Fundamentalist Christianity, environmental responsibility, and concerns the move to clean energy

Not to the hell described in Bible but to the ‘hell’ that many parts of the globe seem to slowly turn.

I agree with at least some of your points.

  • Social pressure may affect the behavior of the celebrities, so it is not bad to put some social pressure on behaviors that are not responsible.
  • The living standards of many in the rich western countries are not sustainable. Some attempt to get more rational living standards would be good. At the same time, it is good to remember that there seems to be a trend towards a greater gap between the rich and the poor even in the rich countries. Everyone in the rich countries is not rich or even able to buy what they need. If someone thinks we should change the living standards, giving more to the poor could be part of it, either through charity or higher taxes.
  • The throwaway culture needs a change. For example, we should encourage people to buy clothes and other products that are used many times, instead of throwing them away after using them a couple of times.

Although we agree in this kind of points, I do not think that the bad example set by others is a justification for bad behavior. Many make crimes but that does not give us a justification to make crimes. Sexual habits are quite liberal in the society but that is not a justification for adultery. Racism is common in many societies but that does not make racism acceptable. In a similar manner, loveless and selfish behavior by others is not a proper justification for us being loveless and selfish. We are responsible for our own behavior, whatever the others do.

Although I advocate a change in our lifestyle, I do not make strict demands. It is more like a wake-up call, a call to look more closely to our lifestyle and think if it fits to the responsibility to take care of the creation and those that suffer because we have lived in a careless and extravagant way. If we note that our lifestyle is not sustainable and fair, small changes are better than no changes at all.

5 Likes

A friend who initially came here as an exchange student (stayed with my cousins) was continually amazed at all the weight of packaging for everything in the U.S., from pens to tools to toys. As I recall he said that Germany has a tax on packaging, so it is kept to a bare minimum. And packaging is the first thing that gets thrown away with most purchases.

Or at the very least build thermal depolymerization and similar plants to turn those clothes (and in fact four-fifths of all household and commercial trash) into usable oil.

1 Like

I wasnt being rude in my response to Laura…its can be suprising how many people these days who are so fed up with the media that they rarely watch the news or listen to radio talk back. It was in that context i was making the statement.

I agree with the comments about the economic constraints…people are facing rather significant increases in the cost of living in the last few years…its seems to be a fallout from COVID shutdowns although im not yet sure why. Finance works in a funny way…the gloom and doom claims by media commentators about lack of money into the market during shutdowns in many cases went the opposite way, people had nothing better to do so they “renovated the bathroom” I think the government stimulus packages and providing early access to superanuation, werent necessarily a great idea as people went on spending sprees that overwhelmed supply…thus costs go up dramatically…

A big part of the increase in the cost of living in the U.S. was because of supply chain issues and a shortage of truck drivers and other workers during COVID. I don’t remember how many container ships were backed up and anchored off of L.A. the other year… it was a big number. And the container trailers used by trucks and on trains were in short supply, many already loaded but sequestered behind stacks of containers or other loaded trailers… So it was a big positive feedback loop that did not get alleviated quickly even after COVID numbers started going down. I’m sure that affected the world economy in addition to the more localized issues smaller countries had.

2 Likes

Apparently one of the DuPonts (who sponsored a museum that I am familiar with, thus my having heard about it) was rather eccentric (eventually, he went insane enough to be in an asylum, I believe). Apparently, he would regularly take the family helicopter over to Delaware to save paying sales tax on groceries and other basic purchases.

3 Likes

My uncle worked in quality control for a plastic-manufacturing plant for a few years (including 2020-2022), and he said that they had a backlog on one product because the company that made the glue for the shipment crates for it couldn’t get enough of one of the ingredients. Other than that, I haven’t heard very specific instances of supply-chain issues, but am aware of them having been significant.

1 Like

Are you seriously equating going in a rocket to space for 3 minutes for 250,000 dollars to taking a commercial flight to go on holiday? (That’s the example that I gave) There’s clearly no comparison in pollution generated, or no comparison whatsoever as a matter of fact. And I also never said that everyone should do anything.

By “terrible choice” you must mean taking a flight. That is your opinion, not mine. I would never endorse anything I consider to be a “terrible choice”.

These statements on their own are absolutely correct. If all the other people in the world were promiscuous robbers, but you decided to be the one honest, monogamous man, then the behaviour of all the others would have nothing to do with you. But it does not work like that with the environment though. If everyone around makes terrible decisions, and you are the only one trying hard, you are going to miss out on a lot and inflict hardships on yourself and your family and affect your finances most likely…but it would be all for nothing because your efforts would mean nothing if others didn’t care(unless you expect to score points with God). And sadly I think this is closer to reality than not.

If you say so, I’ll take your word for it and remove my original comment. (English is not my first language)

Ha! I watch the news everyday. I never heard the story about the wind turbines, but heard few others, including some about electric cars. Still, I think that overall “clean energy” is better for environment, even if there are some challenges.

I see it’s the same in Australia. Only the other day I’ve heard that the sales of this “vegan meat” had dropped for the first time because it’s 50 cents more expensive than real meat… So if people are making savings like that, they won’t be investing in electric cars or heat pumps, or insulation.

1 Like

[quote=“marta, post:27, topic:51871”]
By “terrible choice” you must mean taking a flight. That is your opinion, not mine. I would never endorse anything I consider to be a “terrible choice”.
[/quote

This certainly looks like an endorsement:

You say that since billionaires won’t behave responsibly then no one else should bother either.

I’d say we should all behave better than the billionaires regardless of what they do.

[quote=“St.Roymond, post:29, topic:51871”]

You’re making zero sense here. What is it supposed to be endorsement of? And what if I do? I can endorse whatever I want, so can you.

Actually, that wasn’t the context I was saying this, but I’m not going to explain.
There’s a scale of irresponsibility, again - round the world trip on a huge yacht is totally incomparable with a commercial flight. But if you think flying is so terrible, don’t fly.

i think there is merit in the idea that billionaires are often the epitomy of hypocrisy!

My background is in Education (I majored in Industrial technology and minored in Design). I then spent a long time in eathmoving and building and construction. What i can say from my perspective is that things are not always as they appear when it comes to the industrial revolution and whatever we are calling this age of information. For example:

At university i once made a complaint to a commerce major that the introduction of machinery and more recently CAD/CAM was killing off jobs. It took him all of about 1 minute to put me on my backside with the reality of new techlogies…they actually dramatically increased employment beacuse of the expansion of knowledge and skills across an ever growing range of the worforce such that its take many more people to make a tractor, than those required to manually harvest the crops we grown on farms. Add to the equation the supply needs that correlate directly with population growth, and we find that we would be far worse off without machinery!

Now in a strange way, i see a problem with the above…its starts with population growth and Maslow’s need for “Self Actualisation”. These two together mean no matter what we do, its bad for the environment. The faster we make it, the more difficult it becomes for the earth to keep up from an evolutionary point of view. I do not believe in evolution as the origins of species, however, clearly the earth produces at a relatively stable rate. I accept that catastrophes can change the rates…however, these are never good things in my own opinion.

years ago in Australia, the ABC tv station used to run these adds called “Life Be In It”. the main character Norm, was a slack ass and spent far too much time sitting on his butt with the tv remote. There is the epitomy of the Need for Self Actualisation right there and a consequence of that convenience is rapid pillaging of our environment…at an unsustainable rate. That i think is a big problem and the introduction of so called “Clean Energy”, when one looks closely at the materials being used, the manufacturing processes used, the economics of recycling worn out “clean energy” components (which are dumped rather than recycled), as well as the strain that the massive increase in energy requirements (eg millions of automotive vehicles) places on our current electricity networks…I am currently standing on the 2HB radio station side of the coin at present…ie that clean energy in its current form is a lie!

I then revert back to the billionare hypocrites who are “rolling in the money” that lie earns them!

1 Like

There’s no need to remove your comment. You understood Adam perfectly.

3 Likes

This is what really gets to me, and you don’t even have to be ultra rich, it’s literally everyone nowadays, even small time social media influencers constantly talking about sustainability whilst doing obviously not sustainable things at the same time, on camera!
Then there’s hypocrisy on corporate scale which is called “greenwashing”.
I’m at the stage where I prefer when people just do what they want, even if I don’t approve of specific choices, rather than joining the chorus of hypocrisy.

Yes, this is exactly the situation we find ourselves in. Modern life means that almost everything we do, and certainly everything we buy comes with environmental costs. Unless someone becomes a hermit, there’s no escape from it.
However, you have said it in a wider context

Whilst the population growth seems to be obvious as a factor, I’m really not convinced that self actualisation is a driving force behind climate change(that is what you were trying to say here, right?). I have to admit I haven’t given it a lot of thought as I have never came across this line of thinking before. Also, if we weren’t seeking self actualisation, would we be even human? Isn’t this exactly what we’re doing here now? So that would mean that environmental disaster was inevitable.

What’s the definition of self actualisation that you’re working with? I see an individual who is nothing more than a “couch potato” the opposite of self actualisation.

Whilst obsession with convenience is a big problem, and not just environmental, convenience is an inevitable part of modern life.
It wouldn’t be seen as reasonable for example, to hand wash all your clothes and bedding (and I have seen suggestions that we should do just that!). So first a line needs to be drawn. Secondly, I’m not convinced this is the main driving force behind climate change, or at least not when it’s within reason.

So often in these discussions there are issues of reality vs fantasy. Take oil. We still need oil. Oil is not going away anytime in the near future and the poorer you are the more likely you’ll be depending on oil because newer more expensive equipment is what is using more green technology. Part of the reality is that we have to drive cars. Most of the nation depends on cars to get to and from work , stores and so on. As more green tech reaches reduced pricing more will use it.

The other argument I see all the time and it’s just stupid in my opinion is this. Rich people flying around in private jets is ok because poor people still fly in planes sometimes. Comparing the dude flying in a plane across the sea going on vacation once every few years is not the same as the dude who owns a private jet and flies all the time. I’ve worked on clients houses who are so loaded they are richer than everyone here combined. Even if the top 20 people in made 2 million a year, they would make more money than us in four months. I’ve been working on houses and their adult kids will decide to fly from Alabama to New York City on their private plane to get lunch and then eat it on the plane while flying to LA for a evening show. That kind of money and what they are doing to the environment is simply not the same as someone who flies once a year. Most people, don’t even fly once a year. They fly once every decade.

The other issue with things like environmentalism is not even centered on greenhouse affect. It’s urbanization and American lawns. Ultimately, the majority of people, in including the bulk of the rich are not going to change anything. I know they won’t change anything because they don’t already.

Look at one of the most basic concepts of being a good person.

Am I a good person if I drive around and kick stray dogs. Can I be a good person and also chain up stray dogs, repeatedly shave their fur leaving them cold all the time, and then kill them. Most people would say torturing stray dogs and cats is probably a sign of something really demented going on. But we all routinely contribute to same things. Myself included.

I love my cats more than the chickens that are killed that they eat in the form of their kibble cat food stuff. Hell I love my cats more than the kids of strangers on the street. I would try to save my cat instead of s kid in a crisis because I love my cat more.

When I go hiking in nature I am destroying bits of it. When I handle snakes and spiders, I’m stressing them out. When I march off a trail through a forest to forage wild mushrooms, I’m stomping down plants and so on.

So what we try to do is make up for all the crap we cause by doing something. We do try to reduce what we do. I won’t stomp through a meadow of rare flowers. I’ll rather stomp through an area with flowers that are not globally or locally threatened. I pick flowers from nature to bring them back and study them because I enjoy it. To help make up for that, I do what’s called Guerrilla gardening. I often spread native wildflowers across peoples properties. Like there are a lot of people who don’t maintain their yard. It’s trashy. Broken down vehicles all over. Grass going weeks without being cut. Wildflowers, native and non native, growing along edges. So I’ll walk into their yard and throw out handfuls of seeds. In city parks where there are lots of bushes and so on. I’ll plant native stuff without permission. Sometimes the parking lots at places like Walmart I’ll go to back areas where most people never are. Far out in the parking lot where they have those spaces with trees and shrubs and tons of mulch. No one pays attention or care. I’ll just go out there, move the mulch, dig new holes and plant like 10 native shrubs and spread wildflowers seeds all over it. I’ll stick in a sign that says wildflower project and have the corporate number for Walmart written on it and hammer it in. Then whoever sees it, just accepts it as reality and they will leave it alone. I’m just deceiving them hoping they are too apathetic and lazy to call the number. They rather just avoid it and it looks like it belongs there. I drove along ditches and just toss out seeds into then in the county.

For me I just stick to these things. If I want to help make the world better I focus on what I can do. I’m not going to save the rainforest or save elephants. I’m not donating my money to those projects, and outside of whining on social media sometimes about it, it’s just outside of my control and concern. But what I can do is this. I can choose to shop at the local farmers market. I can get my tomatoes most of the time from this Asian woman who sells them instead of at Publix. Though i can’t save African elephants or Brazilian forests, I can make sure that in my yard I use no chemicals. I am making the life of the ants in my yard better. I’m making the life of birds in my yard better. I’ve used berms and plants and divots to help make the water flowing back into the river by my house better. I’ve planted aquatic plants and helped support the bank and it helps the fish a little bit. It definitely made the life of some of the turtles in my backyard life better. I’ve created banks there and used fallen trees in spots and I see turtles sunbathing on them all the time.

Now we can all call our mayors. We can all go to Public hearings about what our state and town officials are going to do. We can talk to contractors who win bids. I know the wife of the man who routinely wins the bids to do the landscaping for the “beautification of our town.” It’s not a lot, but I’ve convinced him by convincing her to only use native Hollies and oaks when he uses Hollie’s and oaks. There is a spot where it use to be about 200 French mophead hydrangeas. They are not native. Now out of that 200 , about 30 of them are native smooth and oak leaf hydrangeas. The European Hollies are American ones.

I think bubble up effect will work better than just trickle down laws. If everyone can care about their own yard, and we all get our yards eco friendly and make our plates lore eco friendly full. Maybe there will be ways to make distant places safer .

4 Likes

I see this a lot in marketing of “eco friendly” products - people deluding themselves that they’re somehow good and saving planet by wearing “organically certified” socks and such, and if only everyone was doing the same. They won’t because they couldn’t afford it, and anyway, that in reality would have next to no impact as there are much more powerful forces driving environmental disaster.
But rich people convince themselves they are “green” because they do a lot of recycling… because they buy a lot in the first place! And completely forget about second home, which have negative impact beyond environment.

There is actually some hope here, but the question is how quickly it can happen.

Exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Let’s look at some figures: it’s estimated that certain Bill G. emits 7500 tonnes of co2 a year, mainly from his private jet. Top 1% averages at above 70 tonnes per person per year. Personal target should be 2.
So any savings that normal individual can make are totally wiped out by just one guy.

You could fly 20 times a year, and that still wouldn’t be 1% of their emissions.
And it’s only probably top 5% that could even afford that(I think I’m being generous here).
And this is why I think we shouldn’t be making people feel guilty or impling they should have “important reasons” - if it makes someone happy(and they can actually afford it), that’s good enough reason for me.

1 Like

The guy who’s entire job is to represent the administration of the United States of America to advocate for emissions reductions flies in a private jet.

Cites compete for IPCC conferences because those bring in tens of thousands of well heeled hotel guests from all over the world, almost all of whom arrive by jet.

In both cases, the response to accusations of hypocrisy is “my reason to travel is more important than your reason to travel”, and “but I (expense account) buy carbon credits.”

Do carbon credits suck any CO2 back out of the atmosphere? No, in the best case they go to projects that increase supply of energy under the “if you don’t give me cash to build a new cleaner plant, I will build a plant that really torques out the CO2” blackmail. There is no question of just living without the extra power. At worst, corruption grabs much of the cash, unless for the first time in human history large amounts of money in custody chains with little oversight has not been exploited.

4 Likes

There is indeed hope here. It was not long ago when people believed that in this country, wind power will not play a significant role. Now it is the cheapest form of energy production and there are plans to build many more wind power plants. The idea is to produce much cheap energy, then use this energy for production of hydrogen and turn the hydrogen to synthetic fuel or ammonium. There are currently plans worth at least 140 billion euros to make this reality, just in our country. Not all plans will become reality but quite many do.

The situation has changed so much that selling a house using oil for warming has become a challenge. Nobody wants to have such a house.

All methods to produce energy have their weak sides. With wind and solar energy the main problem is that they demand much space. People usually do not want a huge wind energy plant close to their home. With the plans to build huge plants offshore the problem is that these areas may be important for fishery and important areas for migrating water birds. There are always conflicting interests and someone will be unhappy.

3 Likes

But that is no longer true, so it’s an argument from the past. Where John Deere used to employ hundreds on a production line making tractors it now needs only a score to monitor the robots doing the actual work.
Besides which I doubt that it ever took more people to make a tractor than it took to manually harvest crops! Where harvesting a spread of wheat on just one farm could take a hundred laborers, a hundred laborers could turn out tractors able to harvest a hundred farms. What that commerce major was probably doing was lying with statistics, comparing the harvest on just one medium-size farm to the production of a single tractor.

The factor that gets ignored in applying generalizations from the past to the modern situation is that new technology used to require humans with brains to make decisions, robots today aren’t just replacing the labor but also the need for brain power – something true of AI in many “white collar” jobs such as legal aide, research assistant, and bank teller.
An interesting projection from this trend is that people will have even fewer children since the cost of raising a child to age 18 is steadily increasing while incomes will shrink or vanish due to the automation and AI. Fewer kids means the population will start to shrink, which is good for the environment.

It depends on the form. Wind power may actually qualify since the energy cost of recycling the giant blades roughly cancels the benefits of the power generated by those blades (which is why they’re just being dumped). Solar is definitely beneficial and getting more so, especially with the new flexible ‘panels’ that can be fitted to any surface with an even curve or produced to fit any surface with the result that every automobile could have its own solar roof.
In fact small-scale wind power is definitely beneficial since it doesn’t require the use of exotic materials such as are required for the giant blades on the big wind towers. There’s a second benefit as well: units can supply power locally and cut down the need for the massive power grid.

3 Likes

And demonstrate that if you abandon chemicals you can actually have a greener yard! When I shared a house with three friends after graduating from university our yard became the envy of the entire neighborhood. When people asked what fertilizer I used, I told them that mostly whenever I had a container of flour or cereal or sugar or anything else with small grains that were biodegradable and had reached the bottom, I shook out the remaining traces onto the yard, but sometimes I bought corn gluten meal pellets and spread it like chemical fertilizer, applied in the spring during a heavy rain. Both of these methods fed the worms, and the worms’ castings enriched the soil – whereas using fertilizers actually killed worms and ruined the soil. Also if I emptied a jug of milk or a bottle of juice, I rinsed them and poured out the water onto the shrubs.

I wanted to plant trees along the strip between the sidewalk and the street, so I got the list of approved trees. It was shocking: out of thirty approved trees, only one was native and another two were from elsewhere in the state, plus two from somewhere else in North America, leaving twenty-five tree species from Europe or Asia!

3 Likes

The biggest problem with wind power is that those giant blades can’t be recycled except with the application of massive amounts of energy.

Space for solar always makes me chuckle because we have lots of space available in the form of roofs and could increase that by putting solar roofs over all parking lots – and to be really ambitious, roof over all highway interchanges which would have the added benefit of making those safer! On top of that, if the panels are elevated enough there are vegetables that can be grown underneath if the panels are spaced right to allow sun for part of the day. There’s also solar siding for buildings now.
Oh – and when installing solar roofing in cities and suburbs, collect the runoff into storage cisterns!

1 Like