Log in

View Full Version : Sustainable Society



Pages : 1 [2]

Casual Observer
12-02-2004, 05:14 PM
I am not sure why you say "ostensibly"; do you think that they have some other (hidden) motivation or agenda? Clearly, if they were doing the analysis honestly--more than the standard "anything nuclear is inherently bad," they would have to come to the conclusion at some point that nuclear options for energy have been sidelined using junk science and hysteria and by ignoring the advances of the last 30 years. If, as an environmental concern (Sierra Club, Greenpeace, et al), you're not proposing real, pragmatic, implementable energy solutions for today based on technologies currently available, you're not substantively contributing to the debate--it's friggin' white noise, happy thoughts and useless pontificating. This is not to say that creation of solar or wind arrays in geographically appropriate regions is not practical--it's certainly viable and feasible from a technical and economic standpoint--but that even these seemingly innocuous and benign methods of power generation create opposition from environmentalists that only serves to portray these groups as increasingly obstructionist, elitist and out of touch. The Nantucket Sound wind array project is a classic example.


Question for Mel, CO and Monty and anyone else who opposes the ideas being expressed here about the trying to help save the enviroment.

Do you happen to drive a SUV or other type of gas guzzler by chance? Not that it's remotely relevant, but it's a VW Jetta, 36MPG. Do I get a gold star sticker? ;)

And it's not about opposition to environmental conservation, it's about acknowledging and reconciling the impact of state-mandated environmental regulations with the realities of domestic and global economic conditions and the technical and infrastructural changes that are required to foster a widespread adoption of new and/or modified means of energy generation and more broadly, general consumption of resources by societies.

I'm not opposed to individual efforts to make the world a more livable place; have at it with your composting toilets. But if we're really serious about changing societal norms about consumption of resources and promoting attitudes and behaviors that are more green, one has to be cognizant of the potential impact of the market on consumer habits and not vilify it but use those market forces to implement the desired changes with cost-effectiveness and consumer-oriented focus. This is why my comment about the corporatization of the organic food industry is appropriate; the market has demanded more organic food and companies have rushed to fill that demand in response--a classic case of individual efforts reaching critical mass that affects the broader society and economy.

Tigerlilly
12-02-2004, 05:44 PM
I disagree- I think level of gas use is very relevant to the enviroment.

discretedancer
12-02-2004, 05:47 PM
CO, your last point is well taken...but (as your choice of vehicle indicates) viable choices exist for just about every type of consumer product - whether or not those products are chosen by the consumers decides the success and future development of such ideas.

Just as the car companies of the 1950's thought "Safety doesn't sell" many modern companies think "efficiency doesn't sell" (partially because the "big three" environmental groups are seen as so obstructionist and elite). WHat's needed (and what I work on) is a grassroots effort to choose more sustainable products - and let companies know we want more such choices.

Casual Observer
12-02-2004, 07:03 PM
I disagree- I think level of gas use is very relevant to the enviroment.

Absolutely it's relevant to the environment in a very broad sense. But I meant that my choice of vehicle is not relevant to your contention that some of us don't care about the environment--we do. How we can effectively address those environmental concerns in the most cost-effective and technically/economically feasible manner across the breadth and depth of both developed and underdeveloped societies while maintaining a semblance of consumer choice is the larger issue.

montythegeek
12-02-2004, 07:24 PM
Question for Mel, CO and Monty and anyone else who opposes the ideas being expressed here about the trying to help save the enviroment.

Do you happen to drive a SUV or other type of gas guzzler by chance?Nope I drive a Subaru Impreza sedan which gets 30 mpg real world. Before that a Ford Tempo that got 28 mpg, and before that a Renault LeCar (aka Frogmobile).

Wwanderer
12-02-2004, 07:37 PM
I am not sure why you say "ostensibly"; do you think that they have some other (hidden) motivation or agenda?

Clearly, if they were doing the analysis honestly--more than the standard "anything nuclear is inherently bad," they would have to come to the conclusion at some point that nuclear options for energy have been sidelined using junk science and hysteria and by ignoring the advances of the last 30 years. If, as an environmental concern (Sierra Club, Greenpeace, et al), you're not proposing real, pragmatic, implementable energy solutions for today based on technologies currently available, you're not substantively contributing to the debate--it's friggin' white noise, happy thoughts and useless pontificating.

I was just confused by your use of the word "ostensibly"; it implies that what appears to be true on the surface is actually false. The definition I just googled up is "when something seems to be the case but probably is not". So, when you said that the groups litigating against nuclear power plant construction were "ostensibly environmentally-concerned", it seemed to suggest that they were not actually concerned with the environment but had some other, less obvious, reasons for their legal actions. Based on your reply, I guess that you just think that they are mistaken and "white noise"...incompetent basically. A minor nit to pick, I know.

-Ww

discretedancer
12-03-2004, 12:19 PM
has this thread run its course? The ideas shared are great!