Eco- Warriers. Are They All Hypocrites?

[bitchstewie]

NMNeil said:

I wonder, when she got off the plastic boat did she walk to whatever protest meeting she would be babbling at, or was she driven in one of those ICE powered machines she wants to get rid of.

I think she should have walked barefoot personally.

Anyone who says fossil fuels are bad should definitely never ever use anything made from them or go in anything that uses them.

Ever.

Hypocrites!!!

[NMNeil]

bhstewie said:

I think she should have walked barefoot personally.

Anyone who says fossil fuels are bad should definitely never ever use anything made from them or go in anything that uses them.

Ever.

Hypocrites!!!

Does that include plastic macs?

[bitchstewie]

Yes good point.

Hypocrites!!!

[Diderot]

bhstewie said:

NMNeil said:

I wonder, when she got off the plastic boat did she walk to whatever protest meeting she would be babbling at, or was she driven in one of those ICE powered machines she wants to get rid of.

I think she should have walked barefoot personally.

Anyone who says fossil fuels are bad should definitely never ever use anything made from them or go in anything that uses them.

Ever.

Hypocrites!!!

You mean she didn't walk barefoot across the Atlantic Ocean? I thought she was supposed to be the second coming or something. Really?

I'm assuming, Eseptico, that your original question was a rhetorical one? This has also been a rhetorical question.

[irc]

bhstewie said:

irc said:

bhstewie said:

Personally I doubt you can get away without leaving any footprint so it's about the size of the one you do leave.

A bit smaller if you holiday in the UK or Europe instead of flying to Alaska?

What if you holiday in Europe 3 times a year for 20 years or you go to Alaska once and don't ever fly anywhere on holiday again because Alaska blew you away and you changed your entire way of life?

Or of course it might make you think travelling is awesome and you only live once so you go jetting off all over the world for sts and giggles.

It doesn't look great but if you looked at Attenborough's footprint and didn't consider the way he's raised awareness over the past 50-60 years I think you'd be taking a bit of a narrow view.

All I'm saying is it's not always as simple and black and white as "hypocrites!!!" IMO.

I think it is relatively simple. Advocating smaller carbon footprints does not square with advocating long haul holidays. Less CO2 except for these holidays I'm being paid for?

[Diderot]

irc said:

bhstewie said:

irc said:

bhstewie said:

Personally I doubt you can get away without leaving any footprint so it's about the size of the one you do leave.

A bit smaller if you holiday in the UK or Europe instead of flying to Alaska?

What if you holiday in Europe 3 times a year for 20 years or you go to Alaska once and don't ever fly anywhere on holiday again because Alaska blew you away and you changed your entire way of life?

Or of course it might make you think travelling is awesome and you only live once so you go jetting off all over the world for sts and giggles.

It doesn't look great but if you looked at Attenborough's footprint and didn't consider the way he's raised awareness over the past 50-60 years I think you'd be taking a bit of a narrow view.

All I'm saying is it's not always as simple and black and white as "hypocrites!!!" IMO.

I think it is relatively simple. Advocating smaller carbon footprints does not square with advocating long haul holidays. Less CO2 except for these holidays I'm being paid for?

Yes but no but, he is apparently undertaking vital, nay crucial, educational and cognitive reprogramming work whilst being paid handsomely for it in far flung endangered and protected wildernesses that require massively polluting travel arrangements to get to (unless of course he is donating all his fees to eco charidees?). He is an arch hypocrite nec plus ultra.

[anonymous-user]

I’m starting to get genuinely depressed with the stupidity of the average PHer. I don’t post much but I’m going to have to take a break for my own sanity.

Imagine making the argument that if you make any carbon emissions beyond bare existence, you must be a hypocrite if you advocate for action on climate change, and thus must be ignored.

Does it follow that no action will ever be taken on climate change? After all, should the executives of Shell, or the President of the United States, or the Prime Minister, ever take any action whatsoever - it must be disregarded because they got on a plane a few months ago?

Why are people so stupid? Do you realise how thick you are or does your stupidity extend to being completely oblivious of your own stupidity?

[survivalist]

The usual excuse for this nonsense is 'Awareness'. As if anyone isn't aware.

If people want to be seen as "Eco-Warriors" then they need to lead by example, as they are the ones who are advocating for change. I've got no issue with people public documenting how they have changed their lifestyle to minimise their impact on the environment.

Also have no issue with companies who are putting measures in place to become more sustainable.

The latter seem to be admitting that they are taking measures to minimise (not eliminate) their impact.

The former want others to make sacrifices that they aren't willing to make. They frequently use the 'awareness' they are generating to justify their actions. However, using Emma Thompson as an example, I'm pretty sure that the news networks of the world would have been perfectly happy to hear her opinion from a TV studio in LA or a Video Link from her home. Nonsense like that is pure virtue signalling and more likely to persuade people to rile against this kind of nonsense.

Personally, I'm planning a road trip to Italy because there is an awesome sustainable farm that does a mean steak. I'm saving the world because said steak has a marginally lower carbon footprint than the one in London that i can travel to by train. More than justifies the 2600 mile road trip.

[survivalist]

ThatGuyWhoDoesStuff said:

I’m starting to get genuinely depressed with the stupidity of the average PHer. I don’t post much but I’m going to have to take a break for my own sanity.

Imagine making the argument that if you make any carbon emissions beyond bare existence, you must be a hypocrite if you advocate for action on climate change, and thus must be ignored.

Does it follow that no action will ever be taken on climate change? After all, should the executives of Shell, or the President of the United States, or the Prime Minister, ever take any action whatsoever - it must be disregarded because they got on a plane a few months ago?

Why are people so stupid? Do you realise how thick you are or does your stupidity extend to being completely oblivious of your own stupidity?

The majority of people aren't saying we shouldn't try and reduce our impact on the planet. What they are saying is that lecturing people about why they aren't doing enough isn't a positive or effective way of doing so.

They are also pointing out the hypocrisy of people who have a relatively high carbon footprint, but justify it by claiming they are raising awareness.

Awareness is all well and good, but I have yet to see any evidence that it actually achieves anything beyond a sense of self-righteousness.

[anonymous-user]

survivalist said:

Awareness is all well and good, but I have yet to see any evidence that it actually achieves anything beyond a sense of self-righteousness.

As I’ve always said, lack of awareness is the best way to achieve change.

[PeteinSQ]

survivalist said:

The usual excuse for this nonsense is 'Awareness'. As if anyone isn't aware.

If people want to be seen as "Eco-Warriors" then they need to lead by example, as they are the ones who are advocating for change. I've got no issue with people public documenting how they have changed their lifestyle to minimise their impact on the environment.

Also have no issue with companies who are putting measures in place to become more sustainable.

The latter seem to be admitting that they are taking measures to minimise (not eliminate) their impact.

The former want others to make sacrifices that they aren't willing to make. They frequently use the 'awareness' they are generating to justify their actions. However, using Emma Thompson as an example, I'm pretty sure that the news networks of the world would have been perfectly happy to hear her opinion from a TV studio in LA or a Video Link from her home. Nonsense like that is pure virtue signalling and more likely to persuade people to rile against this kind of nonsense.

Personally, I'm planning a road trip to Italy because there is an awesome sustainable farm that does a mean steak. I'm saving the world because said steak has a marginally lower carbon footprint than the one in London that i can travel to by train. More than justifies the 2600 mile road trip.

Plenty of people are aware but are doing absolutely fk all to change their behaviour. I work with loads of people that I'm sure many on here would agree with that just say "look at China" when they book their third long haul flight of the year.

The seriousness of the situation is completely lost on some people. Either that or they just couldn't give a st about the world that their grandkids will live in. My parents are like the latter, they say things like "I'll be long dead so what do I care".

Which I find a bizarre view from people with two grandsons but there you go, so long as they can take their multiple overseas holidays that's all they care about.

[survivalist]

PeteinSQ said:

survivalist said:

The usual excuse for this nonsense is 'Awareness'. As if anyone isn't aware.

If people want to be seen as "Eco-Warriors" then they need to lead by example, as they are the ones who are advocating for change. I've got no issue with people public documenting how they have changed their lifestyle to minimise their impact on the environment.

Also have no issue with companies who are putting measures in place to become more sustainable.

The latter seem to be admitting that they are taking measures to minimise (not eliminate) their impact.

The former want others to make sacrifices that they aren't willing to make. They frequently use the 'awareness' they are generating to justify their actions. However, using Emma Thompson as an example, I'm pretty sure that the news networks of the world would have been perfectly happy to hear her opinion from a TV studio in LA or a Video Link from her home. Nonsense like that is pure virtue signalling and more likely to persuade people to rile against this kind of nonsense.

Personally, I'm planning a road trip to Italy because there is an awesome sustainable farm that does a mean steak. I'm saving the world because said steak has a marginally lower carbon footprint than the one in London that i can travel to by train. More than justifies the 2600 mile road trip.

Plenty of people are aware but are doing absolutely fk all to change their behaviour. I work with loads of people that I'm sure many on here would agree with that just say "look at China" when they book their third long haul flight of the year.

The seriousness of the situation is completely lost on some people. Either that or they just couldn't give a st about the world that their grandkids will live in. My parents are like the latter, they say things like "I'll be long dead so what do I care".

Which I find a bizarre view from people with two grandsons but there you go, so long as they can take their multiple overseas holidays that's all they care about.

Indeed. But once again, it seems that trying to bully or shame people into caring doesn't actually work. I'd ague that people like Emma/Greta are actually counter productive for a number of reasons:

Placing blame on "ordinary" people

The "us and them" element - it's how the majority perceive it

The belief that that activists/celebrities calling out corporations makes any difference. Everyone knows that Coke/McDonalds/KFC is bad for you - and yet they thrive.

The reality is that the rich want the poor to cut back to save the planet. The poor don't want to (and sometimes can't). The corporations that are getting rich from it all (and often pay the rich celebs to promote their products) will claim they are changing, while changing at the slowest possible acceptable pace (e.g. very slow) and lobbying government to prevent change.

It's all just a giant game. A global version of convincing someone you're really into their personality. At 2am. In a nightclub. Turns out you really just want to sleep with them and do a runner in he morning,

[ATG]

A Winner Is You said:

ATG said:

bhstewie said:

FNG said:

“Do what the fk you want as long as your contribution is positive overall”

Not gonna move the needle much is it?

That's not really what I said.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good leaps to mind.

Quite.

People shouting "hypocrite" almost always sound rather shrill.

A smoker says "smoking kills". Hypocrite or not, he's right.

The equivalent in this instance would be someone telling others they must give up smoking, whilst still smoking themselves with the reasoning that it's different because they are raising awareness of the dangers.

So what?

[A Winner Is You]

ATG said:

A Winner Is You said:

ATG said:

bhstewie said:

FNG said:

“Do what the fk you want as long as your contribution is positive overall”

Not gonna move the needle much is it?

That's not really what I said.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good leaps to mind.

Quite.

People shouting "hypocrite" almost always sound rather shrill.

A smoker says "smoking kills". Hypocrite or not, he's right.

The equivalent in this instance would be someone telling others they must give up smoking, whilst still smoking themselves with the reasoning that it's different because they are raising awareness of the dangers.

So what?

So you'd be a hypocrite.

[Biggy Stardust]

El stovey said:

Are they actually doing that?

Whenever I hear these accusations regarding hypocrisy and you read what the person being vilified has said at best it’s a “we must all” type comment and usually they haven’t told others how to live at all.

"We must all" never seems to include them. They preach environmentalist crap whilst not actually doing it.

I had a rant from an eco-warrior couple about my choice of car & how wicked I was to own it.
I asked them if (like me) they'd installed a solar array. I pointed out the number of trees I'd planted on my land & the food I'd grown for myself & asked them whether they'd done similar. The response was "well we'd like to but it's not possible for us just now".

As I said, anyone saying not to do things whilst doing it themselves is a plain & simple hypocrite deserving of contempt. I'm reminded of something I read 40+ years ago from Arthur Hailley's book "Wheels" where the polling firm says everyone wants to do something about pollution & the executive corrects them, saying that everyone wants someone else to do something about it.

I'm far from an environmental saint but 1) I make an effort & 2) I don't preach to others.

[survivalist]

A Winner Is You said:

ATG said:

A Winner Is You said:

ATG said:

bhstewie said:

FNG said:

“Do what the fk you want as long as your contribution is positive overall”

Not gonna move the needle much is it?

That's not really what I said.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good leaps to mind.

Quite.

People shouting "hypocrite" almost always sound rather shrill.

A smoker says "smoking kills". Hypocrite or not, he's right.

The equivalent in this instance would be someone telling others they must give up smoking, whilst still smoking themselves with the reasoning that it's different because they are raising awareness of the dangers.

So what?

So you'd be a hypocrite.

Exactly this. No one expects an eco warrior to stop consuming bread and milk (although maybe they should), but they do expect them to stop going on holiday using an aircraft for transport if they have been telling others to cut back on said methods of transport.

All well and good to point out that smoking kills. As you say a smoker saying that smoking kills is absolutely correct. But if said smoker starts suggesting that people should give up smoking for the greater good, without doing so themselves, them they are very much a hypocrite.

[cavey76]

The whole topic needs better informed. 70% of emissions come from making & shipping st, heating/cooling and lighting our homes. The oblivious twunt down the road might fly to Bali 3 times a year, after driving his GLS63 to LHR but in reality he isnt the biggest problem beyond giving the tree huggers an obvious local lightning rod for their opprobrium.

I was out with a mountain biking with a friend last week (carbon eMTB, drove 30 miles to get there in a diesel van, wore leather shoes). In the bike park cafe afterwards he shouted me to buns, coffee and water...I carry my own sodastream bottle so typically dont bother but he'd bought it by the time i was out of the car. I drank the water later in the day. It was canned sparkling water which had some w@nky label on it making out to care and that the water was canned because metal is infinitely more recyclable than plastic. Fair point...thought I........

.
.
.
.
.
.
.....canned in the Austrian Alps.

https://canowater.com/our-water/

So my fancy dan artisanal water with its preachy label, telling me the can is better had been shipped with hundreds others prolly circa 1000 miles from Austria to Rostrevor. The irony was not lost on me.

[Randy Winkman]

survivalist said:

PeteinSQ said:

survivalist said:

The usual excuse for this nonsense is 'Awareness'. As if anyone isn't aware.

If people want to be seen as "Eco-Warriors" then they need to lead by example, as they are the ones who are advocating for change. I've got no issue with people public documenting how they have changed their lifestyle to minimise their impact on the environment.

Also have no issue with companies who are putting measures in place to become more sustainable.

The latter seem to be admitting that they are taking measures to minimise (not eliminate) their impact.

The former want others to make sacrifices that they aren't willing to make. They frequently use the 'awareness' they are generating to justify their actions. However, using Emma Thompson as an example, I'm pretty sure that the news networks of the world would have been perfectly happy to hear her opinion from a TV studio in LA or a Video Link from her home. Nonsense like that is pure virtue signalling and more likely to persuade people to rile against this kind of nonsense.

Personally, I'm planning a road trip to Italy because there is an awesome sustainable farm that does a mean steak. I'm saving the world because said steak has a marginally lower carbon footprint than the one in London that i can travel to by train. More than justifies the 2600 mile road trip.

Plenty of people are aware but are doing absolutely fk all to change their behaviour. I work with loads of people that I'm sure many on here would agree with that just say "look at China" when they book their third long haul flight of the year.

The seriousness of the situation is completely lost on some people. Either that or they just couldn't give a st about the world that their grandkids will live in. My parents are like the latter, they say things like "I'll be long dead so what do I care".

Which I find a bizarre view from people with two grandsons but there you go, so long as they can take their multiple overseas holidays that's all they care about.

Indeed. But once again, it seems that trying to bully or shame people into caring doesn't actually work. I'd ague that people like Emma/Greta are actually counter productive for a number of reasons:

Placing blame on "ordinary" people

The "us and them" element - it's how the majority perceive it

The belief that that activists/celebrities calling out corporations makes any difference. Everyone knows that Coke/McDonalds/KFC is bad for you - and yet they thrive.

The reality is that the rich want the poor to cut back to save the planet. The poor don't want to (and sometimes can't). The corporations that are getting rich from it all (and often pay the rich celebs to promote their products) will claim they are changing, while changing at the slowest possible acceptable pace (e.g. very slow) and lobbying government to prevent change.

It's all just a giant game. A global version of convincing someone you're really into their personality. At 2am. In a nightclub. Turns out you really just want to sleep with them and do a runner in he morning,

Does Greta Thunberg place the blame on ordinary people? I thought her main beef was with governments. By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

[Esceptico]

Randy Winkman said:

Does Greta Thunberg place the blame on ordinary people? I thought her main beef was with governments. By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

I doubt the people that are anti Greta take much, if any, time to listen to what she actually says. Same with any campaigner for environmental protection. The claims of hypocrisy are justification for not listening or ignoring what is being said.

People on here claiming that awareness of environmental issues are not required yet so little is being done politically. I think the point people are missing is that individuals will not be able to make significant changes by themselves but if the majority hold governments to account and push environmental issues to the top of the agenda then real change could be possible.

[StevieBee]

Randy Winkman said:

Does Greta Thunberg place the blame on ordinary people? I thought her main beef was with governments. By all means correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not wrong. Her ire is directly squared to governments and industry who have the power to implement change but either ignore the need or choose not to.

She wrangles a great many because to (mainly middle age, middle class blokes) it's difficult to concede that a slightly odd teenage girl is right about most of the the things she says.