Forums > Social Discussion > Vegetarianism for climate change?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Lord Stern has been quoted as saying we all need to go vegetarian to save the planet
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece
some interesting points raised, as well as the fact that on the radio they were saying the average family dog produces the same carbon footprint as a small car - 0.8 metric tonnes per year due to the high meat and cereal diet dogs have.
Is this really a viable option? meat (essentially fish) is the main reason we have such highly developed brains, should we stop to save the planet or are there much better ways to go?
Lord Stern has been quoted as saying we all need to go vegetarian to save the planet
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6891362.ece
some interesting points raised, as well as the fact that on the radio they were saying the average family dog produces the same carbon footprint as a small car - 0.8 metric tonnes per year due to the high meat and cereal diet dogs have.
Is this really a viable option? meat (essentially fish) is the main reason we have such highly developed brains, should we stop to save the planet or are there much better ways to go?
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonJust because someone has a different theory about how to help the environment doesn't mean that they're not concerned for the environment or an environmentalist. Especially with the varied countries that we live in, not all environments work in the same way and many people don't realise what is glaringly obvious for their own country/region/culture could actually be drastic for another and visa versa.
Rouge, I think because it’s a global problem it has to be tackled as such, by both the governments and people of all countries together.
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonDo the right thing because you believe that it's the RIGHT thing to do. Not because social pressures are forcing you to subscribe to the latest environmental religion.
So Rouge, is that how you see global warming, as the latest environmental religion?
Doesn’t it concern you that among the other effects of global warming, that the Kashmir and the Tibetan glaciers are rapidly melting?
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonJust because someone has a different theory about how to help the environment doesn't mean that they're not concerned for the environment or an environmentalist. Especially with the varied countries that we live in, not all environments work in the same way and many people don't realise what is glaringly obvious for their own country/region/culture could actually be drastic for another and visa versa.
Rouge, I think because it’s a global problem it has to be tackled as such, by both the governments and people of all countries together.
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonDo the right thing because you believe that it's the RIGHT thing to do. Not because social pressures are forcing you to subscribe to the latest environmental religion.
So Rouge, is that how you see global warming, as the latest environmental religion?
Doesn’t it concern you that among the other effects of global warming, that the Kashmir and the Tibetan glaciers are rapidly melting?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
The reason why I used the word "belief" is because of what I mentioned earlier about physical location, culture etc having an affect on what is actually "right." What is going to help or hinder the environment in one location may not help it in another. I say this because Australia's environment confused the hell out of the Europeans when they first arrive. Our trees and water catchments don't work the same as they'd assumed that they would.
In regards to the swine flu vaccine, because it's a personal decision to make then it's definitely up to your belief and your own gut as to whether you did enough research or not. If you feel strongly enough that it's bad, then I don't see what's wrong with trying to speak your opinion because you BELIEVE that you're doing the right thing.
In all honesty, I think that the Pope is a very bad influence on many things and he (well, the Vatican) should be silenced. But I know that people believe otherwise and they have a right to it.
Taking responsibility for your own actions includes ones that you made in accordance to your beliefs. I don't believe in the Catholic god but if I've botched it up and I arrive at the Pearly Gates then I only have myself to blame for buggering it up.
The reason why I used the word "belief" is because of what I mentioned earlier about physical location, culture etc having an affect on what is actually "right." What is going to help or hinder the environment in one location may not help it in another. I say this because Australia's environment confused the hell out of the Europeans when they first arrive. Our trees and water catchments don't work the same as they'd assumed that they would.
In regards to the swine flu vaccine, because it's a personal decision to make then it's definitely up to your belief and your own gut as to whether you did enough research or not. If you feel strongly enough that it's bad, then I don't see what's wrong with trying to speak your opinion because you BELIEVE that you're doing the right thing.
In all honesty, I think that the Pope is a very bad influence on many things and he (well, the Vatican) should be silenced. But I know that people believe otherwise and they have a right to it.
Taking responsibility for your own actions includes ones that you made in accordance to your beliefs. I don't believe in the Catholic god but if I've botched it up and I arrive at the Pearly Gates then I only have myself to blame for buggering it up.
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
I really don’t understand why people do not get the impact of global warming or why they aren’t concerned about what’s happening to poor old mother earth, or why people react in such "hostile" ways when they are challenged by climate change? So I looked it up, and found this Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychology and Global Climate Change. The following are extracts from the Executive Summary.
Section 1: How do people understand the risks imposed by climate change?
Long-term climate is a phenomenon not easily detected by personal experience, yet one that invites personal observation and evaluation. Concern about adverse consequences of climate change (e.g., extreme weather events like droughts or floods) is low on average in places such as the United States, in part because small probability events tend to be underestimated in decisions based on personal experience, unless they have recently occurred, in which case they are vastly overestimated.
Many think of climate change risks (and thus of the benefits of mitigating them) as both considerably uncertain and as being mostly in the future and geographically distant, all factors that lead people to discount them. The costs of mitigation, on the other hand, will be incurred with certainty in the present or near future. Emotional reactions to climate change are likely to influence perceptions of risk. Yet, emotional reactions to climate change risks are likely to be conflicted and muted because climate change can be seen as a natural process, and global environmental systems perceived as beyond the control of individuals, communities,and, quite possibly, science and technology. There is, however, significant variability in people’s reactions to climate risks, much of which is mediated by cultural values and beliefs.
Section 5: Which psychological barriers limit climate change action?
Many psychological and social structural barriers stand in the way of behavioral changes that would help limit climate change. Many people are taking action in response to the risks of climate change, but many others are unaware of the problem, unsure of the facts or what to do, do not trust experts or believe their conclusions, think the problem is elsewhere, are fixed in their ways, believe that others should act, or believe that their actions will make no difference or are unimportant compared to those of others. They may be engaged in token actions or actions they believe are helpful but objectively are not. They have other worthy goals and aspirations that draw their time, effort, and resources, or they believe that solutions outside of human control will address the problem. Some or all of the structural barriers must be removed but this is not likely to be sufficient. Psychologists and other social scientists need to work on psychological barriers.
I hope that helps people, who like me, just just cannot understand why climate change sceptics are so in denial. For more information I suggest reading the full report.
I really don’t understand why people do not get the impact of global warming or why they aren’t concerned about what’s happening to poor old mother earth, or why people react in such "hostile" ways when they are challenged by climate change? So I looked it up, and found this Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychology and Global Climate Change. The following are extracts from the Executive Summary.
Section 1: How do people understand the risks imposed by climate change?
Long-term climate is a phenomenon not easily detected by personal experience, yet one that invites personal observation and evaluation. Concern about adverse consequences of climate change (e.g., extreme weather events like droughts or floods) is low on average in places such as the United States, in part because small probability events tend to be underestimated in decisions based on personal experience, unless they have recently occurred, in which case they are vastly overestimated.
Many think of climate change risks (and thus of the benefits of mitigating them) as both considerably uncertain and as being mostly in the future and geographically distant, all factors that lead people to discount them. The costs of mitigation, on the other hand, will be incurred with certainty in the present or near future. Emotional reactions to climate change are likely to influence perceptions of risk. Yet, emotional reactions to climate change risks are likely to be conflicted and muted because climate change can be seen as a natural process, and global environmental systems perceived as beyond the control of individuals, communities,and, quite possibly, science and technology. There is, however, significant variability in people’s reactions to climate risks, much of which is mediated by cultural values and beliefs.
Section 5: Which psychological barriers limit climate change action?
Many psychological and social structural barriers stand in the way of behavioral changes that would help limit climate change. Many people are taking action in response to the risks of climate change, but many others are unaware of the problem, unsure of the facts or what to do, do not trust experts or believe their conclusions, think the problem is elsewhere, are fixed in their ways, believe that others should act, or believe that their actions will make no difference or are unimportant compared to those of others. They may be engaged in token actions or actions they believe are helpful but objectively are not. They have other worthy goals and aspirations that draw their time, effort, and resources, or they believe that solutions outside of human control will address the problem. Some or all of the structural barriers must be removed but this is not likely to be sufficient. Psychologists and other social scientists need to work on psychological barriers.
I hope that helps people, who like me, just just cannot understand why climate change sceptics are so in denial. For more information I suggest reading the full report.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Rouge Dragon Taking responsibility for your own actions includes ones that you made in accordance to your beliefs. I don't believe in the Catholic god but if I've botched it up and I arrive at the Pearly Gates then I only have myself to blame for buggering it up.
Good point, but what about externality?
“A negative externality is an action of a product on consumers that imposes a negative side effect on a third party; (aka- Social Cost). Many negative externalities (also called "external costs" or "external diseconomies") are related to the environmental consequences of production and use.
Anthropogenic climate change is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions from burning oil, gas, and coal. Global warming has been ranked as the #1 externality of all economic activity, in the magnitude of potential harms and yet remains unmitigated.
When car owners use roads, they impose congestion costs on all other users.”
Originally Posted By: Rouge Dragon Taking responsibility for your own actions includes ones that you made in accordance to your beliefs. I don't believe in the Catholic god but if I've botched it up and I arrive at the Pearly Gates then I only have myself to blame for buggering it up.
Good point, but what about externality?
“A negative externality is an action of a product on consumers that imposes a negative side effect on a third party; (aka- Social Cost). Many negative externalities (also called "external costs" or "external diseconomies") are related to the environmental consequences of production and use.
Anthropogenic climate change is attributed to greenhouse gas emissions from burning oil, gas, and coal. Global warming has been ranked as the #1 externality of all economic activity, in the magnitude of potential harms and yet remains unmitigated.
When car owners use roads, they impose congestion costs on all other users.”
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
But you ultimately can't change what a third party does. Only what you do. You can only be responsible for what you have control over.
But you ultimately can't change what a third party does. Only what you do. You can only be responsible for what you have control over.
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Hamamelis:
now that's what I call "evidence" 
Rouge: can't agree more
Stone and Stout: preachertell...
inform us on YOUR current individual actions to tackle the problem of global warming or other environmental issues as such...
Stone: ever heard of the inkblot test? quite accepted for some time.
Stout: when you got vaccinated?
Hamamelis:
now that's what I call "evidence" Rouge: can't agree more
Stone and Stout: preachertell...
inform us on YOUR current individual actions to tackle the problem of global warming or other environmental issues as such...Stone: ever heard of the inkblot test? quite accepted for some time.
Stout: when you got vaccinated?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonBut you ultimately can't change what a third party does. Only what you do. You can only be responsible for what you have control over.
Sure you can.
You could, for instance, advocate for the building of a commuter rail system in order to reduce the use of the private automobile. That would reduce congestion as well as reducing reliance on the personal automobile. When I lived in Vancouver i took transit rather than drive to work, it was faster, easier and cheaper than driving.
In the same vein, you could also support HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to encourage carpooling.
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonBut you ultimately can't change what a third party does. Only what you do. You can only be responsible for what you have control over.
Sure you can.
You could, for instance, advocate for the building of a commuter rail system in order to reduce the use of the private automobile. That would reduce congestion as well as reducing reliance on the personal automobile. When I lived in Vancouver i took transit rather than drive to work, it was faster, easier and cheaper than driving.
In the same vein, you could also support HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to encourage carpooling.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Stout: preachertell... inform us on YOUR current individual actions to tackle the problem of global warming or other environmental issues as such...
I did, a couple of years ago but the thread is buried on page 136
Quote:Stout: when you got vaccinated?
I didn't but I had my kid shot up with the stuff. He's under 5 and therefore considered in a high risk category. It's not something I wanted to do just for the heck of it.
Originally Posted By: FireTom
inform us on YOUR current individual actions to tackle the problem of global warming or other environmental issues as such...I did, a couple of years ago but the thread is buried on page 136
Quote:Stout: when you got vaccinated?
I didn't but I had my kid shot up with the stuff. He's under 5 and therefore considered in a high risk category. It's not something I wanted to do just for the heck of it.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
you ultimately can only forcibly change what a third party does... preaching (unfortunately) is not going to do the trick either...
If you wanna make the world a better place you gotta get up and BE that change...
Originally Posted By: StoutMany people were wiling to label the vaccine as a hazard due to the mercury content in it yet they were unwilling to give up eating fish to avoid getting a way higher dose of a more lethal form of mercury. ( methylmercury vs ethylmercury) Or get all worked up about "good" squalene" vs "bad" squalene all based on one article written by one quack whose trying to sell books and supplements ( Mercola ) oh yea, and then there's Blaylock.
So..what do you do ? Believe the vaccine is evil and advocate against people getting immunized in the face of what looked like it might have been a pandemic ? Sit on your hands and just keep quiet and avoid the vaccine yourself? Or..debunk and expose misinformation for what it is ?
Originally Posted By: Tomwhen you got vaccinated? Originally Posted By: StoutI didn't but I had my kid shot up with the stuff. He's under 5 and therefore considered in a high risk category. It's not something I wanted to do just for the heck of it.
nuff said, no?...
you ultimately can only forcibly change what a third party does... preaching (unfortunately) is not going to do the trick either...If you wanna make the world a better place you gotta get up and BE that change...
Originally Posted By: StoutMany people were wiling to label the vaccine as a hazard due to the mercury content in it yet they were unwilling to give up eating fish to avoid getting a way higher dose of a more lethal form of mercury. ( methylmercury vs ethylmercury) Or get all worked up about "good" squalene" vs "bad" squalene all based on one article written by one quack whose trying to sell books and supplements ( Mercola ) oh yea, and then there's Blaylock.
So..what do you do ? Believe the vaccine is evil and advocate against people getting immunized in the face of what looked like it might have been a pandemic ? Sit on your hands and just keep quiet and avoid the vaccine yourself? Or..debunk and expose misinformation for what it is ?
Originally Posted By: Tomwhen you got vaccinated? Originally Posted By: StoutI didn't but I had my kid shot up with the stuff. He's under 5 and therefore considered in a high risk category. It's not something I wanted to do just for the heck of it.
nuff said, no?...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Nope, the shot wasn't available for the likes of me and by the time it was, the word was out that this "pandemic" was rather overblown. I'm basically healthy and if I do come down with the flu, I have the time to ride it out and go all man flu
Nope, the shot wasn't available for the likes of me and by the time it was, the word was out that this "pandemic" was rather overblown. I'm basically healthy and if I do come down with the flu, I have the time to ride it out and go all man flu
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
listen to yourself, Stout...
btw that "generation debate" works the same way... by the time you're mature enough to figure out the questions and who to address, compassion and corruption already kicked in kind-a comes with the entire "grandparents give chocolate to grandchildren" package
and before you start, Stone: your vegetarianism (assuming that's your diet) I would rather base on your religious faith than on environmentalism, so better come up with something else
listen to yourself, Stout...
btw that "generation debate" works the same way... by the time you're mature enough to figure out the questions and who to address, compassion and corruption already kicked in
kind-a comes with the entire "grandparents give chocolate to grandchildren" package and before you start, Stone: your vegetarianism (assuming that's your diet) I would rather base on your religious faith than on environmentalism, so better come up with something else
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonBut you ultimately can't change what a third party does. Only what you do. You can only be responsible for what you have control over.
Rouge, that was not what I was getting at by externality. Externality happens when someone takes an action but someone else, without agreeing, pays some or all of the costs of that action. Like say industrial pollution.
But to answer your question, there are ways to change how people act. For example, by raising fuel prices, carbon tax, water restrictions etc. But you are right, those actions doesn’t instigate change. Before you get change you need acceptance. The best example of this is found in the change cycle ie. Denial - Anger –Bargaining – Depression –Acceptance –Change. For a more stylized version, see the change cycle
Originally Posted By: Fire TomStone and Stout: preachertell... inform us on YOUR current individual actions to tackle the problem of global warming or other environmental issues as such
Tom, I think this discussion went off the rails where you personalised it by asking people to clear up misconceptions on whether you cared for the environment or not. It was a mistake to answer that question because you obvious didn’t get the answer you expected. So, I think it is much better to keep the discussion open, and not come down to personal competitions. Nevertheless, I’ve been involved in a number of projects including the Biolink project. Vegetarianism could be taken form a number of areas on the Noble Eightfold Path like “right view, right action, right effort, right mindfulness", as well as the First Precept to abstain from taking life. But they are not rules as such, it's about living a skilled, rather than an un-skilled life.
Tom, now let me ask you a question. Have you ever considered the possibility, even once in your entire life, that you might be wrong?
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonBut you ultimately can't change what a third party does. Only what you do. You can only be responsible for what you have control over.
Rouge, that was not what I was getting at by externality. Externality happens when someone takes an action but someone else, without agreeing, pays some or all of the costs of that action. Like say industrial pollution.
But to answer your question, there are ways to change how people act. For example, by raising fuel prices, carbon tax, water restrictions etc. But you are right, those actions doesn’t instigate change. Before you get change you need acceptance. The best example of this is found in the change cycle ie. Denial - Anger –Bargaining – Depression –Acceptance –Change. For a more stylized version, see the change cycle
Originally Posted By: Fire TomStone and Stout: preachertell...
inform us on YOUR current individual actions to tackle the problem of global warming or other environmental issues as such Tom, I think this discussion went off the rails where you personalised it by asking people to clear up misconceptions on whether you cared for the environment or not. It was a mistake to answer that question because you obvious didn’t get the answer you expected. So, I think it is much better to keep the discussion open, and not come down to personal competitions. Nevertheless, I’ve been involved in a number of projects including the Biolink project. Vegetarianism could be taken form a number of areas on the Noble Eightfold Path like “right view, right action, right effort, right mindfulness", as well as the First Precept to abstain from taking life. But they are not rules as such, it's about living a skilled, rather than an un-skilled life.
Tom, now let me ask you a question. Have you ever considered the possibility, even once in your entire life, that you might be wrong?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
You can encourage people, you can support people but ultimately you cannot change them. Even increasing petrol prices to financially cripple people who want to use petrol still leaves the final decision with those people. Changing the law still gives people the option to follow the law or not.
I do quite a bit of advocacy for bike riding as an alternative to cars but I can't force people to ride bikes (as was shown on this very forum when I was trying to be pro-bikes!) and therefore I simply refuse to take responsibility for the people who don't use my offered alternative. Sure, I can be disappointed and even disgusted but I can't be responsible. Some even have very fair reasons as to why they don't ride and I respect them for their decision.
But it's ok, I got bad marks once on an assignment in English once for this very argument. My teacher also disagreed with me that it's ultimately about individual choice and not third party choice.
And as for the actions having an effect on a third party. It's still something that you and only you can wear on your conscience. Again, it is something that is regrettable, but if you were to shoulder the responsibility for other people's actions then you will live a very sad life indeed! And not be able to chance very much at all because you can't change the actions of other people. For example, living in Vanuatu and hearing all the stories about how a few generations ago my country stole Ni-Vans for slavery - I could have felt guilty for their actions as inherited guilt. But I didn't. And my black family didn't expect me to feel guilt for them either.
I choose to not feel someone else's guilt. Inherited guilt? How very Catholic
You can encourage people, you can support people but ultimately you cannot change them. Even increasing petrol prices to financially cripple people who want to use petrol still leaves the final decision with those people. Changing the law still gives people the option to follow the law or not.
I do quite a bit of advocacy for bike riding as an alternative to cars but I can't force people to ride bikes (as was shown on this very forum when I was trying to be pro-bikes!) and therefore I simply refuse to take responsibility for the people who don't use my offered alternative. Sure, I can be disappointed and even disgusted but I can't be responsible. Some even have very fair reasons as to why they don't ride and I respect them for their decision.
But it's ok, I got bad marks once on an assignment in English once for this very argument. My teacher also disagreed with me that it's ultimately about individual choice and not third party choice.
And as for the actions having an effect on a third party. It's still something that you and only you can wear on your conscience. Again, it is something that is regrettable, but if you were to shoulder the responsibility for other people's actions then you will live a very sad life indeed! And not be able to chance very much at all because you can't change the actions of other people. For example, living in Vanuatu and hearing all the stories about how a few generations ago my country stole Ni-Vans for slavery - I could have felt guilty for their actions as inherited guilt. But I didn't. And my black family didn't expect me to feel guilt for them either.
I choose to not feel someone else's guilt. Inherited guilt? How very Catholic
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonYou can encourage people, you can support people but ultimately you cannot change them
Yes, this is true. You can get 'em to fake it though. Sez me, who just bought a ticket to Asia today...woot!! six weeks of burning fossil fuels on dive boats and harassing local wildlife. Mmmmmm manta rays and Whale Sharks, and my favorite little fish, those clown fish like Nemo.
I tried the advocacy for bike riding thing but found it damn near impossible to get anything going. One thing I did get though was a "clause" issued by the Minister of the Environment re dress codes that stated that anyone who took "alternative" transportation to work got to wear pretty much anything they liked in the office. At least I got to ditch the suit and tie. That was only limited to government employees though.
Interestingly, I used a program that paralleled the one the Gun Owners of America are complaining about that already existed in the corporate world where employees are awarded "points' based on healthy living. Things like proving a gym membership, taking alternative transport, volunteering, all earned points that were exchangeable for consumer goods.
Quote:I choose to not feel someone else's guilt. Inherited guilt? How very Catholic
And how very politically correct.
The sharing of guilt thing, I mean.
Originally Posted By: Rouge DragonYou can encourage people, you can support people but ultimately you cannot change them
Yes, this is true. You can get 'em to fake it though. Sez me, who just bought a ticket to Asia today...woot!! six weeks of burning fossil fuels on dive boats and harassing local wildlife. Mmmmmm manta rays and Whale Sharks, and my favorite little fish, those clown fish like Nemo.
I tried the advocacy for bike riding thing but found it damn near impossible to get anything going. One thing I did get though was a "clause" issued by the Minister of the Environment re dress codes that stated that anyone who took "alternative" transportation to work got to wear pretty much anything they liked in the office. At least I got to ditch the suit and tie. That was only limited to government employees though.
Interestingly, I used a program that paralleled the one the Gun Owners of America are complaining about that already existed in the corporate world where employees are awarded "points' based on healthy living. Things like proving a gym membership, taking alternative transport, volunteering, all earned points that were exchangeable for consumer goods.
Quote:I choose to not feel someone else's guilt. Inherited guilt? How very Catholic
And how very politically correct.
The sharing of guilt thing, I mean.
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Stout When I lived in Vancouver i took transit rather than drive to work, it was faster, easier and cheaper than driving.
When I was working full time, it turned out cheaper to drive than catch public transport; I rode my bike for a while but with a 3 hr ride each way, crossing over some decent hills it almost killed me, so I rode-train-rode to work. After a month I worked it out that I was spending twice as much on transport.
Im also a big hypocrite, I try to be very enviro conscious, but as an avid outdoor sportsman, I travel a great deal in a vehicles big enough to get to where I want to go and carry what I want to take. I drill bits of metal into rockwalls, as well as clean off moss and break off loose bits. I contribute to gully erosion. I ski alot and although most of it is back country I do occasionally take the chairlift and add my bit to alpine resort destruction of the enviro. Im a ski patroller so I hoon around on skidoos and do maintainance (ie. cutting down trees and creating paths)
When I whitewater I remove dangerous obstacles (which can also be called habitats) and contribute to bank erosion..... THe list goes on and on and in particular, as an instructor I teach others to do these things as well.
I also play guitar poorly; so I add to noise pollution as well.
SO at home, when ride to uni or to the shops, when I swith of lights, take 3 min showers, grow a vegi patch and all the other enviro conscious things I do I do it knowing that in all honestly Im not keeping up.
EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1260237520)
Originally Posted By: Stout When I lived in Vancouver i took transit rather than drive to work, it was faster, easier and cheaper than driving.
When I was working full time, it turned out cheaper to drive than catch public transport; I rode my bike for a while but with a 3 hr ride each way, crossing over some decent hills it almost killed me, so I rode-train-rode to work. After a month I worked it out that I was spending twice as much on transport.
Im also a big hypocrite, I try to be very enviro conscious, but as an avid outdoor sportsman, I travel a great deal in a vehicles big enough to get to where I want to go and carry what I want to take. I drill bits of metal into rockwalls, as well as clean off moss and break off loose bits. I contribute to gully erosion. I ski alot and although most of it is back country I do occasionally take the chairlift and add my bit to alpine resort destruction of the enviro. Im a ski patroller so I hoon around on skidoos and do maintainance (ie. cutting down trees and creating paths)
When I whitewater I remove dangerous obstacles (which can also be called habitats) and contribute to bank erosion..... THe list goes on and on and in particular, as an instructor I teach others to do these things as well.
I also play guitar poorly; so I add to noise pollution as well.
SO at home, when ride to uni or to the shops, when I swith of lights, take 3 min showers, grow a vegi patch and all the other enviro conscious things I do I do it knowing that in all honestly Im not keeping up.
EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1260237520)
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Stout
Yes, this is true. You can get 'em to fake it though. Sez me, who just bought a ticket to Asia today...woot!! six weeks of burning fossil fuels on dive boats and harassing local wildlife.
Now, dont get me wrong, I enjoy diving as much as the next bloke (my fav. are puffa fish, they're so slow and stupid and fun to play with) but why would you leave the snow?
I would give almost anything to be Skiing in Canada right now 
Originally Posted By: Stout
Yes, this is true. You can get 'em to fake it though. Sez me, who just bought a ticket to Asia today...woot!! six weeks of burning fossil fuels on dive boats and harassing local wildlife.
Now, dont get me wrong, I enjoy diving as much as the next bloke (my fav. are puffa fish, they're so slow and stupid and fun to play with) but why would you leave the snow?
I would give almost anything to be Skiing in Canada right now sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Unfortunately, there's no snow around here, I'm on the water, on the west coast, on an island where the nearest ski mountain is 4 hours away.
I got spoiled living in Vancouver, three ski mountains right behind the city so going night skiing for four hours after work was always an option. Whistler/Blackcomb two hours away
So I swapped my skis for a drysuit.
Diving here is really beautiful. After the red sea, this area's been described as some of the best diving in the world and I can actually walk to a world class divesite, if I were so inclined.
But the tropics, the Andaman sea...beckons.
Unfortunately, there's no snow around here, I'm on the water, on the west coast, on an island where the nearest ski mountain is 4 hours away.
I got spoiled living in Vancouver, three ski mountains right behind the city so going night skiing for four hours after work was always an option. Whistler/Blackcomb two hours away
So I swapped my skis for a drysuit.
Diving here is really beautiful. After the red sea, this area's been described as some of the best diving in the world and I can actually walk to a world class divesite, if I were so inclined.
But the tropics, the Andaman sea...beckons.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoneTom, now let me ask you a question. Have you ever considered the possibility, even once in your entire life, that you might be wrong?
Yes and I happily apologized to people in public when I found out about it... even when I've been quite right and noticed that I hurt the other persons feelings only by the way I expressed it...
Have you ever?
Originally Posted By: StoneTom, now let me ask you a question. Have you ever considered the possibility, even once in your entire life, that you might be wrong?
Yes and I happily apologized to people in public when I found out about it... even when I've been quite right and noticed that I hurt the other persons feelings only by the way I expressed it...
Have you ever?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
IMO Rouge is quite right about the "religious" aspect when it comes to some aspects of environmentalism and about her statement that you can't change people's behaviors in the long run. It's quite obvious. Especially unless practicable alternatives are offered directly.
For example: if you're raising fuel prices by collecting higher taxes and use that overhead not directly to improve mass transportation systems but to fill other holes in your budget, people lose it and rather keep up with higher prices.
"Prices will rise, politicians will philander..." these are "certain inalienable truths".
It's not that I'm unhappy with the answers to my personal question, vice versa. It's that there is some hypocrisy - which is absolutely human. Stout has wonderfully revealed it - and earned even more of my respect towards him because he's ready to admit one thing: that he's human. Wonderful personality, thanks a lot - it brightened my morning.
You can force people to follow your ideology, as long as they are dependent... once they follow their own predicaments you ultimately can't - and some feel the urge to regain this level of control... so they invent "ghostly" enemies and threats...
IMO Rouge is quite right about the "religious" aspect when it comes to some aspects of environmentalism and about her statement that you can't change people's behaviors in the long run. It's quite obvious. Especially unless practicable alternatives are offered directly.
For example: if you're raising fuel prices by collecting higher taxes and use that overhead not directly to improve mass transportation systems but to fill other holes in your budget, people lose it and rather keep up with higher prices.
"Prices will rise, politicians will philander..." these are "certain inalienable truths".
It's not that I'm unhappy with the answers to my personal question, vice versa. It's that there is some hypocrisy - which is absolutely human. Stout has wonderfully revealed it - and earned even more of my respect towards him because he's ready to admit one thing: that he's human. Wonderful personality, thanks a lot - it brightened my morning.
You can force people to follow your ideology, as long as they are dependent... once they follow their own predicaments you ultimately can't - and some feel the urge to regain this level of control... so they invent "ghostly" enemies and threats...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Vegetarianism for many people in the West is completely "off"... they enjoy burgers and BBQs far too much... to them talking about being "veg" is like talking about a 1st class round the world ticket to a Rickshaw driver in Calcutta...
Apart from the ethical issues with farming meat (most carnivores would not be able to spot "sentinence" in even the brightest of cows) the environmental impact (planet earth still floating fine) is not coming to them, because they blur it out in favor of a T-bone steak.
Rising meat prices and directly investing the overhead into the construction of Methanol plants might be one way to diminish the problems of industrialized meat production...
Growing food crops and clearing forests to graze cattle will continue to be an issue. Especially in countries like the US, Australia and South America, where most industrial meat production is outdoors. In Europe, most production happens indoors. I observed the impact of cattle on the soil of Australia to be devastating... whereas European soil seems to be far less fragile.
If you seriously want to tackle the problem, (as with polluted and the scarcity of water) you need to address the industries at least as much as the consumers, because their capability to destroy nature is to a far greater degree and faster pace.
Vegetarianism for many people in the West is completely "off"... they enjoy burgers and BBQs far too much... to them talking about being "veg" is like talking about a 1st class round the world ticket to a Rickshaw driver in Calcutta...
Apart from the ethical issues with farming meat (most carnivores would not be able to spot "sentinence" in even the brightest of cows) the environmental impact (planet earth still floating fine) is not coming to them, because they blur it out in favor of a T-bone steak.
Rising meat prices and directly investing the overhead into the construction of Methanol plants might be one way to diminish the problems of industrialized meat production...
Growing food crops and clearing forests to graze cattle will continue to be an issue. Especially in countries like the US, Australia and South America, where most industrial meat production is outdoors. In Europe, most production happens indoors. I observed the impact of cattle on the soil of Australia to be devastating... whereas European soil seems to be far less fragile.
If you seriously want to tackle the problem, (as with polluted and the scarcity of water) you need to address the industries at least as much as the consumers, because their capability to destroy nature is to a far greater degree and faster pace.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: FireTom
If you seriously want to tackle the problem, (as with polluted and the scarcity of water) you need to address the industries at least as much as the consumers, because their capability to destroy nature is to a far greater degree and faster pace.
The issue with cattlegrazing and land clearing in Australia go far deeper than than just addressing the industry - its deeply ingrained in our culture and historical practices. THe man from snowy river, the akubra hat, swagman etc, are all directly related to cattle grazing and are also part of our culture.
Our land usage is a direct result of our practice of Terra nullius, the idea that this is an empty land that can be utalised and shaped to our needs. The River Murray (longest river in Australia) is now just a glorified irrigation channel and the Snowy river hydroelectric scheme diverts 90% of its flow. These happened not just because of industrial practices, but because of Culture and attitudes.
When people came back from the war they were given small blocks of land for free to work on, on the condition that they had to clear the land on it, whether they wanted to or not. A government practicve again piggybacking on the ideas of terra nullius that had nothing to do with industry practices.
Industry works of of consumer demand, which is related to how we relate to the land, which has to do with culture, IMO
Originally Posted By: FireTom
If you seriously want to tackle the problem, (as with polluted and the scarcity of water) you need to address the industries at least as much as the consumers, because their capability to destroy nature is to a far greater degree and faster pace.
The issue with cattlegrazing and land clearing in Australia go far deeper than than just addressing the industry - its deeply ingrained in our culture and historical practices. THe man from snowy river, the akubra hat, swagman etc, are all directly related to cattle grazing and are also part of our culture.
Our land usage is a direct result of our practice of Terra nullius, the idea that this is an empty land that can be utalised and shaped to our needs. The River Murray (longest river in Australia) is now just a glorified irrigation channel and the Snowy river hydroelectric scheme diverts 90% of its flow. These happened not just because of industrial practices, but because of Culture and attitudes.
When people came back from the war they were given small blocks of land for free to work on, on the condition that they had to clear the land on it, whether they wanted to or not. A government practicve again piggybacking on the ideas of terra nullius that had nothing to do with industry practices.
Industry works of of consumer demand, which is related to how we relate to the land, which has to do with culture, IMO
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: FireTom I observed the impact of cattle on the soil of Australia to be devastating... whereas European soil seems to be far less fragile.
this doesnt give a complete picture, yes Cattle have a goodly impact, for example grazing in the high country was indeed devestating, as well as grazing along the murray, eg. Barmah state forest. But both these have been stopped. Now most soil erosion in these areas occur from wild Brumbies, deer and pigs.
Victorian soils are damaged by past mining practices and land clearing and water management far more than cattle.
Western Australia is facing most soil degradation from salinity issues again from water management, South Australia mostly from trying to grow crops in an area that doesnt get rain. The large stations in central Australia is where you find the most cattle impact on soils today. Its important to remember that Aussie soils are crap to begin with, particulalry when compared to Europe. The style of land usage cannot be compared becasue they are entirly different. COnservation land management practices also contribute to soil degradation as we now do not have the fires that are essential for a lot of plants to propegate.The loss of Box and Ironbark forests through Victoria (mainly due to mining and lack of decent fire regimes) have devestated the victorian soils more than food crops and cattle do.
EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1260253095)
Originally Posted By: FireTom I observed the impact of cattle on the soil of Australia to be devastating... whereas European soil seems to be far less fragile.
this doesnt give a complete picture, yes Cattle have a goodly impact, for example grazing in the high country was indeed devestating, as well as grazing along the murray, eg. Barmah state forest. But both these have been stopped. Now most soil erosion in these areas occur from wild Brumbies, deer and pigs.
Victorian soils are damaged by past mining practices and land clearing and water management far more than cattle.
Western Australia is facing most soil degradation from salinity issues again from water management, South Australia mostly from trying to grow crops in an area that doesnt get rain. The large stations in central Australia is where you find the most cattle impact on soils today. Its important to remember that Aussie soils are crap to begin with, particulalry when compared to Europe. The style of land usage cannot be compared becasue they are entirly different. COnservation land management practices also contribute to soil degradation as we now do not have the fires that are essential for a lot of plants to propegate.The loss of Box and Ironbark forests through Victoria (mainly due to mining and lack of decent fire regimes) have devestated the victorian soils more than food crops and cattle do.
EDITED_BY: WoodlandApple (1260253095)
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Fire TomYes and I happily apologized to people in public when I found out about it... even when I've been quite right and noticed that I hurt the other persons feelings only by the way I expressed it..
Have you ever?
Tom that was not I meant. I was really referring to things like climate change. I should have written "Have you ever considered the possibility, even once in your entire life, that you might be wrong? Like as about climate change for example". Anyhow, the “even when I've been quite right” statement negates what your claim.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomIt's not that I'm unhappy with the answers to my personal question, vice versa. It's that there is some hypocrisy - which is absolutely human. Stout has wonderfully revealed it - and earned even more of my respect towards him because he's ready to admit one thing: that he's human. Wonderful personality, thanks a lot - it brightened my morning.
Tom, you talk about hypocrisy. So how hypocritical is it to say “ Be the Change”, when you don't accept climate change? As to having to earn “your” respect, that type of attitude just comes across as arrogance, to me.
BTW, "climate change" is not some "ghostly enemy or threat", it's real and it's here. The poles and the glaciers are melting, pacific islands are flooding and you talk like you think it’s something that might happen in 50 years. Good grief!
PS: This upshot of all this is that it is time to stop bickering about which country has the worst animal husbandry practices for the environment, and move forward. That means developing sustainable agricultural systems to feed a growing population.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1260322756)
EDIT_REASON: Added a bit extra.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomYes and I happily apologized to people in public when I found out about it... even when I've been quite right and noticed that I hurt the other persons feelings only by the way I expressed it..
Have you ever?
Tom that was not I meant. I was really referring to things like climate change. I should have written "Have you ever considered the possibility, even once in your entire life, that you might be wrong? Like as about climate change for example". Anyhow, the “even when I've been quite right” statement negates what your claim.
Originally Posted By: Fire TomIt's not that I'm unhappy with the answers to my personal question, vice versa. It's that there is some hypocrisy - which is absolutely human. Stout has wonderfully revealed it - and earned even more of my respect towards him because he's ready to admit one thing: that he's human. Wonderful personality, thanks a lot - it brightened my morning.
Tom, you talk about hypocrisy. So how hypocritical is it to say “ Be the Change”, when you don't accept climate change? As to having to earn “your” respect, that type of attitude just comes across as arrogance, to me.
BTW, "climate change" is not some "ghostly enemy or threat", it's real and it's here. The poles and the glaciers are melting, pacific islands are flooding and you talk like you think it’s something that might happen in 50 years. Good grief!
PS: This upshot of all this is that it is time to stop bickering about which country has the worst animal husbandry practices for the environment, and move forward. That means developing sustainable agricultural systems to feed a growing population.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1260322756)
EDIT_REASON: Added a bit extra.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Rouge, if you are into practice change to get adoption of things like bike riding as an alternative to cars then check out:
Our Iceberg Is Melting by John Kotter
John Kotter on change
The Iceberg Manifesto
Old skool Bennett's Hierarchy to implement change, See Figure 4
Rouge, if you are into practice change to get adoption of things like bike riding as an alternative to cars then check out:
Our Iceberg Is Melting by John Kotter
John Kotter on change
The Iceberg Manifesto
Old skool Bennett's Hierarchy to implement change, See Figure 4
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Stone: that was not what I meant either.
Present evidence that "PLANET EARTH" - not the environment on its surface - is in trouble... (and STOP to throw vast assumptions at me). FINALLY QUOTE where I've denied global warming or rising sea levels! :madrant:
Climate change is a fact (mankind contributing or not)... Rising seal levels too. Temperatures right now are quite warm (but not the highest in history) as sea levels are quite high (not highest in history)... Its rather about how we find ways to cope with change...
Melting glaciers are a topic for decades, as is the ice sheet. These are not new topics, THIS THREAD pointed out that if you'd to become a vegetarian, you may reduce your CO² footprint and as such prevent climate from changing. I didn't deny that.
But it is an erroneous "feel good" approach. Your change of diet is not going to do the trick (alone) - planting trees isn't going to do it either (as Stout pointed out).
I resent to mere "feel good" approaches that (IMO) are rather breeding separation, than a unified approach - which is necessary to tackle global topics. Rather than saying "but I AM a vegetarian!" (thus "better than you carnivore") it is more about "hey this is my contribution and it's no less no more valid than yours"...
Thanks for demonstrating me "how to breed resentments to sound and valid arguments by filing personal attacks". You're quite good at that and I may have to learn some deal from it.
It's maybe as much about developing sustainable agricultural systems as it is about the distribution of wealth and food according to necessity rather than according to profit margins. But that would require a quite radical shift in (capitalist) philosophy. Which is not going to happen unless governments (and the general public) is holding CEO's directly accountable for the actions they decide (not) to take in their way of running business... it's not about "eco-terrorism" as it is about "eco-justice"... (IMHO)
And it's not about "being right/wrong" - it's about a wholesome approach, shedding lights on all aspects of the topic (without breeding resentments). I've just had enough of your populism and personalized attacks that bear any logic and are based upon selective reading and judgments casted a long time ago.
Woodland: thanks for enlightening me about the historical aspects. When I lived there I've been quite shocked over what appeared to be the general approach and attitude of Australians (and USsians btw) when it came to environmental issues.
It's difficult to hold people accountable for the actions of their (grand)parents... can you notice any generation-debate that's being addressed towards your elders for their actions?
"What are we going to say, if one day our grandchildren will come to ask us?" - heard that before and just can't see it happening, neither in ethical, environmental - hardly in personal issues.
I live in a country that comprises 20% of the global population and when transferring the predominant attitude towards the environment to that of other 3rd world (or emerging) countries, then I tell you that this climate conference is not going to yield ANY feasible results.
The developed nations can't bear all the payload, especially not when the developing nations sacrifice all useful regulations already established in favor of growth. Historical pollution yes/no - doesn't matter. We're exporting jobs and production and at the same rate our old technology. In these countries, plastic (at worst) is getting burnt in the backyard, toxins poured into water bodies and emission regulations are a joke. Pesticides and herbicides that are already prohibited in the West are being exported or manufactured and used here.
It's hard to get a good overview on what is really going on whilst taking pictures of the Taj Mahal, rather than living here. Industries need to be addressed - and the (in)direct damage they produce.
Because at some stage you can't clean up as much as is going to be polluted...
Stone: that was not what I meant either.
Present evidence that "PLANET EARTH" - not the environment on its surface - is in trouble... (and STOP to throw vast assumptions at me). FINALLY QUOTE where I've denied global warming or rising sea levels! :madrant:
Climate change is a fact (mankind contributing or not)... Rising seal levels too. Temperatures right now are quite warm (but not the highest in history) as sea levels are quite high (not highest in history)... Its rather about how we find ways to cope with change...
Melting glaciers are a topic for decades, as is the ice sheet. These are not new topics, THIS THREAD pointed out that if you'd to become a vegetarian, you may reduce your CO² footprint and as such prevent climate from changing. I didn't deny that.
But it is an erroneous "feel good" approach. Your change of diet is not going to do the trick (alone) - planting trees isn't going to do it either (as Stout pointed out).
I resent to mere "feel good" approaches that (IMO) are rather breeding separation, than a unified approach - which is necessary to tackle global topics. Rather than saying "but I AM a vegetarian!" (thus "better than you carnivore") it is more about "hey this is my contribution and it's no less no more valid than yours"...
Thanks for demonstrating me "how to breed resentments to sound and valid arguments by filing personal attacks". You're quite good at that and I may have to learn some deal from it.
It's maybe as much about developing sustainable agricultural systems as it is about the distribution of wealth and food according to necessity rather than according to profit margins. But that would require a quite radical shift in (capitalist) philosophy. Which is not going to happen unless governments (and the general public) is holding CEO's directly accountable for the actions they decide (not) to take in their way of running business... it's not about "eco-terrorism" as it is about "eco-justice"... (IMHO)
And it's not about "being right/wrong" - it's about a wholesome approach, shedding lights on all aspects of the topic (without breeding resentments). I've just had enough of your populism and personalized attacks that bear any logic and are based upon selective reading and judgments casted a long time ago.
Woodland: thanks for enlightening me about the historical aspects. When I lived there I've been quite shocked over what appeared to be the general approach and attitude of Australians (and USsians btw) when it came to environmental issues.
It's difficult to hold people accountable for the actions of their (grand)parents... can you notice any generation-debate that's being addressed towards your elders for their actions?
"What are we going to say, if one day our grandchildren will come to ask us?" - heard that before and just can't see it happening, neither in ethical, environmental - hardly in personal issues.
I live in a country that comprises 20% of the global population and when transferring the predominant attitude towards the environment to that of other 3rd world (or emerging) countries, then I tell you that this climate conference is not going to yield ANY feasible results.
The developed nations can't bear all the payload, especially not when the developing nations sacrifice all useful regulations already established in favor of growth. Historical pollution yes/no - doesn't matter. We're exporting jobs and production and at the same rate our old technology. In these countries, plastic (at worst) is getting burnt in the backyard, toxins poured into water bodies and emission regulations are a joke. Pesticides and herbicides that are already prohibited in the West are being exported or manufactured and used here.
It's hard to get a good overview on what is really going on whilst taking pictures of the Taj Mahal, rather than living here. Industries need to be addressed - and the (in)direct damage they produce.
Because at some stage you can't clean up as much as is going to be polluted...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
addict
474 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: FireTom
It's difficult to hold people accountable for the actions of their (grand)parents... can you notice any generation-debate that's being addressed towards your elders for their actions?
There is, for example the Coorong (the murray mouth) is pretty much dead, farms in WA in particular is facing huge salinity issues due to government land clearing practices 30 years ago, and water rights issues are rampant, but they are not really in the spotlight. For example with the coorong, just before summer, and the main tourist season, the gov. pumped a heap of water into it so it was the fullest its been in a decade. By doing so they completly drained lake alexandrena. They did this so that city day tripper wouldnt see the real issues at stake.
I dont think though that pointing the finger at past generations is going to solve anything, I dont think that people in the past were being delibrately harmful,but it is important to discover the reasons behind past attitudes to land so that we can finds means to address the reasons behind current land useage. Its not enough to just say "we are destroying the environment, fix it."
Another example of harmful worldviews is the attitude towards brumbies (wild horses) in the high country of NSW, they are creating incredible damage to the environment but we are not allowed to cull them. Some animal rights group caused a stink when they saw footage of arial shooting, so now shooting of these pest animals is banned. With trapping being the only recourse only 80 brumbies are brought out of the Kosciouzsko National Park a year. But the population is growing by 1000 a year.
how can we protect an area of over 6 million hectares when the current prevailing attitude of animal libiratarianism is defending the main causes of environmental degradaton and lack of biodiversity. This idea of "preservation" by certain lobbyists is contributing to the problem that they are trying to fix? So why? And why cant they see it?
I believe its the same with climate change issues. Why do some people think climate change is not an issue? Why do others believe its the only issue? instead of attacking the beliefs, lets discover the fundamental worldviews that create each beliefs. Lets not deal with what we think, but why we think it.
Originally Posted By: FireTom
It's difficult to hold people accountable for the actions of their (grand)parents... can you notice any generation-debate that's being addressed towards your elders for their actions?
There is, for example the Coorong (the murray mouth) is pretty much dead, farms in WA in particular is facing huge salinity issues due to government land clearing practices 30 years ago, and water rights issues are rampant, but they are not really in the spotlight. For example with the coorong, just before summer, and the main tourist season, the gov. pumped a heap of water into it so it was the fullest its been in a decade. By doing so they completly drained lake alexandrena. They did this so that city day tripper wouldnt see the real issues at stake.
I dont think though that pointing the finger at past generations is going to solve anything, I dont think that people in the past were being delibrately harmful,but it is important to discover the reasons behind past attitudes to land so that we can finds means to address the reasons behind current land useage. Its not enough to just say "we are destroying the environment, fix it."
Another example of harmful worldviews is the attitude towards brumbies (wild horses) in the high country of NSW, they are creating incredible damage to the environment but we are not allowed to cull them. Some animal rights group caused a stink when they saw footage of arial shooting, so now shooting of these pest animals is banned. With trapping being the only recourse only 80 brumbies are brought out of the Kosciouzsko National Park a year. But the population is growing by 1000 a year.
how can we protect an area of over 6 million hectares when the current prevailing attitude of animal libiratarianism is defending the main causes of environmental degradaton and lack of biodiversity. This idea of "preservation" by certain lobbyists is contributing to the problem that they are trying to fix? So why? And why cant they see it?
I believe its the same with climate change issues. Why do some people think climate change is not an issue? Why do others believe its the only issue? instead of attacking the beliefs, lets discover the fundamental worldviews that create each beliefs. Lets not deal with what we think, but why we think it.
sticks and stones my break my bones, but ski patrol will save me.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: WoodlandAppleI believe its the same with climate change issues. Why do some people think climate change is not an issue? Why do others believe its the only issue? instead of attacking the beliefs, lets discover the fundamental worldviews that create each beliefs. Lets not deal with what we think, but why we think it.
I think you will find that the psychology of climate change has already been posted previously from a Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychology and Global Climate Change. Nevertheless, I’ll post a couple of the points again.
Section 1: How do people understand the risks imposed by climate change?
Long-term climate is a phenomenon not easily detected by personal experience, yet one that invites personal observation and evaluation. Concern about adverse consequences of climate change (e.g., extreme weather events like droughts or floods) is low on average in places such as the United States, in part because small probability events tend to be underestimated in decisions based on personal experience, unless they have recently occurred, in which case they are vastly overestimated.
Many think of climate change risks (and thus of the benefits of mitigating them) as both considerably uncertain and as being mostly in the future and geographically distant, all factors that lead people to discount them. The costs of mitigation, on the other hand, will be incurred with certainty in the present or near future. Emotional reactions to climate change are likely to influence perceptions of risk. Yet, emotional reactions to climate change risks are likely to be conflicted and muted because climate change can be seen as a natural process, and global environmental systems perceived as beyond the control of individuals, communities,and, quite possibly, science and technology. There is, however, significant variability in people’s reactions to climate risks, much of which is mediated by cultural values and beliefs.
Section 5: Which psychological barriers limit climate change action?
Many psychological and social structural barriers stand in the way of behavioral changes that would help limit climate change. Many people are taking action in response to the risks of climate change, but many others are unaware of the problem, unsure of the facts or what to do, do not trust experts or believe their conclusions, think the problem is elsewhere, are fixed in their ways, believe that others should act, or believe that their actions will make no difference or are unimportant compared to those of others. They may be engaged in token actions or actions they believe are helpful but objectively are not. They have other worthy goals and aspirations that draw their time, effort, and resources, or they believe that solutions outside of human control will address the problem. Some or all of the structural barriers must be removed but this is not likely to be sufficient. Psychologists and other social scientists need to work on psychological barriers.
The link is from the psychology of climate change in Margot O'Neill's blog from ABC Lateline.
Originally Posted By: WoodlandAppleI believe its the same with climate change issues. Why do some people think climate change is not an issue? Why do others believe its the only issue? instead of attacking the beliefs, lets discover the fundamental worldviews that create each beliefs. Lets not deal with what we think, but why we think it.
I think you will find that the psychology of climate change has already been posted previously from a Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychology and Global Climate Change. Nevertheless, I’ll post a couple of the points again.
Section 1: How do people understand the risks imposed by climate change?
Long-term climate is a phenomenon not easily detected by personal experience, yet one that invites personal observation and evaluation. Concern about adverse consequences of climate change (e.g., extreme weather events like droughts or floods) is low on average in places such as the United States, in part because small probability events tend to be underestimated in decisions based on personal experience, unless they have recently occurred, in which case they are vastly overestimated.
Many think of climate change risks (and thus of the benefits of mitigating them) as both considerably uncertain and as being mostly in the future and geographically distant, all factors that lead people to discount them. The costs of mitigation, on the other hand, will be incurred with certainty in the present or near future. Emotional reactions to climate change are likely to influence perceptions of risk. Yet, emotional reactions to climate change risks are likely to be conflicted and muted because climate change can be seen as a natural process, and global environmental systems perceived as beyond the control of individuals, communities,and, quite possibly, science and technology. There is, however, significant variability in people’s reactions to climate risks, much of which is mediated by cultural values and beliefs.
Section 5: Which psychological barriers limit climate change action?
Many psychological and social structural barriers stand in the way of behavioral changes that would help limit climate change. Many people are taking action in response to the risks of climate change, but many others are unaware of the problem, unsure of the facts or what to do, do not trust experts or believe their conclusions, think the problem is elsewhere, are fixed in their ways, believe that others should act, or believe that their actions will make no difference or are unimportant compared to those of others. They may be engaged in token actions or actions they believe are helpful but objectively are not. They have other worthy goals and aspirations that draw their time, effort, and resources, or they believe that solutions outside of human control will address the problem. Some or all of the structural barriers must be removed but this is not likely to be sufficient. Psychologists and other social scientists need to work on psychological barriers.
The link is from the psychology of climate change in Margot O'Neill's blog from ABC Lateline.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: TomI resent to mere "feel good" approaches that (IMO) are rather breeding separation, than a unified approach - which is necessary to tackle global topics. Rather than saying "but I AM a vegetarian!" (thus "better than you carnivore") it is more about "hey this is my contribution and it's no less no more valid than yours"...
Completely agree
Originally Posted By: TomI resent to mere "feel good" approaches that (IMO) are rather breeding separation, than a unified approach - which is necessary to tackle global topics. Rather than saying "but I AM a vegetarian!" (thus "better than you carnivore") it is more about "hey this is my contribution and it's no less no more valid than yours"...
Completely agree
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Originally Posted By: StoneBTW, "climate change" is not some "ghostly enemy or threat", it's real and it's here. The poles and the glaciers are melting, pacific islands are flooding
Yes, and AGW is markedly different from all these other 'world ending scenarios" that we've had in the past. Now where's that list ? BRB. OK: acid rain, global thermonuclear destruction, Y2K, the hole in the ozone layer. overpopulation, and I'll toss in leaded gasoline, just for effect.
The difference being that all these issues didn't involve much in the way of lifestyle changes to combat and were basically "somebodyelse's problem that could be dealt with by, well bitching and moaning. As a consumer, all I needed to "do" to combat the hole in the ozone layer was quit spraying my armpits with Right Guard and switch to a solid ( or go all hippy and just stink ) easy peasy.
There's not much i could do personally about "the bomb" nor acid rain. All Y2K involved was stocking up on bottled water and junk food, and I'd never planned on having a brood of children, so there was no sacrifice there.
AGW OTOH, demands that WE, as consumers make the "right" choices. It's way past the usual fun stuff, like going to protests, signing petitions and banging out posts on the Internet. It's way past the "somebody should do something" phase and IMO the article on psychology and global climate change is well, awesome.
Originally Posted By: Tom I resent to mere "feel good" approaches that (IMO) are rather breeding separation, than a unified approach
Yes, I agree here but I'm rather cynical towards the idea that this won't always be the case. As I said before IRL (and IMO) the population of deniers is growing with faith being put into ideas like Copenhagen or HopenChangin if you're into memes. 140 private planes, 500 limos, caviar, and free hookers....all so we can listen to developing nations demand money.
BTW did anyone see the President of The Maldives on television two weeks ago accusing 'rich" countries of murder and genocide through their carbon emissions? The Maldives, whose entire economy is built on tourism, huge jets and resorts....
Originally Posted By: StoneBTW, "climate change" is not some "ghostly enemy or threat", it's real and it's here. The poles and the glaciers are melting, pacific islands are flooding
Yes, and AGW is markedly different from all these other 'world ending scenarios" that we've had in the past. Now where's that list ? BRB. OK: acid rain, global thermonuclear destruction, Y2K, the hole in the ozone layer. overpopulation, and I'll toss in leaded gasoline, just for effect.
The difference being that all these issues didn't involve much in the way of lifestyle changes to combat and were basically "somebodyelse's problem that could be dealt with by, well bitching and moaning. As a consumer, all I needed to "do" to combat the hole in the ozone layer was quit spraying my armpits with Right Guard and switch to a solid ( or go all hippy and just stink ) easy peasy.
There's not much i could do personally about "the bomb" nor acid rain. All Y2K involved was stocking up on bottled water and junk food, and I'd never planned on having a brood of children, so there was no sacrifice there.
AGW OTOH, demands that WE, as consumers make the "right" choices. It's way past the usual fun stuff, like going to protests, signing petitions and banging out posts on the Internet. It's way past the "somebody should do something" phase and IMO the article on psychology and global climate change is well, awesome.
Originally Posted By: Tom I resent to mere "feel good" approaches that (IMO) are rather breeding separation, than a unified approach
Yes, I agree here but I'm rather cynical towards the idea that this won't always be the case. As I said before IRL (and IMO) the population of deniers is growing with faith being put into ideas like Copenhagen or HopenChangin if you're into memes. 140 private planes, 500 limos, caviar, and free hookers....all so we can listen to developing nations demand money.
BTW did anyone see the President of The Maldives on television two weeks ago accusing 'rich" countries of murder and genocide through their carbon emissions? The Maldives, whose entire economy is built on tourism, huge jets and resorts....
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
^^^The Maldives was nearly wiped out by the Tsunami - and so rising sea levels will probably be pretty much at the front of their minds...
Could someone provide an example of one of these "feel-good approaches"?
J
^^^The Maldives was nearly wiped out by the Tsunami - and so rising sea levels will probably be pretty much at the front of their minds...
Could someone provide an example of one of these "feel-good approaches"?
J
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [vegetarianism climate change] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Vegetarianism for climate change? [174 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com