[berj]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

@ Berj,

I agree that Gluttony for Gluttony's sake is a bad thing, but no one spoke of this at all, this is a new twist you threw into the mix.

Not at all:

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

For me? I don't care! It's equally delusional to think that the Gas you don't burn won't pollute. Instead, it will be burned by someone else. Most likely some Chinese guy who's forsaken his Bicycle for a Beijing "Heroic", their newest SUV! Personally, I'd rather get the enjoyment from it.

That's gluttony.. ie. I'd better eat it before someone else does.

Originally Posted by bmussatti

Look at what people are willing to spend at Starbucks everyday, or bottled water. Don't worry about gas mileage and fuel costs. IMHO."

Same here. ie. everyone else is eating.. I may as well join in.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

First, everybody will not do it, meaning that it won't happen and the effort ineffective. You can say it all starts with one, but it has to end up with many more to be effective. And 30+ years of espousing environmental concerns have only seen consumption increase worldwide, so my expectations are not high.

I'm sad to see that attitude. It may seem like a platitude but each little piece does help. And 30 years is hardly enough time to wait.. it took us quite some time to get into this situation and it will take time to get out. Seems a little fatalistic to me to just assume that things won't change and thus do nothing. Things like recycling *do* help (eg in the area of landfill use and energy spent on resource extraction). Just look at the area of paper recycling -- something like 40% of newspapers in the US is made of recycled material (and many newspapers took up this initiative voluntarily) do you honestly think we'd be better off *without* that 40%?

I'd personally prefer that my kids (heck even myself) not have to live in a world covered in garbage and I'm damn sure that Michigan is getting tired of taking Toronto's (ie my) garbage even if they are getting paid for the service. So I do my part.. I reduce what I consume and discard (in some areas substantially, in others less so). And by my example many friends have done the same. Any by their example others have done so. It's a simple feedback loop.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

And, you've made no account of the negative effects of such a 20% reduction. Think of all the people who are dependent upon the Oil Industry through the Discovery process, to Recovery, Sales, Distribution and even those people employed in the Environmental Industry who's sustenance comes from Oil. If you reduce consumption, you'll reduce the need for many of these people's jobs. In the short term, this can be more devastating than the gains achieved. Of course, if you are not affected by these, they have no meaning to you, except to say that sooner or later, you or your industry will feel the effects.

I've heard this before and I just don't buy it.. it's a cheap shot and it holds no water. Every bit of technological advancement we've made as been built upon the obsolessence of others and their work. To not do something simply because someone's job will be affected gets us absolutely nowhere. If there's anything our culture has shown is a remarkable ability of people (both individuals and populations) to adapt in such circumstances. And besides, what about all of the people working in the recycling industry? What about all of those researchers working on alternative energy sources? Want to put them out of work?

Then there's the issue of personal financial savings. I've got an expensive car that uses expensive gas. You can bet your ass that I'll be right on the line of enjoyment vs. consumption. It's simply a case of diminshing returns -- 20km/h more speed, faster starts or taking it a bit easy and being able to pocket a little more cash for other things. Like I said before.. it's all about balance for me. Absolutes are no good for anything (yes.. I see the irony in that statement.. but I stand by it)

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Your analogy about the Old Lady's purse is not at all germane to the issue, except again, only in the most abstract of reason.

I disagree. Your argument was that you figured that since someone else was going to use it anyway you'd prefer to use it yourself rather than scaling back your use. Seems the same to me.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

So far as your item #4, I made no such statements, therse are assumptions on your part and therefore I have no need to address them.

Quite right. I apologize. I was simply reacting against the notion that just because I have the car that I have that I don't (and can't) care for the environment and the idea that I don't know the environmental costs of how I live.

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Your last argument about future generations does have some validity, but only to the point. Again, effectiveness of a solution has to be factored in. All the legislation and subsequent technical innovation of the '70's to reduce pollution has been more than offset by the increase in numbers of both people and cars.

Exactly my point. Imagine if we didn't have those innovations and attitude changes against which our increased consumption could be offset. That's my whole point. Balance. If we want to consume more (and nowhere have I said that we shouldn't be able to consume) then we must pay the piper in some other area. Simple.