Going '"Green"

[Matusalem]

I'm going to start a new thread here, so either it works or it doesn't .

I'm curious if anyone really believes in such a thing, and if so, what have you done to go green?

For instance, for myself, I have done, or considering the following:

-installed a number of fluourescent light bulbs to replace incandescent bulbs (except for the bathroom and a living room light because of the 1 mimute warm-up delay)...this is 40% less power.

-I travel the eastern seaboard US by train....we are electrified here. The highways here are parking lots (from Boston to DC) on a friday afternoon anyway.

Trains are a fraction of energy vs. people per car.

-I'm strongly considering a work commute vehicle such as a Chevy Aveo or a Toyota Yaris (You european folks are laughing at us , I know)

-I spoke with IslandCutter last week, and he was suggesting vegetable oil as a replacement for diesel. That's a lot of chinese restaurants to visit to pick up fuel.

FYI, once I spoke to a guy who motored from Atlantic City, NJ to Harborplace, Baltimore, Md on his jet-turbine cigarette boat. He bragged that it cost him $5000 for fuel for the ride over....as if everyone everyone was Merv Griffin. I told him that sail costs nothing....forever.

[Red-Handed Jill]

I'm all for it. A lot of the folks who mock going green and discount folks who do by calling them "tree huggers" and such just don't get it.

Bottom line is this planet will ultimately take care of itself. Even if we destroy it, it's got four billion years to rebuild itself. The issue is will WE be able to survive what we're doing to the planet.

Oxygen? Kinda need that to breathe, so cutting down our rainforests just so that fast food restaurants can send cattle down there is not a good thing for our ability to breath in the future. Driving huge cars, trucks and SUV's with no real reason to is going to pollute our air that much faster. Never mind global warming - I'm just talking about air that will be fit to breathe. And being cavalier about endangered species is just idiotic. Every organism on this planet has a place in it at one time and wiping one out upsets the balance of things.

Okay - I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Silkie McDonough]

I can't say I have gone green but I do my a little.

Paper towels were replaced by rags (unless I have company) that get bleached in the wash.

Fluorescent bulbs are being used to replace other bulbs as they burn out.

I drive a Honda Civic. I looked into the hybrid when I bought this one and I couldn't afford it at the time.

I recycle everything I can.

I wish I could manage to remember to take my canvas shopping bags to the grocer.

At work I don't print anything out unless I have to. If I need to save something I take a screen shot and email it to myself.

I figure if I can manage to save just one tree ...I will be happy.

[Red Cat Jenny]

I am all for green. Hey if you like to breathe...it's sort of a necessity.

I live in NY. Which like many cities is polluted and has a populace that commutes almost 24/7.

This Summer I looked out from the tower I work in at JFK. I have a birds eye a view of the Atlantic from East over the island, all the way West over the entire city and towards NJ. I was amazed at the thick tobacco colored ring of pollution that spanned the entire horizon for weeks. I haven't seen that in years.

Everyone around here has suffered lengthy respiratory ailments this Summer. My co worker was told by their doctor that everyone was suffering the air condition this year. With the humidity, it didn't help. I rarely get sick, but had a cough that lasted from Mid June until about a week ago. Many people complained about waking in the night with difficulty breathing. So anyone that doesn't think green is necessary should think again.

I do recycle what I can.

I use flourescent replacement bulbs.

I don't print unless I have to either and try to convince people at work of the same.

Frustration is buying a $2 muffin and getting a reciept even when I say I don't want one..which I throw in the can 4 feet from the cashier.

Frustration is buying a $12 headlight at Pep Boys (One of the worst offenders) and getting not only a legal sized "work slip for installation" but a register reciept, and a two page legal size printout reciept. It felt like I had just purchased a new car.

Frustration is not being able to eat fish as often as I'd like because of the mercury levels. Now having to worry that shrimp might have come from China where it is so laden with poisons that the US banned imports recently. Finding out "Kohl" cosmetics were being sold recently that contained lots of lead - now banned. One wonders what slips in "under the door" that hasn't been caught.

I had read that the astraunauts on a recent shuttle flight said they could see the deforestation in South America from space....sad. I see people at the airport travelling to those locations with chain saws every day. I know they are going because the money is good and they need the work. Frustration is not knowing how to stop that. Wanting to run up to them and tell then to stop. That we need the air.

The sagging infrastructure and sorry state of mass transit in this country is also to blame. For me to take the train to work between cabs, and two trains is $42 round trip. It doesn't pay. I'd love the extra hours nap..but I have to drive. Where are the high speed trains? Monorails? Any decent mass transit? This would include being able to get to the train, and park there.

Plant something, pick up trash, fix the leaks in your car/bike/boat. Get to the shore and just breathe. Whatever we can do helps.

Let 'em call you a tree hugger. At least there'll be trees left to hug.

[Hester]

Well, I consider myself pretty damn green. I don't drive. Mr. H & I own a compact car, but we only use it about once a week or so to do the "heavy" shopping, or to go to the cottage a few times each summer. For everything else, we usually take transit. In fact, I do most of our day-to-day grocery shopping on foot with a backpack.

Recycling is so entrenched it's second nature. And for the last few years, Toronto also has a "green bin" system, so that all organic waste is centrally composted:

http://www.toronto.ca/greenbin/index.htm

Prior to that, I did home-composting.

I use a push-mower to cut my small patch of lawn. I don't use chemical fertilizer or herbicide/pesticides on it. And I don't water it -- it has to survive on rainwater alone (as does my "garden").

We have central air, but only use it about 5 to 10 days a year, if the temperature and humidity become absolutely unbearable. (So far this year, just 3 days!) Otherwise, I just dress appropriately and open the windows.

My old Victorian house could be more draft-proof for winter ... but not without destroying all the original plaster walls to add insulation, and replacing every window. So, I'm not willing to do something that drastic quite yet. But I do keep the thermostat turned down and pile on the sweaters and heavy socks.

Another thing I absolutely WON'T do is use compact fluorescent bulbs ... until they solve the problems with spectrum and flicker. The light from them is so harsh, that just a few seconds under one of those bulbs makes me feel nauseated. Longer exposure, and I wind up with a migraine.

On the other hand, I simply don't turn on that many lights. In fact, I belong to the International Dark Sky Association:

http://www.darksky.org/

I don't use outdoor lighting on my property at all. I certainly don't leave my porchlight burning all the time! And I keep my indoor lights down to a minimum (especially in summer, to keep my un-air-conditioned house cooler).

One thing that really irked me about the government's recent power conservation publicity campaign was a TV commercial starring scientist/environmentalist Dr. David Suzuki. It showed him replacing someone's porchlight with a compact fluorescent bulb. When the homeowner asked what difference that could make, the camera panned down the street showing all the porchlights coming on. But every single one of the light fixtures was a poorly designed one that created "light tresspass". As a scientist interested in astronomy, Dr. Suzuki should be aware of the problem of light pollution. If he's going to promote a different type of porchlight, he should be sure the fixtures are "full cut-off", so that only the area that requires lighting is illuminated, without lightspill and glare into the surrounding area and sky. And people should be encouraged to turn their lights OFF, not just pop in a fluorescent bulb instead! Grumble, grumble, sigh!

[Misson]

Despite my conviction that the majority of the GW publicity is little more than a political ploy, I engage in environmental practices as I've detailed elsewhere on the board. As Jill mentioned, we should do it if only to preserve the environment for ourselves. (It's really quite selfish when you look at it - the planet will survive either way.)

As for fluorescent bulbs...bah. I've tried 'em in several fixtures and the things give off less light. I couldn't read without my cheaters when I put them in my bedroom and I love to read at night, so I gave most of them the heave ho and am currently using a 200 watt fluorescent. (Still can't read the footnotes when I get too far away from the light. This may be a failing of mine rather than the bulb. ) I have a few scattered about where the level of lighting doesn't matter to me as much, but for the most part, I'm not convinced.

As I have mentioned, I'm also scouting solar energy. It's still too expensive, but eventually it will become pragmatic. I guess that's what it really comes down to for me - is each practice also pragmatic as well as being green? Being green for green's sake just don't send me.

[JohnnyTarr]

I have been looking into wind power for the farm. It is a large investment initally but I believe that I will start making a return in 7 years. After that it will be all profit and my power for free. Now all I need is the capital.

[Graydog]

I be goin green in most strong gales.

Tis an ugly site, it is.

[Lady Alyx]

Hmmm, well we have recycle bins in the alley, and I try to dig out all the recyclable stuff out of my trash and put it in there before I throw the rest away. (I really got to get back to composting!)

I hate trowing away food, so anything that can be edible by the creatures outside they get it, so the crows, jays, asst of birds and squirrels love me.

I recycle a lot of stuff due to my arts and crafts, I reuse containers and plastic packaging and the styrofoam under meat for my art supplies (cleaned of course first).

I don't throw any old household goods or clothes away..that all goes to the Thrift shops.

I am starting to use the new bulbs, and turn off lights and appliances when not in use.

I try to do many runs to various places on a strategic path while driving.

[Red-Handed Jill]

My argument wasn't meant to be selfish, but it's been my observation that most people live as if they were the only species that matter on this planet. So I've learned to adjust my arguments and appeal to how most people feel about themselves and their place on earth.

[PyratePhil]

As I have mentioned, I'm also scouting solar energy. It's still too expensive, but eventually it will become pragmatic.

That's exactly what they said in the '70's...

...I'm still waiting...

[Cpt Sophia M Eisley]

Jill, I echo your thoughts on the matter, as well as Misson's. The world will outlive us, and surely there will be future species that will thrive no matter what we do now. But if we can do a little here and there to make the world we live in now (and in the not to distant future) a more comfortable place to live, I'm all for it.

What has chapped my hide is how much the some folk in the spotlight have charged the average person with the decree to "decrease your carbon footprint". Alot of them have very big footprints, which seems hypocrytical in light of what's being touted. I'd like to see them walk the walk, and then I might be more apt to listen to something they'd have to say. I can say that I've done my part for years, in one way or another without someone on high telling me it's the right thing to do.

[Misson]

My argument wasn't meant to be selfish, but it's been my observation that most people live as if they were the only species that matter on this planet.

Ah, but the green argument is, at it's core, essentially selfish. We must preserve the planet...for us. Some folks paint this absurdist picture of an ideal planet where we have no impact and how the earth "would be" as it would be if we weren't here. Do go on with your little self...

I mean, who writes this stuff? The earth has seen the most violent upheavals and landscape adjustments that you can probably imagine. Take the amount of oxygen in the environment. Oxygen is a corrosive, poisonous element to many things. Look at it's effect on metals. Yet we need it to live, so we are in favor of it (inhale) and biased against CO2 (exhale). We are basically preserving a poisonous environment to many species which are now dead and gone as a result of the oxygen in the atmos. (See the documentary War of the Worlds (the good one...pre-Cruise) for proof.) I say that's pretty damned selfish of us. ( Perception...you know I love it.)

[Cpt Sophia M Eisley]

I think I see two points being noted here in the latest replies. One would be that regardless of what we do, the continuous change and upheaval Earth takes upon herself will see our existance as a mere blip on her radar. Therefore what we do would have little effect on her. The second would be that humans need to step back and realize that what we want, good or bad might not work out for everything else that lives (and breathes...or doesn't) on the planet.

I do scoff from time to time at what we (humans) have laid out there as gospel, letters of the law and whatnot concerning many a given topic. But as long as humans exists, that will continue. We might not all believe that we're the most imporant race on the planet, but our actions and words continue to push that belief.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

ISHMAEL by Daniel Quinn... get it, read it... I challenge you all.

Bo

[Misson]

I think I see two points being noted here in the latest replies.  One would be that regardless of what we do, the continuous change and upheaval Earth takes upon herself will see our existance as a mere blip on her radar.  Therefore what we do would have little effect on her. 

True. True. A matter of perception. (Itself apparently a uniquely human quality. As far as we know, of course.)

The second would be that humans need to step back and realize that what we want, good or bad might not work out for everything else that lives (and breathes...or doesn't) on the planet.

Also true. My point above. There really is no "ideal" earth. There are a multitude of snapshots of earth and someone has chosen one "ideal" and tried to suggest that this is what we should all strive for.

The woman I met yesterday made a very good point on this subject. Black and white is no way to live one's life. It doesn't exist in nature...and we are a part of nature.

Like it or not. Some people seem to think we're above it or below it or whatever else they can come up with in relationship to "it", but all our actions are, by definition, natural. Our minds are composed of components of this earth and thus are natural. Anything they might come up with is also, arguably, natural. (Good and bad. As Tennyson noted, "Nature, red in tooth and claw..." and all that.)

I think the estimable Sjöröveren made a very good point about us in the thread on infrastructure, so rather than try and sum it up, rephrase it or otherwise modify the thoughts which are already stated quite clearly, I'll just quote it:

Humans naturally try to change their environment, in an imperfect attempt to improve it. And with every improvement come errors and unintended consequences. Yet we try again. You can argue whether any of these "improvements" are actually good for us. Maybe it was a mistake to come down from the trees and start walking upright. But we tend to learn something from our mistakes, just not enough to be perfect. Doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Indeed. (Note the second word in the quote. Funny about that.)

[Lady Alyx]

I feel sorry for Nature and what we have done to it...if only we tried to always live along with Nature and not abuse it....SIGh!

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

People were doing just that until some a$$#*le started planting crops, then the priests and traders got involved in control and profit and the rest is, well, history.

[Patrick Hand]

It's kinda funny...... I'm basicaly Green..... not because I really care, or don't care .... but because it's cheaper that way......

I don't recycle, because it's too much of a hastle driving to the recycling center,( and they only buy back CRV bottles anyway) so I just take everything to the dump.... actully it's a transfer station... so the icky garbage (one bag every two weeks) goes into one ben... bottles go into another, and cardboard into the other one ... I figure the county can then sell it. and I get to dump my garbage for free.....

SO.... I'm not green.... I'm just cheap.....

[Red Cat Jenny]

I hate that my neighors spray poison up into the trees raining in down on everything in luding where I live and my doggie sniffs around.

My last dog when I was younger died of Cancer from vinyl chloride. This was in weed killer my neighbor sprinkled near the fence and the dog ate the long grass there. Please include pesticide awareness in being green. We can absorb it, our children can crawl through it and our pets are closest to it. It may not be you, but I have caught my neighbors tree sprayers spraying my trees as well as the guys across the street. I had just gotten home in the middle of a workday. I chased them away and my neighbor denied it ever happened.

[PyratePhil]

Like it or not. Some people seem to think we're above it or below it or whatever else they can come up with in relationship to "it", but all our actions are, by definition, natural. Our minds are composed of components of this earth and thus are natural. Anything they might come up with is also, arguably, natural. (Good and bad. As Tennyson noted, "Nature, red in tooth and claw..." and all that.)

No, I disagree.

Our minds, as well as our bodies and spirits, are "natural" only at the moment of birth...wait...that's not right...

...because now they're messing with embryos and fetus'...OK...let's rephrase it that we're only natural at the moment of concep....

Damn - artificial insemination.

IN THE CASE OF natural conception and child birth, at the moment of birth we are "natural", perhaps. As soon as we're exposed to the ways and prejudices of our caretakers, however, we start becoming UN-natural.

If our actions are described as "natural" simply because we're part of "nature", then you might also believe that a person is "sexual" because they have a "sex", or that I'm "virginal" because I was once a "virgin".

We're probably the only species that ACTIVELY and WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT strives AGAINST nature, with the full knowledge that doing so will cause harm to ourselves and others.

Other creatures are simpletons compared to us - lucky them. They're not the ones responsible for screwing up the planet - it's Man and his wonderful quest for knowledge and advancement.

All hail Man, the Ultimate Living Organism in the Universe!!!

[Mission]

IN THE CASE OF natural conception and child birth, at the moment of birth we are "natural", perhaps. As soon as we're exposed to the ways and prejudices of our caretakers, however, we start becoming UN-natural.

Interesting! (I'll set the semantics that follow aside as I think they're misleading and rather straw mannish.) I maintain that all the components are natural, ergo, the actions are likewise - proceeding from nature.

From Freedictionary.com:

nat·u·ral, adj. 1. Present in or produced by nature

We are thus. We ascribe traits to ourselves as being beyond nature because that is (heh) our nature. If we are components of nature (which I maintain we are), then what we produce is also a component of nature. Curiously, the notion that we might produce "unnatural" conception hints that we are stealing a trait we (naturally) ascribe to God. Thus, for it to be "unnatural" our definition of God must also be "unnatural." Which I do not believe. (Alas, beliefs are impossible to argue, so we are most likely at an impasse there.)

Now, you could successfully argue with me on my classification if I had chosen definition 4a. To wit:

4a. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.

Hopefully, I have made it clear that I am not using that concept.

We're probably the only species that ACTIVELY and WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT strives AGAINST nature, with the full knowledge that doing so will cause harm to ourselves and others.

Well, "malice" is an ascribed trait. It's a concept we have created. We could argue all day about whether animals experience "grief" or not. (Any pet owner will maintain a view on this ranging from "impossibly so" to "impeccably so.") However, consciousness as a physical trait of humanity is still beyond the grasp of science, let alone what might be going on in the heads of our allegedly "dumb friends." So I don't see where we can incontrovertibly say one way or the other.

We can say that animals are capable of planning actions that we would call "malicious" if we were to perform them however. Observe any cat preparing its pounce and mercilessly toying with it's victim to extend the malice. Natural, no?

Other creatures are simpletons compared to us - lucky them.

...as far as we understand them through observation and interpretation. Lest we forget, white mice actually run the Earth.

They're not the ones responsible for screwing up the planet - it's Man and his wonderful quest for knowledge and advancement.

All hail Man, the Ultimate Living Organism in the Universe!!! 

Again, as far as we know. A couple of decent catastrophic earthly events (or even once choice one extra-earthly one) and the ULOitU ceases to exist. Perhaps the earth is the UNLOitU...until you get to our Sun, black holes, the Universe itself and who knows what else. (And even they are only "Non-Living" by our definition of living. Which we conveniently made up.

[Zephaniah W Nash]

Sadly, a lot of what is considered "green," really isn't. And this is not meant as a shot to any person who might take any of these steps, nor is it the final argument, just another point of view.

Saving paper to save trees. Sounds good, but paper is made out of fast-growing pine trees grown on tree farms for the purpose of making into paper. It is not "natural" or old-growth forests being turned into paper. So, in this instance, using more paper would lead to having more trees planted and therefore create more trees. Now, the polution created by paper mills is a whole other question (and they are nasty, I've worked at a couple), but saving paper isn't saving the rain forest. Not buying furniture from Ikea may be...

Recycling saves energy. At this point, there are many who think that it doesn't. There are claims that it takes more energy (not to mention the money paid to recycler workers) to recycle a plastic bottle than it does to create a new one. This is open to a LOT of debate, but the argument is out there. Basically, I could give a couple of links here, but the mathematics are beyond me, and I'm just stating that the argument is there.

A landfill is not wasted, ruined land. Modern landfills are probably more ecologically sound than those used as recently as fifty years ago. That land is still re-usable after that landfill is "full," because it is maintained in such a way that it will not impact the environment for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

Penn and Teller did a great episode on this for their "Bullsh!t" show (their PC spelling). I don't agree with everything on the episode, but they ain't just making it up, either. It's a good primer, but not the final discussion.

The argument between carbon fuel use and whether it's causing global warming and whether that warming is bad or not I'll leave to those who know a lot more about the subject than myself -- though I do find it odd that most of those scientists who say it's no big deal actually work for the oil industry (but I'll freely admit they may not take that stance because they work for the oil industry, but work for the oil industry because they have that stance already).

Just my thoughts on the matter as a whole, for what they're worth.

[PyratePhil]

...I maintain that all the components are natural, ergo, the actions are likewise - proceeding from nature.

From Freedictionary.com:

nat·u·ral, adj. 1. Present in or produced by nature

We are thus. We ascribe traits to ourselves as being beyond nature because that is (heh) our nature. If we are components of nature (which I maintain we are), then what we produce is also a component of nature. Curiously, the notion that we might produce "unnatural" conception hints that we are stealing a trait we (naturally) ascribe to God. Thus, for it to be "unnatural" our definition of God must also be "unnatural." Which I do not believe. (Alas, beliefs are impossible to argue, so we are most likely at an impasse there.)

But using THAT model, NOTHING would ever be un-natural. Which in itself is not bad - just not useful for friendly debate.

There should probably be, if not a definite line, then at least a gray-area between natural and un-natural. How else to describe synthetic vs. all-natural? Using your argument, even synthetics are natural, since they hail from organic matter.

And that takes all the fun out of deriding un-natural things.

Well, "malice" is an ascribed trait. It's a concept we have created. We could argue all day about whether animals experience "grief" or not. (Any pet owner will maintain a view on this ranging from "impossibly so" to "impeccably so.") However, consciousness as a physical trait of humanity is still beyond the grasp of science, let alone what might be going on in the heads of our allegedly "dumb friends." So I don't see where we can incontrovertibly say one way or the other.

To me, "malice" just means plain ol'-fashioned meanness. A lack of consideration or caring about anyone else but yourself. That might be "natural" to some predatory animals, but Man is supposedly far evolved from that point. Yet, every day I see examples of Man's inhumanity to Man.

Other:

Cats "toy" with their victims not as play, as I'm sure you realize, but as a learning and practice application.

Sorry, Brain - I fergot about ruling the world!

All I know is, right here, right now - I'm not always real impressed with Man's supposed evolution. To me, he's taken more steps toward being UN-natural than he has toward a unification with Nature.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Another thing that gets me grinning is the folks who do a little bit of going green. Kinda like ALMOST quitting smoking.