do to the environment.
They have five children
Typical sort of crap from environutjobs who want to control everyone else's lives while popping out half a football team worth of crotch fruit. Let's face it, all of the demands and environmental issues being raised have nothing to do with protecting the earth, and everything to do with protecting future humans (especially their own kids). As has already been posted on this thread, if they are serious about "saving the planet" they should be planning their own ending.
MonkeyMatt said:
Some absolute nonsense being spouted here as usual. To be honest if you aren't interested in the environment and making positive changes, however small, you are short signed moron
If you want me to support getting the most bang for our buck in terms of energy use, I’m all for it.If you want to to support getting the most value out of recycling, I’m all for it.
If you want me to support cleaning up the oceans, I’m all for it.
If you want me to support stopping deforestation and helping to preserve endangered species, I’m all for it.
What I will not support is one set of people telling another set of people how to live, whilst those who spout the rules constantly break them, (Greta Thumberg, Prince Harry, all Politicians, celebrities etc).
In essence, see my post above about the couple who have five children.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I think it's the increasingly binary world some people seem to live in.
If Attenborough or Packham or someone else "jets off around the world" but in doing so massively raises awareness around the environmental challenges we face how do you measure whether they're a "massive hypocrite" or not?
Presumably it's subjective at best.
Likewise as much as it pains me to say this I'm not going to batter Johnson too much for flying to the G7 because I think you have to balance the message to everyone else against the reality that Prime Ministers and Presidents probably do have more of an excuse and justification than lots of others (celebrities leap to mind) do.
Do I think it would have sent a good message if he'd taken the train? Of course. Can I understand why he didn't? Yes.
OK, let's take Mr Packham. He's very worried about climate change, no doubt that we can accept his work is terribly important, and he has to fly everywhere, but why is he leading groups of tourists on long haul international travel? Here:If Attenborough or Packham or someone else "jets off around the world" but in doing so massively raises awareness around the environmental challenges we face how do you measure whether they're a "massive hypocrite" or not?
Presumably it's subjective at best.
Likewise as much as it pains me to say this I'm not going to batter Johnson too much for flying to the G7 because I think you have to balance the message to everyone else against the reality that Prime Ministers and Presidents probably do have more of an excuse and justification than lots of others (celebrities leap to mind) do.
Do I think it would have sent a good message if he'd taken the train? Of course. Can I understand why he didn't? Yes.
https://www.steppestravel.com/people/chris-packham...
Surely the better answer is to say "this is a bad idea, why don't you watch it on telly".
We all know why though - money. It's why we all do it.
The hypocrisy kicks in when we are all being told to change our ways by a bunch of people who think they are far too important to change theirs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff