*tap, tap. Show palms then back of hands and then palms again*
It's official, I am done being green. In fact I am writing this in "red" (which I think is the opposite of green I think).
"But I thought you were one of those tree hugging liberal types."
Nope.
"But I thought you were anti-sprawl and all that jazz"
Yeah, well kind of.
See here is the deal: Going Green, or Being Green has about as much to do with the environment as Kermit the Frog does (who was made out of a petroleum based foam). It has more to do with the media telling me how I should morally live.
No strike that, this has nothing to do with the media. It has to do with something that is green, but it is not made from hemp woven by Section 8 inhabitants who water their organic vegetables with grey water. Give up?
Money. Being green has to do with money (period). Much of the things that are billed as being 'sustainable' are in fact not, but since they say that you buy it and you line their pockets with green paper.
'You can't say stuff like that, companies are going Green because they feel it is their moral responsibility to'
You know what else is Green? Bull shit. Companies are going green because they can make more money doing so. Don't believe me? Developers are starting to go green. (Matt 1, you 0).
"But what about global warming?"
What about it, the earth is warming. I bet you after that it will cool down again and then warm back up. That is what the climate does. We should be more worried if it was staying constant.
"But what about rising sea levels?"
I am buying land in Dothan since that is where I think the gulf coast will be circa 2054.
So what? What do we do with all this green 'sustainable' nonsense. Well, I think we use common sense. I would say it is a noble effort to minimize one footprint, to live intentionally compared to haphazardly. We should preserve and protect, but also use and enjoy. We should walk more and drive less. Not because it is good for the environment but that if you ever need to track wild game to live on you would stand a better chance. We shouldn't step on caterpillars, because then we won't have butterflies. And maybe, just maybe we should go meet our neighbors and bring them some cookies (made with flax seeds and organic whole wheat if you like, just don't bring them to my house).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Amen. Here's the reality, look at life cycle costs. What is the cost in electricity, resources, capital, etc. for X widget, or Y appliance, or Z car over its lifetime. In my job, we have three different types of clients, one is life cycle cost focused, one is capital cost focused, and the third has to weigh the benefits of both. Two of these types never mention green, the third one uses it as their marketing arm. Guess who's green in my opinion, it's not the one who's using it to market with; because 9 times out of 10 they are also the one who is building solely by capital cost ("How can I build this building as cheap as possible, and stick whoever I sell it to with the problems it will have in 5 to 10 years because I'm cheap"). The first two look at a building and say "How can I build this building that I NEED (need being a very loose term) so that it will cost me the least over it's lifetime (never shorter than 25 years, some of our clients say never less than 50 years), even though it may cost me a little more up front.
I just read a book that had a great quote with regards to money, that I think applies also perfectly to energy and society.
"You can change your expenses, or you can change your income"
I think society keeps looking at this green issue from only one side of that statement, and it has a negligble difference. However, if you use both sides, I think it has an exponential difference. Here's what I mean:
"You can change your expenses" I'll buy a Prius so that I can get 50mpg because I just bought a house 50 miles from work, instead of driving my old Ford Crown Vic 20 miles from my old house. The 'Green' difference: virtually nothing.
"You can change your income"I'll move 10 miles closer to work and stil drive the Crown Vic. This is more 'Green' than the first one.
But what if you combined these two (the efficiency and the commute) into I'll live 5 miles from work, drive half the time and ride my bike the other half. As a result I'll also loose 20lbs, be in better shape, and feel better.
Looks like changing the income and the expense has a better result than just changing one.
I just love the people that will buy a new builder's spec house in a subdivision 30 miles from their work (10 miles further than currently), and then put CFL lamps in it. Is this just to ease your guilty conscience?
Matt,
I hear you. You keep your stinkin' flaxseed and whole wheat out of my cookies. I could settle for some organic, un-bleached all-purpose flour, though (that's probably what my wife has in the pantry anyway).
Paul,
I like CFLs because I like to spend $7 on a bulb when I could get one for 69-cents. And particularly so when the colors of the adjacent CFLs are off just enough to bother the crap out of you for the entire 10-years of the expected lifespan of the bulb.
I have to use CFL's in my kitchen because the "electrician" who wired my recessed lights failed to see that they have a thermal trip switch and I can't put anything larger than 40 watts in them or they will trip.
But for the $43 a year they save me (and subtract that I paid $16 for 8 CFLs) I can fill up half of my car with gas, so that is good.
Your electrician has 30 of those downlights installed in his house and not one goes out on the thermal. Install the right 40W light bulbs, and they'll work just fine (no an A19 lamp is not the right one).
how can anyone even read this? matt, the red type is AWFUL! but i'm sure you have good things to say. i just can't read it. carry on then :)
that's funny. It doesn't even bother me. Maybe us folks with color blindness (although slow and dangerous behind the wheel) can still serve a purpose.
so do you see red type on a charcoal background? or are you seeing different colors altogether? to me, for whatever reason, the red on charcoal looks smudgey and just kind of hurts my eyes. it is actually physically possible for me to read it, it just strains my eyes really bad.
how do any of us know if it is red on a charcoal background. To me it looks like ______ and to you it looks like _______. You can't use a subjective terms to try and define a variable. You can't ask if it looks likes red because we have no reference point to what red really is. However, what I believe to be red is the same color that the text is written in and I would also say that from what I know charcoal to look like the background would share that color.
Maybe since my eyes are less sensitive to color combination (which is what I think most color blindness is (reference my post from several months back)) it doesn't bother me but since you have hyper-stimulated chromatic ocular units (or HCOU)I can only ask 'what do you mean you have a hard time reading this. Are you retarded or something?:)'
I'll change the color so you can enjoy what the rest of us have.
okay, i think your response is totally over my head. i know what you mean about color being subjective. we all learn trees are green, but are we all seeing the same color when we see green? i get that. but i really just meant, because you are color blind does red look the same as brown to you or something. i never can remember. anyway, thanks for changing to yellow. i wasn't trying to pick on you, by the way. not sure if you took it that way, but just hoping you don't think i am being cruel about something you can't help.
anyway, about the post. i hear you saying that a lot of sustainable things are not sustainable. i was just wondering if you had examples. also, i am sure it is a profit deal, but do you think it is also supply and demand? like the people are demanding eco-friendly products so those who are smart will supply?
also, i think paul's example of the prius is ridiculous. who buys a car to move 50 miles away? that's just dumb. if you live in a house and you need a new car, buying a more fuel efficient car just makes sense. who says you are moving? you just need a new car. this example makes no sense to me. and um, i don't really see him biking around st. louey with multiple baby seats on his bike. sorry, i just don't get it. walking and biking, though far more desirable, are just not realistic apart from small towns and NYC, which is very unfortunate. but still true.
Abby,
I was making fun of you for not being able to see it. It is nice to be in the superior party when it comes to color for once.
Perhaps I should outline what I think it means to be sustainable in a new post before we break down individual objects and products. And maybe through that I can try to better explain Paul's idea about the cars.
Abby,
I think you got the cart before the horse on my comment. I wasn't saying that people move farther away because they have a more fuel efficient vehicle, but rather they do the opposite, or at least consider buying a more efficient vehicle because they live farther. Example: I have a co-worker that lives 55 miles (one-way) from work. His complaint: Gas prices. His solution: He needs a more fuel efficient car. Why not but a house 5 miles from work? Your fuel "efficiency" would go up 11x, just simply by reducing consumption. Never mind the fact that he now has an extra 2 hours in his day by moving as well.
oh okay, that makes better sense paul. sorry, i misunderstood you. :)
Post a Comment