> I'm somewhat surprised that you're objecting to the guy's presentation, then.
Ehh. I'm not quite objecting to it, but there was something about it that bugged me, and it took me a bit to put my finger on it. It has to do with the motivations that drive the actions we take in one column or another: I object to making environmental policy out of fear, specifically the fear that if we don't do something right now, then the entire planetary ecology will be ruined, and it's sure to happen tomorrow. Or maybe the next day.
Let me go off on a bit of a tangent for a moment. It'll lead back in to my point.
Most folks that got an opportunity to talk to my dad for a few minutes about environmentalism would come to the conclusion that he hates the environment. He doesn't like Greenpeace, hates the EPA, restores old cars using harsh solvents and rattle-can spray paint, and he hates modern hybrids.
...Wait. Hates modern hybrids? Yep. He's something of a (very) antique car fanatic; he owns several antique, running, vehicles, including a turn-of-the-century 2-cylinder car, a 1915 Studebaker, a 1927 Paige, and several 20's Model Ts. His car interest doesn't really go past 1929. He can reasonably be considered an expert in antique automobiles and automotive history.
It's that last part that makes him hate modern hybrids, because he is one of the few people that knows that hybrid technology has been around since before 1900 (http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435222). He argued -- when he was in high school -- that auto makers should be producing hybrid vehicles. He argued it not because it would save the environment, even though he's plenty aware of that benefit, but because the technology had been around for such a long time and, as a design, it just made sense. It was a smart idea, and nobody was doing it.
If it were up to him -- this guy who sounds like he openly hates the environment -- we'd be better off, environmentally, than we are. Recycling would actually be convenient and cost-effective. There'd be less waste.
Too many people keep finding motivation for environmental policy out of fear of disaster, instead of simply developing good designs that are efficient and systems that actually work. I hate that, with a passion. How about we stop flailing about out of a fear of some doomsday scenario, and start actually using our heads for once? How about we recognize that when we outlawed the use of certain accelerants in cans of spray paint, it decreased the effectiveness of the paint so drastically that it created more waste? How about we recognize that reformulated gasoline a few years back led to fewer air pollutants per gallon, but so badly reduced its efficiency as a fuel that people had to spend more gallons on their daily commute or buy a new car?
I can argue until I'm blue in the face that it's foolish to take action out of fear. I can argue that doing so leads to more ignorance, not less, and that it will actually cause more damage to environment. I doubt that that argument would find a receptive audience, though.
So, let me try this instead: when you're trying to develop new environmental policies, eventually you're going to bump up against the manufacturing industry. When you go to them, you can say that the world will end in disaster if they don't spend some money to change their practices. As long as you keep telling them that, you keep leaving them the ability to say, "No it won't", and this idiotic argument will stall all your efforts.
Or, you can go to them and say, "Look, if you use this other manufacturing process instead, it's going to cost you some money now. But, you're going to save a ton of money because you're not going to waste as much raw material. Besides, it makes more sense to do it this way; it's more efficient, it's a better design. Also, it happens to be good for the environment."
"Our current model works just fine - if you think you've got something better, start your own company." (I'm pretty cynical about big business.)
That said, I've seen quite a few ads on the subway saying, "Sure you can call it a carbon cap, but it's really a swift kick in the innovation." Thomas L. Friedman wrote an article a while back called "The power of green (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/15/opinion/web-0415edgreen-full.php)" that also seemed along your lines. I might be firmly in the "this landing climate change could get pretty interesting (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/quotes#qt0291279)" camp, but I'm happy with anyone who'll support reasonable precautions.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Ehh. I'm not quite objecting to it, but there was something about it that bugged me, and it took me a bit to put my finger on it. It has to do with the motivations that drive the actions we take in one column or another: I object to making environmental policy out of fear, specifically the fear that if we don't do something right now, then the entire planetary ecology will be ruined, and it's sure to happen tomorrow. Or maybe the next day.
Let me go off on a bit of a tangent for a moment. It'll lead back in to my point.
Most folks that got an opportunity to talk to my dad for a few minutes about environmentalism would come to the conclusion that he hates the environment. He doesn't like Greenpeace, hates the EPA, restores old cars using harsh solvents and rattle-can spray paint, and he hates modern hybrids.
...Wait. Hates modern hybrids? Yep. He's something of a (very) antique car fanatic; he owns several antique, running, vehicles, including a turn-of-the-century 2-cylinder car, a 1915 Studebaker, a 1927 Paige, and several 20's Model Ts. His car interest doesn't really go past 1929. He can reasonably be considered an expert in antique automobiles and automotive history.
It's that last part that makes him hate modern hybrids, because he is one of the few people that knows that hybrid technology has been around since before 1900 (http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435222). He argued -- when he was in high school -- that auto makers should be producing hybrid vehicles. He argued it not because it would save the environment, even though he's plenty aware of that benefit, but because the technology had been around for such a long time and, as a design, it just made sense. It was a smart idea, and nobody was doing it.
If it were up to him -- this guy who sounds like he openly hates the environment -- we'd be better off, environmentally, than we are. Recycling would actually be convenient and cost-effective. There'd be less waste.
Too many people keep finding motivation for environmental policy out of fear of disaster, instead of simply developing good designs that are efficient and systems that actually work. I hate that, with a passion. How about we stop flailing about out of a fear of some doomsday scenario, and start actually using our heads for once? How about we recognize that when we outlawed the use of certain accelerants in cans of spray paint, it decreased the effectiveness of the paint so drastically that it created more waste? How about we recognize that reformulated gasoline a few years back led to fewer air pollutants per gallon, but so badly reduced its efficiency as a fuel that people had to spend more gallons on their daily commute or buy a new car?
I can argue until I'm blue in the face that it's foolish to take action out of fear. I can argue that doing so leads to more ignorance, not less, and that it will actually cause more damage to environment. I doubt that that argument would find a receptive audience, though.
So, let me try this instead: when you're trying to develop new environmental policies, eventually you're going to bump up against the manufacturing industry. When you go to them, you can say that the world will end in disaster if they don't spend some money to change their practices. As long as you keep telling them that, you keep leaving them the ability to say, "No it won't", and this idiotic argument will stall all your efforts.
Or, you can go to them and say, "Look, if you use this other manufacturing process instead, it's going to cost you some money now. But, you're going to save a ton of money because you're not going to waste as much raw material. Besides, it makes more sense to do it this way; it's more efficient, it's a better design. Also, it happens to be good for the environment."
What're they gonna say to that?
no subject
"Our current model works just fine - if you think you've got something better, start your own company." (I'm pretty cynical about big business.)
That said, I've seen quite a few ads on the subway saying, "Sure you can call it a carbon cap, but it's really a swift kick in the innovation." Thomas L. Friedman wrote an article a while back called "The power of green (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/15/opinion/web-0415edgreen-full.php)" that also seemed along your lines. I might be firmly in the "this
landingclimate change could get pretty interesting (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/quotes#qt0291279)" camp, but I'm happy with anyone who'll support reasonable precautions.