I dunno… don’t you know any vegans? They wouldn’t eat a bluefin if you paid them- it would make them uncomfortable. Heck, when I learned about the unsustainability of eating apex predators like tuna, I (mostly) abandoned the practice in favor of alternatives like sardines or smelt or herring. This coming from a guy who is coming home from a steak dinner at a nice restaurant.
And I’m puzzled by the repetition of ‘Al Gore’. He was the vice POTUS. Now he has a cause to promote. Not so surprising that he would live a lifestyle that isn’t sustainable if 7 billion people did it- he has just about as high a social rank as one can have! How can he spread his message to the millions who recognize him if he doesn’t take airplanes? And I think you’d make fun of him if he acted like Ghandi, too.
And I think renewable energy sources are going to take over (don’t tell XT I said that) for economic reasons if not for environmental ones. They are simply going to be cheaper, and so everyone will want to get on board. Why wouldn’t people be comfortable allocating their capital to those once they realize it is where the growth is?
It seems more like a certain kind of materialism to me. ‘Comfortable lifestyle’ depends on certain material goods in this view. Would a person with a deep understanding of the impact of those goods really be comfortable living that way, or would they be shamed by it? Some people’s ‘comfort’ can depend on conforming to certain standards more than conforming to a certain brand of clothing or cars, or golf courses or what-have-you. I don’t understand why more people aren’t this way
+++ to this. Thank you Try2B Comprehensive for stating the obvious – it sure doesn’t seem obvious to the nattering set. Chastising Gore for consuming energy is akin to chastising Warren Buffet for not paying more taxes that he’s legally obliged to pay. Note that Gore and Buffet have left-of-center politics – you’ll never hear the natterers make similar complaints about right-wingers.
Such stupid memes do serve a purpose, however. They help quickly identify posters worth ignoring. (In Chief’s defense, he doesn’t condemn Gore for energy use. He just uses Gore’s spending energy to promote a worthy cause as excuse for the Chief himself to waste energy in pursuit of his own hedonism.)
It happens all the time. For instance when it is revealed that right-wingers who preach war were not themselves in the military (you even have a word for it, chickenhawks or something), or when anti-gay preachers are caught in the lavatory with a pretty boy, or moral majority dudes are caught having dirty sex with hot high-class whores. In France a long time anti-tax minister recently had to come out and admit that he have been hiding his own money in secret Swiss tax-accounts for decades. Etc. It’s simply a matter of putting your foot where your mouth is.
When the climate cup was held in Copenhagen, the airport – not a small one, it’s the hub of Scandinavia and northern Germany – was so overfilled with private jets flying in from all over the world that they had to diverge some of the jets to Sweden to land, and all the big ass black Mercedes cars created long queues all around the city.
I myself have this guiding principle. I’m concerned about the environment, but in general not more concerned than what I see the most prominent environment activists by their actions show themselves to be concerned. If this green guy who’s really concerned is ok with using this amount of co2, then it’s ok for me as well.
Although in fact I’m probably one of those that has done most for the environment on the SDMB, since I have a company that utilize specialized statistical tools to help other companies reduce waste. I could have a private jet fly in Texan steaks for breakfast every day and still be CO2 neutral.
First, I do not personally complain about Mr Gore. I am Al Gore, and so is everyone I know. I take it your position is that Mr Gore’s consumption is justified by his high rank and need to be a public figure; my consumption is hedonism.
This is silly.
The thing to understand about consumption and comfort is the pervasiveness of everything that makes a difference. Suppose (correctly) that I am staying in a First Class hotel. I’m not a Motel 6 kind of guy; not even a Courtyard kind of guy. What do I see when I look around? The carpet is brand new; replaced when it got stained. The bathroom is opulent and updated. I have 6 pillows on a new mattress. On and on.
All of this stuff and comfort create a CO2 footprint related to my personal comfort, even if it was manufactured in China. I am the one driving that output.
Now extend that to everything I do across every aspect of my personal life and you will get an idea of my “hedonism.” What I am suggesting is that everyone wants to live their personal life First Class, and given unlimited funds, they would. Warren Buffet’s shabby house is a cute story, but it does not reflect his footprint nor is he a typical billionaire.
If you want to excuse Mr Gore’s consumption as necessary to promote a worthy cause as opposed to simply enjoying life to the fullest, enjoy your naivete. Perhaps it will make you feel better. In the meantime the Tanzanian who walks to work would take a bus if he could, a car if he could, get Limo’d if he could and a helicopter if he could. So would I. Both of us would find sound reasons to justify our consumption and lifestyle.
Neither of us would live like a minimalist. Most folks realize they personally only go around once and that problems which affect the world are not sufficiently ameliorated by the sacrifice of one individual to make it worthwhile for that individual to live punier in the hope that all others will join in and save the commons.
This is the tragedy of the commons. I think that, having realized this intuitively, most AGW alarmists have switched to the position that the real answer is Big Change. Large-scale change. Someone Else’s change, Someday. I do not find that philosophically satisfying and I do not think it gets me off the hook of being personally responsible.
I must be the change I want to see in the world, today. As I look at myself I realize I am not willing to make that sacrifice in any signficant way.
Did you have a chance to think about posting even a single specific sacrifice you have personally made in pursuit of your Great Cause?
You mentioned that one should consider not flying at all unless it was necessary, and I asked you if that meant you do not choose vacation destinations that require air travel.
Are you able to answer that question? I am wondering if the difference between us may be only marketing of Principle, and not actual Practice…
Mr Gore has proposed that I reduce consumption. If I am flying in a personal jet, may I simply move to First Class commercial? If I am flying First on commercial, should I go to coach? If I fly 100 flights a year, is 90 OK? If I hardly ever fly, do I have to stop flying altogether? Am I supposed to stay at hotels which generate a smaller carbon footprint per person with smaller rooms, minimal amenities and worn-out carptet?
It seems like the trick for “reduction” is to start out with a huge baseline consumption. That way I need only step down from a 150 foot yacht to a 125 foot one to feel good about myself. I can slap solar panels on my 6,000 sq foot house and feel as good as the guy living in a boxcar.
Meh, I notice that once again the Chief can not see even a quote that talks about what to do when one has to fly, and other things that Gore and others recommend to do in other areas. Oh well, it is not my problem if he want to show all how easy is for him to **not **follow a discussion or to forget so easily what it was answered and quoted at the same time in a concurrent thread.
And once again this is missing the whole point of being carbon neutral, but IMHO this personification item has to continue for contrarians as it is one of the few straws they can grasp, but it is just rhetorical.
The purpose in my opinion why this grasping must go on is to not to lose the bankrupt point used elsewhere and implied here that environmentalists **should **or are pushing for the end of civilization; Well, they are not, and items like seeking to be carbon neutral are part of the explanation why controlling emissions is not what many contrarians claim. It is necessary then for those opposing change to create a caricature of what Carbon Neutral is and denying that the proponents of CN are **also **continuing to propose that regulations and other high level efforts are needed beyond just personal solutions.
Ok. I don’t really know what you’re talking about. It’s like you believe I have an agenda or is part of some movement. But I don’t know what either of them should be.
In any case, I was looking on Chevrolet Volt sites because I want my next car to be electric, and there was this one guy who was really happy about what he did for the environment, because he drove his Volt to the airport and back without using gasoline – for his on average three flights a week.
Electric cars may not even by very ecological from a life-time perspective at this moment, but it doesn’t really matter. You’re not getting people to make consumer sacrifices or consume less. But by making a few choices with your own consumption you can help drive the technology and change that makes consumption less harmful in the future. This is what I see being the only realistic method to solve the ecological problems. The technology needs to change, not humans.
Not referring to you then if you are not opposed to change, although it seems that you are not noticing how other posters here are just exuding inaction for hedonistic reasons.
In any case, it is clear that many scientists and economists also mention high end measures like regulations and taxes for the real price of our emissions as a very important piece for technology to be developed and for the more prompt adoption of the new technologies.
I’m not going to call out hotel choices, but why do you assume everyone would choose the fanciest option if they could? You seem to assume everyone is some kind of modern-day Sardanapalus. I’m not sure if you will believe this or not, but some people see such things as excess and don’t choose it specifically for that reason.
I think you are taking your own sense of value and projecting it onto the rest of the world. That value involves being a sort of magnet for a maximum of material, manufactured goods and taking up the maximum amount of space while collecting them. But truly- everyone does not see things that way. For example, just look at these micro homes. It looks like many of the people designing and building these things could live larger if they chose, but they just don’t. Some people don’t want it.
Which really is kind of beside the point though. Sure, I personally have invested a new car’s worth of money in green tech companies, I gave up tuna, I installed LED lights at home, I ride my bike half the time… but not everyone can afford that or will do it. You don’t want to give up flying; lots of people will reject the micro-home lifestyle. But the thread is about 400ppm CO2 and what do we do about it. The answer doesn’t really hinge on each individual independently choosing to understand the issue and then act accordingly.
For instance, if (and when) market forces lead to a situation where the electricity flowing through the grid is generated by renewable sources, people won’t produce CO2 with electricity demand anymore. If airplanes become 50% more efficient, everyone can fly just as much while generating half the emissions. When cars run on electricity, driving won’t generate the CO2. These kinds of changes won’t occur strictly on the individual level- for instance, Goldman Sachs, and organization with about zero reputation for doing things ‘because it is the right thing to do’, is investing $500 million in solar- just to start. The changes will be individual and institutional. Institutions can recognize things like, ‘gee, we have a 50 year lease on this beachfront hotel complex, sure would be a shame if it got swallowed up by the ocean’… this sort of thing.
And, quit referring to everyone who understands this issue as ‘AGW alarmists’. 400ppm and rising CO2 is a real problem. It isn’t ‘alarmism’ to point that out.
You correctly identify the problem as of the type Tragedy of the Commons. Man has been aware of such problems for thousands of years, and addressed many of them successfully, albeit with greater difficulty than when clear self-interest is good enough.
There are many many commons-tragedy problems that can only be solved by government coercion. Many people are considerate enough not to litter or pollute, but there are enough inconsiderate people that the considerate people are almost irrelevant – fines need to be imposed: otherwise littering and pollution will occur. Et cetera, et cetera, etc.
If I extrapolate from your remarks, Mr. Pedant, I guess you are a considerate person who wouldn’t litter whether it risked police response or not. But you aren’t considerate enough to stop wasting carbon fuels on your life style. But nobody cares where you draw that particular line. The point is that, as with most commons tragedies, coercion will be needed to reduce CO2 emissions. No one cares whether you or Al Gore wants to reduce your emissions; we need laws to limit emissions. (I propose carbon tax, happy for you as you can then continue your ways, though at a higher price.)
On a separate matter, when I complained that it is the “right” which commits the logic error of calling rationalists like Warren Buffet hypocritical, because they don’t overpay their taxes despite thinking, as a matter of public policy, that rates should be higher, Rune gave the example of similar hypocrisy charges directed against “anti-gay preachers … caught in the lavatory with a pretty boy.” I suppose one could regard gays preaching an anti-gay message as morally equivalent to citizens in favor of tax hikes not paying them voluntarily. However, I do think most rationalists will find the analogy laughable.
