Ranking Consumers By Environmental Behavior: India, Brazil Top Index; United States Ranks Last

www.sciencedaily.com...

Ranking Consumers By Environmental Behavior: India, Brazil Top Index; United States Ranks Last

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 8-5-2008 by grover]

mod edit: headline

[edit on 8-5-2008 by sanctum]

[edit on 8-5-2008 by grover]

SIGH!!!

More proof as if we needed any of our national selfishness and sense of entitlement.

We consume without regard... pollute without guilt and pat ourselves on the back when we use paper instead of plastic.


(visit the link for the full news article)

www.sciencedaily.com...

[edit on 8-5-2008 by grover]

Could you post the link please Grover?

Thanks.

This isn't suprising in the least. The underdeveloped countries have less oppurtunities to pollute while the developed countries are full of irresponsible pigs. (joke)

I am suprised by China's score in that since the numbers favor the nation three to one (basically) over the US I would expect them to be lower on the list.



[edit on 8-5-2008 by luzeria]

Sorry about that. Here's the link to where I got it:

www.sciencedaily.com...

and

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Thank you, National Geographic. Or perhaps I should say, Captain Obvious. Consumers in developing nations are less likely to own cars and large houses than those in rich societies? Absolutely shocking!

The study is BS.

And in other news, the scientists say that the sun shall rise in the east tomorrow morning. Women and children to be most affected!

PROPAGANDA!

Once again the mystical art of the survey brings us new 'judgments' signed, sealed, and delivered via the almighty media masters.

"...environmentally sustainable consumption and behavior among consumers..."

Really? First of all, who's indexes are being used? Have the consumers in question been normalized? Do we know how purchasing indexes and per capita income play into this? Being green is swell but if it costs 35% more to be 'sustainable' in one country (say, profiteering the 'green' fad) was that scaled and weighted appropriately?

Does the consumer age or income figure into this? Whats the mean educational level from country to country? How about media saturation?

These jokers are just raking in the dough on anything they can label 'green'. Sickening.

And before you all start in on the tired argument about how careless and selfish one group of consumers is vs. another, remember - .... nah!, never mind, you're gonna go there anyway.

Let me just say this, neither corporate America nor the corporate regime (the government itself) will be willing to lose one penny in profit in the name of 'sustainability.' So don't look for your DVD's and consumer products to be boxed in cardboard instead of plastic; nor your cars to burn anything other than petrochemicals anytime soon. (Even the agro industry won't go green - go figure - Monsanto - PCBs, Round-up)

reply to post by Maxmars

---

I love this part:

--- There are signs that index rankings are set to change as people in developing countries become more economically successful and adopt more consumptive behaviors. Findings show that consumers in countries with emerging economies aspire to higher material standards of living and believe people in all countries should have the same living standards as those in the wealthiest countries.

NO KIDDING!

So exactly what is the point of this survey? There isn't one, as far as I can tell. Well, unless you count bashing western societies for the simple fact that their consumers have more money than those in developing ones. But when even the article admits that those poor consumers would likely alter their consumption patterns drastically if they should become wealthy, what does that say of the survey's validity? Perhaps that its not worth the paper its written on?

Propoganda? Definitely.

Propaganda? Hardly.

Sadly we Americans have a long and ugly habit of caring only for ourselves and the rest of the world be damned... and the bush adninistration is the personification of this attitude.

We run roughshod over the rest of the world and wonder why they hate us.

We have 4.5% of the worlds population and devour according to some estimates 20% or more of its resources.

Like I said earlier, we consume without regard and pollute without guilt and then pat ourselves on the back because we chose paper instead of plastic at the grocery store or change from an incandescent bulb to a floresent one.

The rest of the world, the poor especially have to struggle and have to devise ways of compnsating and so no this survey does not surprise me, nor do I believe that it is propaganda.

It's not propaganda. It's a good idea.

The initial list is slightly misleading, but it will beef up over the years.

As is known, it's obvious that a lot of first world countries will be lower. However... when the list builds up we'll be able to compare the first world countries in the list.

So it's not bad and it shouldn't be taken down.

ixnay, grover;

Perhaps we differ on the definition on propaganda, I mean to explain myself if you will indulge me.

-background

I am inclined to ignore the core purpose for such a survey (which is to legitimize an opinion through mathematical analysis of measurements - or maybe just to make money, either way - let's get past that.)

The premise asserted here is that 'consumerism' can be exercised in a 'sustainable' (meaning 'green') manner. I find this to be patently incongruous, like saying 'spending' money can 'save' money. The responsibility for creating and bringing 'sustainable' products to market is not that of the consumer. It is a naive approach to expect 'consumers' to drive a market 'away' from it's current state.

The market forces are going to drive up the price of anything that is desired, hence, it will less and less attainable to reach the unattainable goal of 'sustainable' consumerism. Unless you find it reasonable that to be green you can't be poor. The corporate structure is trying to create and foster this
model for obvious reasons.

Surveys like this are attractive and will be promoted although the product is woefully ill-equipped to gauge the actual culprit behind 'poor consumer choices' - profit. It's like blaming world hunger on farmers. Let the producers of these ecologic nightmares be 'surveyed'. Let the understanding be gifted to us about how an extra $.004 per whatever unit sales rates deforestation or strip mining.

Do you blame Americans for buying toothpaste in a plastic tube? Or having to drive 30 miles to work? Do you believe that it is the consumer who can most swiftly and effectively react to improve the carbon output of a community? This is a simple tool which offers a simple, and thus woefully incomplete, answer to a question we're not even sure we know how to ask appropriately.

- The reason I think this survey is 'propaganda.'

It gives the impression that the significant player on the struggle against humanity's negative impact on the environment has something to do with "what people buy".

That is an outright falsehood. The bad guys are those who 'produce' the products people have to choose from, and what is reasonably available to the people.

It creates the impression that , based on the incorrect premise above, the 'consumer' alone has the power to influence meaningful change in the overall impact we have on the environment.

One years chemical processing by DOW, one seasons black water effluvium from Monsanto plants around the world, one year's military campaigning, all contribute hundred's, if not thousands, of times more damage than the sum total of 'consumers'. We are 'taking the fall' and as usual corporate industry will 'charge' us to play along.

It has been published and legitimized by corporate magazines and institutions who only benefit from the success (not the accuracy or applicability) of the survey

I hope I better explained the idea behind the battle cry - "Propaganda!"

reply to post by Maxmars

---

I think that you are reading far more into it than was actually there.

disgustin nation ,america is .....

pollutes the world with inefficienct monster SUV garbage and bombs poor nations to oblivion

Stupid America =evil US imperialist polluting babykiller fascist empire

Actually I will only accept that I am more sensitive to what is there, than you are.

Did you notice Brezhnev's response. See what such surveys serve to 'legitimize?'

I agree .. stupid survey. Quite obvious, a 5 year old could come out with the same outcome.

Rich people consume more per person then poor people. OMG! Say wha?!

So we should adopt a Marxist One World Order and we can all be poor together! For the mother land!

This is my favorite line, Grover.
Although the energy scene seems like the 1980's Calif water crisis, when individuals were asked to use less water to brush their teeth, at the same time golf courses continued to water the greens, individuals should consume sensibly, if only because we have to pay our utility and food bills. Corporations are not left off the hook, however. (Hey, I tried sending my electric bill to Enron when they jacked up the price of electricity out here, but they never paid it. )

I live in a country the world envies for its quantity of life, but if the rest of the world is now more able to enjoy this lifestyle, or finding the dream could possibly be attainable, then they can't possibly consume at the energy rate we do. Duh! Seems like the rest of the world knows this, but Americans in general don't. Hell, Brazil knows this!

If we want to export democracy and capitalism, then we have to be prepared for the consequences. We'll go from the big fish in the small pond, to the pond with the fish wanting to grow as big as us.

God gave us this world, and we need to take care of it. What's so wrong with America being a leader in green technology? The wise person listens to all sides and takes in what is best from all.

Poor jealous communist
I'm sure that useless parade of weapons that Russia had the other day did not waste any resources.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by WhatTheory]

we are talking about pollution here , not weapons here ....

by the way , imperial US empire has the largest defence budget in the world , so you better first stop wasting your resources , before lecturing former soviet citizens next time...

BrezhnevX, I am old enough to remember America's southern neighbors' yelling "Yankee, go home!". Anger against America's Imperialism is nothing new. Your outrage voiced is an echo Americans still don't hear. Hell, I think Bush heard Bin Laden's anger and still went ahead and used military force in Iraq, helping the enemy to whip up more anger.

That said, the survey is about consumer behavior. So, I will share this story. A younger family member married a wonderful girl from Ukraine. He was lamenting to us at the last family gathering how their food bill is too high, and he has tried to educate her about grocery shopping. For example, she sees all this tasty but expensive fruit from Chile, in the middle of winter where they live, and buys it. He tries to tell her that they can wait until local, and cheaper, produce enters the stores.

But he sees how her background influences her choices. She grew up in a privileged Communist household, used to shopping in stores from which others were banned. Her standard of living was higher, and she is still thrilled at Americans' consumer choices.

I have begun to think lately, caused by the sharp rise in fuel prices, about the inefficient produce/product transportation system of the Soviet Union, which couldn't get things to market. I am now thinking that since America's transportation system has grown to depend to a larger part on trucks, we need to have a more efficient system ourselves. Already there has been talks of "inland ports" in California, making more use of trains.

Instead of investing in infrastructure and going green, America of recent years has been instead investing in investments. This Profits At All Costs Gone Wild is as bad as Girls Gone Wild. The boobs in Washington are real, too.

After the Berlin Wall fell, there was hope for the World. I still believe there is hope for a better world for all. The wall could not contain people's hunger for the freedoms other nations enjoyed. America cannot afford to build a wall to keep out the green of others, literally. We need to learn from each other. Americans must not let a wall be built to keep their country from going green.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by desert]

Umm.....Do you think they were pulling the weapons by horse. There was a lot of wasted fuel and other supplies parading around a bunch of useless, obsolete weapons.


Good! I would feel bad if we did not.


We should use more resources especially since the whole global warming thing is a farce.

Poor jealous commy