How environmental are you?
Discussion
I mean, I know this is PH and all that, but I can't help wondering that, if we are to keep driving, we need a planet to do it on.
I tend to approach environmental issues with a good dose of caution - by the time they get to us, politics has got hold of speculative scientific arguments - but I do have genuine concern for the environment. I recycle, I turn things off when I'm not using them, I walk or cycle instead of taking public transport (note - role of car differs from role of public transport), I support any movement against deforestation, I think Fair Trade is a good idea, I avoid battery-farmed eggs and so on.
However, what I won't do is be forced into doing inconveniencing things that won't make a blind bit of difference when it comes to caring for the planet, and driving largely falls into this category. I also think some environmentalists need to respect the fact that humans as a species have every right to be on this planet, and as such the necessary activities of the human race may not always be 'perfect' for the planet, in the same way that a herd of burrowing Prarie Marmots isn't good news for a field.
For example, I don't see why 4x4s (of the kind we get in Britain at least) are coming in for so much criticism (I'd understand it if everyone was importing Hummers and Dodge Rams but they're not) - our 4x4s are predominantly diesels, they meet all the same safety, crash protection and emissions legislation that the other cars do, but more to the point, they're practical. Seriously, if we all ran around in superminis, what would happen if we ever wanted to go off the beaten track/in the outside lane of a motorway/over a speed hump/to Comet to collect a new washing machine? We'd need to rope in someone else, with another, bigger or better-equipped car. The fact that people buy cars equipped for every outcome means that they don't have to get different type of car out and trouble someone else every time they want something doing, in the same way that a Swiss Army Knife is more practical than lugging a tool kit around.
I'd also run my car on any one of the alternative fuels it's possible to run a car on - if the government weren't so greedy as to not license them due to the healthy revenue they gain from the demonising of petrol. There would be far fewer wars if we got our fuel from something you could renewably grow in a field, like Sugar Cane Methanol, or Oilseed Rape Oil. I also support the use of wind and water farms (they need more development), nuclear power, and perhaps the development of solar-powered aeroplanes and maglev trains.
So I'd say I was 'realistically environmental'. I'm not a lentilist by any means, but I don't really agree with the devil-may-care opinions on this forum that appear sometimes.
What's the PH opinion on 'genuine' (as opposed to madly extreme-Left authoritarian) environmentalism?
I tend to approach environmental issues with a good dose of caution - by the time they get to us, politics has got hold of speculative scientific arguments - but I do have genuine concern for the environment. I recycle, I turn things off when I'm not using them, I walk or cycle instead of taking public transport (note - role of car differs from role of public transport), I support any movement against deforestation, I think Fair Trade is a good idea, I avoid battery-farmed eggs and so on.
However, what I won't do is be forced into doing inconveniencing things that won't make a blind bit of difference when it comes to caring for the planet, and driving largely falls into this category. I also think some environmentalists need to respect the fact that humans as a species have every right to be on this planet, and as such the necessary activities of the human race may not always be 'perfect' for the planet, in the same way that a herd of burrowing Prarie Marmots isn't good news for a field.
For example, I don't see why 4x4s (of the kind we get in Britain at least) are coming in for so much criticism (I'd understand it if everyone was importing Hummers and Dodge Rams but they're not) - our 4x4s are predominantly diesels, they meet all the same safety, crash protection and emissions legislation that the other cars do, but more to the point, they're practical. Seriously, if we all ran around in superminis, what would happen if we ever wanted to go off the beaten track/in the outside lane of a motorway/over a speed hump/to Comet to collect a new washing machine? We'd need to rope in someone else, with another, bigger or better-equipped car. The fact that people buy cars equipped for every outcome means that they don't have to get different type of car out and trouble someone else every time they want something doing, in the same way that a Swiss Army Knife is more practical than lugging a tool kit around.
I'd also run my car on any one of the alternative fuels it's possible to run a car on - if the government weren't so greedy as to not license them due to the healthy revenue they gain from the demonising of petrol. There would be far fewer wars if we got our fuel from something you could renewably grow in a field, like Sugar Cane Methanol, or Oilseed Rape Oil. I also support the use of wind and water farms (they need more development), nuclear power, and perhaps the development of solar-powered aeroplanes and maglev trains.
So I'd say I was 'realistically environmental'. I'm not a lentilist by any means, but I don't really agree with the devil-may-care opinions on this forum that appear sometimes.
What's the PH opinion on 'genuine' (as opposed to madly extreme-Left authoritarian) environmentalism?
v8thunder said:
What's the PH opinion on 'genuine' (as opposed to madly extreme-Left authoritarian) environmentalism?
Well - its clearly a good idea to take care of the environment in which you live!
It also makes economic sense to use less fuel for the same level of warmth, comfort, travel and so on.
It is insane to hunt species to extinction that could provide us with economic benefits in the future.
It also makes sense not to overpopulate our environment so that the quality of life of the citizens can be maintained. Less people living better.
However - we must balance all measure we take against their cost in economic terms. There are loads of things we can do to avoid polluting, use less energy and so on that actually cost less money - even in the short term! We should do all these things FIRST.
Then measures which actually cost money or reduce the quality of life of the citizens need to be carefully considered - their benefits had better outweigh their costs and be shown without (reasonable) doubt that they do - or not Government will survive their introduction...
I am extremely devil-may-care about the whole environmental thing. While I can see how it makes some sense, until the MAJOR polluters start doing something about it I will remain pretty indifferent about it.
While I accept that my viewpoint appears selfish, there's so much bollox talked about being environmentally friendly that it's hard to know the truth.
Hey, another forty years or so and I'm outta here to do my very own bit of biodegrading anyway
While I accept that my viewpoint appears selfish, there's so much bollox talked about being environmentally friendly that it's hard to know the truth.
Hey, another forty years or so and I'm outta here to do my very own bit of biodegrading anyway
selmer said:
Isn't the most environmentally 'friendly' thing you can do is to top yourself? I heard this from a science docu once. Not an option with me I'm afraid.
Well that's my point - the very fact that humans are on the planet and have evolved to build factories, drive cars and breathe is surely part, no matter how odd, of the planet's ecosystem. Seriously, if the human race topped itself overnight, having first demolished everything and returned it to land, it would probably do more damage to the ecosystem than it would if we carried on.
Also, people talk about synthetic and man-made compounds that are causing problems with the atmosphere and so on. Well if we're going back to fundamentals there is actually nothing completely man-made. Everything is a product of, or a modified product of the planet.
Having said that, if we are doing 'damage' I would try and limit it, but the environmentalist preoccupation with cars (whilst ignoring more pressing fields contributing greater to the problems) is certainly not a healthy step to be taking.
I've really wanted to pose these kinds of questions to this forum for a while, simply because I think we can't just sling mud at every environmental argument that comes our way, or we'll be guilty of both extremism and ignorance.
I drive an old car and run it on LPG
I dispose of hazardous stuff like old engine oil properly at the tip.
I watch the many TV shows about how we are in self destruct mode and that the selfish motorist must be penalised.
Lastly I think that it is a load of b
ollocks really cos nobody can categorically say what is going on with the environment.
Just a thought. Dinosaurs were cold blooded and could survive because they lived in a hot climate, yet their bones are found in parts of the world which are now concidered pretty chilly. So one can surmise that these places were once warm, but how!
There were no nasty motorists driving their 4x4 around squashing wildlife and small children while destroying the environment so WTF.
I dispose of hazardous stuff like old engine oil properly at the tip.
I watch the many TV shows about how we are in self destruct mode and that the selfish motorist must be penalised.
Lastly I think that it is a load of b
ollocks really cos nobody can categorically say what is going on with the environment. Just a thought. Dinosaurs were cold blooded and could survive because they lived in a hot climate, yet their bones are found in parts of the world which are now concidered pretty chilly. So one can surmise that these places were once warm, but how!
There were no nasty motorists driving their 4x4 around squashing wildlife and small children while destroying the environment so WTF.
Seems as we learn more about history, it's not global warming at all, but the return from a bit of a cold snap. It's just the planet returning to another of the many temperatures it supports life at.
We'll either adapt or die, but it's not going to be in our lifetimes or that of any of our living ancestors.
We'll either adapt or die, but it's not going to be in our lifetimes or that of any of our living ancestors.
richardthestag said:
I drive an old car and run it on LPG
I dispose of hazardous stuff like old engine oil properly at the tip.
I watch the many TV shows about how we are in self destruct mode and that the selfish motorist must be penalised.
Lastly I think that it is a load of b
Just a thought. Dinosaurs were cold blooded and could survive because they lived in a hot climate, yet their bones are found in parts of the world which are now concidered pretty chilly. So one can surmise that these places were once warm, but how!
There were no nasty motorists driving their 4x4 around squashing wildlife and small children while destroying the environment so WTF.
How well does a Stag run on LPG?
derestrictor said:
Perfectly acceptable.
After all, anyone who considers Uriah Heep's 'Magician's Birthday' to represent the musical interpretation of man's ethereal ascension to a state of grace can hardly deny the advance of Swampy & chums.
As long as they stay in Katmandhu.
What's 'Sweet Lorraine' got to do with climate change?
BliarOut said:
Seems as we learn more about history, it's not global warming at all, but the return from a bit of a cold snap. It's just the planet returning to another of the many temperatures it supports life at.
We'll either adapt or die, but it's not going to be in our lifetimes or that of any of our living ancestors.
When I were a lad we were woried about global cooling , totally true, this was in the early seventies and was linked with deforestation, I think it too was something to do with CO2 or 02 ? Anyway tempretures were dropping ! Till 1976 then we had a great couple of summers
Whilst I too try to recycle etc, I have read up a bit recently on Global Warming (turbobloke's posts got me thinking) and I have to say it's all a bit flimsy. But it's great tool for socialist minded goverments to get rid of personal transportation (cars) and have a go at otherthings they don't like
.yertis said:
How well does a Stag run on LPG?
I don't run the Stag on LPG, doesn't do enough miles to warrant the cost of conversion. I do know someone who has converted and it runs nicely though he reckons it is way down on power.
My 12 year old range rover guzzles the LPG and does it very nicely, in fact in runs better on LPG than it does on unleaded. Probably due to 150k mile old injectors in the engine
Mr E said:
Just a thought. Dinosaurs were cold blooded and could survive because they lived in a hot climate
No they weren't. Lizards are cold blooded. Dinosaurs weren't lizard. They were dinosaurs.
Think large leathery birds, and you're close.
Still open for debate, I always understood them to be cold blooded however there are a number of sites that I googled that cant decide either way, early dinosaurs evolved from reptiles and later ones evolved into birds which are warm blooded granted.
Yeah, I do my bit to help where I can. I recycle, I dont over-consume where I can (for example switching TV's off rather than putting them on standby) and other such simple stuff - I even drive an economical diesel car!
BUT, its all pretty meaningless given the current situation. I mean, BlairOut (I think made the comment) had a good comment - why the hell should we bother to do anything at all when the worlds greatest pollutors continue. In fact, the US continues to snub anything to do with environmental controls! I fail to see what one small island of 60M people (who are actually not that bad) can do to help the global situation... its a bit pointless.
In fact, digging deeper into the whole scenario is also a bit daft. I mean, the local recycling centre to me is a good 8 miles drive away! My recycling collection service wont take papers (one of the great successes of recent years) and even the local supermarket has lost its bottle / clothes bank thingies.....So in order to do my "bit" I have to further pollute the world by getting in my smelly diesel car.... then to clean it out by consuming electricity, for the hoover, and some form of highly polluting cleaner....
Its all a bit misguided in its current setup. Bit daft really....
BUT, its all pretty meaningless given the current situation. I mean, BlairOut (I think made the comment) had a good comment - why the hell should we bother to do anything at all when the worlds greatest pollutors continue. In fact, the US continues to snub anything to do with environmental controls! I fail to see what one small island of 60M people (who are actually not that bad) can do to help the global situation... its a bit pointless.
In fact, digging deeper into the whole scenario is also a bit daft. I mean, the local recycling centre to me is a good 8 miles drive away! My recycling collection service wont take papers (one of the great successes of recent years) and even the local supermarket has lost its bottle / clothes bank thingies.....So in order to do my "bit" I have to further pollute the world by getting in my smelly diesel car.... then to clean it out by consuming electricity, for the hoover, and some form of highly polluting cleaner....
Its all a bit misguided in its current setup. Bit daft really....
ALL environmentalism is a crock of Stalinist crap. I am sick of being lied to by idiots. Some recycling may be viable but most is more energy inefficient than land fill dumping which despite the dire warning from the greens can effectively go on forever, oh 
where forever means no problem for the next 10000 years.
I have no problem with people trying to tread lightly on the planet and I hate deforestation. It is very hard though to make any sense of the garbage that is being spewed by the evil green sandalist scum. As a general rule when they say "its generally accepted" they mean "this is really tenuoius at best and may be utter bollocks"
where forever means no problem for the next 10000 years. I have no problem with people trying to tread lightly on the planet and I hate deforestation. It is very hard though to make any sense of the garbage that is being spewed by the evil green sandalist scum. As a general rule when they say "its generally accepted" they mean "this is really tenuoius at best and may be utter bollocks"
I think we need to differentiate between 'actual' and 'political' environmentalism.
IMO the kind of environmentalism we should be paying attention to comes from unbiased scientists. They do their research, they produce their findings and they recommend a course of action that would be realistic.
Parties like the Greens and interest groups like Greenpeace are just that - 'Partisan' and 'interested'. They have an agenda and that agenda is control of your life and lifestyle. As a result, everything they say has been manipulated to fit in with their outlook and ethos. There's no point listening to people like that. It's like treating Nick Griffin as an immigration official, or Robert Killroy-Silk as an Islamic affairs spokesperson - just because they've got an interest and an opinion does not make them an expert.
IMO the kind of environmentalism we should be paying attention to comes from unbiased scientists. They do their research, they produce their findings and they recommend a course of action that would be realistic.
Parties like the Greens and interest groups like Greenpeace are just that - 'Partisan' and 'interested'. They have an agenda and that agenda is control of your life and lifestyle. As a result, everything they say has been manipulated to fit in with their outlook and ethos. There's no point listening to people like that. It's like treating Nick Griffin as an immigration official, or Robert Killroy-Silk as an Islamic affairs spokesperson - just because they've got an interest and an opinion does not make them an expert.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff