General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmericans Have Little Interest In Sacrificing To Save Planet.
I am seeing a lot more huge gas guzzling trucks on the road right now. In fact I see many whose size takes up 1 1/2 parking spaces and I see many who take a ladder to get into. And I see all ages of guys from 30 something to 60 plus somethings driving them and none of them are for construction. I even saw a huge truck with a handicapped sticker on it.
I believe we are destined to get cooked. And I see little real desire to do anything substantial about global warming. Of course it may already be too late.
Even as there is more than ample evidence that we have a huge problem it is business as usual. Looks like the deniers have win the battle.
I hope I am wrong.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)I would love to see them.
My wife & I have been serious about reducing out Carbon Footprint, producing more than we consume,
sustainable living, and energy efficiency for over 10 years.
We even moved to the Woods,
and started growing our own food,
keeping chickens,
and two Honey Bee Colonies.
Our Winter Heat comes from renewable resources that we cut and split ourselves (total heating cost last year about $3.00)
Something as small as this can be an Act of Revolution today.
JEB
(4,748 posts)"Live in hope, die in despair." Looks like the "eco-terrorists" had it right.
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)I have seen some really large pickup trucks lately. F350 and bigger as around town cars. I am sure they get more mileage these days. And the big wheeled monsters would just roll over a car and crush it like a tank in a rear ender.
Like a science fiction movie, when the real monster is revealed it is already too late.
JEB
(4,748 posts)A few folks actually need one for their work, but too often they get used for the grocery or Post Office run. We are currently over run with bus sized RV's, $300,000+ each hogging the road and the gasoline. Status and fashion seem to me to be the real drivers. There has to be a way to change people's perception of these wasteful vehicles. But like you say, probably too late already.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Forget the car you drive, stop having children or reduce to one per couple.
JEB
(4,748 posts)is the population boom, just like rats or Jack Rabbits, or lemmings will self correct via disease or starvation. Post that painful period, perhaps then the system will balance back.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Unfortunately we will eat everything major species and strain the oceans for every little creature while starving off.
It's going to be ugly but it's inevitable.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)I like to think I've helped a bit by not having kids. I don't drive much either and drive a small Mazda
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)I see people complaining about trucks but dragging along 2-3 kids and shake my head.
REP
(21,691 posts)But I drive a small car with a huge engine
My house is heated by hydrosolar (I forget the correct terminology) and I grow my own eggs
meow2u3
(24,764 posts)I've heard of eggplant, but this is ridiculous. An egg plant?
REP
(21,691 posts)My Mazda3 has the bigger 2.5L engine. Feels big to me
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)1) more people doing more
2) more people doing less
3) fewer people doing more
4) fewer people doing less
All but #4 involves more of something. The 4th option not being any kind of foundation for a society, it won't be something we want. #1 is the big picture option, and it's where we currently are. There are physically more people on the planet every year, and we all have expectations.
The biggest issue is that human beings are very good at getting around and breaking limits. The taxes that enable us to build the sprawling infrastructure of society in general is but one of the ways we do it. Everything we do basically revolves around that, and I don't think we want to give that up, let alone all the extra goodies like cars.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)I do work from my house so it stays local, and the big bed is usually filled in the back with mulch, gravel, or yard waste. It takes over 30 yards of mulch to keep the woods back.
I hope you're wrong too.
sailfla
(239 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)President Carter's solar panels were the last chance we had to save ourselves.
Auggie
(31,173 posts)the $64,000 question is: will I live long enough to see all hell break loose? Not that I want to, of course. I figure to have about 20-25 years left.
Meanwhile Mrs. Auggie and I will continue to reduce, reuse and recycle.
hunter
(38,317 posts)Hell is already breaking loose for humans in some places.
Other species have been living in hell for quite some time.
REP
(21,691 posts)Sure, efficient vehicles help - every bit helps - but the biggest contributors to environmental pollution is industry (and not just oil refining). Look at what just got dumped into the rivers.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Sure dumping crap into rivers and landfills is bad, but that isn't on the level of global peril that climate change represents.
REP
(21,691 posts)Factory farming contributes to climate change (clear cutting forests, methane) more than vehicles do. Willing to give up meat or buy only sustainably raised meat at a much higher price?
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The U.S. Rodale Institutes peer-reviewed study, Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change, is so hopeful and filled with common sense about the future that its a must-read for anyone needing some inspiration in these difficult times.
With regard to rising greenhouse gas emissions, their study states: We suggest an obvious and immediately available solution put the carbon back to work in the terrestrial carbon sinks that are literally right beneath our feet. Excess carbon in the atmosphere is surely toxic to life, but we are, after all, carbon-based life forms, and returning stable carbon to the soil can support ecological abundance. [1]
Through using organic farming practices that maximize soils carbon-fixing capacities, not only can climate change be reversed, but soil itself can be restored. The study states: Simply put, recent data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices.
Here's the source of the study:
Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change
http://rodaleinstitute.org/regenerative-organic-agriculture-and-climate-change/
and a direct link to the white paper:
http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/WhitePaper.pdf
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...I doubt it's overly concerned about a few degrees and a few feet. People, OTOH...now that's a different story. However, given that we survived the end of the Ice Age and the detonation of Toba, I'm not overly concerned about us as a species either.
Now, let's focus on some actual environmental WORK in places that need cleaned and helped. Zimbabwe is looking for returning farmers; who is going there?
handmade34
(22,756 posts)every time this is brought up for conversation on DU the vast majority feel a need to defend eating meat
it seems most here truly have little interest in sacrificing to save the environment for future generations
REP
(21,691 posts)Facility Inspector
(615 posts)to set everything back in balance.
Humans are a virus.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I want to pushback on the "it's too late" thing.
In many ways it is correct, but there is no one defined outcome that it's too late for, it's an interconnected series of events with many different tipping points. There are a lot of degrees of bad outcomes, and it's not too late to prevent some of them (so I think, anyway).
Change IS coming, too slowly for some things but it is coming. Renewable use is rising, new technologies are being developed, climate research is finally getting funded, farming techniques are changing (I posted upthread on this, some hopeful info there). Even at the corporate level, some of them are starting to shift.
Let's fight this with all we've got rather than throw up our hands. It is and will be demoralizing to see so many other people ignoring it and flaunting their carbon footprints, but that should not stop our efforts.
I think the single largest manmade source of greenhouse gas emissions is the U.S. military. I'm not sure how that compares to emissions from ag and livestock, they are all huge problems.
Also I see little discussion of globalization. We're shipping raw materials and finished products across the globe, multiple times in some cases, to exploit favorable extraction and labor conditions for corporate profit, before the goods are delivered to ports around the world where they are then trucked to consumers. Entirely unsustainable and unnecessary.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)As long as there is massive distrust of the corporate owned media, there is going to be a problem getting any good message across, because greedy schmucks will horn in and take advantage of the good message to exploit people and make a buck. Take for example the case of greedy developers who want to build luxury condos: they will convince everyone it's "green" just to change zoning laws and run away counting how much money they've made, leaving everyone who was displaced by their project trying to pick up the pieces.
The problem is that money not only talks, it talks much louder that it used to. Money not only owns material possessions, money owns everything and everyone. So when you utter your fact, people hear brands and messaging and hype and spin.
Sorry for being so cynical, just came from a day where I saw my bought out political representatives literal vote against facts. That's the world we live in now.
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)I don't get why they gun the engine and drive at 60 mph on surface streets to make it as fast as they can in those 200 feet to the next light. All it does is waste gas.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)we will see his change.
Centrists and republicans have no desire to put real controls on corporate profits.
Making some "sacrifice" easier, and other "sacrifice" mandatory, will lead to an overall change in the public consciousness.
I personally don't wish to be sacrificed to the god of childish greed and excess by a pack of materialistic fools who are too stupid and selfish to take necessary action to stop the destruction of the planet and possibly their own untimely deaths.
Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you cant eat money. ~ Alanis Obamsawin, Abenaki activist, 1972
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)What are you willing to sacrifice?
TheMastersNemesis
(10,602 posts)When we keep out trips short we get large mileage.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)What are you willing to give up for the greater good that you want to keep. A Prius that gets 91mpg isn't a sacrifice.
It's not an easy question to answer for anyone. I'm not saying I know the answer, or that I'm in any way pure on the matter. I'm typing this on a gadget that was probably made by some kid somewhere. Or at least by a robot that put someone out of work. Using energy that came from a process that most likely isn't good for the habitat of some living thing somewhere, human or non-human. Frankly I don't know if there is an answer to the question.
pitohui
(20,564 posts)assuming that only americans can do math and use logic is a tad racist
NOBODY is interested in sacrificing their entire life so that a billionaire can continue to fly around in a private jet
there is literally nothing a low income person can do that matters, we need to see evidence that the big players who burn up our whole lifetimes' worth of oil in a few hours are being executed or at least grounded
agreed, it won't happen, but there is nothing to gain from blaming the middle class/working class guy on the street
hunter
(38,317 posts)... no, no, I don't mean dropping them off on the melting ice to feed hungry polar bears, but I do think they ought to be taxed out of existence. Use the money to vastly upgrade the energy efficiency of existing housing while creating new permanent housing for the homeless, the unemployed, and the unemployable.
But you are exactly right, the poorer you are, the less you contribute to rising levels of greenhouse gases and other sorts of environmental degradation. Destroying the environment is hard work, the most effective tools for destroying the environment are very expensive. Poor people who don't own cars are not responsible for catastrophes like the Deepwater Horizons oil spill.
What we call "economic productivity" today is a direct measure of the damage we do to the natural environment and our own human spirit.
Somebody living in the slums of Mexico City or Cairo, not owning a car or an air conditioner, maybe not even a lamp to read by, eating mostly rice and beans, has a much smaller environmental impact than any affluent U.S. American.
People who promote birth control, who live simple lives and promote simple living, figuring out ways to make such living comfortable, healthy, and satisfying, are improving the world more than anyone buying and selling "stuff."
But anyone living an affluent modern lifestyle, this buying and selling of stuff, is still having a very negative impact upon the earth, even if they drive a Tesla and have solar panels on their roof.
Perhaps the "conscientious consumer" is not the total rat-bastard as one who drives an urban assault vehicle to the airport so he can fly off to Paris in his private jet on a whim, is not someone who makes his fortune ripping off taxpayers on useless military projects, looting pension funds, or pumping oil from unsafe deep ocean platforms, nevertheless this "enlightened" consumer is still part of the problem, not part of the solution.
I drive a salvage title car with a four cylinder engine and functional catalytic converter made in 1985 and I fill the twelve gallon tank maybe five times a year, whenever the fuel gauge is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/4. When my wife and I met we were Los Angeles commuters. With some planning, and a lot of good fortune, we've avoided the car commuter lifestyle for 25 years now.
I'm not innocent. As a crazy kid with enough money for his own car, sometimes making a hundred dollars a day when gasoline was sixty-six cents a gallon, I drove all over the Western U.S.A., often just for the hell of it. Gasoline was almost free. An hour or two of work sometimes bought enough fuel to drive to San Francisco from Southern California.
And I'm still a consumer. It's very difficult to escape that "lifestyle choice" in the U.S.A.. People living in their cars in a church parking lot, as I once did, homeless people by way of bad luck, trauma, or mental illness are not respected and are frequently abused. Ordinary labor is not respected; the people who pick our fruits and vegetables, cut up the factory farm meat, cook our fast food, wash the dishes, clean the bathrooms... all the people leaving only minimal footprints upon the earth.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Reagan started the movement for not apologizing for a damn thing, and never sacrificing for the good of anyone or anything.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Most of the replies in this thread totally proved your point.
There is little interest in sacrificing to save the planet and its wilds.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Vehicles that are soooo wide they take up one and a half parking spots? Seriously? MANY of them?
I drive a trash truck. It's called a "Front Loader", meaning it's like a giant forklift. It has forks that stick out in front, and those forks lift a trash dumpster over my cab, dumping it in the bed behind me. It's 36 feet from front axle to rear axle, making it over 40 feet total. Guess what? I can park it in a SINGLE parking space next to the 7/11 after I've dumped their bin, and go inside for the free soft drink they give me every day.
Are you of the opinion that only people with bone, muscle, and limb deficiencies are eligible for Handicapped Placards?
olddots
(10,237 posts)N.T.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)n/t
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)In fact, most all other countries are increasing their population more than America and at a frightening pace.
American don't have any kind of monopoly on selfish and damaging choices in life.
pampango
(24,692 posts)it comes to the environment and other issues. Perhaps that is partially because they have seen what "us vs them" - nationalism, fascism - taken to extreme, can do to "us".
Conservatives still play the "us vs them" card, there and here, rather than the "we're all in this together" card. It's an old, old "card" but it has worked throughout human history.
Agreed. Each country could act on its own to improve the environment but but people are reluctant to sacrifice particularly if they see others not doing it. Some form of global cooperation is necessary.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)We know they won't slow down in the kid popping department. India and China's populations are runaway trains. Then you've got fundy Americans. Population control will never happen.
sub.theory
(652 posts)It is a sad fact of human psychology that most people are not willing to sacrifice for someone they don't know - like all the generations yet to come. We are fighting against human nature and that is going to be a hell of a fight to win. People all over the world want a car, because it's part of The Dream. People all over the world want to jet around the globe because it's The Dream. People want dirt cheap energy. And they aren't going to just give that up for some people who they not only haven't met, but may never meet.