More environmentalist guilt

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Now that I have an everyday job, I'm feeling rampant guilt about driving 40+ miles a day to and from work, especially now since the Bay Area is experiencing rolling blackouts (again) which only reminds me of the positive carbon feedback loop I've read about re: global warming. I'm nominally an environmentalist (registered w/ the Green Party), but I don't do much beyond recycling, turning off unused lights, and minimizing my water usage, but things seem to be getting demonstrably worse. I always thought that people who didn't want to change their lifestyles were irresponsible, but now I feel like a hypocrite.

So I want ILE to browbeat me into taking public transit to work. I would of my own accord, but I'd have to wake up 20 minutes earlier (and I like sleep), and the train station nearest my work is still about a 15 minute walk, and unless I wake up a full hour earlier to catch a bus, I still have to drive to the train station and pay for parking there (even though I often say that when it comes to the environment, costs are only a secondary concern of mine).

c('°c) (Leee), Monday, 24 July 2006 20:32 (nineteen years ago)

carpool?

kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 24 July 2006 20:34 (nineteen years ago)

Bike to the train station. If you get a folding bike you can bike at both ends of the journey.

Ed (dali), Monday, 24 July 2006 20:35 (nineteen years ago)

or hang your bike from a hook in the train, if the cars are set up that way

(the one's in portland are)

kingfish cyclopean ice cream (kingfish 2.0), Monday, 24 July 2006 20:36 (nineteen years ago)

I would:

1. carpool, but most of my coworkers don't get off work till very late (e.g. 10pm).

2. bike around, but I have spindly legs and can barely get the peddles moving. Also, it's really hot.

c('°c) (Leee), Monday, 24 July 2006 21:07 (nineteen years ago)

go to bed 20 mins earlier

walking for 15 mins only takes 15 mins

you'd still have to drive to the station?

don't think saying you are "nominally" something helps or what you "often say" if it has nothing to do w/ what you often do

Cathy (Cathy), Monday, 24 July 2006 21:17 (nineteen years ago)

that was me, not Cathy

RJG (RJG), Monday, 24 July 2006 21:18 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah right.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 24 July 2006 21:20 (nineteen years ago)

that was me, not Ned

fongoloid sangfroid (sanskrit), Monday, 24 July 2006 21:24 (nineteen years ago)

2. bike around, but I have spindly legs and can barely get the peddles moving. Also, it's really hot.

It'll take you about a week to get used to the bike ride. Plus, a fifteen minute walk is pretty comparable to a 2-5 minute bike ride. Just lock up at the station, like Ed said.

Energy consumption is the most obvious way of greening up. But, other than that, you can do stuff like buy local produce, organic meat, and biodegradeable soaps/detergents, etc., which is good, but has less impact, and is more to ease your conscience. For the most part, that stuff is mostly so people can throw their hands up and say that they're not part of the problem.

Basically: bike or get up 15 minutes earlier. It's not that hard, dude.

gbx (skowly), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:06 (nineteen years ago)

Energy consumption is the most obvious way of greening up.

taco de ojo (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:08 (nineteen years ago)

I have a similar problem except, that carpooling is out of the question, as I work alone, and biking is not feasible on the New Jersey highway system.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:10 (nineteen years ago)

you could move.

taco de ojo (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:11 (nineteen years ago)

1) Get a single-speed bike, not necessarily a fixed-gear (you can buy a decent one for $200, a good one for $400, a very good one for $600, and a totally ridiculous one for a $1000.) They are easy and cheap to maintain and fun to ride.

2) Force yourself to ride it everyday.

3) Get calves of steel (it seriously doesn't take long) and kick sand in the faces of guys at the beach with stick legs.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:16 (nineteen years ago)

you could move.

Wrong again. I work at seven different locations every week. Moving closer to one will only put me further from another.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:38 (nineteen years ago)

There are no alternate bike routes in Jersey?

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:43 (nineteen years ago)

I mean if there aren't there aren't and you should just drive the most efficient environmentally friendly car you can, but that seems pretty suspect to me.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:44 (nineteen years ago)

Another possibility is to be "carbon neutral" by offsetting likely emissions by either planting trees equivalent to the car trip carbons yourself, or paying someone else to do it.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:50 (nineteen years ago)

The Carbon Calculator lets you convert your miles driven into numbers of trees to be planted annually.

Momus (Momus), Monday, 24 July 2006 22:55 (nineteen years ago)

There are no alternate bike routes in Jersey?

-- Alex in SF (clobberthesauru...), July 24th, 2006.

I mean if there aren't there aren't and you should just drive the most efficient environmentally friendly car you can, but that seems pretty suspect to me.

-- Alex in SF (clobberthesauru...), July 24th, 2006.

Hahaha, have you ever lived in New Jersey?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:02 (nineteen years ago)

I just came from Newark, or just North NJ in general, this morning, having to see a lot of it on NJTransit in passing. Where would they put all the delivery trucks and slag heaps if they allowed for bike routes in NNJ?

As for the "Stop me from driving before I drive again" query... well, heh, I could encourage behavior that will force you to have a panic attack while on the road -- as that pretty much has stopped me from being a driver -- however that's a potentially dangerous way to do it.

Otherwise, a more sane way is to just ease into it.

Just restrict yourself to using a car in a Park & Ride type situation (assuming that's an option for you, and since you're in the Bay Area, I can't imagine it isn't). And don't feel guilty (at least yet) about using a car on the weekends. Weekend/leisure use of cars is a very small percentage of environmental fucking compared to mostly pointless routine Monday-to-Friday rush-hour parking-lots-cum-freeway commuting via car.

San Diva Gyna (and a Masala DOsaNUT on the side) (donut), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:09 (nineteen years ago)

I do drive a Corolla, and I hope to get a Hybrid once I can afford it.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:14 (nineteen years ago)

So I want ILE to browbeat me into taking public transit to work. I would of my own accord, but I'd have to wake up 20 minutes earlier (and I like sleep), and the train station nearest my work is still about a 15 minute walk, and unless I wake up a full hour earlier to catch a bus, I still have to drive to the train station and pay for parking there

Browbeating commences...

You ONLY have to wake up 20 minutes earlier for public transport? My commute is a minimum of 2 hours each way - I have to wake up mega-early (usually at 5-5:30am) and have basically forced myself into a pretty rigorous schedule which took me about a couple weeks to get adjusted to.

The benefits?
- Improved health. I walk during my lunch hour, walk to switch from train to bus, walk whenever possible. I usually take a lunch with me which is significantly healthier than the usual fast food/corporate office park food alternates.
- More money! My gas expenditure has fallen by half. Packing my own lunch has cut my food expenses.
- More books read, more music listened to. Gotta do something on the train/bus.

Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:21 (nineteen years ago)

Will it save you money to take public transit, or will it work out the same as gas due to parking? Also, think that more biking = an excuse to eat more ice cream. However, if you get really sweaty on the way and have no way to clean up at work besides paper towels in the bathroom, then walking or driving to the station would probably be better. And listening to music on a walk early in the morning is one of my favorite things, so I wouldn't consider the walk so much of an inconvenience either.

okay, sorry, now i'm thread hijacking with a vaguely related rant: this summer I'm commuting by car for the first time, and it drives me crazy because I'm actually aware how much gas costs and how fast it is used up now. Luckily, it's only for the summer, but still, i'm realizing that there's not much choice for rural areas where places big enough to offer viable employment are 20-30 miles away! The people I work with almost all have to drive to work daily, spending ridiculous amounts on gas, not to mention time. Unfortunately, the bus system only operates between 8 and 5 and takes at least an hour and a half to cover a half hour of driving, so if you work 8 hours a day that is obviously not feasible at all. There's the carpooling option, but if you're in a rural area your chances of finding someone are iffy. I think this is probably something I've brought up on ILX before, but I don't see how people in rural areas can be "environmentally responsible," much less financially, even if they want to (except by picking up and moving to Boston, or something, but not everyone cna or should do that). They're not irresponsible, they're just screwed.

okay. rant over, and i want to live in a city next year!

Maria (Maria), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:34 (nineteen years ago)

i don't like the defeatism of "our public transit sucks, so i'll just continue to drive and feel guilty about it." public transit is going to continue to suck if cities don't know that people want it -- the best thing you can do if you want better service is to participate in the public process and make it known that you want a viable alternative to driving.

taco de ojo (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:40 (nineteen years ago)

i mean, nimbys always get all activist whenever they want to stop a project -- why are they the only ones who get to speak up and demand anything?

taco de ojo (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:43 (nineteen years ago)

I'd think most cities and even companies have programs that will give you monetory bonuses for just trying public transit. That program is strong in Seattle -- although it's just marginally more successful than in most other cities because that defeatism Jody De Ojo talks about is still this large Western weight that seems to defy wanting to deflate.

San Diva Gyna (and a Masala DOsaNUT on the side) (donut), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:43 (nineteen years ago)

the "car culture" that people talk about is so many decades old now, and got its legs because of a confluence of cultural, political, and financial trends that were relevant 50-60-70 years ago. it seemed like a great idea at the time, because nobody was thinking about the environment, or about how freeway construction could destroy the fabric of a community. the 20th century talked about "the future" in these farfetched jetsonian terms, and there was no "save the planet" anywhere in that discourse.

taco de ojo (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 00:50 (nineteen years ago)

there's a bunch of reasons why i don't drive*, and i've gotten so comfortable with not driving that i'm making it my lifelong goal to never own a car, and if it requires a bit of forethought and strategy, so be it.

*-anxiety
-environment
-don't want to spend the money (or don't HAVE the money)
-don't want the car to be an albatross (don't wanna worry about where to park it, whether it'll get towed or carjacked or broken into, what to do with it when i go away, etc.)
-don't want to become so used to the luxury of it that i become horrified by the real life outside the bubble

taco de ojo (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:11 (nineteen years ago)

become an amoral drunk fatass who just doesnt give a fuck

david allen grier (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:13 (nineteen years ago)

Have you thought about CATAPULTING to work? It's really "Dark Ageish", but it's great for the environment and gets you in the direction you need to go in fast.

Cunga (Cunga), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:19 (nineteen years ago)

there's a bunch of reasons why i don't drive*, and i've gotten so comfortable with not driving that i'm making it my lifelong goal to never own a car, and if it requires a bit of forethought and strategy, so be it.

JBR very spot on there, I'm the same - it started out as "eek I dont like driving" but now, I've adjusted my entire life around this. I choose where I live and work carefully based on public transport access - I dont have any choice, really.

Sometimes it is frustrating not being able to easily buy bigger things like furniture, and going on holidays has proved to be a bit of a bitch - but its all good really.

Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:21 (nineteen years ago)

Oh and, the fact I dont drive or own a car means 2 things: I can afford the occasional taxi (in fact it works out WAY cheaper than a car even getting taxis a lot), and also, I can afford to live closer into town where the rent is higher, as a tradeoff for no car or fuel.

Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:22 (nineteen years ago)

Sometimes it is frustrating not being able to easily buy bigger things like furniture

most furniture stores will deliver if you give 'em some money.

taco de ojo (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:23 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah true, its more the little niggling things that are just a little too big to carry but delivery seems OTT, like lamps and potplants and that kinda thing.

I really need one of those granny trollies.

Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:39 (nineteen years ago)

Keep the Corolla. I have heard that the energy consumed in manufacturing a new vehicle outweighs the energy said vehicle will use during it's projected life. I wish I could point to some stats here. Can anybody back this up?

jim wentworth (wench), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:40 (nineteen years ago)

due to not living in a city, i've always had friends with cars to bum off if i really need something. but i've done my part this summer: 1 trip to the airport an hour away, 1 trip to drop someone off at a relative's an hour away, and 1 trip to the train station an hour and a half away, all within 3 weeks. it's easier to be chauffered than to be the chauffer!

Maria (Maria), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 01:42 (nineteen years ago)

I have heard that the energy consumed in manufacturing a new vehicle outweighs the energy said vehicle will use during it's projected life.

I can't cite a reference, but I remember hearing essentially the same thing. If your car is passing the smog inspections (assuming you have these) and gets decent mpg for a combustion engine, it's better to keep it.

I thought about about getting a Prius a couple years ago when I was looking for a car, but since I only drive about 4000 miles per year I decided the premium for that (over list price with a six month wait) wasn't worth it.

I should do more biking to work, as it's only 2 1/2 miles away, but in my dotage I've decided getting hit by a car would be worse than spewing a few pounds of CO2 into the air.

nickn (nickn), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 05:42 (nineteen years ago)

Another possibility is to be "carbon neutral" by offsetting likely emissions by either planting trees equivalent to the car trip carbons yourself, or paying someone else to do it.

i'm really unsure about these schemes. i mean, they're a good idea at heart, but the whole thing seems in danger of becoming a dreadful middle-class get-out clause: "oh, i can afford to drive to work now without any guilt because someone somewhere is planting a tree."

it's a typical western-capitalist approach: shell out a minuscule bit of cash for something you can't even see because it assuages your guilt. the alternative - change your bloody lifestyle - has rather more going for it, i think.

my advice to the original poster would be: try your damnedest to get up that hour earlier and get the bus; if there's a day or even two a week where, to begin with, you don't manage and have to take the car, don't eat yourself up about it: at least you're trying. keep making the effort, and soon it'll become second nature.

better to try, and occasionally fail, than sit about moping because you, umm, can't really be arsed ;)

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 07:26 (nineteen years ago)

Another possibility is to be "carbon neutral" by offsetting likely emissions by either planting trees equivalent to the car trip carbons yourself, or paying someone else to do it.

i'm really unsure about these schemes. i mean, they're a good idea at heart, but the whole thing seems in danger of becoming a dreadful middle-class get-out clause: "oh, i can afford to drive to work now without any guilt because someone somewhere is planting a tree."

Not to mention that there's only any point to them if nothing ever happens to the wood.

Forest fire? Whoops, there goes all that carbon into the atmosphere. Tree chipped to make cheap furniture? Just wait until the furniture gets trashed and rots. Your main hope is that it starts to create new coal reserves, I guess.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 07:29 (nineteen years ago)

Forest Pines and Grimly Fiendish took the words right out of my mouth. Trees are only absorbing CO2 when they're growing; once they start dying then it all gets released into the atmosphere again.

NickB (NickB), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 08:18 (nineteen years ago)

CArbon offsetting is a scam, momus, I'd have thought you'd have known this. Change behaviour down assuage guilt. Plant trees and invest in wind farms because they are good things to do, but don't think it gets you off the hook for squandering resources.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 08:25 (nineteen years ago)

Self-interest arguments here: someone said,

- More books read, more music listened to. Gotta do something on the train/bus.

That's one point. I have attention span problems, but I've never really had them on public transport. No tvs / internet to keep you distracted.

Also, I've found that driving in rush hour causes a great deal of needless stress. A fifteen minute walk to work isn't such a bad thing, it's a good way to come into work in the morning feeling good instead of angry about what someone did to you in traffic.

doctor the record (edslanders), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 09:11 (nineteen years ago)

(people, the '15 minutes' he mentions is the walk from the station to his office, the journey FROM his house TO the station still needs a car (or the bus))

there was a month where i had a 2 hour commute each way and half of that was the soul-destroyingly unreliable / irregular buses to the railway station 5 miles away from home. (the 30 miles on train and tube was a doddle in comparison). it's always those last few miles that'll get you.

koogy wonderland (koogs), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 09:48 (nineteen years ago)

Yes. If I want to use public transport, I'm stuffed, cos the nearest bus-stop with decent services is in the town centre, which is 30mins walk from here.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 09:53 (nineteen years ago)

So I drove to the train station this morning -- I admit to having a psychological barrier to getting up before 7 -- and walked to the office from the train stop. Did I feel great after the walk? More like sweaty. I forgot to pack a book and my writing journal, so I dozed a little bit on the train and wondered where the blond lady came from since she had something like a South African accent.

Total fare today will be $3.50, with parking at $1.50, and estimated gas consumption (to and from the train station) at less than $1 (for roughly 0.28 gallons). Total: about $6.

Driving to and back from work consumes about 0.8 gallons, which is at least $3.25@gal at the local gas station. So I'm paying ~$2.75 to save half a gallon per day, which translates to saving the equivalent of one tank of gas over 6 weeks; I'm contracted to work through December, which means I would save roughly 50 gallons in the 5 months left.

c('°c) (Leee), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

(Maria was totally OTM re: her rant upthread; if I still lived where I grew up, I would have to drive 35 minutes just to get to a Greyhound stop, while driving directly into downtown St. Paul takes 45 minutes. There is no public transportation to speak of once you leave Mpls/St Paul.)

Jesus Dan (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

Fuck the environment. Just don't have kids!

The Ultimate Conclusion (lokar), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

don't like this guy

RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 18:12 (nineteen years ago)

don't think it has anything to do w/ a psychological barrier

RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

I am glad other people made cogent points about offsetting carbon emissions by planting trees. Although I think there is merit to the idea of pest-herbivore control and increasing biomass in standing forests as a way of capturing carbon (and there is always merit to planting trees because they are lovely) this should be an as-well-as not an instead-off. Because forests do burn and rot.

I wonder if you could somehow sponsor creation of coral reefs and foramnifera and such that store carbon longer term, maybe?

isadora (isadora), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:25 (nineteen years ago)

haha yeah I'd love to see a manmade coral reef. get to work on that.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:28 (nineteen years ago)

anyway the short answer is do whatever you can, every bit helps. Getting up 20 minutes earlier is hardly a burden and the use/expansion of trains/public transit should be aggressively encouraged.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:30 (nineteen years ago)

So I should consider the added cost of taking public transportation as a subsidy?

c('°c) (Leee), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:36 (nineteen years ago)

if economic costs are your main concern than yes, its still cheaper to not care about the future of humanity.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:43 (nineteen years ago)

Thank God for that, eh?

milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:44 (nineteen years ago)

why?

RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:52 (nineteen years ago)

Because self-righteousness is best met with sarcasm?

milo z (mlp), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:53 (nineteen years ago)

how best to meet selfishness?

RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:56 (nineteen years ago)

self-righteousness

it's the circle of life

theantmustdance (theantmustdance), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 20:57 (nineteen years ago)

I recommend not caring! You're just one tiny grain of sand, nothing you can do will have any real impact. We're already likely past the point of no return with regards to global warming anyways. I'll be selling my car and upgrading to a dolphin for purposes of travel.

ALLAH FROG (Mingus Dew), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 21:21 (nineteen years ago)

haha yeah I'd love to see a manmade coral reef. get to work on that.

UH.

There are loads of artificial reefs, you dweeb.

gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 21:52 (nineteen years ago)

yeah I'm a little skeptical of their value

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 21:54 (nineteen years ago)

I'd think most cities and even companies have programs that will give you monetory bonuses for just trying public transit.

Or something at least. For instance, all UCI employees and students get free bus service for the whole county, which is nice, and is how I get into work anyway.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 21:55 (nineteen years ago)

my company pays for my public transit use - its a tax write-off. A $45 monthly pass basically gets me unlimited usage of all the public transit within city limits.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 21:58 (nineteen years ago)

So I take it the whole "emissions trading" concept that underlies the Kyoto Treaty gets the same thumbs down from you lot?

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 22:54 (nineteen years ago)

it doesn't address the fact that there has to be a massive shift in the way human infrastructure are designed and used for there to be any long-term viability of the species. Basically its a sop to corporations who want someone else to do something proactive while they keep doing the same old bullshit. Still, while the Kyoto Treaty is flawed, its a short-term step in the right direction.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 22:59 (nineteen years ago)

Every little helps. The idea of offsetting to achieve carbon neutrality (good carbon karma, you could call it) is a very useful one. I think only nit-picking cynics would say that this shouldn't be happening, for instance.

But sure, yes, everybody immediately give up driving, flying, etc, that's a better solution, of course.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

We should all live in tee-pees because they're better in a lot of ways.

The Ultimate Conclusion (lokar), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 23:40 (nineteen years ago)

Actually teepees contribute to "desert sprawl". High rise, high density urban living is best, ecologically speaking. Especially when the lift is broken.

Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 23:47 (nineteen years ago)

Wait, wha? Don't be disingenuous, Momus. Of course carbon-neutrality is a good idea. But it's also an "easy-out." Paying for someone to plant a few trees != not driving your big dumb SUV.

Meanwhile, soy is destroying the rainforest.


xp -- yeah, duh. Although, dudes, it's pretty nice out here.

gbx (skowly), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

I'll never trust Lukas Haas again.

The Ultimate Conclusion (lokar), Tuesday, 25 July 2006 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

I was thinking not so much as artificial reefs as ?seeding potential areas with the critters?... actually I have no idea sorry.

Re the Kyoto treaty and tradeable emissions, I don't see this as necessarily bad. I am rather thrilled in fact, as the organisation I work for could be getting a windfall under this system. But I am wary of any suggestion that reducing the amount of carbon emitted should not be a main goal.

isadora (isadora), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 01:29 (nineteen years ago)

Uh doods, not to rain on your bike parade, but you know your home uses much more energy than your car. If you really want to lower your energy use/"carbon footprint," you can turn lights off, use more efficient bulbs, avoid the A/C, even unplug appliances when not in use.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 01:34 (nineteen years ago)

if economic costs are your main concern than yes, its still cheaper to not care about the future of humanity.

-- Shakey Mo Collier (audiobo...), July 25th, 2006.

This is one of the most OTM things ever said.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 01:35 (nineteen years ago)

er, yes. even george bush can work that one out for himself.

Uh doods, not to rain on your bike parade, but you know your home uses much more energy than your car. If you really want to lower your energy use/"carbon footprint," you can turn lights off, use more efficient bulbs, avoid the A/C, even unplug appliances when not in use.

or - and i know this is really radical, but what the hell - YOU COULD DO BOTH. you know: turn off lights AND not drive an SUV?

:)

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 08:19 (nineteen years ago)

"if economic costs are your main concern than yes, its still cheaper to not care about the future of humanity."

This is probably incorrect, BUT it is definitely more convenient.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

> I was thinking not so much as artificial reefs as ?seeding potential
> areas with the critters?... actually I have no idea sorry.

thailand government recently sank a lot of old garbage trucks offshore as some kind of artificial reef.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19590935-13762,00.html?from=rss

"everything from concrete pillars to old rail cars have been dumped at 47 sites in the waters off southern Thailand."

Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 14:08 (nineteen years ago)

Since my gasoline savings are marginal (10 gallons a month), is it even worth my inconvenience and added expense to continue what's at best a symbolic environmentalist gesture?

c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 19:29 (nineteen years ago)

but its not symbolic at all, its quantifiable and definite.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 19:31 (nineteen years ago)

cumulative results are achieved by tiny increments.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 19:34 (nineteen years ago)

if you ("nominally an environmentalist" & "I often say that when it comes to the environment, costs are only a secondary concern of mine") won't make these small changes, in lifestyle, who are you hoping will?

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 19:50 (nineteen years ago)

That's what I'm grappling with, Gillanders. It's not enough that I'm willing to make lifestyle changes, but your confrontational cynicism is more of a deterrent than an encouragement (my requests for "browbeating" notwithstanding).

c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 20:09 (nineteen years ago)

if you do it you'll be more popular on the internets! what better incentive do you need?

Also you'll be sexier.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 20:13 (nineteen years ago)

honestly I'm not really understanding your arguments for NOT doing it - "it doesn't really matter" (of course it does!), "it doesn't save me any money" (that's not the point!), "it makes me sweaty" (uh...)

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 20:17 (nineteen years ago)

moving away from the reefs (is there a way to ensure that the cars end up covered in coral? or does that only happen to people in Pirates of the Carribean?).... I do not wish to be nasty, but it seems that you are intellectually aware of how important the environment is, but not persuaded to change your behaviour. Is this the problem you're identifying?

Policy developery types tend to suggest three solutions: use carrots (pay you extra for riding on the bus), use sticks (make rules about when you can drive and arrest you if you break them) or put a price on the effect you're having and charge you for it.

All three options have problems and all three require an external agency being involved. For you personally to make a change I guess you could try your own system of sticks and carrots (if I ride the bus I get to buy a nice lunch, if I drive I have to take sandwiches from home ?) but who's going to police that?

isadora (isadora), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

I just wanted someone to tell me that making the effort is not pointless in the face of otherwise overwhelming apathy towards environmental issues. Which is what I've got now. Thus, LOCK THREAD.

c('°c) (Leee), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 20:54 (nineteen years ago)

why would you use my surname?

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 21:09 (nineteen years ago)

oh, I see--as punishment

RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 21:10 (nineteen years ago)

or - and i know this is really radical, but what the hell - YOU COULD DO BOTH. you know: turn off lights AND not drive an SUV?

oh you know, people who can't arse themselves to care about the earth they occupy LOVE to peg all environmentalists as hypocrites and can't fucking WAIT for the moment they can pounce on them and go "GOTCHA" for leaving the porch light on for more than ten minutes.

taco de ojo (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 22:20 (nineteen years ago)

frankly I don't really give two fucks about the earth. I do, however, care about the long-term viability of intelligent life, and that requires carefully maintaining the earth in something close to its current state.

the "save the planet" rhetoric of the old-school environmental movement has always struck me as innacurate and inneffectual. The planet isn't going anywhere, it will happily erase humanity and all the species currently on it and will endure long after all of them are gone.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 26 July 2006 22:31 (nineteen years ago)

I do, however, care about the long-term viability of intelligent life

I'm gonna go ahead and raise my hand here as someone who actually doesn't care, as I know I won't be part of that 'long-term viability'. Its 2006, and I expected a fucking jetpack and readily available AI by now. If I can't get that by now, then fuck the human race. If I don't have a hovercar by 2015, I'll be very cross.

The Ultimate Conclusion (lokar), Thursday, 27 July 2006 00:09 (nineteen years ago)

an often used...argument

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 27 July 2006 06:09 (nineteen years ago)

(>is there a way to ensure that the cars end up covered in coral?)
(i don't think that matters, the ins and out of the trucks provide shelter for the marine wildlife whether they're covered in coral or not.)

small steps, yes, everything helps. and just because the boss is driving around in his hummer and jetting off places left right and centre doesn't give me license to do nothing. will buy those energy saving lightbulbs this lunchtime... (the last one i bought was too large for the bathroom light fitting so i ended up using it in living room instead and never got around to buying a replacement for the bathroom. bedroom could do with a couple as well - it's amazing how hot it gets in there with one 60w bulb going)

i think paul chadwick had a good idea in one of his Concrete books when he said we should wrap the environment up in a flag - make it a patriotic thing. hard when the government has huge oil concerns but...

Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Thursday, 27 July 2006 07:52 (nineteen years ago)

is it even worth my inconvenience and added expense to continue what's at best a symbolic environmentalist gesture?

er, yes? christ, it would be a LOT easier for me to drive in to work every day, and would work out cheaper too. but i don't, because doing so would make me a knob.

or, you know, be selfish about it; it's up to you! as you've proved, obviously nobody here can change your mind. i posted what i think was a sensible and reasonable proposal above; however, you seem dead set against doing anything to modify your behaviour. you've tried it once and that seems to be it.

i can only assume you started this thread in the hope that someone would come up with an excuse for you to carry on driving to work. there isn't one. so either deal with the guilt, or do something about it.

either way, you're right. lock thread, FFS.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 27 July 2006 08:47 (nineteen years ago)

FWIW, today is the third day in a row that I took the train, and for the time being, I think that I'll be continuing the mass transit thing. (In the near future, I hope to graduate from f(home,station): car to f(home,station): bike, but I have to make sure that I can even bike 3.5 miles without throwing up.)

Also, I've inquired about getting the company to start a public transportation program thing, though I kind of doubt that I'll get it started.

c('°c) (Leee), Thursday, 27 July 2006 19:17 (nineteen years ago)

good on ya!

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 27 July 2006 19:25 (nineteen years ago)

well done

Zora (Zora), Thursday, 27 July 2006 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

Like, don't take my indecisiveness as ambivalence, fer shure.

c('°c) (Leee), Thursday, 27 July 2006 19:45 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not sure I understand how driving in can end up cheaper than PT, when you factor in the weekly petrol and parking costs compared to a weekly transit ticket. Then again maybe I'm spoiled as to the PT costs here (I probably am). It only costs me $25 a week to get any trams trains or busses I want.

Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 27 July 2006 23:01 (nineteen years ago)

oops, okay! sorry. respect due.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 28 July 2006 09:27 (nineteen years ago)

It's hard to quantify what my petrol costs are from driving to work, because the vast majority of my petrol is spent on trips around the country at weekends. I'd estimate that I drive about 65 miles per week just to get to work and back, and get about 10 miles to the litre; so that's, say, £6-7. The bus would be £7 for a weekly pass; so, probably slightly more expensive than the car. But then, on top of the bus ride I'd have a 30-minute walk at each end; and because of the bus times I wouldn't be able to work my current (8-5) hours, unless I was willing to turn up at the office half an hour early every day.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Friday, 28 July 2006 09:49 (nineteen years ago)

jesus christ, FP, where do you work that's 30 minutes away from a bus-stop? even livingston's not quite that horrific :)

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 28 July 2006 09:58 (nineteen years ago)

Actually, I lied. There is a bus stop just outside the office. It gets two buses a day (only in one direction, cos it's part of the end-of-route turning circle), one at about 7.30 am and another at 6.30 pm. I have only once seen a bus stop at it, and that was when I was very early for work and the bus was very late.

The *nearest* bus-stop is fifteen minutes walk, but due to the crapness of the bus timetable at that time in the morning, and the need to change buses, it would take me longer to use it.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Friday, 28 July 2006 10:16 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.