4 ms·

That sounds a really long way of saying "I am apathetic to the problem" (or blunter still, "I don't care"), which while being a perfectly valid position, doesn'

That sounds a really long way of saying "I am apathetic to the problem" (or blunter still, "I don't care"), which while being a perfectly valid position, doesn't really add anything to the discussion. On the flip side, I agree with you, but that doesn't really help anything or anyone either, except to provide some comfort that you're not alone?

barking 10y ago
It's also hard to not get a little cynical when some of the people who pontificate on the subject don't look like they are making many sacrifices.
- MagnumOpus 10y ago
  Why? Individual action is utterly irrelevant for any global problem, and the pontificators know it. What can help is changing the incentive structure for the consumption of millions or billions people; i.e. carbon taxes, power plant tax incentives, new solar/wind tech that makes it cheaper than oil. Given 95 million barrels of oil being burned every day, it matters not an iota if a rich guy sets fire to an entire barrel of oil - but it matters massively whether he lobbies for a carbon tax or whether he uses his influence to spread lies to prevent one. As an aside, the same applies for taxes - I am not a hypocrite if I make use of a mortgage tax deduction while at the same time arguing that it is a nonsensical and highly destructive tax.
  - barking 10y ago
    I have celebrity environment activists in mind who regularly fly in private jets to faraway resorts and live the high life while being ambassadors for climate change action on the other. The context is different but Paul Theroux's quote on Bono sums it up: "THERE are probably more annoying things than being hectored about African development by a wealthy Irish rock star in a cowboy hat, but I can't think of one at the moment" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/opinion/the-rock-stars-burden.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/opinion/the-rock-stars-bur...
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Fortunately the message can be true regardless of who says it?
      - barking 10y ago
        They choose a celebrity because they think that the little people are more likely to listen to them. But when the messenger has the whiff of hyprocisy about them, it's natural to be cynical. No one likes being patronised.
slifin 10y ago
On a slightly different tangent, I think people commenting something along the lines of "I don't care", a neutral position, to most things on the internet is something we need more of. The internet is such a polarized place, I think because a lot of people don't post if they do not care, which filters out any neutral opinions, which makes the internet a very distorting enviroment
anexprogrammer 10y ago
I consider myself one who does care, but environment doesn't make the top 10 of important issues for the masses. In truth, I can fully understand the apathy. It's especially hard to care when the masses are taxed, compelled to recycle and told that high wattage appliances will be banned for environmental reasons (the stupidest bit of legislation to come out the EU for years). Then inconvenienced with other regulations and trivia. The big things are ignored. Insulation, combined heat and power schemes, transport, carbon and full lifecycle taxes on everyone even the large users, their premises and packaging, ending the hidden subsidies of roads. The kids "care", but they care as well-programmed 21st C consumers. Emphasis on consume, despite our efforts. Commerce is going the wrong way at ever increasing rate. Shortening the buying cycles for everything possible, ideally disposable everything. Packaging is increasing exponentially - for little gain, except for the manufacturer. The environmental credentials of nearly every business are an exercise in tokenism. We get half a dozen bins and containers to pre-sort waste, a lot of which was exported as "recycling", a regulation to reduce wattage of appliances, giving us kettles that uses the exact same electric to make coffee, it just takes longer. Tesco and Amazon ensure those bins are always full. The tory majority ensured the death of alternative energy subsidies and wrecked a nicely growing sector, and immediately increased fossil fuel subsidies months before the Paris summit. So I fully understand why most individuals, including me, might look and think "what's the bloody point? You just OK'd fracking and more oil subsidies".

barking 10y ago

It's also hard to not get a little cynical when some of the people who pontificate on the subject don't look like they are making many sacrifices.

MagnumOpus 10y ago
Why? Individual action is utterly irrelevant for any global problem, and the pontificators know it. What can help is changing the incentive structure for the consumption of millions or billions people; i.e. carbon taxes, power plant tax incentives, new solar/wind tech that makes it cheaper than oil. Given 95 million barrels of oil being burned every day, it matters not an iota if a rich guy sets fire to an entire barrel of oil - but it matters massively whether he lobbies for a carbon tax or whether he uses his influence to spread lies to prevent one. As an aside, the same applies for taxes - I am not a hypocrite if I make use of a mortgage tax deduction while at the same time arguing that it is a nonsensical and highly destructive tax.
- barking 10y ago
  I have celebrity environment activists in mind who regularly fly in private jets to faraway resorts and live the high life while being ambassadors for climate change action on the other. The context is different but Paul Theroux's quote on Bono sums it up: "THERE are probably more annoying things than being hectored about African development by a wealthy Irish rock star in a cowboy hat, but I can't think of one at the moment" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/opinion/the-rock-stars-burden.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/opinion/the-rock-stars-bur...
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Fortunately the message can be true regardless of who says it?
    - barking 10y ago
      They choose a celebrity because they think that the little people are more likely to listen to them. But when the messenger has the whiff of hyprocisy about them, it's natural to be cynical. No one likes being patronised.

slifin 10y ago

On a slightly different tangent, I think people commenting something along the lines of "I don't care", a neutral position, to most things on the internet is something we need more of. The internet is such a polarized place, I think because a lot of people don't post if they do not care, which filters out any neutral opinions, which makes the internet a very distorting enviroment

anexprogrammer 10y ago

I consider myself one who does care, but environment doesn't make the top 10 of important issues for the masses. In truth, I can fully understand the apathy. It's especially hard to care when the masses are taxed, compelled to recycle and told that high wattage appliances will be banned for environmental reasons (the stupidest bit of legislation to come out the EU for years). Then inconvenienced with other regulations and trivia. The big things are ignored. Insulation, combined heat and power schemes, transport, carbon and full lifecycle taxes on everyone even the large users, their premises and packaging, ending the hidden subsidies of roads. The kids "care", but they care as well-programmed 21st C consumers. Emphasis on consume, despite our efforts. Commerce is going the wrong way at ever increasing rate. Shortening the buying cycles for everything possible, ideally disposable everything. Packaging is increasing exponentially - for little gain, except for the manufacturer. The environmental credentials of nearly every business are an exercise in tokenism. We get half a dozen bins and containers to pre-sort waste, a lot of which was exported as "recycling", a regulation to reduce wattage of appliances, giving us kettles that uses the exact same electric to make coffee, it just takes longer. Tesco and Amazon ensure those bins are always full. The tory majority ensured the death of alternative energy subsidies and wrecked a nicely growing sector, and immediately increased fossil fuel subsidies months before the Paris summit. So I fully understand why most individuals, including me, might look and think "what's the bloody point? You just OK'd fracking and more oil subsidies".