veddy true
why?
I can see the future now. In order to purchase anything you have to fill out forms to the EPA and homeland security that you need it.
Upon receiving your request they will then decide if you need it and allow 2 business days to fulfill the transaction. After that enough time has gone by that your ‘need state’ will have changed and you will need to reapply.
I’m with you zip, there are plenty of people who buy too much crap, too many mfg who make crap and too many company’s who spec crap, but the whole “STOP EVERYTHING” approach will never work.
What’s wrong with baby steps? Sure swamping out all your existing crap with greener crap is no good, but if I need (my term to define, not yours) an item then isn’t having a ‘greener’ option some sort of progress?
Maybe one day we will all be living in villages and I could be the local furniture maker, or blacksmith or whatever. Unfortunately that will only happen once the whole system collapses. Till then I applaud the company’s that are doing at least something (once again various shades of green out there).
to paraphrase the image…
“The number one rule of environmentalism: Kill all the people and Gaia will be happy.”
my other issue with this view point is that it doesn’t take into account the realities of modern economy and business.
If everyone stopped making and buying stuff, would the planet be better off? Yes. Is the question relevant? No.
Its interesting that BRIC (esp China) seem to get a free pass when it comes to economic development vs. environmental and human rights issues (I don’t have any illusions that any in the West were better when they were developing).
sounds like buy crap so ppl can live better is basically their growth strategy.
Just a question to anyone who has actually looked into it, as I haven’t but, when the “west” was developing? were there as many people in the “west?” for instance were the numbers equal to the 1.x billion in china and the 1.y billion in india?
Not arguing that the west was ok to burn though the earths resources, but it may be more of a problem this time than last if the numbers are significantly greater.
in a way this is a self leveling field, trans costs are going to be higher making all products more expensive so the natural mode will be to do with out or buy higher quality. The ability to buy, use, toss, buy is a function of price after all. It will be intersting, nothing earth shaking as many still alive lived through far worse times than these.
the conservatives on here may hate to hear it, but govt. regulation is the only way that anyone will be “going green”. all the companies you hear about adopting environmentally friendly policies are doing so successfully because of either efficiency or marketing (bragging rights). actually i think alot of companies are adopting newer. more efficient technology and processes, just to stay current, and the green-ness of this technology is just a side effect that gets spun by marketing.
either way, most green policies will probably have more costs than wrecking the environment. companies that adopt these policies will be undercut by rivals unless the green marketing boost makes up for the increased costs. this kind of marketing gimmick is not sustainable. govt. regs are needed to protect both the environment and the ethical businessman.
anyway do we really want to leave our future up to the marketing dept.?
you’re missing a part of the equation…the public’s demand…why do you think the marketing depts are focusing on it?
I’m not missing a part of the equation, maybe i didn’t go into enough detail on my thought, but the “public demand” aspect of it only goes so far as what a company can put on it’s advertising and packaging. 1 % of the public might research what the environmental practices of the companies they buy from are, but the rest won’t. they will pick stuff off the shelves because of a little planet earth on the label, if they care at all. thats what i mean by marketing. the purpose of marketing is to create and exploit public demand. companies environmental policies will go only so far as to enable them to put a “green” claim on their labels and in their ads, and not further.
as many may know, public demand is fickle. the public demanded ankle warmers in the 80’s. now they demand the word “green”, preferably in lowercase sans serif. as the publics focus moves elsewhere, green policies will be forgotten and chipped away at. if someone can pollute and waste and save 10 million to use on a new ad campaign, they just might. green products are like soo 2008 anyway.
i like the free markets and meritocracy thing just as much, if not more than, the next guy. but the principle of democracy is that your freedom stops at the point where it infringes on someone else’s rights. if someone’s freedom to make a profit infringes on everyone else’s right to a clean environment and a viable future, then it is the government’s responsibility to stop them.
What frustrates me is that Al Gore and the media have transformed environmental issues into global warming/carbon offset hype in a power grab for more tax money and control of our lives, when in reality our air and water quality, pollution, etc. are the truly relevant issues.
There is no evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Scientists don’t know if one causes the other, or a third factor influences both. Many say that sun temperature fluctuations and solar flares influence the earth’s temperature more than anything.
Also, design concepts, like some in the greener gadgets competition, that are supposed to guilt people into changing behavior, are not going about things the right way, IMO. Guilting/forcing behavior is never the right or best method.
We should encourage people to do be environmentally responsible without forcing them. Education with the rising generation helps this (not global warming propaganda, but reasonable environmental knowledge and principles) As was mentioned above, economic forces have already and continue to drive greener technology. You can’t change the world lifestyle / economy in a day, but it’s amazingly quick to evolve and adapt to our needs and the environment’s as well.
check your sources
The first part of that statement is the problem. It’s the TGI Fridays effect. Gourmet, organic restaurants would be in every town in America if that is what the majority of people wanted, but currently, they support TGI Fridays in mass, so that is what is available.
Those companies we all like to point the finger at who make less desirable products only make them because people buy them. If people decided to spend their money on higher quality products, retail buyers would shift their open dollars to those product types, putting pressure on manufacturers to produce more high quality goods. It’s called capitalism. Google Adam Smith, Invisible Hand Theory.
For that to happen, people need to be aware that 1 higher quality product is better than buying 5 not so good products, 4 of which the probably don’t need anyway. How does the entire country become more informed, educated and self disciplined to be discerning consumers who only support quality products? I have no idea, can we ask Italy?
i do think the proliferation of Whole Foods and Trader Joes, and even Starbucks are great examples of this kind of upward consumer behavior. 10 years ago a cup of coffee was a commodity product. Places couldn’t sell it cheap enough, and Dinners would offer bottomless cups for 25 cents with breakfast. Coffee culture spread across America, aided by Starbucks, but in spearheaded and mass adopted by consumers. The same wit Whole Foods and Trade Joes. An Apple was an Apple, but now an organic apple has higher perceived value. It costs more to grow and consumers are willing to pay for that value.
Adam also said this:
“Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.â€
- ADAM SMITH
I have checked my sources. I wish more people did. Did you know most of the 2,000 - 3,000 ‘scientists’ on the IPCC (whom everyone references) aren’t scientists but global warming and other activists? Did you know that many scientists disagreed with parts of the report when it was issued but the IPCC refused to remove their names from the report? John Stossel did a report on these facts. He is a reputable journalist, you can Youtube him, “John Stossel 20/20”
There are over 30,000 scientists who over the last decade have signed this petition:
http://www.petitionproject.org
But like I said, I’m sad that we focus on climate change hysteria instead of more meaningful environmental issues like pollution and producing ‘green’ products.
Regardless of weather or not you feel global warming is true or relevant, I would not care to see the digression of the world today had the idea of global warming never been introduced?
For many years and years people have “talked” about the decline of air and water quality, look up river fires and see how far back the rabbit hole really goes. Simply put most people didn’t or still don’t care because the water they are drinking and the air to the best of their knowledge is clean. For the people concerned enough to care about the masses that are faced everyday with unclean air and unclean drinking water there is a complete and dire need for you to continue what you are doing. However Unclean air and water is just not some thing that it is possible to get behind for every one on Earth. Mainly because it’s regional. But Global warming on the other hand is GLOBAL or so they say.
Lets say Al Gore and his posse just made up Global Warming
Lets also then say that George Bush and Dick Cheney made up The War on Terror
^Totally hypothetical 
It seems as though people with the power could just make up what ever they want to get the money and resources they need to push their issues? WOW what a concept?
If anything were relevant at all in this bog it would be Yo! Nail on the head. The people NEED NEED NEED to be educated. How? I duno.
Come to think of it I’ve never met anyone in marketing that was into educating the consumer, marketing people usually look at education as a cost not a necessity, that’s really to bad.
Lots of really good points being made here, some bad ones.
Has anyone else heard of this petition I haven’t. If Al gore made up the hype surrounding Global Warming could some one have done the same for this petition?
I think that even if the we educate the people, I would also agree with Jehan some Gov. regulation would do this cause good. Cause, as you all know there are some unconscionable situations out there.
R-E-G-U-L-A-T-O-R-S!
The benefit of not knowing where you are going is that there are many roads to get there
R-E-G-U-L-A-T-O-R-S!
… Mount up.
It was a clear black night, a clear white moon
Warren G was on the streets, trying to consume
some skirts for the eve, so I can get some funk
just rollin in my ride, chillin all alone
Just had to lighten the mood a bit. You guys are bringing me down.
Now thats what I’m talkin about…somebody got it
If you’re interested in a very heated debate that has taken place on this topic already, you can check it here: What if Global Warming is a Red Herring?
I guess, when it comes right down to it, would it be a bad thing if Global Warming WAS a hoax? Is cleaner air, less dependence on non-renewable resources, and everything that comes with the “Green Movement” a bad thing?
Thanks NURB, it made me laugh, and I needed it.
Just hit the eastside of the lbc
On a mission trying to find mr. warren g.
Seen a car full of girls aint no need to tweak
All you skirts know whats up with 213
I agree with all the positives ip, I guess I don’t like to see personal freedom sacrificed. Politics is funny, most agree on the what, just disagree on the how.
And jehan, props on keepin’ the rap alive.