I've been reading the Freakonomics blog on nytimes.com lately, and I came across this article about Global Warming today. Besides finding the above quote (basically echoing the argument that I use against 'environmentalists' when I feel preached at), I thought it interesting to discover that the article was repeatedly suggesting, if not promoting the unpopular?/realistic?/scientific? argument that one person really can't do anything. The real point being that it's up to our governments to do anything that would actually have a planetary effect.
Maybe it's just my personality type, but I find that kind of logical/cynical honesty refreshing. I feel that the One-Person-CAN-Make-a-Difference!-type arguments are generally corny and not-powerful. Sometimes I even think that they hinder the development of the kinds of technologies and legislature that could actually help these situations, because people start to think that turning off the lights is all it'll take... In the end it can really dumb down the issue.
And it seems like these contributors are all sticking with the argument (for action against Global Warming) that [I think] you're stupid not to buy into - no matter what side of the political scale you weigh in on - and that is: No matter what the cause of Global Warming is, it is happening, and it could make life for humans difficult in years to come, so why not try to do something about it? The cause matters in terms of HOW we fight Global Warming (whether it's a naturally occurring temperature fluxuation or completely human-caused, or whatever...), sure, but WHY NOT do something about it either way? The only reason that I see for the massive onslaught of GW Doubters is $. (Dolla dolla bill, y'all.)
And I'll be pissed if in 50 years I find out that all the penguins had to die because the US was too scared to offend Big Oil to not consider the funding and development of alternative technologies.
11 comments:
I have a really hard time with environmentalists. It seems they are the most chicken little types out there. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? Remember acid rain? I thought the world was coming to an end because of those things.
And have you read up on recycling lately?
http://shotgunblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/recycling-is-bullshit.html
Turns out, landfills aren't so bad and most recycling actually creates a net loss in saving (since it's more costly to consumers and creates REAL pollution ... air pollution). The Penn and Teller's Bullshit! episode is amazing on this one, as are a lot of those episodes. I high recommend putting them at the top of your Netflix or Blockbuster list.
Oh, and save the whales!
Also ... the Freakonomics blog is awesome ... been reading it a while now.
Lastly ... I know you'll love this:
http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/galleries/still_life/04sl.php
Lou,
Thanks for the P&T suggestion. I've been meaning to take a look at those.
A question, because I don't know either way: Is it possible that we don't hear about the ozone layer and acid rain because those environmental PR movements worked? Unless you know, it seems irresponsible to be discrediting what could have been environmental successes.
I do think that the recycling movement has been interesting, to say the least, and certainly it seems ridiculous to legally enforce curbside programs.(I thought it was clear that recycling is the 3rdof the 3 'R's for a reason...)
At the same time though, what's wrong with doing something for purely moral reasons?(vs. economical reasons. The economics of recycling seemed to be the focuses of those articles you linked to - which I found strange because I thought everyone knew it cost a lot more [money] to recycle. Is that not well known?)
I don't think that there's anything wrong with the Americans who want us to consume less either. Recycle is the big 'R' word right now, when really it should be Reduce. And the arguments against Reducing seem pretty weak. With packaging, for example, and how Americans have less food waste than other countries because we over-package our foodstuffs... Ok... But can you really compare food waste to plastic and paper waste like that? That seems like comparing apples and well, plastic, to me.
The bulk/stock-up shopping that most Americans do these days is bulking up our diets too... but I guess that's the subject of another post.
Great link to the 'Still Lifes'. You were right, I do love that.
Awesome.
I just finished reading a book called The World Without Us by Alan Weisman, basically a thought experiment about how things on the earth would change if humans were to disappear en masse any time soon. Makes a lot of interesting points on how we've been ransacking the globe for years essentially, exterminating megafauna, changing ecosystems etc... and how things would come to start balancing themselves out a bit if we were gone and after how long and what not. It was very good, and while not necessarily relevent to this discussion has a lot of interesting things to say in some similar regard. Check it out.
Thanks Tom! That does sound good. I am on a non-fiction kick lately... but wait, would The World Without Us count? :)
cHey Lou, when talking about recycling it is not just recycle v. throw away. It is actually recycle v. throw away/produce a new can.
Think of it this way for aluminum, which is the easiest to recycle:
-Making new aluminum cans from used cans takes 95 percent less energy and 20 recycled cans can be made with the energy needed to produce one can using virgin ore
So yes, there is air pollution involved, but much less air pollution then say throwing away a can and having to produce a whole new can
-Last year 54 billion cans were recycled saving energy equivalent to 15 million barrels of crude oil - America’s entire gas consumption for one day.
Somewhat significant, I think.
Or another way to put it
- It takes 19 times more energy to manufacture an aluminum can from raw materials than from recycled aluminum.
A different example:
Paper recycling can reduce air pollutants by 75% percent
Yes, throwing away something is less energy than recycling it. But recycling it is less energy than throwing it away/producing a new one. Slightly more relevant.
Tim
It seems an unnecessarily bleak argument to say that an individual can not make a difference. Well I do agree that changes of significance will have to stem from larger entities such as governments, I would not discount the efforts of one person. Government has long taken its hints from the people on what it should do, what course to take. This is not to say the people always get what they want from government and that government always listens, but the government does hear.
The worth of one person’s efforts is much like the worth of one person’s vote. Can my vote, can your vote make a difference?( I know we have had such discussions…) The challenge from the vantage point of the individual is to realize that they are not alone. One person acting does not equal much, but many people acting (separately) counts for something.
To tell a person that what they are doing is not worthwhile, they will likely slip into apathy. What government will respond to a nation of the apathetic?
I agree that many folks may turn off their lights, recycle a bottle, and consider their eco-friendly role fulfilled. But instead of saying their efforts are futile I would encourage them to do more. There is always room for improvement, and though slow, it is happening.
Yes, the government needs to make our great changes, but it will take the people (many individuals) to push the government to that end. I may be flexing idealism to counter your realism, but we are talking about progress and progress is founded on the pursuit ideals.
"I agree that many folks may turn off their lights, recycle a bottle, and consider their eco-friendly role fulfilled. But instead of saying their efforts are futile I would encourage them to do more."
It sounds to me like we would fundamentally be telling people the same thing: "What you're doing is not enough." Your approach would appeal to some, but others would be put off by either, as I am, the simplistic nature of the "One Person Can..." arguments, and some might not like being told that they should try doing more than they already are. My way of putting things has the same risks.
What I like though, is that I can see a shift from the "One Person" arguments in the media - or at least the addition of some more realistic environmental strategy. The way I see it, government and corporations will stay happy as long as the initiative stays on the individual' to make change...
Really though, I agree with you, and I think it's a good thing that people shut off their lights and don't litter and all that - but I'm just happy to see more emphasis being put not on what people should be doing, but on what really needs to happen. Certainly without the individuals' expressing their concerns up until this point, we wouldn't have gotten here at all. And without further pressure, it could all fizzle away.
---
So Davin, when is the next time you'll be in the cities? There's a chance we'll head out for the tournament again in October, but we can't be sure with everything else we have going on. It'd be nice to see you.
My understanding is that the Clean Air Act largely remedied the problem of acid rain. I believe it setup a cap-n-trade system for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and some other bad shtuff. The result was that US emmissions of those acid rain contributers was brought down to safe levels. So maybe the environmentalists did something good on that one... but admittedly I'm no expert on the issue.
The cap and trade system is a leading candidate for potential US global warming legislation today, very much modeled on the succesful clean air act. It simultaneously caps overall emmissions (which is the bottom line in preventing the most catastrophic potential affects of the changing climate), and also lets the big emmitors figure out how to make it happen on their own terms (let's them look out for their bottom line and achieve substantial reductions).
Disclaimer... I did work for a (relatively moderate) enviro org for a year concerning climate change. We were not so concerned with individual actions (light bulbs, etc) and more concerned with pushing through responsible national legislation (and wouldn't complain about effective international legislation either).
That's not to say the light bulbs are a bad idea...
Post a Comment