5 ms·

It's purly cultural, driven by consumerism. Buy a nalgene....we can do better. People should know that they are going to get thirsty at some point.

Eridrus 8y ago
The "everyone should change their way of life" approach to environmentalism hasn't worked and has been quite divisive, why do people continue to think it is an effective strategy?
- mturmon 8y ago
  Lifestyle change is possible: littering, disposable bags. One could go on.
  - PeterisP 8y ago
    That's useful, however, that's not even close to the order of magnitude of lifestyle change required to counter climate change. Instead of not littering, think not using a car; instead of banning disposable bags, think banning beef; one could go on - restructuring cities to use less transportation, drastic reduction in air transport (so, no overseas travel for most people), etc. Sure, such lifestyle change is possible as well, however, instead of a fraction of people who currently volunteer to do it, we need to ensure that the vast majority of global population do so, and we need to ensure that they do it quickly enough. Which is unlikely to happen without massive coercion.
    - Eridrus 8y ago
      This sort of thinking is the exact problem. It works from the point of "what should we do if we think environmental concerns are the biggest priority". IMo the correct lense should be "what is the minimal amount of change/political capital we need to achieve our objectives for the environment", for different targets.
      - PeterisP 8y ago
        I agree that "what is the minimal amount of change/political capital we need to achieve our objectives for the environment" is a very good perspective to apply. However, from that perspective is obvious that "littering, disposable bags" isn't even in the same ballpark. IMHO it would be counterproductive to motivate people with such goals, since if the end result is that they stop littering, switch to reusable bags and think "yeah, now I've done my part"... it's wrong, they're still contributing about 99% of the damage that they used to do, it's nowhere close to sufficient. Right now (unlike, say, the 1980s) the minimal amount of change is very, very large - currently, achieving our objectives for the environment requires changes that would be considered radical by pretty much everyone, and political capital that no current leader has. Raise the gas price by a few percent, and you get rioting in the streets. Would anyone have enough political capital to double the gas price, so that people actually burn significantly less oil? And would the transport reduction achieved by merely doubling the gas price be sufficient to reduce the emissions? IMHO the answer to both these answers is a clear NO, the minimal amount of change needed is larger than the maximal amount of change for which we have political capital.
        Eridrus 8y ago
        But all of the things you advocate for in your previous post are things that could be achieved with less pain. Even the fuel tax, while the goal is to drive change, you can drive change by rewarding the desired behaviour (e.g. a revenue-neutral gas/carbon tax that paid back to low income folks), rather than punishing people. Maybe not as drastic a change since you don't get people not driving because they can't afford it, but it would incentivize doing something else to the same extent. Or we could be much more aggressive about moving people to electric cars. Or we could simply invest more money/energy into making public transport better. We could say try and convince people to fly less, or we could legislate carbon offsets for air travel. So while, yes, serious change is needed, I think we really need to think about this from a political angle, rather than a moralising angle. I would avoid even touching the diet angle if you want people to listen to you and not write you off. Meat does contribute noticeably to global warming, but food is culture, it is the hardest change to achieve, so we should really leave it to last, politically. It would be far better to deal with meat in an overall carbon tax solution, rather than singling it out as a thing people have to change.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Because the alternative is ultimately "Everyone probably won't get to stay alive". Which is a pretty big change in one's way of life. Also, using cans instead of bottles isn't exactly a major shift in most people's life. It's infinitely recyclable (unlike plastic), something nature knows how to deal with (unlike plastic) and often better for the beverage (in the case of beer at the very least).
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    If you had read the OP I was replying to, you would see they were suggesting everyone should buy and carry a Nalgene water bottle with them at all times, in case they needed water. If you read further down this thread, many commenters in this thread are convinced that we should never package water.
    - jogjayr 8y ago
      "Never" is a strong word. Packaged water is useful when stockpiling for or responding to natural disasters (hurricanes, wildfire, tornadoes, earthquakes), emergency evacuation camps, places where safe, clean water and filters aren't easily accessible or used. Everywhere else, it's really unnecessary.
  - biggusdickus 8y ago
    Cans' inside is lined with plastic.
  - dmm 8y ago
    The alternative is the government intervening to internalize externalities. For example, a revenue neutral carbon tax or deposits on food/drink containers.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      This is actually a better approach. But it's extremely hard politically. If we did this gas would be 12-20 USD a gallon, and we'd have a better world.
- specialist 8y ago
  Shaming backfires. Whereas snobbery works great. The successful (advertising) campaigns target the cool kids (opinion leaders).
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  It's not exactly a crazy change to one's way of life. As recently as when I was a kid, people drank water out of cups. When we were out in public, we'd use a water fountain. Carrying a water bottle with you everywhere you go is another option, but probably not strictly necessary unless you're currently trying to pass a kidney stone.
- dkarl 8y ago
  It's irrational, but people still talk about corporate responsibility in the same language they use to talk about the morality of their own and other people's behavior. Changes like these help establish the cultural consensus that environmental damage is a bad thing that should be avoided even if it means we have to invest cost and effort in change.
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
But tap water is contaminated with DHMO.
reaperducer 8y ago
Buy a nalgene....we can do better We used to just use public drinking fountains. Or paper cups at the office water cooler. And kids drank out of water fountains in parks, or out of random garden hoses they found. Yesterday I saw a kid with a fancy Nalgene... at church! I have a pill that I take which has dry cough as a side-effect, and even I don't bring a water bottle to church. The kid's not going to shrivel up and blow away because he can't have a sip of water for 45 minutes.
- njarboe 8y ago
  The ADA forced the designs for water fountains to change and they have been unreliable, low-to-no flow, and too short for most people ever since. People had to learn to carry water with them when before they just drank out of a fountain when they were thirsty. At least there has been a rise in the bottle filling dispensers so that filling up your bottle is not such a pain.
- bluntfang 8y ago
  I think it's really important for people to carry their own plate/bowl, cup, and utensils that they can use and wash on their own that they carry around with them wherever they go. The whole disposable plate/utensil industry could be removed if everyone just brought their own!
  - CountHackulus 8y ago
    I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but I actually do this. I've got a spork, a glass cup, a metal straw, and a fabric napkin that I bring with me everywhere. If I'm going somewhere I know that I'll want to bring food home I'll also bring one of my metal lunch containers. I'm carrying a backpack anyway and this is a really small amount of things to bring around. It's a very small impact from a single person, but every few times someone will say "ooh, that's a good idea" or something like that and it makes me feel like the idea is spreading.

Eridrus 8y ago

The "everyone should change their way of life" approach to environmentalism hasn't worked and has been quite divisive, why do people continue to think it is an effective strategy?

mturmon 8y ago
Lifestyle change is possible: littering, disposable bags. One could go on.
- PeterisP 8y ago
  That's useful, however, that's not even close to the order of magnitude of lifestyle change required to counter climate change. Instead of not littering, think not using a car; instead of banning disposable bags, think banning beef; one could go on - restructuring cities to use less transportation, drastic reduction in air transport (so, no overseas travel for most people), etc. Sure, such lifestyle change is possible as well, however, instead of a fraction of people who currently volunteer to do it, we need to ensure that the vast majority of global population do so, and we need to ensure that they do it quickly enough. Which is unlikely to happen without massive coercion.
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    This sort of thinking is the exact problem. It works from the point of "what should we do if we think environmental concerns are the biggest priority". IMo the correct lense should be "what is the minimal amount of change/political capital we need to achieve our objectives for the environment", for different targets.
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      I agree that "what is the minimal amount of change/political capital we need to achieve our objectives for the environment" is a very good perspective to apply. However, from that perspective is obvious that "littering, disposable bags" isn't even in the same ballpark. IMHO it would be counterproductive to motivate people with such goals, since if the end result is that they stop littering, switch to reusable bags and think "yeah, now I've done my part"... it's wrong, they're still contributing about 99% of the damage that they used to do, it's nowhere close to sufficient. Right now (unlike, say, the 1980s) the minimal amount of change is very, very large - currently, achieving our objectives for the environment requires changes that would be considered radical by pretty much everyone, and political capital that no current leader has. Raise the gas price by a few percent, and you get rioting in the streets. Would anyone have enough political capital to double the gas price, so that people actually burn significantly less oil? And would the transport reduction achieved by merely doubling the gas price be sufficient to reduce the emissions? IMHO the answer to both these answers is a clear NO, the minimal amount of change needed is larger than the maximal amount of change for which we have political capital.
      - Eridrus 8y ago
        But all of the things you advocate for in your previous post are things that could be achieved with less pain. Even the fuel tax, while the goal is to drive change, you can drive change by rewarding the desired behaviour (e.g. a revenue-neutral gas/carbon tax that paid back to low income folks), rather than punishing people. Maybe not as drastic a change since you don't get people not driving because they can't afford it, but it would incentivize doing something else to the same extent. Or we could be much more aggressive about moving people to electric cars. Or we could simply invest more money/energy into making public transport better. We could say try and convince people to fly less, or we could legislate carbon offsets for air travel. So while, yes, serious change is needed, I think we really need to think about this from a political angle, rather than a moralising angle. I would avoid even touching the diet angle if you want people to listen to you and not write you off. Meat does contribute noticeably to global warming, but food is culture, it is the hardest change to achieve, so we should really leave it to last, politically. It would be far better to deal with meat in an overall carbon tax solution, rather than singling it out as a thing people have to change.
CalRobert 8y ago
Because the alternative is ultimately "Everyone probably won't get to stay alive". Which is a pretty big change in one's way of life. Also, using cans instead of bottles isn't exactly a major shift in most people's life. It's infinitely recyclable (unlike plastic), something nature knows how to deal with (unlike plastic) and often better for the beverage (in the case of beer at the very least).
- Eridrus 8y ago
  If you had read the OP I was replying to, you would see they were suggesting everyone should buy and carry a Nalgene water bottle with them at all times, in case they needed water. If you read further down this thread, many commenters in this thread are convinced that we should never package water.
  - jogjayr 8y ago
    "Never" is a strong word. Packaged water is useful when stockpiling for or responding to natural disasters (hurricanes, wildfire, tornadoes, earthquakes), emergency evacuation camps, places where safe, clean water and filters aren't easily accessible or used. Everywhere else, it's really unnecessary.
- biggusdickus 8y ago
  Cans' inside is lined with plastic.
- dmm 8y ago
  The alternative is the government intervening to internalize externalities. For example, a revenue neutral carbon tax or deposits on food/drink containers.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    This is actually a better approach. But it's extremely hard politically. If we did this gas would be 12-20 USD a gallon, and we'd have a better world.
specialist 8y ago
Shaming backfires. Whereas snobbery works great. The successful (advertising) campaigns target the cool kids (opinion leaders).
bunderbunder 8y ago
It's not exactly a crazy change to one's way of life. As recently as when I was a kid, people drank water out of cups. When we were out in public, we'd use a water fountain. Carrying a water bottle with you everywhere you go is another option, but probably not strictly necessary unless you're currently trying to pass a kidney stone.
dkarl 8y ago
It's irrational, but people still talk about corporate responsibility in the same language they use to talk about the morality of their own and other people's behavior. Changes like these help establish the cultural consensus that environmental damage is a bad thing that should be avoided even if it means we have to invest cost and effort in change.

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

But tap water is contaminated with DHMO.

reaperducer 8y ago

Buy a nalgene....we can do better We used to just use public drinking fountains. Or paper cups at the office water cooler. And kids drank out of water fountains in parks, or out of random garden hoses they found. Yesterday I saw a kid with a fancy Nalgene... at church! I have a pill that I take which has dry cough as a side-effect, and even I don't bring a water bottle to church. The kid's not going to shrivel up and blow away because he can't have a sip of water for 45 minutes.

njarboe 8y ago
The ADA forced the designs for water fountains to change and they have been unreliable, low-to-no flow, and too short for most people ever since. People had to learn to carry water with them when before they just drank out of a fountain when they were thirsty. At least there has been a rise in the bottle filling dispensers so that filling up your bottle is not such a pain.
bluntfang 8y ago
I think it's really important for people to carry their own plate/bowl, cup, and utensils that they can use and wash on their own that they carry around with them wherever they go. The whole disposable plate/utensil industry could be removed if everyone just brought their own!
- CountHackulus 8y ago
  I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but I actually do this. I've got a spork, a glass cup, a metal straw, and a fabric napkin that I bring with me everywhere. If I'm going somewhere I know that I'll want to bring food home I'll also bring one of my metal lunch containers. I'm carrying a backpack anyway and this is a really small amount of things to bring around. It's a very small impact from a single person, but every few times someone will say "ooh, that's a good idea" or something like that and it makes me feel like the idea is spreading.