<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Hypocrisy again]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/ Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:42:11 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/1 I can't really disagree with anything you say here

but, choosing to live in a 1200 square foot home instead of a 6000 square foot one has a far greater impact than say, putting a brick in your toilet tank. By writing a highly visible article pointing out the stupidity (not so much the hypocrisy) of building a green mansion, one can alter the public perception of such homes as status symbols. People won't build them if they suspect their environmentally minded peers will snigger instead of envy them. Status is behind everything we do. Anything that makes a status symbol out of environmentally preferable technology or lifestyles has huge potential. Likewise, articles with the clout to cabash fads like eco-friendly mini-mansions are very powerful weapons. Environmentalism is not a battle that will one day be won, it is a battle that will never end.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com


]]> I can't really disagree with anything you say here

but, choosing to live in a 1200 square foot home instead of a 6000 square foot one has a far greater impact than say, putting a brick in your toilet tank. By writing a highly visible article pointing out the stupidity (not so much the hypocrisy) of building a green mansion, one can alter the public perception of such homes as status symbols. People won't build them if they suspect their environmentally minded peers will snigger instead of envy them. Status is behind everything we do. Anything that makes a status symbol out of environmentally preferable technology or lifestyles has huge potential. Likewise, articles with the clout to cabash fads like eco-friendly mini-mansions are very powerful weapons. Environmentalism is not a battle that will one day be won, it is a battle that will never end.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com


]]> Comment #2 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/ Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:22:51 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/2 BioD,

I suspect a luxurious dwelling will always be a status symbol. If rich people don't build huge green houses, what will they build? Huge not-green houses.

But that's kind of beside the point anyway -- at least the point I was trying to make. I certainly don't disagree with anything Akst said.

But is this really the best choice of target? Of all the entities and forces out there working against environmental health, is the daftness of well-meaning rich people really anywhere close to the top of the list?

It would be different if this column were just a novelty, some kind of counter-intuitive zinger. But it strikes me that a bizarrely high percentage of writing about environmentalism focuses on acts of personal hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy is not nothing, but it's not a particularly big deal in the grand scheme of things either.

www.grist.org

]]> BioD,

I suspect a luxurious dwelling will always be a status symbol. If rich people don't build huge green houses, what will they build? Huge not-green houses.

But that's kind of beside the point anyway -- at least the point I was trying to make. I certainly don't disagree with anything Akst said.

But is this really the best choice of target? Of all the entities and forces out there working against environmental health, is the daftness of well-meaning rich people really anywhere close to the top of the list?

It would be different if this column were just a novelty, some kind of counter-intuitive zinger. But it strikes me that a bizarrely high percentage of writing about environmentalism focuses on acts of personal hypocrisy. Such hypocrisy is not nothing, but it's not a particularly big deal in the grand scheme of things either.

www.grist.org

]]> Comment #3 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/ Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:36:25 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/3 Status symbols

What if status was measured by quality of life, instead of quantity of consumption and possesions?

Did Socrates own anything?

On the other hand, a 6000 square foot green mansion featuring a 6000 square foot solar panel and a 6000 watt wind machine, heated and cooled with a geothermal geat pump, would put more power back into the grid than it used.

Really green design is a matter of ratio rather than size.  The ratio of surface area covered with solar panels compared to the area that needs heating/cooling.  The ratio of wind energy harvested to the energy used.

Could a home, or homes for all 300 million of US, that provided all the energy needed in this manner be designed?  Will they ever be built?

Maybe wealthy individuals who build and publicize green mansions that follow these design principles will lead, the price will drop with mass production, and then all will be able to afford to embrace a life that is symbiotic with the natural world.

]]> Status symbols

What if status was measured by quality of life, instead of quantity of consumption and possesions?

Did Socrates own anything?

On the other hand, a 6000 square foot green mansion featuring a 6000 square foot solar panel and a 6000 watt wind machine, heated and cooled with a geothermal geat pump, would put more power back into the grid than it used.

Really green design is a matter of ratio rather than size.  The ratio of surface area covered with solar panels compared to the area that needs heating/cooling.  The ratio of wind energy harvested to the energy used.

Could a home, or homes for all 300 million of US, that provided all the energy needed in this manner be designed?  Will they ever be built?

Maybe wealthy individuals who build and publicize green mansions that follow these design principles will lead, the price will drop with mass production, and then all will be able to afford to embrace a life that is symbiotic with the natural world.

]]> Comment #4 by jdhlax http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/ Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:53:57 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/4 Back To Hypocracy

"But is hypocrisy really that important?"  Uh, yeah!  It's been proven that as adults, we almost always end up doing what we SAW our parents do, not what ouor parents TOLD us to do.  Actions are far more important than words, and those who advocate something but act contrary to that advocacy will always be targets.

"To the point that seemingly the bulk of writing on environmentalism begins and ends there?"  Of course not, but consider the point of view of a non-environmentalist (not necessarily an anti-enviromentalist).  If you heard someone advocating something that requires some amount of sacrifice, as virtually all environmental actions do due to the societal and legal structures that you mentioned, but saw that person doing something contrary to that advocacy, wouldn't that make you somewhere between suspicious of and hostile to the position or action being advocated?  This is not to say that there is any legitimacy to anti-environmentalists who jump at the most minisucle transgression in order to advocate against environmentalism, but should serve instead as a warning that our actions are being closely watched and we should try  as hard as possible to make our words match our actions.  Living like this will also give you much more credibility.

Jeff Hoffman

]]> Back To Hypocracy

"But is hypocrisy really that important?"  Uh, yeah!  It's been proven that as adults, we almost always end up doing what we SAW our parents do, not what ouor parents TOLD us to do.  Actions are far more important than words, and those who advocate something but act contrary to that advocacy will always be targets.

"To the point that seemingly the bulk of writing on environmentalism begins and ends there?"  Of course not, but consider the point of view of a non-environmentalist (not necessarily an anti-enviromentalist).  If you heard someone advocating something that requires some amount of sacrifice, as virtually all environmental actions do due to the societal and legal structures that you mentioned, but saw that person doing something contrary to that advocacy, wouldn't that make you somewhere between suspicious of and hostile to the position or action being advocated?  This is not to say that there is any legitimacy to anti-environmentalists who jump at the most minisucle transgression in order to advocate against environmentalism, but should serve instead as a warning that our actions are being closely watched and we should try  as hard as possible to make our words match our actions.  Living like this will also give you much more credibility.

Jeff Hoffman

]]> Comment #5 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/ Sat, 14 Jan 2006 03:40:12 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/5 Well, I still don't disagree

Pointing out endless acts of hypocrisy is pointless.

Since I could not disagree with what you had to say, I jumped off on a tangent about status.

Your concern that the wealthy will just build huge-not green houses is a valid one. However, I think that articles like this one can convince them to build green-not huge houses if the perception takes hold that such homes have higher status. I know a very wealthy individual who traded in her Mercedes for a dinky Prius, with the navigation package of course.

Four or five articles in that vein in that paper could very well change the existing housing fad, resulting in literally tens of millions of much smaller, much more efficient homes, which would be a relatively big deal in the grand scheme of things. Twenty years later, people might laugh at the big McMansions that were once so hip in America. Capital hill in Seattle is covered with old run down mansions that were once hip.

People usually equate bigger with higher status. As some of the other posters have pointed out, status can be achieved in any number of ways. In fact, small houses in Seattle neighborhoods have much more status than many much bigger homes in suburbia (that status is reflected in the price). It would not be hard to build a small, super energy efficient, million dollar home, replete with solar panels, gardens, slate, stone, and art that would impress the socks off any guest.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> Well, I still don't disagree

Pointing out endless acts of hypocrisy is pointless.

Since I could not disagree with what you had to say, I jumped off on a tangent about status.

Your concern that the wealthy will just build huge-not green houses is a valid one. However, I think that articles like this one can convince them to build green-not huge houses if the perception takes hold that such homes have higher status. I know a very wealthy individual who traded in her Mercedes for a dinky Prius, with the navigation package of course.

Four or five articles in that vein in that paper could very well change the existing housing fad, resulting in literally tens of millions of much smaller, much more efficient homes, which would be a relatively big deal in the grand scheme of things. Twenty years later, people might laugh at the big McMansions that were once so hip in America. Capital hill in Seattle is covered with old run down mansions that were once hip.

People usually equate bigger with higher status. As some of the other posters have pointed out, status can be achieved in any number of ways. In fact, small houses in Seattle neighborhoods have much more status than many much bigger homes in suburbia (that status is reflected in the price). It would not be hard to build a small, super energy efficient, million dollar home, replete with solar panels, gardens, slate, stone, and art that would impress the socks off any guest.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

]]> Comment #6 by makower http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/ Sat, 14 Jan 2006 05:57:12 -0800 http://www.grist.org/article/hypocrisy-again/6 Hypocrisy or Not, Akst's Got a Point

I agree with your condemnation of Gotcha! journalism, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded from time to time that shopping -- or building -- our way to environmental salvation isn't an option. And a lot of well-heeled environmentalists think that building, or being, eco-chic is a political statement. It's not.

And sometimes, the truth hurts. A few years ago, my wife and I were interviewing contractors to build our dream home -- replete with eco-friendly woods and efficiency up the wazoo. One environmentally savvy contractor took a look at the plans, heard my plea about being "environmentally responsible," and said: "To be frank, the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is to cut the size of the house in half."

It was an ego-deflating punch in the gut, but he was right.

In the end, we opted out of building, deciding to "recycle" our current house.

]]> Hypocrisy or Not, Akst's Got a Point

I agree with your condemnation of Gotcha! journalism, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded from time to time that shopping -- or building -- our way to environmental salvation isn't an option. And a lot of well-heeled environmentalists think that building, or being, eco-chic is a political statement. It's not.

And sometimes, the truth hurts. A few years ago, my wife and I were interviewing contractors to build our dream home -- replete with eco-friendly woods and efficiency up the wazoo. One environmentally savvy contractor took a look at the plans, heard my plea about being "environmentally responsible," and said: "To be frank, the most environmentally friendly thing you can do is to cut the size of the house in half."

It was an ego-deflating punch in the gut, but he was right.

In the end, we opted out of building, deciding to "recycle" our current house.

]]>