Printable View
I think you get to stay because you challenge the some of the ideals many of us have and offer a chance to think about things. If we all thought the same thing it would be a boring place where we are all just singing to the choir. Plus, I think you pay your dues:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
While the book, YMOYL, is an important discussion resource, it would be unfortunate if one felt that one book would limit the approaches in how to view Simple Living.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
As I have mentioned before, IMHO, SL varies with stages of life, geographic area, choice/understanding of options, affordability, etc.
If you live in the colder part of the world, you use more energy to keep warm but less to keep cool; desert living is not as conducive to organic gardening but arguably generates greater independence in solar power, etc.
Thoughts that have been rattling around in my head...nothing too cohesive but basically:
Oil usage is a major contributor to climate change, we get a majority of our oil from volatile places such as Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuala, Russia (?), what if we stopped sending our money to these places for oil and spent it on alternative energy sources? Setting up a great public transportation system?
Remove the money, thus removing the resources available to terrorists such as Bin Laden. Reduce the need for such huge military expenditures. Put those who may have gone into the military to work on building the public transportation infrastructure, etc.
It seems that whichever side one falls on the climate change debate, it could be a win/win for both sides to get away from using oil. Like I said, not a super cohesive thought yet. We could debate the nuances and sources of info regarding the climate change debate but forget look at it from other perspectives. A third solution may be the answer.
Yeah, I think that developing a robust and diversified energy policy that deemphasizes coal, oil, and natural gas would be of obvious benefit to all of us. Germany is up to 25% renewables now, and moving toward 40%--though they're struggling to get industry to pay their share.
I think those would be great spending priorities. But factually the majority (over 50%) of U.S. oil is predicted to soon be produced in the U.S.. Now this doesn't mean the U.S. doesn't still need to import oil to meet it's "needs". It does, just that's not where over 50% will come from. This will be produced by shale and the like (yes it's dirty)Quote:
Oil usage is a major contributor to climate change, we get a majority of our oil from volatile places such as Middle East, Nigeria, Venezuala, Russia (?), what if we stopped sending our money to these places for oil and spent it on alternative energy sources? Setting up a great public transportation system?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...me-in-20-years
if they wanted to. Who is they? The "50% that thinks climate change is a liberal conspiracy"? Well shrug, they might want to defund Bin Laden (as might the liberal conspiracy :) ). But I mean if the U.S. government wanted to, since it hasn't been above funding Al Queda when it suits them (pretty much the situation in Syria, money is flowing to Al Queda and has long been). :\Quote:
Remove the money, thus removing the resources available to terrorists such as Bin Laden.
I think a "lean" military (things like drones) is an attempt to reduce some need for the miliary (without reducing foreign intervention) but the military still churns through massive amount of money.Quote:
Reduce the need for such huge military expenditures. Put those who may have gone into the military to work on building the public transportation infrastructure, etc.
Sides perhaps, it would be good public policy. Interests though? (don't we need to get money out of politics to even really talk about sides?) I don't know about interests. The fossil fuel industry wouldn't like it :~)Quote:
It seems that whichever side one falls on the climate change debate, it could be a win/win for both sides to get away from using oil.
Maybe by the time the Recalcitrant Deniers come round, we will likely all be thinking "what now?" because it will be a new world.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I accept that I may be arrogant myself, espousing holier-than-thou attitudes and for that I'm sorry. But I get frustrated by the fact that change is slow. It took us hundreds of years to get to where we are--at least from the time of the Protestant Reformation when "work ethic" became the be-all and end-all.
So it will probably take a few hundred years to reverse some of the unintended consequences of our cultural inheritance of work-grow-achieve-exploit. And I admit to being a product of this culture and I definitely have bought into some of the values. While I haven't given up my car (a Prius, which assuages my conscience), I also haven't given up my fat paycheck from pharmaceutical companies. I'd make a lousy farmer, despite my passion for permaculture, so I feel stuck doing what I do best, although in doing so I feed the Big Pharma machine. Yesterday I read One Straw Revolution and that fueled my frustration with myself and my culture. Railing on people? No, really railing on the entire system and simply wishing we could put on the brakes right now, but we can't.
So, I do feel in my heart that we are going to wear out our welcome with Mother Nature, and it will be interesting to see what happens next.
And, despite my pious attitudes, IL (I assume you were reacting to my post) I love you and Alan, and welcome your difference of opinion.
As for climate-deniers, as always, it's best to ask "Cui bono?"
http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/rel...limate-Change/
Follow the money.
It's ludicrous to suggest that the 99% of scientists who agree on man-made climate change are simply doing it a) for the money and/or b) some grand conspiracy to let the underdeveloped countries economically harm and then surpass the developed countries.
I've never been convinced that when you look at the total life cycle cost of a Prius, including the battery production and disposal, that it really accomplishes much if you want to be green, especially in the case of someone who doesn't drive very many miles a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I went through this a couple of years ago when I bought our most recent vehicle, and ended up getting a stripped base model Mini Cooper instead. (Which would have been an even better decision at the time if the USA allowed imports of the diesel versions.)
Still, technology marches on.
Yeah, I heard about that this year--how the battery production mitigates some of the benefits of the hybrid technology from an environmental perspective. Oh well. I bought the car 7 years ago, and will drive it until it falls apart, and by that time, we'll see what's on deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I didn't read the report, but if it came from the White House can it really be trusted?
I'm going to continue to burn fuel as long as its available. I'm all for the rest of you to conserve, it make's it cheaper for me. And I don't plan on wasting any. But I'm not going to worry till I start seeing our leaders stop jet setting all over the world, especially on vacation's.
The climate has changed in the past, and it will change in the future. We will adapt or die. Some may die anyway, but I'm more worried about the amount of people in the world. Maybe we need to thin the herd.