You’ll get no argument with me on that, Bobot. But you will get an argument from me on how best to address it. And as of now some of the solutions are loony bin lefty pipe dreams. I’m not in agreement with that.
The question you quoted, however, was in response to Babale and his/her assertion that this was all just done in jest, tongue and cheek.
I don’t see any evidence of that. It seems quite serious to me.
Dude, you’re an octopus: you should only take a really, really long bath.
These are painfully stupid posts. Al Gore could be producing 2,000 tons of methane per year just for funsies, and it still wouldn’t have shit to do with whether reducing your own carbon footprint is a good idea. It’s like cutting out and eating your “extra” kidney just because you don’t like somebody who advocates for organ donation.
Post 31, not 30, Really Not All That Bright.
I am a painfully stupid poster. My apologies, HL.
Sure, I’ve seen mangles in museums, but this isn’t the 70s. My own washing machine is how you describe - that’s pretty common - but most of the time it doesn’t seem worth running the drying cycle.
It’s just weird hearing people describe something as ordinary as hanging up your clothes to dry as a ridiculous, unrealistic thing to do.
It would be easy to imagine a similar write-in: “Confess your diet sins!” Does that mean dieting is a religion? Not in general, but certain people can get pretty evangelical about their beliefs. I figure environmentalism is similar. Most people just do their best and try to follow the evidence, and a few go over the top and want to go back to living like cavemen, or use it as a way to feel superior to others.
This is a high-quality post. Thanks! 
Or son worship in this particular case.
It’s not an issue that we just inferred. The OP explicitly stated the environmental movement is a religion. If he’s going to dismiss science like that, he should expect a push-back.
And he brought up the subject of Right vs Left. So any discussions of ideology is legit.
If you want to leave politics out of the discussion, that’s fine. But you don’t get to push your own political agenda in the OP and then decree that nobody else is allowed to refute what you’re said.
I try to be good in some areas of my life so I can be bad in others (climate-wise, specifically). I fly commercially 5-6 times a year, most for business, some for pleasure. Could I drive to my business meetings? Yes, but they’re usually about 1800 miles away and it would take me days on the road, during which time I wouldn’t actually be doing my job. Could I drive to my vacation destinations? Yes to some; but if I have the opportunity to find my family to Europe, I will since I can’t get there by driving. But we reuse/reduce/recycle whenever possible, keep the thermostat low in the winter and high in the summer, promote carpooling around the neighborhood whenever possible, etc. If I can’t have a negative CF, I at least strive for a zero sum.
I agree. Here’s the issue. Those who go to extremes and choose to “live like cavemen” - whatever that means - inconvenience themselves and nobody else. Those who say, “Fuck off! I’ll do what I like!”, tend to leave a negative environmental impact on others around them and potentially future generations.
So while the former is annoying and harmless, the same cannot be said for the latter.
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic. But it strikes me that most other environmental problems did not require much action from ordinary people. Lead was removed from petrol and replaced with other additives, and no one had to stop driving. CFCs were banished from production without anyone having to give up their refrigerator. But no one has yet found a technological fix for global warming, and if changing our collective behaviour is truly the only solution… well, getting people to change their habits, and especially to reduce their standard of living in even a small way, is a big ask. It’s not too surprising if such campaigns end up being a little reminiscent of religion, which also seeks to persuade people to change their behaviour, against the pull of laziness and selfishness.
Not surprising, either, if some people would rather deny the need than admit to that same laziness or selfishness…
More or less, although you are forgetting here that before there were doomsayers that also claimed that changing our behavior before of a change was “needed” or that it was going to be too onerous. What took place too was that people then did vote for representatives that were more aware of the issues so big changes were demanded to industry and moves were finally made by the governments to organize the changes that were needed.*
Here is, already a few years old, short video from (still!) Republican scientist Richard Alley explaining how cities in developed nations got clean water over the doomsayers who claimed that cost and inconvenience was too extreme and how it relates to the costs and relative inconvenience we are likely to encounter when we finally do decide to make the big changes to deal with the issue of turning our atmosphere a sewer:
Well, I agree with a lot of what you posted early, but it seems to me that you are also missing a lot of the developments that are available already that can take care of the issue.
And I agree, but adding that a lot of the propaganda from powerful interests that do not want change, are a big factor in also convincing many on the right that the changes will amount to going back to the stone age, and that in itself is also a misleading talking point from the right.
How convenient for you that voting the way you want is sin-free in your eyes and voting the way your opponents want to is “the biggest sin that anyone can apply to this issue in the US”. You’ll be unsurprised to know that millions of your countrymen aren’t convinced by this line of thinking.
I was not being sarcastic. It was a sincere compliment about a post that I thought was quite good.
I already am, thank you very much.
What it has to be taken into account is that right wing media also does not tell their readers or viewers of the current state of affairs among the Republicans in government, while most of the people on the right are aware of the issue. Most of the Republican leaders are actually even denying what most of their constituents do think about the issue.
There is that, and the point you missed is that government is a big factor regarding the implementation of the changes needed, and since the current Republicans in congress are even proud of not understanding the issue, then it is not strange to point out that the most important changes needed do depend on the views that most of our current leaders that we vote for have.
I do what I can do, which is -
I’m vegetarian. Husband is vegan, our child is pescatarian
I don’t own a car, I cycle or take public transport
I fly once a year long haul from UK to US due to father in law living there, but also fly once a year 2-5 hour flight for family holiday.
We never throw food! It’s always frozen to eat at later date or we use left overs to use in another meal.
We have 16 solar panels which produce much of the energy we use.
I use charity shops to buy new clothes and donate old clothing. Yes I do buy new clothes but I buy classic clothing that I’ll wear for the next 20 years 
I buy local. I buy from people in the town who have their own allotments and we also grow many of our own veggies.
We recycle everything we possibly can.
We’ve chosen a ‘Green’ energy supplier.
Doing the above isn’t difficult in the slightest, it’s the least you can do without putting yourself out. Of course the car thing might not be easy, if you have to use a car for work then choose electric if possible.
I dunno, it seems like the benefit to people from building sewers is more concrete and obvious than preventing climate change. But if renewables are becoming cheaper as well as cleaner, as your link says, that might not be the case in future. It’s positive news, anyway.
True, but those beliefs also seem to be part of the wider movement against rationality that’s growing on the internet, and that I really don’t understand.
I doubt the line is as hard and bright as you think of it. Several of the Seven Deadly Sins, or the behaviors they entail, are essential for the continuation and propagation of human life. Where do you draw the line between getting enough sleep, and the sin of sloth? Gluttony and lust are similar in a way. You have to eat, and after an especially hard or vigorous day you might want to eat more than usual. Is that gluttony? I don’t think so.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk