The big picture

[Philly Q]

Shocking amount of reference to me in this thread  :lol:

I'm going to come across as controversial here, but this is my take on the whole 'green' thing.

I have no interest in saving the world either now or for the future.  I'm here and hopefully will be for another 50-60 years, and in that time I'll enjoy everything how I want.  Guitars, electricity, cars, petrol etc.

I don't have kids, I don't want kids, and I'm not having kids.  I have no interest in making a nicer future for my bloodline, as there won't be one.  I'm not interested in the future of the earth and I'm just enjoying living right here, right now.

Incredibly selfish I know, but you get one shot at life and I'll be doing whatever I want with it.

You know what....

I TOTALLY agree with you... Well said mate!

Don't agree AT ALL.... but what the hell, I'm in no mood for arguing. 

[dave_mc]

i'm kinda half and half. i don't want to muck up the world or anything, but to really fix the environment we'd need to be doing a lot more than we're doing now, and these half-hearted environmental plans only really serve to make you feel like you're helping, by and large, while screwing over your life in the meantime. they're still polluting, just polluting a bit less... add to the fact that a lot of the supposed more environmental things don't work as well so you end up buying the original, non-green option later anyway and they're probably polluting more. :lol:

EDIT: i also completely disagree with things like green taxes etc. as they disproportionately hit the poor. if it's that bad, maybe it should be rationed. and i disagree with the kind of thinking that seems to suggest that if it's necessary (e.g. part of your job), that it's ok- e.g. businesspeople flying three times a week is ok, but you're evil if you want to fly for your annual holiday. Last time I checked the earth didn't differentiate between career-related and non-career related pollution...

EDIT: sorry for the rant.  :lol:

[Elliot]

Yeah - but those who donate to political parties do - so that's more important.

[Philly Q]

i also completely disagree with things like green taxes etc. as they disproportionately hit the poor. if it's that bad, maybe it should be rationed. and i disagree with the kind of thinking that seems to suggest that if it's necessary (e.g. part of your job), that it's ok- e.g. businesspeople flying three times a week is ok, but you're evil if you want to fly for your annual holiday. Last time I checked the earth didn't differentiate between career-related and non-career related pollution...

Yes.  I believe we should all do what we reasonably can to be environmentally friendly.... but I also believe that "green" taxes are primarily just another form of stealth tax which, as you say, hit the poor disproportionately.  All because, as usual, the government are afraid of taxing those who can most afford to pay - in this case (especially) large companies who do the most environmental damage.

It was bizarre how the term "carbon footprint" suddenly appeared in government-speak a couple of years ago, and before we even knew what it meant we were being beaten over the head and made to feel guilty about it, as if we were all personally responsible for destroying the rainforests and the ozone layer.

[dave_mc]

^ yeah, it's definitely amazing how everyone suddenly just changes (i'd use the terms zeitgeist and paradigm shift but i'm not a pretentious tw@t :lol: ) and then everyone jumps on the bandwagon. It's also really annoying how we don't seem to be allowed to keep two things in our heads at the same time- for a while it was fair trade and helping the poor, now it's saving the planet regardless of the poor, and actually bringing in policies which screw over the poor. Grrr. there's some kind of hierarchy... :lol:

Yeah - but those who donate to political parties do - so that's more important.

hehe

[MrBump]

I'm generally confused by the whole thing (as with much of life, unfortunately...)

To me, environmental problems are:

refuse/packaging etc
car/lorry fumes in built up areas
congestion on roads
use and depletion of fossil fuels (and the need for a decent alternative)
disproportional distribution of wealth and healthcare globally
over population

The bigger things, like global warming, I'm not so sure about.  I still haven't seen any convincing evidence that human behaviour is responsible for that.  It still seems more likely that warming and cooling is just a natural part of our planets lifecycle and humankind (being what it is) wants to diagnose this and categorise it.  

"Carbon footprint" makes no sense to me.

Mark.

[AndyR]

I have to admit, well, I don't, but I'm going to anyway :lol: ... I'm in the same camp as Twinfan and Afghan Dave.

"We" (the human race) are not going to do anything that substantially reduces the "environmental problem" unless"we" recognise what that problem really is... and take, er, "suitable" remedial action. But "we" can't do that in any "logical" or "fair" way because it would not make any sense, to a human, for a species to do it to itself deliberately.

However, circumstances will eventually sort it all out, and what remains, if anything, will start again. I'm hoping I won't be around to be one of the ones that has to start again - that'll be tough - but if I am there, I'm sure I'll rise to the occasion, most of us would.

A successful species in a fixed location will use up all of its resources. If does not adapt or relocate, it will die out. That's it - bottom line. tw@tting about over carbon footprints/whatever is not going to change this.

The big picture is that we all die, sooner, or later... :D

[38thBeatle]

I don't buy gear according to any real or supposed environmental impact-maybe I should but I don't really see we musicians as having much affect one way or the other. Besides, life can be drudgery and what the hell is wrong with lightening things up with a spot of guitar playing.

[Ratrod]

It's all about money.

So called environmentalists and climatologists that scream 'bloody murder' get more funding and keep their jobs.

Businesses say: "Buy new stuff because our new stuff is better for the environment."

Govts. use it as an excuse to get more tax money.

Remember the ozon layer? Turned out it was a natural phenomenon, influenced by the sun.

Remember acid rain? That was gone even before they found a sollution.

Remeber when they said there was only 50 years of oil left? That was somewhere in the sixties and we still haven't run out yet. 

Follow the money. Find out who finances certain reports. Find out who benefits.

It's so easy to manipulate research and steer it towards the outcome you want it to have.

[Philly Q]

Remember when they said there was only 50 years of oil left? That was somewhere in the sixties and we still haven't run out yet. 

I was born somewhere in the sixties, and I'm not 50 yet, so they could still be right....  :P

[JDC]

even if you think the green thing is a load of rubbish, it has increased investments in efficiency, ok so infrared solar panels, magnetic wind turbines are still in prototype stages but it's progress and by about 2025 all our energy saving light bulbs will get replaced with LED ones, and OAPs will still moan about them!

Dave I think you should have kids, they'll pay my state pension!

[dave_mc]

^ i never said environmentalism was a load of rubbish, i said a lot of the methods they're using are.

(a) Remember the ozon layer? Turned out it was a natural phenomenon, influenced by the sun.

(b) Remember acid rain? That was gone even before they found a sollution.

(c) Remeber when they said there was only 50 years of oil left? That was somewhere in the sixties and we still haven't run out yet.  

Follow the money. Find out who finances certain reports. Find out who benefits.

It's so easy to manipulate research and steer it towards the outcome you want it to have.

(a) wrong. uv light might be what catalyses it, but it's still CFCs and other free radical emitting compounds which are doing the damage- most of which are from human activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

(b) yeah, i think that's still a problem. :roll: or more accurately, what we did to fight it worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#History_of_acid_rain_in_the_United_States

(c) that's because we're finding more and more oil in more difficult to access places all the time, and coming up with better extraction techniques. and explain to me again how the oil companies, who stand to lose and gain the most of anyone, would benefit if oil ran out?

I'm sceptical of the green movement's methods too, but making stuff up is far, far worse.

[Will]

Referring to (c):

Surely the publicity of the 'limited supply' then that means the oil companies have better reason to extort (as if the tax on the stuff wasn't enough)

[Ratrod]

Wikipedia is the worst source of information for any sceptic.

The human influence is minimal.

[Philly Q]

Wikipedia is the worst source of information for any sceptic.

The human influence is minimal.

So what's the best source of information?