It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Being Green', am I the only one who's not interested?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:
MBF

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunarminer
I have been interested in "alternative energy" ideas for over 30 years. I looked into windmills back in the 80's, solar cells, biofuels, etc.

I even fermented grass clippings in my back yard to make alcolhol fuel to run my lawn mower. I called the idea grassahol and I called a government scientist with the Dept. of Agriculture to share my idea. I did this ten years ago.

I also checked into government grants and loans to extend my idea. That was under the Clinton/Gore administration. You know what I learned? There was not one dime of government money available to fund alternative energy ideas like mine. So much for Al Gore and deep concern for the environment.


I'm like you, I approached a friend that worked for a senator about a grant and he told me that he knew that they made a lot of noise about alternate sources of energy, but that there wasn't any money available to individuals for energy research. He said that all the money went to corporations. Personally, I think that the individual would have more of a desire to get the ball rolling on something different. Face it, the people working for the corporations are happy doing as little as they can get by with and getting paid REAL WELL. But then again, if you do some great thing, they will expect that out of you all the time or they are ready to get rid of you. I guess it is a no win situation.




posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I'm in total agreement! Sir Patrick Moore believes that the Sun is responsible for climate change and I'm inclined to agree. The Sun has been at solar minimum for a year too long now, so it's definitely not behaving as expected. The global warming industry is just one big con.

I am however heavily opposed to polution and believe that we need to clean up the planet, but I'm not allowing myself to be conned by government, eco-fascists and big business.

[edit on 19/2/09 by Insomniac]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
No, you're not alone. I know quite a few people in my everyay life who are also over hearing about "reducing our carbon footprints / carbon credits / recycling / etc etc"

I also am not surprised that our foolish Prime Minister ( Rudd - Australia ) raced off & signed Kyoto. Its all about looking good to the minorities & collecting votes, in order to get re-elected at the next election. Not to mention an easy way of raising more cash, in the form of penalties for not meeting emissions targets. Its not as if they haven't gotten enough taxes from us from our incomes, bank accounts, "speed cameras", now they've found a new way of screwing us out of the rest of our hard earned dollars.



If they are serious about this, then they would include ALL countries in Kyoto. India, China for example, need to be included, as high producers of emissions. Stop the "per capita" calculations & show the facts. I'm so over it.................

The bushfires here are as bad as they are as a direct result of tree-huggers & environmental extremists, are we going to let them continue or do we speak up? I speak up & don't care who I offend on this issue, its a damn farce.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insomniac
I'm in total agreement! Sir Patrick Moore believes that the Sun is responsible for climate change and I'm inclined to agree. The Sun has been at solar minimum for a year too long now, so it's definitely not behaving as expected. The global warming industry is just one big con.

I am however heavily opposed to polution and believe that we need to clean up the planet, but I'm not allowing myself to be conned by government, eco-fascists and big business.

[edit on 19/2/09 by Insomniac]


Couldint agree more, the whole thing is a hilarious con, it really is.
But yeah its time to put our efforts towards implementing ourselves with the planet through the technologies our governments are HIDING.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
i go green, but not for the idealistic values...its more like
being a tight wad that drives me.

in the 2 bd, 2 ba, townhouse, cul-de-sac on a golfcourse;

i use on average 600KWH of electric useage,
i use under $10 of water per month
i save & crush all my beer & soda cans & give the bags of aluminum
to friends or relatives = $10-15 every other month
i ride with friends or hire a taxi

if i had the option, i would specify that when cremation is necessary...
there would be a solar furnace available to 'do-the-job'



that's my contribution to Green living & having a tiny carbon-footprint.

thanks



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


Want to buy some Carbon Debits?

I can help you expand that carbon footprint to match your neighbors. You know you need to keep up with the Jones'.



posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by KATSUO
 


Well, I don't agree that we humans are parasites. Parasites don't improve their environment, humans do. Parasites don't invent, humans do. Parasites don't worry about their impact, humans do. I could give you a hundred reasons that humans are not parasites. I really don't understand why we humans have a self-loathing about ourselves. That is also something that parasites don't do.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
I just wanted to add that in the interest of energy savings and fighting global warming please do not think that going solar electric is any solution.

Uncle Obama and Aunt Pelosi have included kickbacks in the Porkulus Bill giving tax credits for solar electric installations.

I looked into how that would work out and if you took Uncle Obama's kickbacks (from the US taxpayers) and did a solar electric system, you would then still be paying 2 to 3 times more for your electricity than your neighbor with grid electrical service!

Therefore Obama is giving you taxpayer money to invest in a money loosing electrical system that benifits noone and hurts both the taxpayer and the solar invester.

Clever guy that Obama!



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
A little food for thought:

In the eighties in Australia, we had a recycling campaign that encouraged awareness of 'the three R's': Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Recycle being the LAST OPTION in the list. It would seem now that we are being encouraged to 'reduce' our carbon footprints, however corporations are allowed to trade carbon credits so that they don't HAVE to reduce their emissions.
How do corporations buy more credits? They do this by increasing prices, which they have to pass on to the consumer (and in the form of wage reductions for everyone who isn't the CEO, apparently).
Because corporations are being lazy and not actually reducing their emissions and wastage, the rest of us have to pay for their ignorance.

I wholly believe that we are close to reaching peak oil (or hit it years ago), and that plastics/oils are a finite resource (along with everything else we can mine out of the earth), however I absolutely disagree with the manipulation of the global trade markets (in the form of carbon credits) by the corporations who want to save a few bucks for their overpaid CEO's.


This brings me to the second R: Reuse.
Last week in The Age (a newspaper in Melbourne), there was a brief article about 'bringing back the nanna know-how'. The modern world needs to take a look at it's past and emulate some of their habits. My grandma's generation would, for example, use every single part of a pumpkin; they'd peel the thing, eat the rind, dry out the seeds and eat them as snacks, and preserve the skins so they could be used in soups later. Ask your grandparents, and they'll tell you endless stories about how their father would take home a live chicken, chop it's head off, and watch it run around the back yard spurting blood all over the place.

In the age of plastics, we now buy our meat in smaller portions, wrapped in plastic. Said meat can go off in the fridge after three or four days, however meat in the early part of the 1900's, seemed to last for weeks before it went bad. Why is this? What preservatives did they use in our grandparent's days that we don't use anymore?


As for Recycling, it's a no-brainer. Given no other options, useful products can be broken down into their most basic components and reformed into something else.
Unfortunately most of what we throw out isn't recyclable, and industry/corporations are the biggest criminals of all in this aspect. Here's something for you to think about: at your office, when you finish the pot of coffee in the percolator/boiler/plunger, what do you do with the old coffee beans? Most people at a workplace either throw them into the bin or flush them down the sink. If your office had a little roof-veggie-garden, and encouraged all the workers to put their food scraps into the compost, how many half-eaten lunches or unfinished tea-bags, could be saved from landfill?
When your office uses up a carton of milk, do they recycle it or throw it in the bin 'because it's closer to the fridge and I'm in a hurry to get back to work'?

When we are using products at home, we are more conscious about how much it costs and how much we are actually using. In a corporate situation, however, endless consumption of coffee, paper, etc. contributes heavily to the massive amount of products thrown away that could have been recycled.

How many industrial complexes know that you can recycle your old pallettes? At a warehouse I used to work at, we'd keep our old pallettes and burn them in a barrel on friday nights so we could all sit around it and have some beers at the end of the week. That wood could have been delivered to a recycling plant and turned into wood-mulch that would be spread over a garden to reduce water evaporation and save water.



It basically comes down to a matter of common sense. If you have the choice between two items that use differing levels of wasteful products (ie. plastic wrap), please choose the one with less wastage. If something has a use as something else after you're finished with it, make sure it gets reused. If you have a local recycling program, use it as a last resort, because that industry in itself is wasteful.

We don't need some megacorporation controlling our lives and forcing 'carbon neutrality' upon us, because the only way we can truly be carbon neutral, is if we stop LIVING, and only focus on SURVIVING.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nrkyIs the carbon footprint and chemical manufacturing of a solar panel network, outweighed by using electricity from the grid? Which is 'more green'?


This is where you went partly wrong. If you're replacing solar panels every month/year, then you maybe doing more damage to the environment than by living off the fossil-fuel grid.

But if you let the solar panels last its life for several years, you maybe doing yourself and the environment a favor.

Although I agree with you that some aspects of the 'green revolution' doesn't help a bit or simply a hype most would fall for...

But if I knew a practical way to reduce carbon footprint and reduce pollution in the environment in the absolute sense, I'll do it, why not?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
too funny.

what an overly simplistic outline of 'green living' the op provided.

it is this exact type of thinking that makes the citizens of the western world cultures look like pigs.

if only being 'green' was only about going 'solar', driving a small vehicle, or buying a new type of light bulb things would be so much easier.

i also love how the anti-green (dam you crunchy hippie crowd) also always has to bring it back to how the 'establishment' is using this as just one more way to stick it to you. Another perfect example of a lacking understanding of what being 'green' is really all about.

living on a planet with a limited capacity for both the production of raw materials we can use to create our goods and a limited amount of space to act as a sink to hold our wastes there is therefore a limited amount to go around.

living in a country that is something like 5% f the worlds population using (last i herd) something like 25% of the resources simply does not work. Sadly for all of you who want to continue a gluttonous life style 'because yer an american dam it' i am sorry to say it is very likely you will eventually be disappointed.

the human copulation continues to grow, exponentially. the amount of resources to go around thus decreases exponentially. we are already seeing global conflict over the growing scarcity of resources. there will be more and more conflicts based on our resources. just wait till water becomes the next oil.

my point ins simple. 'green' is much more than what kind of light bulb you use, what kind of car you drive, or how big your carbon foot print is. it is about realizing that there is a 'give and take' between you and the planet, that like it or not is home to us ALL.
it is about realizing the limit of production and waste that the limits our interaction with the planet and learning to live in a manner that respects this limit.

what i found the most comical about some of the posts in this thread is the typical, and boring, equation back to the establishment and how 'green' is just another scam. obviously those of you who feel this way don't know much about the movement because it is the truly crunchy greens who are the most independent, self reliant, freedom loving individuals who i have ever had the pleasure to meet.






[edit on 13-5-2009 by Animal]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I like to pain my body in green and pretend i am The Hulk..

does that count as "Being green"?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
"Those who want to change the world need to start with a small garden"
- Voltaire -



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Animalwhat i found the most comical about some of the posts in this thread is the typical, and boring, equation back to the establishment and how 'green' is just another scam. obviously those of you who feel this way don't know much about the movement because it is the truly crunchy greens who are the most independent, self reliant, freedom loving individuals who i have ever had the pleasure to meet.


Some of the green movement is a scam or is useless at best, of course many are practically effective...

I've read and agree with everything else you've said. Here in my country, 'being green' is serious thing(although most is oblivious to it). The surge in air-pollution related respiratory diseases coincides with air quality which is bad due to the booming population which equated to booming population of cars and higher electricity demand.

Wasteful lifestyles can create jobs, but again, accelerate resource usage and environment pollution. We may be focusing on the planet Earth which is either affected or barely affected, but we are completely missing another thing. Many plant and animal species have been made extinct to date due to human activities. Pollution, aggressive expansion, etc.

Being green will save you money and your health(by not eating too much..) If you don't believe this, then you are no different than just any forum surfer simply trying to escape boredom



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The "green" movement is all about guilt.

By being "green" we absolve ourselves for consuming our species to death.


Who benefits from this


Good question. Corporations mainly. The "green" movement allows us to continue to consume the crap they produce without feeling guilty about it.

I live what some would consider to be a "green" lifestyle, however I do this because I find it saves me money and not for quasi political reasons.

Our planet goes through cycles, it's been that way for millions of years, it will be that way until the big light which allows us life goes out, in a few million more.

Go Green, then you won't have to feel so bad about buying a purse that was made in " fill in the blank" by a 6 year old working for a dollar a day.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:49 AM
link   
The green movement isn't just a farce; it puts the focus on all the wrong issues. They throw out "go green"; make it the latest fad, then people like us sit around and talk about--should we go green, or not? When, really, "going green" is just another corporate ruse that keeps people from addressing whats really important.

A couple of generations ago, people knew that the most important thing was to live as independantly as you could--from government; from anything that would make you dependant. It was common sense to know that you were responsible for the wellbeing of yourself.

True going green is..growing your own vegetables. You know they're clean and..you're not dependant on a grocery store to feed you. You compost for quality, and to save MONEY--not to save the planet. Whats good for you will be good for the planet. You find ways to either save on gas or energy, not to reduce your carbon imprint but to prevent reliance on corporations and companies that can limit your ability to move around should they decide, for whatever reason, not to sell it to you anymore.

If people thought in terms of using resources efficiently; of moving away from consumerism, and towards production (which is where we used to be; consumerism is an invention of corporate thinking), then frugal living with a goal in mind would become the norm, not just another way to get you to consume the products of a new industry.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Unfortunately, in regards to growing your own vegetables, you still need to purchase land to grow them on, transport compost and fertiliser, etc etc.
I wonder if the self-sustenance 'heirloom' garden in a backyard, is as carbon-efficient as a mass-produced GM high-yield crop bought in a supermarket. It would be very interesting to see some studies done on carbon footprint comparisons between the two food sources.

As for the financial cost between the two, it's a no-brainer. Growing your own veggies in your backyard is hands-down the cheaper of the two. However, you must also factor in the cost of the land you grow the veggies on, including the cost to the taxpayer to support your hobby farm (eg. the cost of installing utilities to your street, repair costs on your road, council expenditure on providing you with 2.4M worth of room on the footpath, etc..) Sure, the initial blow to your wallet may be lower than purchasing the food from a supermarket, but if you were buying your food and living in an apartment instead of living on a half acre block in the suburbs and growing it yourself, would your 50kg of food per week involve less cost to the rest of the taxpayers who support your hobby farm?

In summary: What I'm trying to say, is that if we lived in apartment blocks and left the outer city regions to the efficient farmers, rather than had a massive urban sprawl and we all tried to operate our own amateur hobby farms, would we be able to produce more food at a lower carbon and financial footprint?

[edit on 11/8/2009 by nrky]


MBF

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by nrky


As for the financial cost between the two, it's a no-brainer. Growing your own veggies in your backyard is hands-down the cheaper of the two.


The only problem with this is that you cut out ALL the profit for the middle men, the ones that really run the cost of food up. If you want to mmake a farmer mad, just take him to a grocery store.



However, you must also factor in the cost of the land you grow the veggies on, including the cost to the taxpayer to support your hobby farm (eg. the cost of installing utilities to your street, repair costs on your road, council expenditure on providing you with 2.4M worth of room on the footpath, etc..) Sure, the initial blow to your wallet may be lower than purchasing the food from a supermarket, but if you were buying your food and living in an apartment instead of living on a half acre block in the suburbs and growing it yourself, would your 50kg of food per week involve less cost to the rest of the taxpayers who support your hobby farm?

In summary: What I'm trying to say, is that if we lived in apartment blocks and left the outer city regions to the efficient farmers, rather than had a massive urban sprawl and we all tried to operate our own amateur hobby farms, would we be able to produce more food at a lower carbon and financial footprint?

[edit on 11/8/2009 by nrky]


Yes, the farmers can produce food cheaper than it can be grown by the hobby farmers, but the way the system is set up, you will never benefit from the cost savings....and the farmer doesn't profit either.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join