Environmental protection is obviously good, but are we being too green? This video makes some solid points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw1MyiMyKsQ&list=PL4kAMiuuZB8kzmFIy1x0c_i_bSLvCBqnJ&index=9 While it might be a bit radical to suggest that the environmental lobby are all money-hungry and out for themselves, there is a point to be made for environmentalism becoming a fashion statement. Thoughts anyone?
Most environmental groups are out for money or fame or for themselves, especially the ones that are in bed with government and big business or ask them for help. The more direct action groups is where the real true (*)(*)(*)(*) is at, and those groups are the legit ones that will hopefully change the world.
I do not believe that being green will ever be bad. The only thing that was pointed out on the video was dishonesty. A true green politician will lobby for things that are truly good for the environment. Even if they get into office under the idea that they will be working on the environmental issues and do nothing on the subject, they are still more likely to work hard to pass a bill for the environment when one is proposed as opposed to someone who does things like publicly criticize the EPA and Kyoto protocol.
Yes, that is the problem. I guess I took it as things which we see as beneficial to the environment, no matter the costs. And sorry, I should have actually posted the video in the thread and not just the link (I only just worked out how to do it!)[video=youtube;Cw1MyiMyKsQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw1MyiMyKsQ&list=PL4kAMiuuZB8kzmFIy1x0c_i_ bSLvCBqnJ[/video]
I agree it is a fashion statement. It really annoys me how the left thinks they own the green agenda. They strive for subsidies and tax credits for people to act green. They make noise about it. However, a true green person just does it, without trying to get anything out of it but knowing they are doing the right thing. I am appalled about how the media is willing accomplices in disregarding the truth for political agenda. If we take the White House for example, Jimmy carter was the first to authorize solar cells on the white house. They were removed during the Reagan years when the roof was resurfaced, and the solar cells were deemed not cost effective. Understandable for the water heated technology of the 70's. I worked at the Multnomah County Shop years ago, and they removed their water heating solar panels for the same reason. Too expensive to operate. It was a "feel good" idea, and a "fashion statement,"but that was it. President Bush (43) was the second president to authorize solar panels on the White House. At least they are the photoelectric type, and maintenance isn't as much. President Obama is the third president to authorize added solar panels to the white house. Now when you read the media hype over this, you rarely if ever, see that president Bush already did this. Anyone know what really gets me about this? President Bush (43) is effectively off the grid in his ranch out in Texas. He uses solar energy, geothermal, greywater, and other green features at his ranch. He paid for all this before it was mainstream, or part of the IRS tax code for tax credits. Why isn't this acknowledges by the green left? Also, when you see articles about the White House solar panels, Obama is given credit with no mention of Bush. These are the media people not to trust. They only portray a clear bias.
A part from political activism [with connected declarations of good will], I do doubt that a very large part of the environmentalists would renounce to their modern life style. So it's better to keep a certain moderation in defending environment ..
It would not be necessary to go back to living in soddies on the plains, but there is a deep chasm between practical people and some of the extreme greens whose policies implicitly would destroy modern civilization.
Yes, you're right here. Before of going on with the discussion I have to explain that in EU and in particular in Italy, environmentalism is bipartisan. In fact, I'm conservative, right leaning and environmentalist [I've been even moderator of the official forum of GreenPeace on an American social network! About this I point out that I don't agree with all the "activities" run by GP activists]. This said, when I hear and environmentalist saying that 1/4 of mankind uses 3/4 of resources, I simply remind that to make the situation more balanced would mean [for a Western citizen] * to renounce to air conditioning in summer * to have little cheap cars * to renounce to rich sweets * to chose if switch the computer on or to switch the electric oven on ... and so on ...
I am more a conservationist than an environmentalist. That said, green choices usually come with a price tag attached whether it is environmentalism or conservation. For instance, I recently bought a house in a small development with about 40 houses in it. I compared the house assessed values of every house in the neighborhood and it did not make sense to me since they were all built about the same time, are about the same size, and have about the same sized lots. I then looked at the property card notes and realized that the more energy efficient the house, the higher they assessed it. They basically are taxing back the savings the home owner receives on utilities by having things like vinyl windows and the homes that used propane instead of city gas were also taxed higher. Instead of encouraging smart choices, our local government basically punishes it. I mean assessing it 15-20% higher for vinyl windows on a 1600 sq. foot home might be great when you go to sell, but it certainly doesn't encourage others to upgrade. Same thing with solar. More people would add on solar if the upfront cost wasn't so high and the local building code folks will make you jump through so many hoops on a retrofit that it just isn't worth it. They do not want you to consume less energy because the city makes money on utilities.
Yes. this is quite common. Also in EU houses more friendly with environment are more expensive. Before of facing the matter technically I would bring to the attention of the participants to the discussion the case of the Italian market of real estates [houses]. Now, today this market is still suffering the consequences of the great financial crisis and so the offer tends to be more considerable than the demand. Usually this should mean that prices go down and in a certain measure this is happening. But "environmentalist houses" cost more and their prices don't go down. So, it's quite obvious that new "ecological quarters" in the cities see a low rate of inhabitants [I've got one I see every time I call at by brother's. An entire quarter made by new ecological palaces, with solar energy, geothermic sources of heat, recycling of waste waters ... they are in large part empty.]. So, technically, why do ecological houses cost more than "polluting houses"? Because the construction industries, to realize them, need to face higher costs. First of all, better quality [and to make an ecological house you need better quality materials and components], then there is the matter of the productivity: there is still a low demand for ecological houses and this doesn't allow the construction industries to become more efficient in producing them. So today, to buy an ecological self sufficient house is an investment for the future [saving money not having to buy energy, but after how many years will we reach the breaking point? When the costs will be equal to the benefits?], but it costs. It's simply history of technology. Before of the popular diffusion of cars, their cost was not so convenient in comparison with the cost of a horse [even considering all is needed to keep a horse].
as we use alternatives more and more, the alternatives will become better and better, cheaper and cheaper.... the same is not true of oil, ect.... .
"Quality" is largely subjective. In my city, at least, already existing houses i.e. "older homes" are significantly cheaper than a new build of the same home and people tend not to stay in the same house for long enough to realize any return on the increased investment of new construction. I am skeptical that geo thermal for most people would be a smarter economic or environmental choice than just radiant heat in the flooring. I think your if there is a demand, it will be cheaper logic doesn't really work with housing materials. This is an area where it has to be made cheaper and widely available to create the demand. For instance, a friend of mine recently built a house using insulated concrete. The form are basically just common items--metal ribs with Styrofoam sides. Since he was doing it himself, he could wait it out, but just getting enough of the forms to build a house took him quite awhile and he lives near a distributor. A builder doesn't have time to wait around until whenever they can get him some more forms to do the next layer of wall, and it isn't like the forms are made of rare earth metals or high tech components. If they were was produced and readily available, builders would use them, but they are not, so they largely do not. In my area, builders still prefer block wall foundations anyways because if you get a bad batch of concrete on a wall pour, your profits and schedule fly out the window.
Nice tactic you employed there. If you can't win the argument against environmental conservation, then attack a small group of people who claim to champion the cause. Fear, loathing and xenophobia will always be far more effective for promoting your cause than would any logical arguments that you might attempt to make.
Two sides to that. The house is worth more, and the resale value is higher. Not around here. The government doesn't run the utilities, private companies do.
