a Green skeptic
Hey, I voted Green in November, I think humans should tax or limit their carbon emissions, I have pro-environment sympathies in general. I give $$$ to an environment-oriented charity. I Love the Planet!
But I am often skeptical of things that pro-environment people say or believe. And I think I am right to be skeptical, because loving the environment doesn't fix it. Believing in the environment doesn't fix it. Not understanding exactly what is broken doesn't fix it.
So when I see the word "sustainable" I shudder. Because I think the people who use this word don't really get it. Reducing your personal energy consumption by 10% doesn't make anything more or less sustainable, except for maybe your own ability to pay your own electric bill. "USDA Organic" food or clothing isn't sustainable either. I never know what people really mean by using this word. Telling me your building is sustainable is a bunch of crap. What does sustainable really mean? That you only use recycled materials, renewable resources, and only buy products that do the same, 100% from start to finish throughout their supply chain, and then you only dispose of these products via recycling? Impossible. Nobody has yet built a completely closed human habitat with no environmental footprint. For example, the trucks that pick up the recycling from in front of my house use diesel fuel, ahem.
I understand wanting to reduce your use of nonrenewable energies and materials, but words like sustainable just don't make any sense. Plus, there are very tricky economic problems that result when an individual attempts to reduce a group's aggregate use of -- for example -- fossil fuels via her own personal actions. Or when a nation tries to reduce the world's use of fossil fuels via collective action. Generally, one person's reduction in use will reduce the price by a marginal amount, which will increase marginal demand for the product from others. Is there any evidence that fuel efficiency standards have reduced overall global oil consumption? Nope. Overall global oil consumption is at record highs. Use less oil for cars, and other uses for oil become more economical instead.
And global collective action is very very difficult, which is why as a globe we haven't reduced carbon emissions one friggin' bit.
-----
And now I'm trying to figure out what the hell "biodiversity" means, how we might measure it, and whether we should care. And in what way we should care. And then, what to do with such caring. This is pretty tough. It is easy to imagine biodiversity means the number of species within a given geographic area at a given time. But how do you measure this? Let's start there. How do you measure this? And then, to what does this measurement compare? And then, why should I care -- which really means, what factors that I ought to care about correlate with or result from changes in the level of biodiversity within a given area. And then, assuming I've convinced myself that increasing biodiversity is great, how do I increase it, and at what cost/benefit ratio? And if I can't do it all by myself, how do I enforce the global activity required to increase biodiversity without giving others a greater incentive to decrease it?
I just don't think it is as simple as the word makes it sound. Increasing diversity in the workplace is much easier ;-)
-----
And if the leading pop biologists are right (based on their decades of collective academic wisdom), and the globe is suffering its most rapid decline in biodiversity ever, and is doing so because of human predation (aww, let's throw in cat predation also, as a diversionary tactic), and humans can't even manage to voluntarily reduce their carbon emissions, what is the realistic plan for increasing biodiversity by reducing human predation?
These are tough problems, and I think environmentalists generally never get this far, I think they spend enormous amounts of effort trying to convice everybody (1) there are problems, and (2) we should change a few behaviors on the margins that theoretically would slow the worsening of the problems (if we ignored the laws of economics).
Here in the US, we haven't even convinced a majority that there are problems.
This stuff is hard, and deserves both sympathy and skepticism.
But I am often skeptical of things that pro-environment people say or believe. And I think I am right to be skeptical, because loving the environment doesn't fix it. Believing in the environment doesn't fix it. Not understanding exactly what is broken doesn't fix it.
So when I see the word "sustainable" I shudder. Because I think the people who use this word don't really get it. Reducing your personal energy consumption by 10% doesn't make anything more or less sustainable, except for maybe your own ability to pay your own electric bill. "USDA Organic" food or clothing isn't sustainable either. I never know what people really mean by using this word. Telling me your building is sustainable is a bunch of crap. What does sustainable really mean? That you only use recycled materials, renewable resources, and only buy products that do the same, 100% from start to finish throughout their supply chain, and then you only dispose of these products via recycling? Impossible. Nobody has yet built a completely closed human habitat with no environmental footprint. For example, the trucks that pick up the recycling from in front of my house use diesel fuel, ahem.
I understand wanting to reduce your use of nonrenewable energies and materials, but words like sustainable just don't make any sense. Plus, there are very tricky economic problems that result when an individual attempts to reduce a group's aggregate use of -- for example -- fossil fuels via her own personal actions. Or when a nation tries to reduce the world's use of fossil fuels via collective action. Generally, one person's reduction in use will reduce the price by a marginal amount, which will increase marginal demand for the product from others. Is there any evidence that fuel efficiency standards have reduced overall global oil consumption? Nope. Overall global oil consumption is at record highs. Use less oil for cars, and other uses for oil become more economical instead.
And global collective action is very very difficult, which is why as a globe we haven't reduced carbon emissions one friggin' bit.
-----
And now I'm trying to figure out what the hell "biodiversity" means, how we might measure it, and whether we should care. And in what way we should care. And then, what to do with such caring. This is pretty tough. It is easy to imagine biodiversity means the number of species within a given geographic area at a given time. But how do you measure this? Let's start there. How do you measure this? And then, to what does this measurement compare? And then, why should I care -- which really means, what factors that I ought to care about correlate with or result from changes in the level of biodiversity within a given area. And then, assuming I've convinced myself that increasing biodiversity is great, how do I increase it, and at what cost/benefit ratio? And if I can't do it all by myself, how do I enforce the global activity required to increase biodiversity without giving others a greater incentive to decrease it?
I just don't think it is as simple as the word makes it sound. Increasing diversity in the workplace is much easier ;-)
-----
And if the leading pop biologists are right (based on their decades of collective academic wisdom), and the globe is suffering its most rapid decline in biodiversity ever, and is doing so because of human predation (aww, let's throw in cat predation also, as a diversionary tactic), and humans can't even manage to voluntarily reduce their carbon emissions, what is the realistic plan for increasing biodiversity by reducing human predation?
These are tough problems, and I think environmentalists generally never get this far, I think they spend enormous amounts of effort trying to convice everybody (1) there are problems, and (2) we should change a few behaviors on the margins that theoretically would slow the worsening of the problems (if we ignored the laws of economics).
Here in the US, we haven't even convinced a majority that there are problems.
This stuff is hard, and deserves both sympathy and skepticism.