Do you shop "nature-friendly" ?

[mick miller]

On the whole I'm with Mike and Red. Personally I think much of the 'green' movement is aimed at manipulating the masses to buy less for more, whilst simultaneously creating a whole raft of new opportunities to tax us. If there is a problem with the amounts of domestic waste generated then in my opinion it is the responsibility of those who create the goods to develop better, more recyclable goods and packaging, plain and simple.

As a family we generate around 1 sack of waste every three weeks, most of that is made up with PLASTIC WRAPPERS, the now ubiquitous coating for everything bought. The rest is rigorously recycled, so it can be packed off to China and burnt or buried there, that makes sense doesn't it?

I also look carefully at where my produce comes from and try to buy locally and seasonally wherever possible, but it isn't easy living where I do, with no local green grocer it falls to the large multinational retailers to supply us with veg, much as I hate that, and they seem to favour foods from the opposite side of the globe!

Being a keen angler I have always avoided using all those bleaches and cleaning agents, I use kinder products wherever possible and watch what goes down the drain. I'm also aware that anything I do on a individual level won't make more than a spit of difference. The real polluters are business and industry, not us, but any government is very unlikely to impose additional regulatory controls on them.

We're a soft target and much of the environmental hyperbole I'm convinced is simply there to con us.

 

[locum76]

I was amused by this thread and the anti-green backlash sentiments offered in it.

this article by George Monbiot in response to a book by Julie Burchill sums it up for me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/06/activists.kingsnorthclimatecamp

 

[British Red]

Its not the hypocrisy or the cycnicism thats the problem for many though Locum76 - its that the greens are just plain wrong in their approach on so many levels - scientifically, politically, pragmatically and even enviromentally. Sure there is a scientific basis for climate change - the policies to tackle it however do not have a basis in logic. To me at least the backlash is against the erroneous policies to tackle climate change


If Morbiot would rather be a "hypocrite than a dreamer", I would rather be a "thinker than a fantasist".

Probably not a good discussion for BCUK though - happy to take it to PM if anyone wants to

Red

 

[hedgepig]

Insofar as the "green movement" are as dishonest as the "establishment" we are still left as individuals with moral and ethical choices to make on a day to day basis.

Making those ethical choices requires information, the choices that one makes has many consequences and without the correct information one may not be able to know those consequences.

"Policies" are a bad way to deal with any problem as they always have unintended consequences, which require further policies to address ad infinitum.

Treat people with respect, as adults, allow them to access the information they need and they will make the choices they see as being the correct choices. Allow them the full responsibility to accept the consequences of those actions.

Wendell Berry is an interesting author if anyone wants a thought provoking read. He is not always right, but it will certainly stimulate the old grey cells.

From "The Joy of Sales Resistance" published in his book "Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community"

(his writing style tends towards the sarcastic)

Of course, education is for the Future, and the Future is one of our better-packaged items and attracts many buyers. (The past, on the other hand, is hard to sell; it is, after all, past.) The Future is where we'll all be fulfilled, happy, healthy, and perhaps will live and consume forever. It may have some bad things in it, like storms or floods or earthquakes or plagues or volcanic eruptions or stray meteors, but soon we will learn to predict and prevent such things before they happen. In the Future, many scientists will be employed in figuring out how to prevent the unpredictable consequences of the remaining unpreventable bad things. There will always be work for scientists.
The Future, as everybody knows, is a subject of extreme importance to politicians, and we have several political packages that are almost irresistible—expensive, of course, but rare:

<snip>

5. Unlimited Economic Growth. This is the pet idea of the Party of Hardheaded Realists. That unlimited economic growth can be accomplished within limited space, with limited materials and limited intelligence, only shows the unlimited courage and self-confidence of these Great Minds. That unlimited economic growth implies unlimited consumption, which in turn implies unlimited pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth, only makes the prospect even more unlimited.

 

[robin wood]

Its not the hypocrisy or the cycnicism thats the problem for many though Locum76 - its that the greens are just plain wrong in their approach on so many levels - scientifically, politically, pragmatically and even enviromentally. Sure there is a scientific basis for climate change - the policies to tackle it however do not have a basis in logic. To me at least the backlash is against the erroneous policies to tackle climate change


If Morbiot would rather be a "hypocrite than a dreamer", I would rather be a "thinker than a fantasist".

Probably not a good discussion for BCUK though - happy to take it to PM if anyone wants to

Red

Ok Red,

I have seen all the good stuff you do and whilst you may dislike the "green movement" you are clearly more ethical and thoughtful in your actions and choices than many. I am not particularly interested in what you think is bad about the green movement or to hear folk criticising the "establishment". government or whatever, but I am interested in what you think the right approach to dealing with these issues is. By these issues I mean how we as individuals should be living our lives in the 21st century I guess. Happy to hear by PM if you feel that is more appropriate.

Hedgepig, enjoyed the Wendel quotes, he is always challenging.

 

[British Red]

Of course Robin - pm sent

 

[Jodie]

I try... a bit

I'm taking part in this "Eat the change" next week, largely because a friend invited me
rather than from any particular enthusiasm for the ideology. This will involve me avoiding
plastic where possible (for me, this is not easy!) and again, where possible, buying only
local and / organic. So no hamburgers from McDonalds ;-)

http://eatthechange.org/

Wish me luck, hehe. I'm definitely in favour of reducing plastic packaging, particularly
of the sort that can't be recycled.

 

[Tengu]

Im dubious about a lot of it too; there seems a lot of very dishonst people about.

I dont like overpackaging and reuse what I can. (putting round an Ebay item is often a very effective way of disposal) I produce about a carrier bag of waste a week. (and what would I do without carriers?)

I have a compost bin, even though I dont garden. (it makes getting rid of garden clippings easier, even though I do have to go to the waste disposal site at the bottom of the village with some)

I have not bought a designer kitchen waste bucket yet.

I dont consume much; most of my stuff is second hand, I could not afford new, and certainly not eco products.

I do buy organic butter, it tastes better, and my consumption of butter is about 1/2oz a week, so I can afford that extravangance.

 

[Mike Ameling]

Sure there is a scientific basis for climate change - the policies to tackle it however do not have a basis in logic. To me at least the backlash is against the erroneous policies to tackle climate change

Is there a "scientific basis" for "climate change"? Has this been absolutely/irrivocably/undisputedly proven? Sooooo many policies are being created based upon it being already an accepted FACT that man is the cause of "climate change". But the debate is still going on. Even the smallest details haven't been proven, much less the whole ... concept ... that man is causing "climate change".

And nobody can answer one simple basic question:

If "man" is the cause of climate change here on Earth, then how is what man is doing also causing the same "climate change" on Mars? Mars is also ... heating up ... and experiencing a shrinking/melting southern Polar Ice Cap. How is MAN here on Earth doing that?

Such a simple little question - that contradicts the core beliefs of "climate change".

Methinks there be more to this than the now generally accepted "dogma" that man is causing "climate change".


Buying "greene" sounds nice and has good intentions, but generally costs a whole lot more than buying normal. Sad truth, but that's reality. And it is soooo easy for some people to stand up there telling everybody else that they must also "buy greene" when their personal income level allows them to do so. But far more people just can't afford those "good" choices.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

p.s. This all brings back thoughts of that old Charleton Heston movie from the 70's Soilent Green!

 

[British Red]

I didn't say the cause was proven Mike, merely that the fact was scientifically established. The basis for acknowledging the change is things like the melting ice caps etc. The Why side is certainly debateable but I feel the What is realtively well established

Red

 

[locum76]

Is there a "scientific basis" for "climate change"?

yes, look here for a start - http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2904txt.php

then here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

of course you will be able to find conflicting data because the topic is huge.

If "man" is the cause of climate change here on Earth, then how is what man is doing also causing the same "climate change" on Mars? Mars is also ... heating up ... and experiencing a shrinking/melting southern Polar Ice Cap. How is MAN here on Earth doing that?

does the climate on mars have any real relevance?

But far more people just can't afford those "good" choices.

it doesn't always mean spending money. sometimes its just about getting ordinary folk to put their potatoes straight into their basket instead of into a plastic bag first. every little bit will help us to save resources for the next generation ( i know you do your bit, you throw out less trash than me).

PS: i love the diderot quote.

 

[Mike Ameling]

does the climate on mars have any real relevance?

PS: i love the diderot quote.

If the exact same "symptoms" are showing up on two relatively close planets, it tends to indicate more of a "solar system" cause instead of a localized planetary cause. Studies of solar radiation in the days right after Sept 11, 2001 shocked a lot of researchers - once all the exhaust fumes from all those airplanes dissipated. Hmmm ... I wonder why the "climate change" advocates never bring them up?

Plus a short talk with most any good ... geologist ... will show you just how often our planet goes through heating and cooling periods - independant of the presense of man. And ice core samples from Anatartica also confirm this.

wikipedia "can" have good info on it. But it also perpetuates and spreads tons of missinformation. Ditto most things connected with the United Nations, except their motivations are mostly political/financial in nature.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

- yes, I have been fairly well-read on this subject - and don't even bother with Slime (Time) and Newspeak (Newsweek) type pop/fad info and political info magazines and sources. Pabblum for the masses.

 

[Tengu]

Yes, any geographer kiddy knows about interglacials.

Who was it said man lives between a hippo and a polar bear? I cant remember.

And Martian data is relavant, implies solar changes.

(but of course we have not studied the martian climate for very long)

 

[locum76]

okay, so the solar system is warming up. lets burn all of our fossil fuels as quickly as possible to see if we can catch up with mars?

 

[Mike Ameling]

Um ... just a tad hard to burn up all the fossil fuels. Just do a web search for the Bakken Reserve - or basin, or oil field. Several times larger than the amount of oil that was in the middle east. Across Montana, North/South Datkota, and up into Canada. And a couple states south is another HUGE oil field - even larger than the Bakken.

And they haven't even started production from all the oil fields around the Falkland Islands - control of which was the real reason for that war with Argentina.

Ditto the fields around several small islands in the south Pacific off the coast of Vietnam - currently contested with China and the Phillipines. And those off the coast of Belize and other parts of Central America.

And then we can get into all the oil shales, oil sands, and coal deposits.

And the latest admission going around the news feeds is an admission that "speculators" had been the cause of the recent spike in the cost of oil! "Speculators" - also called professional gamblers.

Yes, we should find ways to ... conserve ... and use less, but most of the "scare" about shortages is media hype - and all designed to put more bucks into the pockets of a few people. Scare the "masses" and you can control them.

And just look at all the new ideas and inventions that "big business" has killed over the years. Things like the Fish carburator which is an amazing/simple/efficient carburator for gas engines. Or the Jamison motor. Or the Dean Drive. Super magnet motors that generate more electricity than they use to run. Magnetic wave propulsion for boats - no propellers or gas/diesel engines. Or most of the inventions of Nicola Tesla. Just a couple of his inventions would cure most of the electrical energy supply problems in the world. There is so much stuff out there that has already been "discovered/invented" and proven, but it will never see the light of day - because it wouldn't make money for the ... right ... people.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

 

[Lasse]

The problem with the use of fossil fuels (or one of the) is the fact that we change the composition of our atmosphere, and we don't know exactly which impact this will have/has. According to my chemistry professor (in Ghent University) CO2 is the only important greenhouse gas which has seen real changes in concentration in our atmosphere, even a small change is very well able to trigger more and greater changes (H20 is the most important greenhouse gas, so if the world warms up just a tiny bit because of the added CO2, there will be more water evaporating in total on the planet which will create greater temperatures...). Temperature changes effectively have a huge impact on life (which animals/plants/fungi/... can survive in which area) so the biological composition of our lands gets even more unbalanced (because the ecosystems are ruined because certain species suddenly move elsewhere or become extinct) than we already made it and thereby have the potential of changing our planet rather dramatically, which also poses trouble for our species since all species on this planet are dependent on a more or less balanced ecosystem.
The potential changes are unpredictable because of the great impact, we don't know how fast nature will be able to rebalance after such a change of the balance which was created over millions of years.
Burning (all) fossil fuels is like turning the clock of our atmosphere millions of years back (a lot of fossil fuels were "created" during the Carboniferous, about 300 million years ago) and certainly would be very interesting from a scientific angle, but not so much from a living creature angle imho...
Anyway, I don't want to go too far in detail (been hitchhiking for the last 38 hours, am really tired (please correct and forgive me if I overlooked something) and I'd only bore you anyway). You should ask a science professor if you're interested in what & why exactly or start studying sciences because it is a very complex world we live in... (and learning how it works is very interesting imo)
And btw: most huge unused fossil fuel reserves usually aren't used because filtering (or whatever is needed to make it usable) is much more expensive than what we are doing now, so obviously prices should go up...

But personally I think the air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels is already an excellent reason to limit it as much as possible but the thread wasn't about fossil fuels in the first place so I suggest we take that discussion elsewhere if you wish?


Back on topic:
Lundhags appears to be considering the effects on the environment and I noticed Patagonia uses organic cotton in competitively priced clothes. Any other brands worth looking into?
Been using Ecover to wash myself and the plates and pots etc and am very happy about it Haven't used the clothes washing stuff yet though...

Cheers,
Lasse

 

[Tengu]

Wouldnt it be best to consume less to begin with?

Im on my local Freecycle, the amount of stuff people give away is unbelievable.

Dad does charity work, and gets given literaly mountains of stuff.

His house is bulging; I have been helping him by putting it on Freecycle as car boot items, shifted 60 boxes and theres no end to it.

 

[Mirius]

Ok Red,

I have seen all the good stuff you do and whilst you may dislike the "green movement" you are clearly more ethical and thoughtful in your actions and choices than many. I am not particularly interested in what you think is bad about the green movement or to hear folk criticising the "establishment". government or whatever, but I am interested in what you think the right approach to dealing with these issues is. By these issues I mean how we as individuals should be living our lives in the 21st century I guess. Happy to hear by PM if you feel that is more appropriate.

I'm with Robin here. I've no idea what the Green movement might be spouting because I've not really taken any notice of it, though I have no doubt that I've taken some of it on board as an assumed truth. I'm not sure that there are easy answers to any of it - reduce is always the first part of the cycle, the other two stages are only there as backup, the final stage of which should almost in an ideal world never happen.

I saw a comment blaming the retailers for the amount of packaging, though I've also seen those same retailers reacting to that Green pressure by moving towards better solutions. So I can see good and bad in the current situation.

But that aside, I am interested to learn how it could be done better and how I could do better.

 

[British Red]

Happy to take it to PM if you like Mirius - its not a subject for a Bushcraft forum I think

Red

 

[Mirius]

Indeed it isn't, and yes, thank you Red, I would be appreciative, thanks.