The people at Living Homes are totally lame and hypocritical for designing a modular LEED platinum house, but making it too big. And putting too much glass on it. The Prius is totally lame because it gets worse gas mileage than it says, and also because it's not public transit. The Super Bowl is totally lame for offsetting all its carbon emissions in part by planting trees, which everybody knows aren't going to solve global warming. Tesco is totally lame for labeling everything on its shelves with its carbon content, but not purchasing all its food locally.
Pretty much everybody is totally lame, including green bloggers who celebrate these things without noting how totally lame they are. Gullible Sellouts to The Man are totally lame. Really, the only people who aren't totally lame are environmentalists, living in their 1,000-year-old, 12-square-foot Cape Cod cottages, wearing home-knit wool sweaters from the yarn of their back-yard alpacas, eating beets from their neighbor's organic farm, walking everywhere they need to go except when using their one-gear bicycles, using no air conditioning or heating because their 12-square-foot cottages are heated by the warmth of their own exquisite, impeccable virtue, which is so hot and strong and bright it can be seen from $%@#! space. These environmentalists are totally free of even a touch of an echo of a hint of a tinge of a taint of hypocrisy, and the other 99.999% of the population deeply and sincerely admires them, but, as recent history amply demonstrates, would much prefer not to get stuck conversing with them, because even though they're totally virtuous and not at all lame, listening to lectures from earnestly self-righteous wet blankets is like chewing on cardboard, and life is short, right?
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
EPA demands attorneys remove video critical of cap-and-trade
Comments
View as Flat
Gar Lipow Posted 4:56 am
25 Jan 2007
I think the objection to the superbowl thing is manyfold:
In claiming carbon neutrality, the superbowl is claiming something unlikely to be true. I'm not going to accuse them of lying, because whoever is buying the offsets may seriously believe they are doing a good thing but:
Sterling certificates - nobody knows how many of these renewables would have come about without certificates.
Trees - if you look carefully the trees have not been planted yet. So even if they provide net sequetration there is no way to put a number on it. In addition the questions of whether new tree plantings North of the equator are net sequestorers. Albedo is not all, but it is important. In addition, before doing any calcualtions on tree planting you need to knwo what was growing there before the tree was planted. Often land labeled "degraded" has its own econsystem. Even in the tropics, where everyone agrees that trees are net seqestorers, most biologists agree that it is foolish to try and put a number on it. I'm not objecting to funding tree planting. I'm objecting to claiming it as an offset, using it for permission to continue to pollute.
I'm happy to cheer when the news is good. I'm not going to cheer marketing hype supporting claims that are at best exageratted, and may be entirely false. If you want me to cheer at the superbowl funding renewable energy and tree planting then say that. Don't claim the superbowl is carbon netural. Because if the people running the superbowl don't know any better the editor for Gristmill ought to.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:04 am
25 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Backcut Posted 5:06 am
25 Jan 2007
Luckily, Grist isn't full of "lamers". Chalk it up to the angst of youth, eh?
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:16 am
25 Jan 2007
We are experiencing the beginning of institutional failures, which will expand over much of civilization, brought on from a perceived lack of future and overheated glass houses built as giant refrigerators, cars, food, games that only the rich can buy. I am expecting a civil war between the have and have-nots, which is the drift of what I read in comments about the toys the rich love.
The end of fossil fuels will come because of what we do not do rather than what we do do.
The thought police and our low-carbon toys will not save our civilization.
There is some radical chic on this blog I have not seen since the 1960s.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 5:17 am
25 Jan 2007
We Viridians can agree with the assessment that there is never enough for our greeds, while our true needs can be amazingly modest. But my grandfather's needs are even more modest than yours. Why? Because he is dead.
Similarly, my grandfather feels no need to destroy his desires for the illusory and tempting things of Maya, because he has no desires. Because he's dead.
It's no use preaching a Christian sermon on self-restraint to my grandfather; he rests in peace now, he feels no lust, no greed, no envy of his neighbor's wife and goods, he cannot break any commandments.
It also follows directly that my grandfather is the ideal Green. He does not merely recycle his bottles and newspapers; he himself is being recycled. His home is small, modest and entirely earth-sheltered; it consumes no air conditioning, no electricity, no fresh water. There are no traffic jams, no two-car garage at his residence, and so on. Every single one of my grandfather's industrial design problems have been permanently solved.
Clearly there's a severe conceptual difficulty with ideals of human behavior in which dead people can trump anything live people can do.
-- Bruce Sterling, November 2000
Permalink
randino Posted 5:23 am
25 Jan 2007
What he seems to be getting at is the curse of perfectionism. Perfectionism shows an unwillingness to put up with all those nasty contradictions in life. Unfortunately unless you want to live in a monastery, you have no other choice but to suck it up and live an imperfect life among the heathen. A community organizer I once knew said you have to choose between activism that is a form of social therapy and activism that brings about social change. My spin on it is that you meet two types of people in social change movements. Those who want to go to heaven, and those who want to change things.
Take the rest of the day off David. I am worried about you.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:02 am
25 Jan 2007
Maybe then we will remember that trees are good, the Prius is cool, and Dave is funny.
Kaela
Permalink
bhurley Posted 6:22 am
25 Jan 2007
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:51 am
25 Jan 2007
I think "lifestyle" greens are the future, not technofixes and green consumerism. The constraints we face because of climate change, peak oil, and ecosystem degradation are too severe to do otherwise.
David's fulminations against self-righteousness are understandable, but irrelevant. If an argument is correct, it does not matter whether the person's style irritates you.
I do get annoyed with the righteousness, doomerism and defeatism that so often crop up among lifestyle greens. On the plus side, they apply critical thinking in an area where green rah-rah boosterism prevails (e.g. ethanol). They also are the pioneers - developing the ideas and fashions that we will all be following in a few years.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 6:55 am
25 Jan 2007
http://www.sinkswatch.org/
Objecting to this kind of thing is not "perfectionism". The offsets chosen by the Super bowl may not be that bad. But I see no evidence that the claim of "carbon neutrality" is anywhere close to accurate.
Two other points to consider:
Tree offsets are not measurable. That is carbon sequestration,when it takes place, varies a great deal from plantation to plantation.
Similarly almost always, and if you read the article specifically in this case, the committment is to plant trees after the superbowl. Since it takes decades for trees to grow, most of the "offsets" come decades after the emissions. Givent he feedbacks that are occuring, this kind of "offset" would be really problematic even if it actually was an offset.
And I'm a bit angry that after all I've posted on offsets, I still have to make the argument that offsets don't result in carbon neutrality on this blog.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:02 am
25 Jan 2007
I found it hilarious because -- as one of the individuals reacting negatively to the shiny LEED Platinum house and not considering it a good idea to cover the entire planet with trees -- I was clearly one of the intended targets of your verbal cluster bomb. Yet, your words communicate exactly how I feel about a significant number of environmentalists.
I would never envision myself as a virtuous environmentalist. But I suppose we all lie on a spectrum from perfect to not-so-perfect. Well, a multiple of spectrums, each person arranging their version a little differently. To someone pleased by the construction of an LEED Platinum mansion, I'm a radical tree-hugger. To someone who believes I should stop eating meat, I'm a threat to the tropical rain forest. You might recall I believe environmentalists should accept GMOs as good for the environment. This makes me almost as bad as a Neocon. It sure is difficult to define what an environmentalist should support and oppose!
On a slightly more serious note, your post might reveal a weakness of environmentalists... difficulty accepting constructive criticism from within the ranks.
The LEED Platinum house in question is, indeed, a good thing. But only if one considers 3000-5000 square foot houses a good thing. I happen to believe houses are becoming too large. What is the point of cutting the environmental footprint per square foor in half if we then use it to justify building houses twice as large? There is no net reduction in harm to the environment. And it sets a bad example for the rest of the world.
Tree planting is a good thing, but there are times when it is not. What's wrong with ensuring people have the information to make an informed decision. We are not planting trees just to feel good about ourselves. We have a goal. And if someone plants trees to offset carbon emissions, we should make damned sure the trees are really going to do a better job of this than the vegetation they are replacing.
If I want to blindly accept what my leaders tell me to do, I will join the Republican party. Environmentalist should be interested in at least TRYING to do the most useful thing, not just alleviate their guilt. They should also be open-minded enough to change direction when the old ways are not working. The ultimate goal, I believe, is to preserve the biosphere.
Permalink
mihan Posted 7:22 am
25 Jan 2007
Am I the only person who actually revels in the nerdiness of the Prius?
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:49 am
25 Jan 2007
http://www.saturn.com/saturn/vehicles/vue/greenLine.jsp
The Vue is so much cooler than a Prius. Who cares about milage when you can haul stuff?! At least it has a lower environmental impact than other SUVs.
Hey... what are you looking at? If Dave can admire a LEED Platinum mansion, I can admire a hybrid SUV.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 7:57 am
25 Jan 2007
This idea is rampant across Republican America. The Democratic party uses this to a MUCH lesser extent but, I still see some of the mindless who are "reverse ditto heads".
also, in my Internet forum travels, I see exactly what BHurley was saying. The angst of youth tends to want to rail against "the Man". Regardless of whether their actions result in a net loss for the environment. However, it's not just the youth who do this. Too many eco groups still feel that lying and misinformation is acceptable in swaying the public to their side. Just like the people they are fighting against. Even lowering themselves to fascism, censorship and violence (HINT: monkeywrenching).
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:59 am
25 Jan 2007
No problem with the poisonous sentence that precedes. Also, trees are indeed good, even if not all trees are planted equal.
As for the Prius, hmmmm: it is still an up-in-the-air object, whose value has not yet been determined. And "coolness" is a terrificly boring term of evaluation, however commonplace. I for one much prefer Patrick a Beijing's creeky bicycle, coolicity-wise.
And no, in this case I regret to have to disagree with the excellent Kaela: David Roberts is not funny. David Roberts is most of the time cranky. Sometimes, he is stylistically cute enough to whip out something witty. But no, he is most certainly not funny.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 9:10 am
25 Jan 2007
Would you prefer if we all just agreed with you even when we thought there were significant aspects you'd missed? Would that really be fun, if all the replies to your posts were "Wow, you're so cool to have pointed out this wonderful thing!"? I think it'd be kinda boring after a while, not to mention of no use to the actual cause.
If it irritates you that I discuss what I perceive as my successes, like living in a small house, and understanding what techniques have been proven over thousands of years to really work, you are of course free to ruminate on my shortcomings, but I'm not sure how that helps stop global warming.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:11 am
25 Jan 2007
Yes, and I think that this conceptual failure is one of the major factors working against a wider adoption of environmental consciousness. If being green means freezing in the dark, no sane person will sign up for it.
Bill McDonough said it better than I can in his presentation at Bioneers in 2000. Download it here and jump to 28:00.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:45 am
25 Jan 2007
I know, because I've learned from such people and try to live in such a way.
By the way, it is not respectful to call your ancestors, "dead people," nor to make fun of their experiences and knowledge.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:51 pm
25 Jan 2007
Which is why I shall not repeat the very long response to this mightily dislikable post of yours, which somehow, fortunately, got lost.
Let me just register my basic agreement with Willa ("twist away at DR's knickers!"), and Bart(yes, old people count).
Also, I appreciate everyone else's contributions. Especially Kaela's and Mihan's.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:14 pm
25 Jan 2007
I will take my part in the collective blame for having pissed David off (of course in a day or two he may say "April Fool", but then again, maybe not).
My favorite fairy tale has always been "The Emperor's New Clothes", except I add the postscript that on the way home from the celebration of the unmasking of the thieves, the little boy was waylaid robbed and murdered by agents of the emperor.
Personally, I am not particularly virtuous. (grin).
David, you should appreciate those of us who are critical, and learn to use us. You approach those right wing radio hosts, and say "Hey, if you think I am far out, you should see the folks who post on Grist!". We can give you cover to be the centerist in promoting change! That's how the conservatives do it. (smile)
I do wonder why preferring smaller housing units in the city, public transit and being vegetarian would seem so terrible?
As one of my favorite slogans from refrigerated trucks used to say "Relax and Eat Out More Often".
patrick
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 9:26 pm
25 Jan 2007
Yeah, I know, a lot of time, energy and money has been squandered dealing with the insanities generated by this administration, and many commons problems will significantly worsen before they improve, but I think we've started finally to turn the corner -
Bush actually mentioned "global climate change" in the SOTU and proposed CAFE increases!
Exxon has announced it has stopped funding CEI and other "skeptic" pundits!
Dems actually took control of both houses of COngress!
New industry groups are springing up to get on the climate change badwagon!
There is now serious discussion of climate change going on in Congress, with most being more aggressive that Bingaman's!
The IPCC's report is out in a week, with promises of significant and continuing reporting and attention!
Inhofe remains a bully, but without a bully pulpit - and further hot air has been let out as he has been forced to change the name of his blog!
The Magnson-Stevens Act was passed, putting greater emphasis on the very successful transferable quotas approach, and progress has been made in managing tuna, other fisheries and bottom trawling!
Also, conservatives have been laying important groundwork by building a case for greater investment in helping the developing world straighten out the governance issues that are needed to deal with climate change and other important environmnetal issues.
Finally, the diminished power of the US after the Iraq debacle will call forth more leadership elsewhere, as well as greater cooperation from the US to repair the damage.
In other words, Eeyore, take a look around and you'll see that you do have a tail after all.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:41 pm
25 Jan 2007
The Living Homes prefabs are, as a habitation model, arguably not even a step in the right direction: to list just a few of their problematic sustainability characteristics that are not addressed by their LEED rating, they are too big, too expensive, hard to remodel when they get out of date, and perhaps worst of all, designed to take out of local economies a whole passel of important skills that are crucial to their economic future. Of course the notion that quality prefab homes are a great idea that is going to be affordable just as soon as quantity production ramps up has been a bad joke perpetrated by architecture schools on their students since the 1920's. Implausible economics aside, the design, construction, renovation and remodeling of of our homes is the only manufacturing process that still regularly takes place in the community of use. I find it hard to understand why green activists would want to support the commodification of our last local, indigenous craft industry, which as it happens is working very successfully and authentically at the local level to address green issues.
By the way, on reading more of the Living Homes promotional material I note that the entry level model with the $250 sf base price appears to be LEED Silver, not Platinum - on the plus side it's just around 2,500 sf, not totally unreasonable for a family house.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:46 pm
25 Jan 2007
David, the Prius is a fine car and probably a step in the right direction, but, please, it's just a car. I personally am unlikely to buy one because the amount I drive it would take me forty years to amortize the investment in a 200,000 mile vehicle. And of course on the policy front it represents a transportation model that is problematic in many ways beyond just fuel use and which may prove ultimately unsustainable.
Tears for years. Hmmm.
Permalink
pbearden47 Posted 11:30 pm
25 Jan 2007
I'm old enough to have been a semi-hippie, to have read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," to see the damage to the environment just by looking out of my office window in Atlanta. I've seen decades of back and forth on valuing the environment.
I've always been pro-environment and have been labeled a "tree-hugger", a "fruit & granola" dirty hippie, and I owned these titles with pride. But I've never been earnest enough to lecture or critize anyone else. That might be a fault, but I like to think reasonable, intelligent people will come to their own conclusions and will resist lecturing or critizing by well-meaning people. For example, have you ever seen anyone convince a smoker to stop by lecturing him or her. Me neither.
So I do think it's beneficial that there are people out there who are more passionate about their causes than I am. But I think Dave's point is that at some point, it's not conducive to the main goal. Every small step helps, and perfectionism is so not ever going to work in any endeavor when humans are involved.
Criticism and critical thinking is important, but when we lose sight of the incremental progress we make, because it's not "quite right," we will lose the progress totally.
In the meantime, when you get too serious and everything isn't quite good enough, remember Dave's post and laugh.
Aunt Phyllis
Permalink
mihan Posted 11:32 pm
25 Jan 2007
Permalink
kmp Posted 11:42 pm
25 Jan 2007
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:48 pm
25 Jan 2007
The tree link you sent is a good one. There is always an issue between social justice and ecological destruction. I often come upon articles stating that the locals are destroying the rainforests and killing endangered species. Sure, these people have to eat, but at what price? Education seems to be the key. By the way, I am not necessarily comparing plantations to an undisturbed tropical rainforest, BUT, a tropical rainforest is only carbon neutral. Plus, there is a little problem of desertification in Africa, which is brought about not only by climatic factors, but by human intervention. AND you were the one who was seriously attached to the new (still unpublished to me) research which suggests that tropical plantings are the way to go.
I guess what I am saying, it's not as simple as saying these companies are the pits because they are juxtaposed to the local population. These companies are definitely not doing a good enough job to interface with the locals, and do not get brownie points for that. And if they are trying to plant only one non-native species of Acacia, Eucalyptus, or Gmelina then this is not an appropriate strategy. THere are plenty of other strategies that would restore ecosystems or provide for good agroforestry (including firewood, forage, medicine, food) in the tropics.
Wiscidea,
I think that the Ford Escape is a better choice in the hybrid SUV market. And there is nothing wrong with wanting an SUV, particularly for people that need to go off-road. Or soccer moms, that wonderfully useless American catch-phrase for women who want big SUVs or vans. I'm kidding about that last one. They should just get station wagons. Or whatever happened to shuttle buses? Or a number of other solutions that would work.
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 12:19 am
26 Jan 2007
That's cool. I'll take their humor-- it can be pretty good. Although, my cynicism meter isn't up quite as far as theirs...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:46 am
26 Jan 2007
My 12 square feet are 2x6 so I can even lie down. With my ultra-efficient solar panel powered laptop lighting the interior, who needs windows? Besides you and your family would be entittled to 12 square feet per person, that is 72 square feet!
Quit yer bellyachin' and continue selling out to the man. Your kids all want to attend Harvard.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:14 am
26 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:18 am
26 Jan 2007
The Grist blog won't accept this URL format, you will have to copy and paste it to get to the right site, not that you need to bothere, espceially if you are not a Futurama fan.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:28 am
26 Jan 2007
I never ever thought that the world revolves around me, and I do not appreciate your charge to that effect.
If you find David Roberts' "lame" rant amusing, good for you, enjoy!, and I congratulate you, because I suspect he will provide you with much more enjoyment of that ilk in the future.
On the other hand, I found his characteristically nasty, competitive, kvetching temperament hit new heights with this post. So I do indeed find this post not at all amusing, and quite the contrary very offensive. And not personally so, not at all, because I do not recognize myself among his "lame" targets.
Nevertheless, DR did something entirely unnecessary and unwelcome. He apparently had written on a few subjects, assigning some praise and some blame; but then, he lost his composure, such as it is, because a number of good environmentalist writers disagreed with him. Really, he had already made his points, from a position of far greater influence and freedom than we rank-and-file Gristmill readers enjoy. So why in the world is his intolerant mockery of disagreement amusing? Why is it acceptable?
By way of answering those questions, one can resort to a Bush simile ("I know what is best for America, and it goes without saying that I cannot be wrong, and anyone who thinks I am wrong is aiding the enemy"), or else one can resort to a Stalin simile ("No one is more loathsome than a counter-revolutionary, i.e. someone who challenges my personal power and influence, and therefore counter-revolutionaries deserve to be eliminated promptly"). DR is not likely to appreciate either one, I am guessing. So I shall resort to neither.
On the other hand, Aunt Phyllis, I am not sure why disagreeing with DR is equivalent to "losing the progress totally." Sure, activism counts, effectiveness counts. But why in the world do you believe that effective activism can progress only when the leader is a Grand Inquisitor, staring into the heart of each and every activist, judging every one, and ready to condemn to death, for the good of the cause?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 6:41 am
26 Jan 2007
There is a real difference of opinion:
Green techno-optimism vs lifestyle change
Bruce Sterling and the Viridian movement, Amory Lovins, etc. personify green techno-optimism. They take their inspiration from Steward Brand's statement, "We are as gods and might as well get good at it." The WorldChanging site is probably the most intelligent, diverse and accessible example of this tendency. The underlying promise is that we can continue our consumer society if we are smart about it.
On the other side are the lifestyle critics of consumerism: Daniel Quinn, Wendell Berry, James Howard Kunstler, religous thinkers, Ivan Illich, and many more, coming from many different backgrounds. They say that consumerism inevitably leads to ecological disaster and social dysfunction. They are suspicious of the promises of technology, though not necessarily opposed.
The rest of us are somewhere in between, and are continually changing our minds. I notice that to their credit, the techno-optimists have grown much less optimistic.
A city planner, describing the effects of peak oil and climate change, estimated that 90% of the solution will come from lifestyle change and 10% from technology. I think that's about right.
For me, the problem with technological optimists is not the technology itself, but the extravagant claims made for it. The trail of of oversold solutions is long indeed: Hydrogen powerCarbon sequestration Corn ethanol Cellulosic ethanol (probably)Nuclear fusion Hybrid cars Bio-diesel Carbon offsets People compare consumerism to an addiction, and that seems accurate to me. We run after any technology that promises that we can continue. Our IQ drops and we believe almost anything. We get angry at anyone who points out that, no, there are no magic solutions and we've got to kick the habit.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:56 am
26 Jan 2007
Your list did not include:
Nuclear fission
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:02 am
26 Jan 2007
I do believe that we can retain a high standard of living (and make it available to more people) by bringing technology to bear on sustainability problems. However, I also believe that that potentially high standard of living must look quite different from what we are accustomed to.
Many of the technologies that will actually help us solve the problem will require or imply lifestyle and demographic changes: walkable cities, personal rapid transit, integrated polyculture food production, distributed generation all have profound economic and political implications. These are not improvements of the state of the art; they are transformative, because to deploy them at a large scale will necessarily change our patterns of living.
And I fear the influence that the true techno-optimists -- those who believe that technology will let us retain, not only our quality of life, but our present lifestyle patterns -- exert on policy and public perception. Because the more time and energy we waste trying to do the impossible, the lower a standard of living we will ultimately get when we are forced to accept reality.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 7:06 am
26 Jan 2007
Permalink
willa Posted 7:22 am
26 Jan 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 7:46 am
26 Jan 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:10 am
26 Jan 2007
Are the earth's many well-known periodic extinction-events part of reality?
gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/15/1950/64392/#comment77
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 11:04 am
26 Jan 2007
My long term hope for humanity is that we will have sufficient intelligence to develop arbitrary levels of power, and sufficient wisdom not to use that power when we don't have to. In the short term, I hope we can figure out that relying on complex and energy intensive centralized solutions for basic needs (water, food, shelter, energy) is a really, really bad design decision.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:03 am
27 Jan 2007
Did ya ever wake up with robots on your, robots on your, robots on your..I mean mind.
Did ya ever wake up with robots on your mind.
That's a sure sign...you got robots on your mind.
(paraphraee of Dave Bromberg's "Bullfrogs On Your Mind", he's still touring and really great!)
Well bio-d could it be those agricultural robots tooling back and forth down the rows of organic farms, sequestering CO2 and feeding the world. Maybe that's what got those robots on your mind?
That chewing cardboard stuff was funny!! Who cares if DR was making fun of us? Your best laughs are often on yourself. What's more important, our egoes or mother earth?
Besides which, why not let him vent here? We all get to if we want to. So go for it!!
I bet you don't get the boot. Only one troll got the boot, and even he most likely came back under another name (slightly toned down?).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:37 am
27 Jan 2007
<<
My favorite fairy tale has always been "The Emperor's New Clothes", except I add the postscript that on the way home from the celebration of the unmasking of the thieves, the little boy was waylaid robbed and murdered by agents of the emperor.
Personally, I am not particularly virtuous. (grin).
>>
Actually, I have no doubt whatsoever about Patrick's virtue. And while many Americans might at this point raise flags regarding his mental health, I would rather let that pass.
Much more interesting, I love the verb "waylay." And I also love the ultra-cynical "agents of the emperor."
Amazing, amiguito, yes, "chewing on cardboard" is indeed a cute expression, in itself. But when it is used by a writer with broad expressive liberties to mock his more restricted critics, class-action-wise, with an air of pomposity ("obviously these cardboard-chewers are ill-informed, destructive and absurd"), then it ceases to be "cute."
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:18 am
27 Jan 2007
What a great blog!
Pretty good comedy crew here! Humor, the best political tool, Stewart, Olbermman, and Colbert prove that.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:15 pm
27 Jan 2007
FWIW, some of us believe in both technology and lifestyle changes. Yup, strange though we tiglions may appear, we believe that supporting technology to help us get over the hump is very important, but have also changed our lifestyles to suit the coming times.... (grin).
May I vote in favor of Futurama!!! (Is it still on tv, I have lost track of it over the last five years, oh joy, maybe there are many episodes for me to watch!)
CanisCandida, thanks for appreciating my playful use of English (grin). I am not a purist (although I fear I bore my colleagues when I get excited explaining all of the permutations of idiomatic English!), but rather enjoy the many ways in which the language is used.
In China, we have what is called Chinglish. An example is Day Day Good Good Study (there are variations on this!). Chinese often doubles the usage of a word to lend emphasis or to mean all the time.
An interesting film on the subject is "Talking Cock" which is Singaporean for bullshi**ing, and is a funny film about Singaporean English.
pace,
patrick
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 10:23 pm
27 Jan 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:36 pm
27 Jan 2007
Being primarily about power and control, mockery is to humor as rape is to sexuality. Dave, why did you feel the need to try and f... us over?
Permalink
willa Posted 1:56 am
28 Jan 2007
Oh, and I don't know about you, but I don't feel powerless. It's not as if David is an authority figure any of us has to submit to. Sure, he gets to start threads and I don't, but nothing is stopping me from taking part in subsequent discussion on equal footing, and nothing is stopping me from just, you know, leaving and getting my environmental news somewhere else. It's not as if Grist has a monopoly on the ideas. I might have to expend slightly more effort to fond out the things I find out here, were I to decide avoiding David mattered a lot, but it's totally doable.
So I guess the short version is, take a breath. It's the internet. It's not that important.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 2:08 am
28 Jan 2007
I certainly don't suggest Dave be "ostracized or shamed". But when he abuses his position as moderator he should be called on it.
Permalink
willa Posted 7:41 am
28 Jan 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:43 am
28 Jan 2007
Permalink
Backcut Posted 9:11 am
28 Jan 2007
Maybe they could make it a covenant to not use rape comparisons in the Monkeywrencher's Guidebook??
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:21 am
28 Jan 2007
Willa: I get your analogy, but I think you're crossing a line. Being [...] != being a rapist
Actually...
google.com/search?q=%22verbal+rape%22
nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html
One person might choose to be blatant and habitually physically attack others, while another might be more subtle but verbally attack others on a regular basis. The motives are the same, but the style is utterly different.
[...]
What we can accurately predict is something bad will arise out of these character traits
[...]
If you see these behaviors in a person, take care. The more you see, the more care should be taken not to be alone [with] him. Even if he doesn't rape, these behaviors indicate serious character flaws.
Danger signs Insensitivity for others/emphasis on self
Belittling behavior or attitudes towards others
Negating behavior or comments
Hostile and/or threatening language
Bullying
Excessive anger
Brooding/ revenge
Obsession
Extreme mood swings
Physical tantrums
Jock or gorilla mentality
A mean drunk
Alcohol or drug abuse
Permalink
willa Posted 12:00 pm
28 Jan 2007
As I said already, levelling an accusation that's among the most serious and shaming in our culture on the basis of an annoying "I'm annoyed" post is just not cricket. Statistically, it seems extremely likely that at least one person who's been a victim of actual rape is reading this thread, and I can't imagine that he or she has a whole lot of sympathy for the idea that getting told you're annoying is the same as getting raped.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:15 pm
28 Jan 2007
google.com/search?q=%22rape+card%22
3,450 hits.
Permalink
willa Posted 2:34 pm
28 Jan 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 3:20 pm
28 Jan 2007
More on verbal trump-cards:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card
There is no limit to possible constructions, and similar phrases have also been used, such as "Playing the religion card", "Playing the anti-Semite card" (or in German: Auschwitzkeule), or "Playing the cancer card."
You played a rape-card by insinuating that the members of the politically-powerful victim-class rape-victims would be displeased by your domination-target's actions. After the first time you played the rape-card ("Not to mention how it trivializes the real, often terrifying..."), your domination-target submitted to your dominance-play by saying, "I apologize and withdraw the simile."
Permalink
willa Posted 4:05 pm
28 Jan 2007
Since my point clearly sailed over your head, I'm gonna try it one more time: Imagine a rape survivor reading this thread. Is he thinking "Yeah, absolutely, what David said is exactly like what happened to me"? Somehow I don't think so. Somehow I think that person is going to be upset and/or really pissed off, and I think she'd have a right to be. Moreover, I think it's a decent person's duty not to inflict unnecessary pain on other people, especially when they've already been through enough.
I also think it's a decent person's duty not to go around accusing people willy-nilly of inflicting major, life-altering scars on other people when in fact they're just being annoying. Talk about trying to passive-aggressively control others!
I'm not trying to dominate anyone. I'm trying to bring the discourse here back to a rational, reasonable, appropriate level where we're not treating people like rapists because they annoy us. 'Kay?
Permalink
kmp Posted 12:03 am
29 Jan 2007
Talk about off-topic.
To sum up: Dave ranted. Some of us were pissed off and offended, some of us laughed. And they all lived happily ever after. The End.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:07 am
29 Jan 2007
I stand by my main point: "Mockery is seldom funny. It's the coin of the schoolyard bully." There are two ways we can protect ourselves against such bullying - one is to stand with the bully and Har Har, hoping to thus dissociate oneself from the target of the bullying and avoid being the target in the future. The other is to stand up to it, call it for what it is.
I have never suggested that Dave is a bad person. Indeed I have no idea what kind of person he is. I do know that I value the work he does for this forum, I hope he continues to do it, and I hope that the error of judgment shown in the post which began this thread is not repeated any time soon. This is a foolish time to be abusing your allies because they disagree with you on some noncentral issue.
Of course it may not be a noncentral issue. The common thread with Dave's targets seems to be those who question the notion that we can as a culture consume our way out of what seems to be an overconsumption problem. I for example question the need for this forum to be in the business of selling more Priuses (Prii? CanisCandida?) There will always be plenty of shoulders to that wheel. It's easy to sell more. It's much, much harder to sell less (as Michael Pollan's latest NY Times article attests).
In "Proverbs from Hell" William Blake wrote "If a fool would persist in his folly he would become wise". Pinning our hopes on yet more consumer products may or may not be a way out of our current dilemma. I sincerely hope that Gristmill will continue to be a forum where such fundamental environmental issues can be discussed openly and freely. And without mockery.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:11 am
29 Jan 2007
Let this thread RIP.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:08 am
29 Jan 2007
I actually totally agree with DR in that whining is not cool. I guess constructive criticism is what some people think they are doing, but in reality, and this is what DR picked up on, is that you guys are whining. And also, might I add, whining from a hypocritical standpoint, i.e. we all still have adverse (and sometimes positive) impacts on the environment, because we are not dead (Thank you Laurence Aurbach for the excellent citation). So instead of complimenting the actual change, some are just complaining that it's not enough. In some cases the statements are legitimate if the terminology is being addressed (e.g.: carbon neutral should be future carbon neutral).
In general, constructive criticism differs from a complaint in starting with a compliment, then following into areas of improvement needs, then finishing with an overall approval, or suggesting that this is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, yep, you're whining.
P.S. If we really want to seriously reduce human impact on the world, then maybe, and I am not an advocate, we should start a suicidal cult to achieve the Grandfather Clause.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 4:44 am
29 Jan 2007
Try here:
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:54 am
29 Jan 2007
Now: I have no idea what the Toyota folks had in mind when they named the "Prius." There is indeed a Latin adjective spelled like that -- but is that what they meant?
Anyway, "prius" is a neuter-gender adjective, meaning "something coming before, or in advance, of other things; former; the first of two." The common masculine and feminine form of the adjective is "prior," which has of course been borrowed into English. The plural of "prius" is "priora."
However, I would never suggest that anyone referring to more than one Prius should say "Priora." The obvious English pluralization, "Priuses," is undoubtedly correct. On the other hand, "Prii" is a barbarism, which should never be attempted.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:57 am
29 Jan 2007
"In general, constructive criticism differs from a complaint in starting with a compliment, then following into areas of improvement needs, then finishing with an overall approval, or suggesting that this is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, yep, you're whining."
(1) DEar Dave. I must admit the house you described is very interesting, though not really something I'd be interested in purchasing. Too much glass (a problem for several reasons I will not go into). It was GREAT that the designers found a way to reduce the environmental impact of manufacturing and maintaining a 3500 square foot home! I think, however, we can do much better. Perhaps the designers could find a way to transfer this beneficial technology to a smaller home, more realistic for the average consumer. By reducing environmental impact per square foot AND convincing consumers that they do not need such a large home, we could make much more progress toward preserving the biosphere.
(2) Dear Tree Planters. I'm very excited by the prospect of encouraging corporations and individuals to plant trees. They are the lungs of the Earth and have their place. We need to replant the North American forest decimated by logging, suppression of natural fire, and alien insects and fungi. We also need to replant tropical rain forests, as well as stop their further destruction. But please don not forget all of the other endangered biomes on the earth. There are animals that evolved to live in scrub, savannas, grasslands, even deserts. And they need homes as well. Please focus on planting trees where they are need. Perhaps we can come up with programs to re-establish other biomes as well! How about corporate sponsored planting of an acre of savanna? Adopt a bison? Plant a cactus? I fear we will focus too much on planting "forests" and forget about the rest of creation.
Thank you for you time.
P.S. Hey, this DOES feel better than ripping into someone's ideas with a long rant!
Forward!
Permalink
willa Posted 6:26 am
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:45 am
29 Jan 2007
It's hard to balance out everything in our forests, especially when much of it is so highly at risk to catastrophic wildfires. However, maybe those fringe areas with botanical protections will weather the fires better than regular forestlands. They evolved with fire adaptations and need that periodic fire to come in and burn quickly and cool, clearing out their competition.
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:58 am
29 Jan 2007
Global Heating is about to turn the 21st Century into a lush, fertile time of prosperity.
The Powers that Be will do everything they can to prevent it.
East Coast Liberals will scare people into preventing vast new land areas from becoming habitable -- otherwise Hillary's real estate values will drop.
Food will be cheaper.
People will be healthier.
In other words, the people who starve us, charge us high rates for energy and make us live in little plots are all going to be screwed...that's why they're hiring "climatologists" to keep us in our places.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:18 am
29 Jan 2007
I'm reading an excellent book about global terrestrial productivity and it presents some serious potential side effects of the whole rising CO2/global climate change issue. I haven't got very far in the boook and the mathematics are way over my head, but here are three tidbits...
Plants growing under higher CO2 generally have a higher C:N ratio. An interesting result of this is that large herbivores, who apparently consume vegetation until satiated, will be consuming a lower-quality forage. This could adversely affect their health and have unforseeable consequences on food webs. Insects, apparently, will compensate by simply consuming more vegetation. What doe this mean? Hell if I know, but do we really want to find out?
Plants growing under higher CO2 produce more root exudates, compounds that support microbial life in the soil (usually beneficial to the plant). This will alter the balance of power between different species, as well as alter soil chemistry. What does this mean? Nobody knows.
Photosynthetic efficiency vs. temperature apparently follows a parabolic curve. Cool temperatures -- bad. High temperatures -- also bad. Efficiency severely declines when the temperature reaches about 98F. Again, nobody knows how this will affect biodiversity and what the downstream consequences are.
Global Heating could very well result in a lush world -- assuming changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation do not change North America into a hot desert and Europe into an ice cube -- but I'm not sure we will be able to eat the lush vegetation nature decides to provide for us.
Forward!
Permalink