Comments PolluteLessDotCom has made

Strong beliefs

Who needs science to shape your view of the world if sticking with the opinions you have since high school is necessary (unless you want to be called a flip-flopper) and certainly enough (unless you don't have faith)?

There are too many people like this in this world. Leading while not looking.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less On Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been lax on industrial pollution posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

Natural Process?

If it was a matter of all of us being hardwired to reproduce we could neither change it, nor deny it to ourselves, nor lie to ourselves about it. Since many of us don't do it, this hardwiring argument is completely not valid.

I learned a long time ago that at times of overpopulation some species turn infertile. The stress of having not enough to live results in biological changes and the animals have much fewer off spring. When the population shrinks to sustainable levels the stress to survive disappears and fertility returns. This leads me to believe that humans have this problem because we either do not feel enough stress yet, have lost (or never had) this natural response to overpopulation, or refuse to accept that there are times for having children, and times for not having children.

I continue to feel that reason is either not our strong suit or that it is going to be the cause of our species' downfall.

Have fewer children than there are parents, eat no meat, live small and simple, and maybe not that long. And educate the few existing children to live by the eco-wise standards us adults know a lot about, talk a lot about, but mostly are not willing to live by. And all too often, those adults are parents refusing to live more reasonably in order to "help" their children.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Umbra on small steps with big impacts posted 1 year, 1 month ago 18 Responses

So true

The spectators are what counts here. Just like at any political debate about the same issues.

KarstenOn In 2008, did temperatures drop as much as they rose over the whole 20th century? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 71 Responses

but seriously now,

... at least it is a professional organization. Whether they are or could be biased can be debated but I will leave this to those I tell that this organization does not support the theory.

KarstenOn In 2008, did temperatures drop as much as they rose over the whole 20th century? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 71 Responses

Apology accepted

I hope you accepted mine as no personal criticism was intended. I try hard to stay issue-focused rather than messenger-focused.

Thanks.

Karsten On New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

Professional Organizations

I asked this question somewhere else and received no answer: Are there any large professional science organizations who say that global climate change is NOT happening and that it is not at least in part human caused?

I have no trouble with individual scientists (or even laypersons) being skeptical or challenging theories. That is their job. I would be scary to have non-skeptic scientists and they would be ridiculed (and rightly so) by their peers. Open to wonder is one thing - believing without evidence is another. Non-accepting despite not being able to contradict is yet another. Continuing with the old even though there is (at least) serious doubt that it is beneficial in the long run is selfish, plain stupid, and irresponsible to future generations.

Don't wait and watch.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn In 2008, did temperatures drop as much as they rose over the whole 20th century? posted 1 year, 2 months ago 71 Responses

Ok, I have not read everything Saluki wrote but...

I am annoyed to say that I find his/her way of arguing (at least the last few posts) more convincing than the latest rebuttals.

While I find it close to uncivilized to continue with technologies that create waste that is toxic to humans, I am convinced we will use every shred of fossil fuel we can find before we change planet-wide. Once we have no choice anymore we will begin using clean fuels and (more importantly) consume less of everything. I certainly hope that we will be ready for the time we run out of affordable, dirty energy. The development of renewable energies needs to be pushed for that reason alone. Of course, there seems to be little time to enjoy following old ways. I believe it is a matter of convenience (or lack of human rights) that too many people don't change. It is sad to have to watch this, but maybe we are not made to survive on this planet. We have developed technological abilities that are way beyond our abilities to handle them responsibly. In a way I have no doubt that I cannot handle a collapse of our society while those who did little to prevent it may make it. It will be a different kind of human being that populates the world in 200 years.

In any case, a person who brings forward so many technical arguments should not be asked to leave. This person, as inconvenient his/her points of view are, contributes to a debate we need to have. Are the statement presented right or are they not? If wrong, educate us with facts. If right, let us adjust our thinking or bring forward better data. The same debates will occur in many other places. If this is practice - we did not do so well.

By my gut feeling, Saluki brought forward technical arguments and asked valid questions, was told he will never change his/her mind, and was asked to leave the room. Sounds pretty weak to me. And please forgive me if I say this without having followed each and every conversation here. My perception is based on diagonal reading. The majority listens not very well either. Those gut feelings are based on what was heard and shape decisions.

Just reporting on how it "feels". Work with it if you want to win debates in the mainstream of the USA.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

Don't get me wrong

I am all for strong responses to strong attacks. If taking the high road means IGNORING the attacks when they are delivered personally, I am not in favor of this approach. If insults are thrown they need to be rebutted. At a forum like this though they can easily be ignored though. Especially since not ignoring them results in more insults. It is different in a political debate by people who have to uphold a perception of strength.

This has nothing to do with accepting lies or twisted logic. Bullshit needs to be labeled bullshit.

KarstenOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

Extreme, inflexible minds

I have to say, I am reading here comments by some people who contribute little to a rational discussion. A lot of talk here results in hardened positions and reinforcement of dumb clishees about conservative as well as progressive thinkers.

This does not help. It does the opposite and RIGHT NOW we (the progressive, pro-environment people) need to attract those who are not sure what to think. I find it very DANGEROUS to use language that will show our thinking as irrational. What is all this nonsense talk about wild-life haters? Skunks having guardian angels? Wild guesses regarding abstract knowledge of animals? Anti-German language? Trolls? People hating civilization?

How about sticking to scientific facts rather than displaying romantic ,want-to-be-true attitudes or emotional mind-sets that border on insanity or are plain insulting. Left or right, I don't care. At this blog here I prefer if those who oppose taking serious actions to help the environment display those attitudes. Even though it is annoying, it helps the cause when they show their true face. But the other (my) side? No thanks. Stick to (real or suspected) facts and measurable or reported evidence please. There should be enough to argue a point. And if convincing does not help on that level, it won't work at other levels either. Wasted energy (and I oppose that).

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn New sea-level rise research, part 1: 'Most likely' 0.8 to 2.0 meters by 2100 posted 1 year, 2 months ago 178 Responses

Wrong Blog

What it comes down to people is that we have to leave our comments somewhere else in the hope that some critical thinking gets through. Keep the language simple and refrain from leftish terminology or attitudes. Let's talk facts (rather than perceptions and emotions) where people write and listen to not enough (or just plain wrong) facts.

I would like to have a few links to much-read, conservative blogs listed here where I can add my comments. Anyone got some?

KarstenOn VP acceptance speech hits on energy issues posted 1 year, 2 months ago 41 Responses

Strategically smart move

I do not like the choice McCain made, but I fear he made a smart move. McCain does not have to please the moderate voters who may or may not vote for him. If he is able to mobilize those who voted for Bush again and get a few more, he will have the White House.

Although I believe that being a woman is not enough, many will think exactly that. Experience in office is not relevant either. Obama has little (some say), Bush displays little (others say). If Palin excites voters who are tired of the panic of global warming and prefer to ignore it, voters who wanted a woman in (or near the) office more than anything else, voters who believe that not changing your mind is a sign of strength, religious conservatives, etc., all those who until now preferred to stay home rather than vote for McCain and at least some of those who will not vote for Obama under any circumstances, McCain has found a useful running mate.

Although he said he would choose someone who reflects his values, it is not about being truthful right now - it is about getting into the White house. Politics in the US has little to do with politics.  It has been a big show for a long time. Intelligent and educated people are perceived as removed from regular people much more than those who are rich, powerful, and influencual. Those sort of people you get to see on TV and all it takes is some money and you could be like them. Or if you remove the money, they are like you. Palin will be perceived as a regular woman, mother, wife, etc. People will identify with her on a personal level, and her political attitude, reason, or wisdom will matter little.

What McCain needed to find for this election was the female political equivalent to George W. Bush, and on first superficial glance, he may have found her.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 2 months ago 74 Responses

Well-fed people missing the point

Of course there are too many people on this planet. Especially if they want to live like North Americans. That does not change the facts that habitat protection comes AFTER all other basic needs are satisfied. If you talk like Wolferine, you may already have everything to live well. Good for you, but MOST OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET have less than that and when fighting for your or your loved-one's survival you will not care about the environment of other species unless you are not really fighting for survival. Compassion is great and I am all for it. It is naive though to assume that compassion for other animals is an emotion that most people put before caring for other people. I am not saying that greediness is excusable. It is despicable and disgusting to enrich yourself beyond what you need and at the expense of other living beings. It would be dishonest though to say that even the best amongst us don't do this. Every person on this planet kills living beings EVERY DAY just by being alive. They may not be cute, but they are just as dead and while some may suffer more than others (who is the judge of that?), they all suffer. North American's habits have tremendous impact on the environment. Much more than most of the rest of humans here.

Without any doubt, humans are part of the natural world and cannot disconnect themselves without suffering dire consequences. I am rather pessimistic that most will discover this (or accept this) way too late. Certainly it is short-sighted to ignore environmental impacts of our actions. Nevertheless, if you family is dying of cold or hunger, you will burn whatever burns and eat whatever is edible WITHOUT CONSIDERING the long-term effects. Since so many people have so little, this is a problem that you cannot talk away no matter how immoral this is judged by you.

Overpopulation is not a problem in North America though, so some of you seem to be pointing fingers at other countries. Pretty slick: Blame the problem on over-population somewhere else while not acknowledging that those same places have poverty, peace, and injustice issues that prevent habitat protection from becoming relevant for those people.

Protecting the environment is important. It guides my daily thinking to a very large extend. It is something North Americans can do in North America and world-wide by changing our habits. We have what we need. Mostly because we take it from others.

Go tell the people who suffer from the effects of earth-quakes, cyclones, famines, civil wars, dictatorships, etc. that they should not infringe on the habitat of protected species. Go tell people whose welfare is linked to having many children when they are old to not have as many children. Get of your high moral horse. Enjoy that you still have a good life and can afford to think much further than just to the next meal and live with neighbors that can still think about habitat protection. Enjoy living in a society that has a system to take care of you when you are old but with few children (who grew up thinking that family is not what supports you at old age). Worry about what your fellow citizens in North America do (if they can choose differently) and prepare for the "good" times ahead when we run out of energy and (even you!) will rampage and plunder the neighbors property (human and non-human)and violate their rights to keep on living.

And tell me ONE GOOD (and moral) SOLUTION to fix the problem of human over-population that people will agree to.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute LessOn Polar-bear listing would hurt the poor, says industry posted 1 year, 6 months ago 19 Responses

I agree

Rarely though. No "pretty sure" talk please. I looks AWFUL if it is not true. It allows the opponents to score high and feel good. Embarrassing.

If Democrats do well, know it well before you post it. Making assumptions does not help. On the contrary, it allows politicians to get away with crap just because they belong to a certain party and those who vote for them do not check.

The only ways to make points is by knowing more or by having more power in other areas.

KarstenOn Enviros respond to McCain's new climate plan posted 1 year, 6 months ago 12 Responses

Hopefully I am wrong..

Before it is all said and done, humans will (out of greediness or sheer desperation) mine EVERY SHRED OF FOSSIL FUEL they can find, no matter what species looses its habitat. Just because we are able (and maybe willing) to protect habitat does not mean it will remain protected. It is a temporary luxury we can only afford because those who make decisions about habitat protection have power, influence, and (generally speaking) all they need to live well on this planet.

While poor people pollute less, they also cannot afford to care about polar bears or other less cute (if viewed on photographs) wild animals.

Of course, maybe the rich and powerful can figure out that they (and that includes all who can read this) need to reduce their energy consumption. But I am afraid you have heard all this before and those who should read this - don't.

It is depressing. So little changes unless you change it for yourself.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute LessOn Polar-bear listing would hurt the poor, says industry posted 1 year, 6 months ago 19 Responses

Eat the cake and keep it too?

After reading all this I wonder why we think that long-distance travel is sustainable for more than just a small percentage of people? As much as I LIKE the idea of the global village (and the benefits that come with it), I cannot imagine it can be done the same way AND not destroy our environment. Is staying close to home not an option any longer? We (North Americans and Europeans, and more and more others) have developed this thinking that we can get anywhere on this planet quickly. Families are not really separated permanently anymore when they live on two different continents. Business deals are made in person even though there are thousands of miles between the two locations.  

There is a price to pay for this. And we have and are paying it. Is it not time to rethink this a bit? Or a lot? The energy we used to construct this attitude upon is running out. You cannot travel as conveniently or fast as now to far away places with clean energy. At least not as many people as now or even a decade ago. If the energy crisis turns as bad as some portrait it to be, tourism, travel, and business as we know them are dead for the vast majority of humans on this planet. Much less than today. Taking it for granted will not be possible much longer, I fear.

Is it not time to think this over now and adjust our life-style (voluntarily) sooner rather than (forced) later?

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice To Pollute LessOn Reducing your carbon footprint from travel posted 1 year, 8 months ago 41 Responses

Talk to some people...

.. and you will find out that they think it is an incredible sacrifice to take a shorter than 5 minute shower compared to their daily 30 minute shower. Or hang dry their laundry. Or wear a wool sweater rather than heat the whole house.

Sacrifice is relative. What is easy for some will be harder for others. It is clear that our mad rate of consumption has to be reduced. Saying that it will be easy is only true if consumption will be reduced by insignificant amounts. That makes it easy by definition.

A reduction alone is not enough. In order to cut our North American consumption levels significantly we have to learn (and teach) what is sustainable. Living a sustainable life is going to be easy for those who have very little. Some of those may even be able to still increase their standard of living. I fear that it will be EXTREMELY difficult for those who have and use so much more than most other humans on this planet.

Unfortunately, people here still think that "no limits consumption" is directly connected to a "good life". It will be a while before that changes. Our definition of a "good life" needs to change and then we can begin talking about consuming less while still living a good life.

Having enough should be enough, but right now most think it is not. And few currently powerful and influential people could be considered good role models in this area.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less  On We can consume less without sacrificing well-being posted 1 year, 10 months ago 12 Responses

Surprised?

So what you are saying is that those who decide to live less wastefully will have a more difficult time making a great difference in comparison to those who live wastefully. It is like saying that it is more difficult for poor people to put money in the bank than for those who have plenty.

Can't say I am surprised.

That is EXACTLY why we need to focus on the habit changes that are relevant rather than on those that are currently so popular but make basically no difference. And that is why any "green" advice needs to be judged for its impact. Not every bit matters.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute LessOn When is a Tundra a better buy than a Prius? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 47 Responses

Yes and No

Clean energy is the way to go if (and only if) we also reduce our overall energy consumption. Not with silly attempts and replacing light bulbs, but with really changing our habits.

A world that is run as wastefully as North Americans  have it is not sustainable for 6.5 billion people, or even just 500 million more than now. Come to think about it, it seems not sustainable with even the current numbers.

Sooner or later we will have to deal with not having a reliable supply of fossil fuels. Better be prepared and educated to tighten the belt before that happens.

As always, positively looking forward
Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute LessOn China announces vague plans to mitigate environmental impacts of Three Gorges Dam posted 2 years ago 5 Responses

Talking about the BMW

They noticed that if you park the car for a while (say a week), all the hydrogen is gone. Seems they can`t keep the tank leak-free for such a small particle.

Me personal solution will be to find a job where I have to drive much less. And keep the rest of my life as close to home as possible.

Can you imagine how it will be on this planet once ALL Russians, Chinese, Indians, etc. own cars as many cars per capita as in the USA and drive them the way we do? Can you imagine just the energy and resources needed to just MAKE that many personal vehicles? Clean energy for propulsion or not, there is much more to this than what comes out of your tail-pipe (or where ever the energy you need for moving is made).

Drive less, use public transport if available, personal vehicles only if you have to, try hard to find better solutions for yourself. Do not rely on those who want to make a profit to find the best solution for you PERSONALLY, since they are looking for the best solution for themselves. At least be suspicious.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Full-cell company bought by Daimler and Ford posted 2 years ago 55 Responses

Very good points made

Of course poor is relative. Or rich for that matter.  I have never been to China or any other "developing" or now "developed" country. Poor and rich is completely relative. It is all about perception and relative standards. I am certain that many people would consider themselves rich while being considered poor by others. That is neither new nor the point.

What remains is that even though we can tell other countries (or people) what they do is wrong, it looks rather strange and hypocritical if it is not done by us either. Looking at North America does not shed a great light on us as teachers of how to live well or intelligent leaders. If we want them to learn it on their own we have to let them. If we want them to follow our example - that is what they are doing.

And, no you cannot blame people to want to have electricity in their home to run lights. Or have access to hospitals. Or to be able to heat their water and homes whenever it is cold. Or to have several sets of clothes, money to send their kids to school, etc. You cannot blame people to want to live decently. Not luxurious, just decently. And just living decently is what they are getting into right now. And that is a natural urge that has nothing to do with choice in my opinion. You cannot blame people for wanting to breathe, work less than 10 hours every day, or just live a bit longer than 45 years or so.

Fighting for a clean environment is honorable. But it comes AFTER your basic needs are covered. And those basic needs are not covered in the countries from which we buy our useless gadgets, and basically everything else that can be made, shipped, or done by phone.  

I will continue to point out what and where we do wrong in North America and anywhere else where people have reached a standard of living that allows them to stop scrambling for survival. Once the world's largest user of energy and resources (=us) begins showing insight and slows down it will be time to show it to the rest of the world.

Until then, I do what I can here.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn On who is accountable for Chinese greenhouse-gas emissions posted 2 years ago 12 Responses

Here is the thing...

..if you want an SUV, you maybe want a big vehicle that has the strength and mass to ensure that you and your family survive an accident AND enables you to tackle adverse road conditions. Neither have to be related to a lousy gas mileage.

You can tackle most adverse road conditions with a front-wheel drive car and excellent tires. I have passed 4-wheel drive cars uphill on snow packed roads with a Civic.  The more horse power you have, the more difficult it gets to control the power and prevent slipping or spinning of wheels. The fact that SUVs have lousy gas mileage can be blamed on the size and power of the engines. A less powerful engine would be better for off-road or adverse road conditions for most normal drivers. Smoothness is the secret to managing difficult roads and is not easily possible with huge powerful engines. So, a smaller engine would use less gas and work better in adverse conditions.  
Same with size: A large or heavy vehicle does not have to have a lot of power. It only has to have a lot of power if you want to drive it like a sports car or even like a regular car. The old VW bus had maybe 50 horse power and was used to transport many people and stuff. Old Land Rovers did not have much hp either. It is not necessary.

SUV and light truck are POSSIBLE if, and only if, the folks who drive them start seeking their adrenaline rush somewhere else and begin driving reasonably for this size of vehicle.

The problem is not the SHAPE of the vehicle, the problem is the performance that the folks who drive them expect right now. For some people the acceleration from 0-60 mph is still important. Will they ever grow up?

Maybe it would be better to drop the S from the SUV.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Bush administration's fuel-economy regs for bigger vehicles smacked down posted 2 years ago 4 Responses

Of course

This is not hard to understand. Prices are never a rational reflection of actual costs. Prices are high because they can be or low because they have to be to continue selling any item.

I am going on to the record right here right now saying that:

"Prices will go down if there is less demand for oil (or anything else for sale on this planet) or when those who sell it voluntarily begin selling it for less profit"

Tssss. What a revelation.

Karsten
http://www.pollutless.comOn We have $100-a-barrel oil due to speculation and fear posted 2 years ago 54 Responses

Exactly

My current car is a 1997 Saturn station wagon and in the summer it gets 40mpg on the highway. Where has progress gone?  

Little cars are great and (as I wrote) may encourage people to transition toward more reasonable driving. But not if the vehicle is primarily designed to create smiles. Because the design that creates the smiles will wear off and will be replaced with another way of creating smiles. The environment needs something a little less shallow than a fashionable car.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.ocmOn Eensy-weensy Smart car getting a big embrace from U.S. drivers posted 2 years ago 9 Responses

Rock Star Feeling

More small cars for the US. At good step into the direction of driving only when necessary and with a vehicle that could be a basic solution to a transportation problem rather than an enjoyable activity surrounded by luxury.  

Not driving is still better but if driving becomes a need and the vehicles reflect that "emergency" maybe people will consider driving less.

Feeling like a rock star is hopefully not what many people want. There are many choices of cars out there that have little to do with concern for the environment and could be a choice for a rock star.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Eensy-weensy Smart car getting a big embrace from U.S. drivers posted 2 years ago 9 Responses

Very, very good

I hope what these young people do ranges from convincing "non-treehuggers" by doing small things to start the change to stepping hard onto the toes of those who do not care or who would like to pretend that changing just a few things is enough (and possibly make money with it to boot).

We need big actions, lots of attention, less pussyfooting, significant changes. The ship is sinking, let's (figuratively) throw those overboard who do not want to help plugging leaks. Let's be much less "normal", "adjusted", "mainstream".

There is hope if there is education and far-sightedness.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn The youth climate movement proves itself at Power Shift posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

Step on toes rather than raise a warning finger

First of all, thanks Steve for your comments. Well said. No harm was done. Too bad strong or sarcastic words are said here and maybe not at the TODAY show.

Secondly, why do we need to be so cautious? In my opinion pointing out what is going on is necessary just as much it is necessary to not let get people away with feeling that they are doing enough when they are not. The "green" label is in danger of becoming a fashion statement. Everybody will do it. No one will admit that they do not care. All will do not enough and will feel good about it. The train slows down for a moment and then it is off to the next new thing.

It is true, getting a foot in the door is better than kicking it in. Nevertheless, you have to tell the people that what they are about to do is a BEGINNING and cannot be the end. A person addicted to a drug does not need to reduce the drug, they need to stop. Reducing the drug is a step in the right direction and needs to INCLUDE statements about the fact that the goal is to end the consumption.

I do not know if this show was taped. I assume it is, since the networks are so scared of lawsuits. I can imagine though that stronger words could have been used than I fear were used. (I did not see the segment).

We need a Howard Stern (or similar) for the environment. Not exactly the same, but along those lines: We need a person who can say things using plain English (or whatever language is required) to normal people and begin bending perceptions and breaking taboos. There is nothing wrong with some provocation. Some will turn away, or like I read somewhere else "run the other way with their wallet in their hand" but those are not the folks we can hope will bring change. The TODAY show is not about information at any high level. It is about entertainment. If you want people to LISTEN, you have to make it entertaining and interesting. CHANGE is another thing. That comes after people have listened for a while. Or when a generation grows up which does not find offense in being told  that certain behaviors are at other's expense because they know it is true.

We need debate, we need to involve many more people, we need media attention even if it offends some people. We need to be heard by those who are listening to people who do not care as much as we do but are more entertaining.

Why not do a comedy show that makes fun of those folks who do all the dumb and destructive stuff? Many would get a kick out of it. Sarcasm and cynicism is humor. If you do it in an honest, consistent, and constructive way you will find an audience. We are out there. Personally, I am tired of trying to please those who don't get it or do not want to change. I am ready for some disrespect to those who pee in my bathwater.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn 7 easy steps to reduce your carbon emissions posted 2 years ago 13 Responses

Bit surprised

I just wrote somewhere else that unplugging devices is a drop in the bucket in the big picture and that NOT USING products has a higher impact. I am surprised to find those high numbers here. I may have to revise my thinking.

I do find it annoying that we have not been ABLE(?) to design products that cannot be disconnected. I try to do it whenever I think of doing it, but several products need re-programming when I do it. I can imagine that settings could be saved on a magnetic strip that could be read when you plug the device back in. That would not require even batteries. But why do it if no one really cares about this more than the convenience factor? Most Americans are too lazy and believe that recycling is the cure to all of our problems. Doing that is enough.

BTW, stop using your electric clothes dryer and, depending on how many loads you need to dry,  you will much likely have a much larger impact on your energy use than unplugging those devices.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Umbra on power strips posted 2 years ago 13 Responses

Disappointing

While I have not seen the clip, I am referring to the printed 7 steps.

I am disappointed. So much more could be done that would actually make a noticeable difference. Unplugging devices that consume power is on thing - rethinking the way these devices are made and are expected to work is another. Replacing your incandescent bulbs with CFLs is enough? Did Grist really jump on the "A few Easy steps to save the planet" band wagon? There are options that are not being pursued. Too inconvenient? Not easy enough? Will people not listen if you tell them they are responsible for the mess? Are we that mature?

Easy to do actions will make little difference in a country full of lazy, convenient, comfort-seeking, energy-hungry people. Imagine our planet where everyone does what North Americans or even Europeans do in regard to energy use and comfortable living. I do not think it is possible without a DRAMATIC shift in thinking, attitudes, and expectations.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn 7 easy steps to reduce your carbon emissions posted 2 years ago 13 Responses

Yeah, right

And if we all lived like her and other "green tinted" celebrities we would be just fine, right?

Feel fine maybe.

It is so "out" to not say you are green. Expect to hear it from many, many more "important" people.

As long as these declarations in favor of the environment are published in fashion magazines like Vogue or People, you cannot expect much change from those who are uttering those declarations. The change we need to see would be too EXTREME for those publications.

But it is good that she rides her bike and brings her own bags. Even if it is just to save a buck or two. It is just not enough to support sustainable living.

No light in sight here.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com On The vampire slayer goes green posted 2 years ago 1 Response

Negative Emissions Bioenergy

How is storing CO2 in biomass and then burning (or whatever) that biomass going to result in NEGATIVE CO2 emissions?
It seems to me that this results in NO change at best. Where does the carbon go the plant stored? Is this just tailpipe emissions that are measured here? I am missing something to balance this equation.

I need enlightenment please.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Automakers debate skipping directly to full-electric cars posted 2 years, 1 month ago 18 Responses

Accepting Status Quo

I agree, cars can be used much less. It can be done now, and it has immediate effects. Cheaper too.

Nevertheless, as long as we accept and value cars as  "fun toys", "luxury", or even as sexy (I still wonder where that came from) we will not get to a point where driving a car is just transportation and necessary. Kids do what their parents show them to be desirable. If owning or driving a car is desirable there will be always a following  generation that will do exactly that and better than the previous generation.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com On Automakers debate skipping directly to full-electric cars posted 2 years, 1 month ago 18 Responses

More ideas to save water...

..., some more - some less efficient, can be found at my website under the advice category "water consumption".

And as long as individuals waste water and tolerate the waste of water or other resources, the government (or other organizations believed by some to be miraculously and entirely disconnected from the control and responsibility of human individuals)  will continue to do the same. It is all and only about individual responsibility. If you do it and respect others doing the same, it will continue.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Umbra on dishwashing and droughts posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

How to save water

I heard about those water problems on NPR (and now here) and thought I contribute something useful. I am honestly not surprised to hear that water is running short. Americans use tremendous amounts of water for activities that have little to do with necessity. I dare say, 80% of the water used by individuals and families and their activities could be cut without making it unpleasant to live. We have habits that revolve around water and energy and we have difficulties imagining how to live well without wasting those resources. There are other solutions and although many of the big steps require big mental adjustments, it is entirely possible to live a good life with much less water. Find more at the site below.

Yes, you may have to redefine for yourself what a "good life" is. But sooner or later we all have to choose between "right" and "easy".

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Severe drought in U.S. Southeast leaves Atlanta water supply in question posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

That is the essence

Believing without questioning and without evidence is the ESSENCE (not a reduction) of religion and spiritualism. Otherwise it would be called science.

"Indeed, inasmuch as there is no evidence for the belief that the total contents of the universe of being and meta-being can only include objects for which there is evidence of the sort that Karsten would recognize, that belief itself looks irrational, rather crazy and sad."

Even though I did not even say the above, I am wondering if you could explain to me how thinking this would be irrational or cracy? Wouldn't believing that something exists without it being  measurable by anyone or at least more probable than alternative explanations be significantly more crazy or irrational? Of course what is sane is defined by society, but not what is rational.

I trust (not believe) what can be measured or observed repeatedly by anyone (not by me alone, silly!). That is current reality. It may change based on observations or measurements. At least we will have something to discuss. If you acknowledge that things exist for which there is no evidence you will have to recognize a lot of things on this planet, most of which you will not be able to accept because they may contradict or appear not to fit your believe system. You end up not having a reasonable method to deny it being real or valid. What makes you think you know what is real or right or better or sustainable or "green"? Just what you want it to be?

I am not saying that all there is has been found. That would be very boring. I am saying that religion and spiritualism RELY on the fact that it cannot be proven as support for the firm and unquestioned believe that it is there. That is no reasonable way to argue. Please explain to me how you see this differently in a way that can be followed by someone who does not trust hear-say. Not trusting hear-say may make me a person with sad values in your opinion but I cannot follow how those values are irrational.

The environmental debate needs to stay rational otherwise it will not go where it needs to go. It is hard enough to convince people what needs to be done; it will be impossible if you support them in believing whatever they like to be right.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Notable quotable posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

And meanwhile I am wondering....

...how many people travel by car or plane to get to those marathons. I have a colleague who will fly 6000 miles to participate in a 26 mile foot race in California. Is that sustainable? Healthy? Not for the environment I dare say.

Is there anyone that sees connections between our hobbies and pollution? I can admire anyone who runs that far. Generally speaking it is a sport with little impact on the environment. I do wonder why they cannot run where they live though. Or at least very close.

Just like with most of what we do in North America, it may not be the activity, but all that is done to support the activity that causes problems. Transportation of all involved including spectators and equipment,  the materials used for equipment, the maintenance of facilities, the energy consumption of facilities, etc. need to be considered if you look at climate change and sports.

The folks who travel long-distance to get to a sporting event and then suffer from unusually high temperatures (or at least weird weather) are not necessarily ONLY a victim of climate change, but to a certain extend also causing it with their behavior.

If you pee in the water, don't be surprised when it changes flavor.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn A first-hand view from Chicago's overheated marathon posted 2 years, 1 month ago 12 Responses

About the bikes

Of course those bikes are not as great as a personal bike.

First of all, they need to be designed to fit a wide variety of body types, ideally with no adjustments. They need to be good enough to get from A to B. If they are so great that you would like to keep it than some people would keep them.  Ever thought about why salt and pepper dispensers (or anything else that can be taken away easily) at restaurants without much supervision are so ugly? Theft protection or at least discouragement. Ugly bikes get stolen less often, although I cannot speak for NY city. In Europe many people ride bikes that would end up on dumps here in the USA for a good reason. They can still be used and they are at the train/bus station when you return to pick them up to ride home. You are supposed to be comfortable enough to move, not comfortable enough to do a serious work-out without damaging your joints. Folks who want to do that, already have their own bike. This is for tourists, or those who occasionally need a bike.

Secondly, they need to be simple to keep maintenance costs to a absolute minimum. Most Europeans I know still laugh at those who ride a full-suspension MTB or any bicycle that cost more than $200 for in-the-city commuting.
Anything adjustable can be mis-adjusted. Anything that moves needs some sort of lubrication. Lighting systems, if they are installed, are operated by generators, not batteries. Finding one of those generators is difficult in the USA, they are all over the place in Europe. Maintenance free and sturdy. Seems the bikes in the picture have hub generators.
Of course they "can" go uphill. The shifter you see could be 3-speed, but most likely is 5 or even 7-speed. They can handle what needs to be handled in most large cities. It would not work in San Francisco I am certain. My mother has one of those 5-speed transmissions (again basically maintenance free) on her bike and she is fine with it for over a decade. She is over 60 now.

Don't forget: Most bicycles used for transportation on this planet are very different than what you can sell to most North Americans. Few gears, one brake, heavy, simple, sturdy, easy and inexpensive to fix. The American MTB is great as a piece of sports equipment, but over-kill in most situations in a city.

I assume there is a structure in place that maintains those bikes whenever they need maintenance. But I am certain those bikes are not in as good shape as personal bikes.  

Very true, public bike racks are rare here. That would be a expense that should be tax-payer supported. There should be money found for this in a nation that cares about the environment and wants to support clean transportation.

By the way, a very similar system is in place in Munich, Germany for a while now. Seems to work. Bikes are orange ugly things, but using them is not free I believe. You pay and get unlock combination online.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
On A Parisian tries out the city's new rent-a-bike program posted 2 years, 1 month ago 16 Responses

Best slaughtering methods?

If this is not about the environment but about eating (or not eating) nice to touch and easy to love animals:

I would like to know what methods COULD be considered least scary/painful for slaughtering chickens, turkeys, sheep, or cows. Including issues like transport, waiting, moving animals along, moving them into the right area, preparing the actual killing area, considering the senses of the animals.

Obviously the animals are not willing to die, but what are the best methods to end animal life that reduce the above mentioned animal's pre-death experiences to the least traumatizing levels?

I want some data, not some romantic opinions please. And telling me that not killing the animals is the better choice does not answer my questions! Of course this restriction cuts the number of folks who can actually answer this question at least in half.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 1 month ago 256 Responses

John is right

Even if you do not like it:

In the USA the automobile is considered transit and transportation.

Just because you do not like the way it is used does not mean it is not covered by a definition. Trying to find ways to exclude the automobile from a definition is missing the point. The automobile is popular and used by millions because it is convenient, belongs to you, gives you freedom to drive anywhere anytime, and may give you your dose of adrenaline (depending on your needs for compensating for other shortcomings). There are VERY GOOD REASONS for why fossil fuels and automobiles are popular. Not sustainable, but explainable. Excluding the automobile from the definition makes no difference. Making it easier to drive by car results in no change - just more cars.

And, yes, WORLDWIDE the automobile has little meaning, although I fear that the increased uses coming in the next decade will have tremendous impact.

If you seed roads you will harvest traffic. Without exception as far as I know.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn The RTID package doesn't give Seattle voters a fair choice posted 2 years, 1 month ago 14 Responses

Oxymoron

The whole article is about green-washing rich, decadent people and their damaging behavior.We have big heated discussions about meat- eaters who supposedly cannot be REAL environmentalists. Let's see if we get something going along those lines here too. It is basically the same, although no animal product is consumed.

I say: IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FASHION YOU CANNOT CLAIM TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.

If you are fashion-conscious you are global-environmental-problem unconscionus. You cannot care about both at the same time and consider yourself a reasonable person.

Why? Because fashion means consuming frequently, discarding and replacing things when they are deemed outdated, considering the function of anything to include status, judging others by their belongings, and never, never being satisfied with what you have. How this can be anything but damaging to our environment at our current consumption levels and with our current world population is not clear to me. The fashion industry survives based on doing the exact opposite of what is necessary to be done. Some of what needs to be done is:

• Buy less
  
• Fix if it is broken
  
• Buy things that are easy to take care of
  
• Keep things for a looong time
  
• Buy only what you need (not want)

Of course there is good money in this. Change is good. Fashion thrives on change. Environmental change can be used to the benefit of the designer.  Some markets will disappear, but many NEW ones will develop (or be developed). And it is going on right now to a large extend. I wrote this somewhere else already: Most "green" products are more green if you do not make or purchase them.

If there is anyone more damaging to the environment than the blind consumer it is the stylist who influences those people to continue consuming more useless crap at profitable but unsustainable rates.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Three designers tell all during Seattle's first Green Fashion Week posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

I changed my mind

I used to think that eating organic meat will result in me feeling good about eating meat. Organic meat meant to me that the animals are not raised in meat factories and get to live a good life and (now the important part) had a quick death since they would be slaughtered in small scale operations by people who care how this is done.

Now it seems that this has become impossible. Small slaughterhouses are gone. The butcher will not travel and come to your farm and slaughter the animals there. If a farmer slaughters him/herself they cannot sell the meat. All is left are the big efficient slaughter houses in which time is of the essence and nothing else matters. Even organic farmers have to ship their animals to those killing facilities and have no control over how their animals are treated there. And they are not treated nicely. Luring an animal into the slaughter house with its favorite food and killing it while it is busy devouring it is one thing. Being tortured and stressed to near death and finally getting killed in an industrial slaughterhouses by desensitized and cruel people is another.  

The environmental debate in regard to eating meat is over for me. I am convinced that it can be done with sustainable impact on the environment, but that part does not matter any longer. What matters now is that in our current economy and with current laws it cannot be done as a business without barbarism.

I guess I have to raise and kill my own animals if I want this to be done in a fashion that I can live with. Otherwise, no meat for me.

Too bad. I like the flavor. But not the aftertaste  it leaves when eating purchased meat with open eyes.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 1 month ago 256 Responses

Talking about solutions

I teach kids grades 6-8. I increased my teaching about the environment a lot and I notice the frustration. The kids figure out that almost anything we do has negative impact. They do not know what to do about it. They feel bad and yet cannot imagine how to change. I had only one kid who had an interest that had no negative impact I could think about: She likes to sit on the roof of her house. Others do what their parents show them to do: Snowmobile, ATV, travel, go shopping, raise horses, watch TV, play with computer, phone, drive the motorboat, etc. Some have a lot of impact, others very little. All (with the exception above) have some. Boys seems to have more polluting hobbies than girls. On the other hand, girls need more comfort and hot water.

It will be hard to teach kids to chose to live less than their parents and grandparents, but that is the only way. Nevertheless, kids want to do good. They like to hear that they will be the generation that will turn things around. They like to tell their parents and grandparents how to do it better. They like to be taken seriously as a force to reckon with. And, quite frankly, I fear that very little will change until everyone older than 12 right now is dead and gone. If major, widespread positive change happens, it will happen then.

There are solutions. They most likely are not easy to do. Especially the ones that are hard to do are the ones that have the highest impact.

You can look them up on many websites. Mine as well. http://www.polluteless.com. I even posted a few educational activities. They are geared toward a technology teacher, but they may work for others as well. They are designed to increase the awareness for issues and to discover alternative solutions if needed.

Be careful with horror scenarios that have little to do with reality. First of all, they may be so scary that the future looks rather bleak to anyone and little gets done due to frustration. Secondly, unscientific scare tactics result in unscientific debate and that does not do any good at all. We will get out of this mess only with applying reason and doing what is necessary rather than doing what we like to believe is the right thing to do. The kids respond to that. They like to hear  about real solutions to real problems.

Be prepared for the worst, hope for the best. Is there hope? Probably not (if you ask me) and always (if you ask my brother and most other people I know). Does humanity have a chance? Sure. Do we have a good choice? Not really. We have to do the best we can. Doing nothing is just so much worse.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn On climate nightmares, the Ursula problem, and planning ahead posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Erring on the side of caution

This is where we are: We think global warming is happening. Much data points that way. There are a few voices who do not think so and can show data. They have a hard time finding listeners. Some scientists think it is natural, many more think it is human caused or at least influenced. Of the latter group some believe we can influence the climate by changing our behavior, the sooner the better. It is certainly VERY unpopular to not believe that global climate change is happening or is human caused. Popularity should not matter, but it does.

Be it as it is, I find it makes more sense to change our behavior and develop sustainable habits JUST IN CASE the folks who predict disaster if we do not change are more right than those who say nothing is going on or we can't do anything about it. It certainly can't hurt to develop civilized and far-sighted attitudes toward other human beings and the environment we share. This is a conclusion any rational person can follow.

Unless of course you believe in aliens coming to the rescue, or that a supernatural power exists and cares about humans, or in a not yet discovered infinite energy source. But then anything is possible and nothing can be maturely discussed. Mental child play.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com On The ongoing humiliations of the tattered 'climate skeptic' movement posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Don't stop there though

A good start. A welcome signal. I hope there will be A LOT of talk about the fact that it won't be enough to just reduce energy consumption for lighting in the house. Even if North Americans begin not using lights anymore at all, it would not be enough. We need to understand this and we need to spread this message.

In addition handing out CFLs, how about handing out laundry line for air-drying your laundry? How about attempting a Guinness Book Of Records for the longest laundry line in the world? How about giving away free public transportation passes? How about painting bike lanes on the road without asking for permission? How about encouraging businesses leaders to adjust their dress codes so that air-conditioning requirements can be reduced or even limited? How about giving away free birth-control or, even better, discounts on vasectomies? How about free veggie burgers or at least organic meat with a message? How about giving away wool hats with the message "Turn down the Heat!"? How about warm water bottles with the message "Heat your bed - not the planet!".

So much to do.

I hope the T-shirts are made from organic cotton.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn San Francisco plans hour of darkness for October posted 2 years, 2 months ago 1 Response

Human Nature

I took me a while, but I have decided to accept that  it may not be rational but is surely natural to want to have children. It is a problem however and anyone who chooses to not have children should feel good knowing that they will have less impact on the environment. Since it is so natural to have children, it is also rather unpopular to speak up against this as an organization that needs the support of many people.

It is like saying that people who want kids cannot be "real" environmentalists and we have seen where that leads ( see: PETA against meat-consumption). Since having kids (or even adopting and bringing them to North America) increases your carbon footprint and pollution levels so much in relation to the rest of the world, there is some truth to this. Nevertheless, people will have kids just like they will eat meat. That won't change. Especially since people have more children in times of crisis. The problem is not the fact, the problem is the amount/number. You cannot tell people to not have kids. This right is a human right in my opinion.

As an organization you dig your own grave if you say this too loud. Imagine the storm of offended  mothers, fathers, and grandparents if there was a headline like: "Sierra Club Says 'Having Children Causes Climate Change, Starvation, and Extinction'". As individuals, we can point out the problems and consequences with having children, however each person need to decide what they want or don't want to do. This is something that cannot and should not be regulated, limited, or even discouraged by a government or organization. Education is the key to convincing people that maybe we have enough humans now.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn A handy health checklist for pregnancy posted 2 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Re: Duh

Now What?

You do what you already believe is the right thing to do.

I wish tempers ran less hot and more rational when it comes to eating animal protein. I cannot believe even I am still here. And I rarely eat meat.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.comOn Umbra on meat eating and global warming posted 2 years, 2 months ago 41 Responses

Has she never been abroad???

That would explain why she thinks it is not transportation. Maybe not in this country. Maybe not in her town. Maybe it is still just a sport in the USA. Maybe bicycles are still toys in her mind. I dare say that MOST people who use bike paths use them for recreation, not for transporting themselves (or goods) from A to B. But that does not change the fact that it is a mode of transportation for many.

I can imagine that increasing the gas tax to pay for bike paths is not popular. I would not be in favor of it either. Makes little sense to me to tax those who do not use that piece of infrastructure.

However, I would like to have the option to send some of my taxes that way. I would like to see somewhere in my tax declaration forms a check box where I can choose which departments get my  tax dollars. I am sure that are other elegant ways to let individuals decide where money flows. That would be democratic, but I do not know if it would result in the sort of projects I like to see happen. People are not farsighted.

Ultimately, I would like to see fewer cars on the existing roads. There are already plenty of roads and if we can all figure out how to use them, we do not need bike paths.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

http://www.polluteless.comOn U.S. Transportation Secretary blames bikes for decay of roads and bridges posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Of course, I have my doubts

Does that mean they will actually close those 80 power plants? Or will we find a use for the electricity they make and keep them running. Probably. It is not like we do not have enough already. Our economy operates on "more every year" and with that in mind we could use that extra energy "wisely" and power the next generations of "necessary" products, I am sure.

As long as corporations, lobbyists, and masses of lazy, comfort-minded people make the decisions, there will NEVER be a day in this country (USA) where we have too much energy and begin shutting down power plants.

Well, at least it feels good to have done our share for the environment by cutting our decadently excessive energy requirements by 5%. Way to go! Literally.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Bill to phase out incandescent light bulbs gains steam in U.S. Congress posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

I bet you are right

...and unfortunately it results in the opposite. School costs are reduced but more pollution is created. People are so stupid and short-sighted. I guess, driving is just not expensive enough yet.

North America: Drive cars or die trying. Tssss.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Municipalities try to encourage students to walk to school posted 2 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

Completely agreed

This is mostly about reducing the waste that currently occurs in our society. Ideally folks would not own what they do not need or what cannot be recycled, reuse what they can, recycle most of what they cannot reuse, compost anything organic, and throw away very little.
Freeganism (which I call dumpster diving) means also not being shy about collecting, using and eating what is not necessarily new and/or freshly purchased. This is something we can work on as a society. It is not a new movement; one person's trash has been another person's treasure for a long time. The activity just received a new name.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Freegans get by just fine on others' castoffs posted 2 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Free Food

I still relish the memories of the free (and delicious) chocolate I once received from a house mate which was found in a dumpster of a small chocolate company. It was in a nice box and was sooooo good! Even my colleagues at work still talk about it. We also made a lot of very tasty Guacamole with avocados we found in the back of a supermarket dumpster. Too soft for the customer I suppose - perfect for Guacamole.

If you look at our supermarkets you cannot be really surprised. Food that does not look perfect is usually not displayed. Fresh food "looks" nowhere better than in North American supermarkets. I once was told that throwing the food away rather than giving it away has some sort of a tax benefit. I wonder.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom On Freegans get by just fine on others' castoffs posted 2 years, 2 months ago 4 Responses

Where is relevant data?

This seems to be the 15 cars PERCEIVED to be the greenest.

Where is the data that makes this sort of list worth reading: How much pollution is created when making the cars + using the cars + disposing the cars?

My currently favorite "green" car: The one I have and plan to keep for quite a while longer: Saturn station wagon, 191000 miles right now, 38-40 mpg (if I drive it).

My next "green" car will be another regular car, maybe a diesel. Small, efficient, simple.

If you really want to pollute less you need to change habits. Walk, bike, or do not go there.

The ULTIMATE "green" car is not a car but an attitude.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn 15 Green Cars posted 2 years, 2 months ago 27 Responses

Reducing water and energy use

In addition to the above, and probably before, in order to use less energy for heating water and using less drinking water you can:

• Share the bathtub with someone; two people displace more water than one person plus two people get clean.
  
• Use bathwater for another person afterwards. Proper bath-taking etiquette will be appreciated.
  
• Fill the bathtub only a few inches.
  
• Take a short shower(5 minutes max.)
  
• Turn off the water while you are soaping.
  
• Install a water saving shower head.
  
• Shower cold or at least colder.
  
• Sponge bath.
  
• Flush toilets less often
  
• Don't use drinking water to wash your driveway
  
• Let rain wash your car.
  
• Learn how to hand-wash a load of dishes with 2 gallons of water
  
• Fix dripping faucets
  
• Don't let water run when brushing teeth or washing hands
  
• Fill a water bottle at drinking fountain to make sure all the water gets consumed.
  
• And worst of all: Drink all your water in the restaurant because it will be dumped if you don't.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

More ideas at http://www.polluteless.comOn Umbra on reusing bath water posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Aha!

It had to be a country where they do not make cars. Something like this would not happen here where the car is the holy cow and anything that hurts sales is not acceptable.

And why please do some of you have a problem with not allowing incorrect statements in car advertising? I don`t get it. This is a big problem: Allowing marketing and advertising professionals mislead the masses with language that is wrong or leaves out the important parts.

These are just facts: Light cigarettes can cause cancer, light beer can make you an alcoholic, and a car cannot be environmentally "friendly". It can be less damaging than another vehicle but since the only data available is refuted, you cannot even say that in good conscience. We just do not know. Fuel consumption data paints a very incomplete picture.

A car can be used for activities that support the environmental movement, but if the activity can be done without the car it would be less damaging. Even a car designed to use less fuel while it is USED requires a lot of energy to be MADE, TRANSPORTED, DISTRIBUTED, RECYCLED, and LANDFILLED. Even hybrids that need to be plugged in create GHG. They do not grow on trees, you know. You cannot even compost them.

Of course a car can be green. Anything can be green. You just have to paint it green.

And, yes, the list can be expanded and probably should. There are some issues with truth in advertising in regard to houses and appliances. The other items I have not seen much advertised with "green" language, but I have to admit I do not pay attention much to advertising.

This is a step in the right direction. It does not allow incorrect statements with currently popular language and it sends the signal that if you consume more you pollute more no matter what industrially made product you consume. It also begins a discussion about the definition of words. And it shows the population (of Norway at least) that car companies twist language to sell products. Skepticism is a good thing.

Karsten Pollute LessDotComOn Norway bans generic green terms from auto advertising posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Making the goat the gardener

Don't rely on the industrie to create the change we need! This is just another example.

People will believe anything if they want it bad enough. It is good that they want to - it is bad that they trust so blindly. Green sells well even if it is not green. Is it a problem in the USA that so many people believe so easily what they are told without any skepticism.

Tobacco companies supporting health initiatives - Oil companies funding alternative energies - Walmart supporting the environment.

Yeah right.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Wal-Mart's eco-initiatives turning Arkansas into sustainability hotspot posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Carbon Tax

Carbon Tax does not work if products are made in foreign countries with different environmental regulations. We cannot measure how much an item polluted or how much energy was required to make an item. And it is totally unknown how much energy is needed to recycle the product and its components. Very few things are made in the USA only.

A "world-wide" carbon tax for all individuals would be something. But, as a friend of mine said one day: "We would be very close to world-peace if we can agree" to something like a world-wide carbon tax even if it only applies to corporations.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Voluntary actions didn't get us civil rights, and they won't fix the climate posted 2 years, 2 months ago 61 Responses

Makes Little Sense

Any vehicle's (or product's) contribution to pollution is not limited to how much fuel (or energy) it consumes while is is being used. There are many other sources of pollution in the process of manufacturing anything before and after its use. A car, or its components may be made far away; it may require questionable or dangerous processes to make the parts. Some parts may require special care or disposal when they are at the end of their usable life. The car may be manufactured in areas where the environmental regulations are much less strict. In addition, the longer you keep a vehicle the less you pollute. None of this is addressed with gas mileage data.

The gas mileage data is a nice instrument to sell cars to a semi-conscious population. There is more to a car (or any product) than just the time you use it.

Get a small car, keep it for a decade or longer, and learn how to drive it. I get 40 mpg with a 10 year old Saturn.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Vehicles sold in the U.S. will be outfitted with fuel-economy stickers posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

Irrational people unite!

The people who are willing to believe the most outlandish concepts are now interested in participating in the environmental debate. Great, just what we needed: Words of non-reason.

But maybe it will be empowering. Let us just not forget to not neglect rationality, that there are already too many people on this planet, that praying and human-centered thinking just do not work, and that no supernatural power will get us out of this mess.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Pope urges youth to care for the planet posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Well said!

Hear, hear!

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Voluntary actions didn't get us civil rights, and they won't fix the climate posted 2 years, 2 months ago 61 Responses

Look at your world with critical eyes

We continue to have the problem that it is so VERY difficult to determine what products really are less damaging to the environment.

Just because a hybrid car uses less gas while it is being USED means very little in regard to how much energy is uses while it EXISTS on this planet. Same with solar panels, CFLs, Energy star products, etc.

Pollution it is mostly associated with how much certain products pollute or how much pollution occurs when electricity is produced or when trash is burned or improperly disposed of. Rarely is the connection made between pollution and product development or pollution and a products time on Earth after you are done using it.

Polluting less means looking at what you do and purchase in a more comprehensive way than what you hear from the marketing agencies. What we buy often consumes energy while we are using it. Some products consume less energy than others. However, to truly pollute less more aspects have to be considered than just the energy consumption during the time you own the product. What you purchase has to be manufactured, distributed, advertised, recycled, and disposed. Materials have to be located, equipment has to be built and moved, the materials have to be mined/harvested, transported around the globe, transformed, melted, shaped, etc. Some products are made from components that are made somewhere else by someone else. Manufacturing, distributing, selling, and disposing anything is a global and rather complicated affair. There are a lot of energy costs in every product and we know very little about those costs.

Products are sold because they are wanted or needed by the consumer and marketing/advertising is focused on the time the consumer owns the product. The fact that there are hidden energy costs is rather convenient from a marketing point of view. Researching those costs is difficult. It takes time, a lot of money, and cooperation by the manufacturer (which is rarely available since a negative outcome of the research will hurt sales of the product). Even the people who make the product do not know the life time energy costs of their products. When you have bought it it is not their responsibility any longer how much energy it costs to return the product components and material into the cycle of manufacturing.

What needs to be looked at is not "product USE energy" but "product LIFE energy". What needs to be investigated is not only how much energy YOU use while using a product, but how much energy it costs SOCIETY to supply you with that product from beginning to end. Don't pat yourself on the back just because the product you use has a benefit while you are using it. That does not mean (at all) that your product is better than other products in regard to product life energy costs. Depending on the product (as well as you) it may even be the opposite. Believing that your product's less polluting effects on the environment are offsetting any negative effects before and after you own this product without having scientific data available is environmental romanticism. If everybody believes whatever they want to believe nothing will change.

Regulations will result in little change if consumers (I hate this word) do not develop critical thinking towards their designed, engineered, and advertised environment as a whole.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

 On Voluntary actions didn't get us civil rights, and they won't fix the climate posted 2 years, 2 months ago 61 Responses

Drops in the bucket

If you blow your nose OFTEN even though your are NOT sick, use a cloth tissue and wash it (with cold water) with the other laundry once in a while, not after every times you use it. Just let it dry in between. You can use it for a long time. Just don't tell anyone in order to keep your friends.

If you are sick, use disposable ones to decrease the risk of re-infection. I wonder if there are tissues made from recycled paper. Why do they have to be bright white anyways?

Every time you flush your toilet, 5-10 gallons of drinking water go down the drain, so don't flush every time. Flush in the evenings (so it does not sit there overnight) and flush solids everytime (again to keep friends). Even better, pee on your compost pile and create your own human fertilizer with the rest. Be kind to your neighbors though and consider their feelings about this. It is not everyones cup of tea.

And to address the sanitation idea: If you really, really want to pollute less, you need to consider that getting sick and dying is good for the environment especially if you live in North America. I understand that this concept is hard to follow through. I have a hard time living with this myself.
However, getting sick without dying probably pollutes more. Due to other priorities, our emergency health care system does not care about its impact on the environment. Tricky thing.
If you do die you also need to consider your embalmed and toxic body's impact on the environment. Join a natural burial ground before you are dead.

But I fear I drifted away from the topic of blowing your nose and its horrific impact on our environment.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Umbra on mini-dilemmas posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

Green just on the surface?

This just shows you how it is these days: Selling a green product not because it "is" green (or at least less damaging), but because it is "percieved" as being friendly to the environment.

I just recently had a conversation with someone at BMW. All the engineers know that the hybrid is not the solution, however all the marketing folks say that you need to have one if you want that currently quickly growing share of the market.

Pretty sweet: The hybrid car - a product that does not help alleviate the problem (may actually make it worse) but is sold in great numbers to the folks who would like to alleviate the problem. And to add to this it is UNPOPULAR to question the merrits of such a popular product.

Will anything really change if we all do what we like to believe is right?
A vehicle that is sold to the public as environmentally less damaging should not be about 'Look at what I'm doing for the world' in the first place. It should be a product scientifically proven to be less harmful to the environment from the beginning to the end of its existence.

If green products are about "appearance" nothing will change. People will continue to do what they have done for decades and buy what they do not need, what can be sold for a profit, and what gives them higher status. The marketing folks know how get want-to-believers to do that. Today it has to be green, organic, non-damaging to the ozone layer, etc. but only to the point that it "appears" to others to be like that.

Come on! The way I drive it even my 10 year old Saturn gets 38-40 mpg. Get a small (even old) car and learn how to drive it. Do it yourself without waiting for a product that gives you the status you are looking for. Because you may get the status, but not what it stands for.

Karsten PolluteLessDotComOn Classy Consciousness posted 2 years, 2 months ago 1 Response