haha not at all, there a a lot of the pious on this board (thought not nearly as many as in days of yore.)Originally Posted by catherine
haha not at all, there a a lot of the pious on this board (thought not nearly as many as in days of yore.)
but I don't think one fights those things to be pious. If one fights the world to do something about climate change (such as one sees opportunities). Then yes there might be some moral gratification there, but it also seems just as a fight for a decent survival for oneself and ones descedents if one has them. It's like if one was worried about nuclear war and therefore fought for nuclear disarmment. Is it pious? Well maybe it is, again there may be some moral satisfaction there (but perhaps the alternative to ever engaging in such is nihilism?), but one doesn't necessarily do it just to be "in with the in crowd" (I'm sorry if one only does it for that reason that's completely pathetic), one does it because they don't want a @#$#ing nuclear war and sees such as a real threat. It's really not about other people's thinking either, if someone believes little green men visit them every night well what's it to me really (maybe they doMaybe by the time the Recalcitrant Deniers come round, we will likely all be thinking "what now?" because it will be a new world.
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.) , but if someone with the power to push the button had beliefs that humanity would easily survive nuclear war I'd get pretty rationally scared. So whether people believe AGW is a certainty or not, meh, it seems enough of a reasonable threat to take serious precautions, if I was a betting woman .... It's actions that matter.
Yea I feel that too. Ok I drive a bit too much for work now, I don't feel great about it, I doubt it's permanent, and I know me driving or not driving to work will have a whit of any effect at all on the *global* (oh yes global, although the U.S. govt is a power player and have completely dropped the ball) climate (and I drive a small car even). But it can make one morally sick to even be any part of the system. It hurts the heart you know. It's painful. For most things I would say I don't even BELIEVE in guilt (as a philosophy I would say I don't even believe in guilt) but the destruction of the world ... I curse myself for not being involved enough politically either.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.
Yes, I'm not sure we "can't" (other than natural feedback loops) but there are strong forces are against that yea.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.
Trees don't grow on money
Well, the National Climate Assessment isn't a White House product: http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac
I believe Ronald Reagan kicked off the effort.
The thread title is , White House report on climate change, thus my question.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...eport/8804761/
Report includes multi-million dollar projects to, among other things, prevent airport flooding - something you'd be interested in, dmc.
We have had floods before, we will have them again. We should look at new projects being on higher ground.
I am with bae on this one. I have always questioned if Pirus was good for the environment because of issues with the batteries. This comes from a liberal green person.
A very compassionate and open minded post.
That's all I ask, some thoughtful analysis of all of the "save the earth" solutions. There is too much herd mentality in the greenie movement, it strikes me. But in many issues there is no one right answer.
When I analyze which is more earth friendly, faux Christmas trees or real ones, there are cases for both. If that controversy has been settled, tell me. I imagine it was to do with how long one keeps the faux tree.
In my case, I harvest real trees off my own land, trees that will have to be culled anyways for forest health. I walk out with a saw, and 5 minutes later I have a Christmas tree. Once Christmas is over, I usually use the tree for a pole for expedient construction, or it becomes part of the firewood pile. I have to think that's better than a fake tree.
Pretty much zero impact, since if I didn't harvest it, it'd burn down or decay anyways on its own. Net carbon change: zero.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote