Except it is a huge burden with no personal payoff. We have everything set up right now for easy lives at the expense of the environment. Unfortunately, most people are not willing to carry much of that burden.

Great comments and thoughts on this debate. I agree that some level of global solution is needed, but at the same time that is likely going to be the last thing that happens. Governments react to mainstream thought so we need to change the main stream and the governments will follow.

Sarlock,

I agree with your statement about providing solutions that don’t impact people negatively. I think the trick to getting some changes to people is by offering more. For example, eating a more local diet. You sell it with: want to lose weight and have better security around your food sources? Buy at your local farmers market and get to know the suppliers. Then continue with you can often buy local organic food at the same price as what you buy at your grocery store. Eating locally is almost always going to make people healthier since very few of us live near candy or chip factories.

“It’s a dog eat dog world out there. Survival of the fittest.” I disagree with this. We make it this way. In nature there is a balance of cooperation and competition. We choose to only see the one side because it suits us. The reality is doing the right thing to not drive the planet into a bigger mess is going to require some cooperation from all of us.

I agree our standard of life will change, but why can’t it be more focused on what we really need and deeply want. Do we really want another gizmo or would you like to work a four day work week? Would you live in a slightly smaller house for a four day work week? I certainly would!

It’s about how you sell the change that will make the change.

Tim

It comes back to the original problem of 1 person taking action just to see 10 others around them who do nothing or even worse, take advantage of him. Which is why global solutions are needed.

There needs to be a pact in place that will allow the Western world to cut back without getting the feeling that the rest of the world will simply replace them as overconsuming morons.

The problem with survival of the fittest here, is that it could result in none of them surviving.

Why did I stop at just hosing down the alleyway and why did I not call the city? Clearly I was trying to make a point to my neighbour by acting to lessen the damage to the environment (or at least the surrounding neighbourhood animals, since I did wash the antifreeze down the sewer).

If I were to do everything humanly possible to mitigate the situation, I would have soaked up as much of the antifreeze as I could have, sealed it so that it wouldn’t just leech out at the landfill later, then called the city on the my neighbour and then done everything I could to apply peer pressure to him to perhaps cause him to think twice before ever doing it again. Why did I not do all of this? Why didn’t I quickly drive up to the local hardware store and buy a bag of absorbant and drop it on the alley? Why didn’t I call the city? Why didn’t I try to add further pressure to my neighbour despite his disapproving glare? Laziness? Not my problem? It certainly gives me pause for thought… for while I did try and act to a certain degree, I only did what was more convenient for me, and I stopped at the point where it would become much more inconvenient for me. The prospect of having my call to the city ignored was enough to cause me to not make the call in the first place. The cost and hassle of getting the bag of absorbant was too much for me to bother. The potential of getting in to a fist fight with my neighbour or risking a retaliation was enough to cause me to avoid further conflict with him with the issue.

Is it that we are only environmentally responsible when it is convenient for us? And if so, how do we make it convenient for the masses to be environmentally responsible?

Further, in so many instances, we think we are making the environmentally conscious choice when it fact we are actually doing more damage to the environment. Take ethanol from corn for instance. On the surface it seems like a wonderful idea… clean energy from a renewable resource. But when you factor in all of the chemicals used to grow the corn, the oil used to harvest, process and transport the corn/ethanol, you come to realize that it isn’t so clean afterall and in fact creates more pollution than extracting the same volume of oil out of the ground. If we were growing this corn organically without pesticides/herbicides, fertilizers and harvesting it by hand, then locally processing it and delivering to local markets, then we’re making progress. I have seen analyses citing that the cost of modern food production is somewhere on the order 10 units of energy (primarily oil) expended to create 1 unit of food energy (be it food calories or combustion fuel).

To the questions you raised about my comments regarding humans being selfish and true to their nature, I refer to the fact that under it all we are just animals fighting to survive in a world of scarce resources, just as every other living being on this planet is. While we try to elevate ourselves above our basic instincts, we cannot deny who we are and what drives us. Will I make an environmentally conscious choice if it does not impact my life negatively? Likely. Will I, however, make this choice if it does impact my life negatively? Unlikely. Some more responsible people will, but there will always be some (be it individuals or entire nations) that will take advantage of your good nature and profit from it (and likely damage the environment because of it).

Can 6+ billion human beings all co-exist on this planet living in 1,500 square foot homes, driving two cars and living a standard of life that we have enjoyed for far too long in the Western world? The answer is a resounding “no”. But is the Western world willing to wind themselves back to a more basic lifestyle in order to balance our selfish needs with an environmental equilibrium? Not willingly. Someone will always be trying to take advantage of someone else. It’s just what we are and I don’t believe there’s any way to change it, it’s programmed in to our most basic instincts.

It’s a dog eat dog world out there. Survival of the fittest.

Remember Michael Jackson’s song “Man in the Mirror”? In it, he says something to the effect that the best way to effect a change is to start with ourselves. That’s what I try to do, as much as I can (although I am far from perfect).

When there is only one person who cares and acts, many others will point at that person and laugh. A few will think and may decide to do the same. After some time, as more and more people care and act the same way, there is a social pressure that begins building up on those who used to laugh. Eventually, those acts become “cool” or “fashionable”.

In Canada, we are just starting to enter the environmental coolnes period. Many of the acts are still just gestures without too much thought behind them, but we are getting better and environmental awareness is slowly being assimilated into our collective mentality.

Hopefully the process will continue. We don’t have much of a choice really. It’s do or die.

Now, what to do when your neighbour doesn’t care? Ignoring him is not really an option, since we are trying to effect a global change (to address a global problem). We have to use what leverage we have to make him care. If nothing else work, this may mean calling the city to see if they will act (after all, we have laws against pollution). The thing is that it is so much trouble! And it may lead to nothing happening.

At a more global level, simply acting in our own backyard will not be enough to solve this problem. We will have to act globally. If your neighbour (China, for example) doesn’t want to play by the same rules, we have to stop buying their products. Or at least reduce our purchase of their product as much as we can. Another way would be to add targeted taxes to foreign products that do not meet local environmental production standards. That could force those neighbours to improve their standards if they want to keep selling their products. Essentially imposing fines on people who do not collect their dog’s shit.

Well, enough already.

Cheers,
Frog

First off good tale of someone who doesn’t care. That is why I have to say we need to change everyone’s minds about how they think.

Two you use some very interesting language that I want to pick a part a bit.

First off “Gosh, we’re talking a fundamental change in how we behave that goes against our very nature. Is it even possible?” So can I fire back a response question. What is our nature? You speak of it as being obvious, but I’m not sure what part you are refering to. The second thing is by using the world ‘nature’ you making an assumption that it is something that we can’t change which strictly speaking isn’t true. Our ‘nature’ as it is is merely the sum of our previous actions and beliefs applied to a current situation. If a person undergoes a shift in thought it alters their beliefs and actions and can change their nature.

Second “Do I call the city on him? Will they actually do anything? Not likely. So a couple gallons of ethyl glycol went down the storm sewer and added pollution to our river and the person directly responsible didn’t care.” So did you call the city? Just because the person who did the deed doesn’t care doesn’t mean you can’t. You’ve assumed defeat prior to even getting started. You obvious care somewhat by hosing down the area (by the way you are better off to put something down that can absorb it like kitty litter and putting in out with your trash). So what else could you have done?

Third “We humans are inherently selfish. If we can get away with it, we will most likely do it. ” Yes I agree humans are selfish, the degree of selfishness various, but every one is selfish somewhat. Your second sentence actually hits on something rather interesting. Our law system is based on the most stupid concept possible: if we tell you not to do it you won’t. Of course we know this doesn’t work at all. Gee anyone with a small child could tell you that one. We should be approaching the problem differently. We should have a system based on harm reduction and true social, environmental and economic costs for products. So that is why fair trade coffee/organic coffee is three times the price of regular. We should be forced to examine how badly do you REALLY want that morning coffee and its true cost to produce it?

Fourth “To change that is to completely change how we think as humans…” This is a lie. Humans don’t think in any given one way. Your making a statement for our culture rather than our species. A common means of people justifying to themselves that they can’t change what they are doing. They haven’t even tired and they don’t want to so they make statements like that implying that can’t change before they try. That is a major part of the problem. We give up prior to starting.

Tim

AndyBuck,

Good idea, but hard to generate unless we change people’s minds first. I think that is where we will end up, but not for a number of years yet.

I disagree about our species ability to see where we are going. We do see. The issue is the fog of rhetoric which has been created to blind and confuse us on our need to do something.

Sarlock,

Oh, good comment. I gotta run here so I’ll get back to your comment later.

Tim

Things that pollute should be more expensive, period. Look what happens with the price of gas right now going through the roof. More and more people start to use public transit. People won’t care until it hurts their wallet. People are ready to make the switch, they just need the economic incentives.

Take, for example, my neighbour across the alley who drained his radiatior in his car the other day and let it run down the alleyway and in to the storm sewer. I yelled at him that the storm sewers go straight to the river (do not pass Go!) and that he was polluting our river and also risking the chance that pets may drink the antifreeze and die. He just shrugged his shoulders, gave me the “whatever” look, turned his back to me and continued to work on his car. I grabbed my hose and sprayed down the alley so at least there wasn’t puddles of antifreeze left.

Do I call the city on him? Will they actually do anything? Not likely. So a couple gallons of ethyl glycol went down the storm sewer and added pollution to our river and the person directly responsible didn’t care.

Do we have to make every possible environmental offense carry consequences of such magnitude that the offenders will not do it in the first place? Is this even feasible?

Ideally, we’d change the mentality in the first place so that he wouldn’t do it to start with (like most rational, educated people would do)… but how do you create that level of environmental responsibility? We humans are inherently selfish. If we can get away with it, we will most likely do it. To change that is to completely change how we think as humans… and that is a monumental task that will likely only occur once we are on the brink of extinction.