Climate protests slash activists

[noblok]

Yeah, I understand that. As I said: I didn't really have a problem with being arrested. Although it sucked I couldn't complete the march and meet up with my friends afterwards I understand that 'collateral damage' may be necessary. I mainly objected to how we got treated.

 

[Tom]

It's not sustainable only by my definition, it's sustainable according to the ecological footprint method. So things would be fine if everyone else's lifestyle was as sustainable as well, because my ecological footprint is below 2 ha (sustainable ecological footprint is 2,1 ha, the average footprint worldwide at the moment is 2,7).

I just tried one of those calculators, on the WWF's UK website. It said my footprint is 2.99. Its wrong, because its simplistic. It also doesn't explain its reasoning, or give any of its sources, so I find it as believable as a pig being flown by Lord Lucan.

It's not impossible to have a sustainable lifestyle and have a computer at the same time. Once again: a sustainable lifestyle doesn't mean we have to go back to the stone ages. I also don't denigrate China severely. In my previous posts I have defended their right to develop and said that in my opinion they can't be expected to make the same effort as fully industrialised countries.

But you believe that climate change is such a big threat, and that drastic measures are required. Despite that belief, you're quite happy to have a powerful energy-sucking computer at your disposal. Obviously you're happy to tell others what to do, but when it comes to your lifestyle you're unwilling to go the whole hog. You think climate change is such a serious problem? Well why not start by eliminating your contribution to it, and removing from your life anything that isn't necessary for your survival? Why do you need that computer anyway? Why do you need to buy dyed clothing? Surely grey sackcloth would do the job just as well. In fact, without the modern aids supplied by humanity and paid for by capitalism, most of us wouldn't get past 50 years old. So lets get rid of anyone over that age, they're past their best and are only consuming resources.

I am happy to accept change even when it affects my lifestyle. I'm currently typing slower than I could, because my fingers are slightly frozen, but I refuse to turn the heating on. I live in a room of 8m² to limit my impact even when I heat. I do curse when I have to travel 40 km by bike through the cold rain, but I get on with it because it's for a good cause. I stopped eating meat, while I absolutely love the taste of it (seriously, if I could and it wasn't so ecologically devastating I would only eat meat).

Good for you. Personally I'd rather not be cold. There's no need to be uncomfortable in one's home. As for not eating meat, good luck with that because you're essentially pissing in the wind of human evolution. We're designed to eat meat. Go and buy a herd of chickens, and snap their necks if you fancy a chicken sandwich. You could have eggs every day, too.

I can't speak for every single individual attending the protests, there probably are some people who fit into the category you describe, but I most certainly do not.

I take you at your word, but I'm willing to bet money that most of those protesters fit my description perfectly.

 

[Embattle]

Most protests do little besides make those on it feel better and often cost the rest of the population a shit load of money that could of been better spent.

 

[old.user4556]

I was out at a climate demonstration the other day to take some photographs, they're quite a cold lot, very much opposed to global warming.

Spoiler

 

[noblok]

But you believe that climate change is such a big threat, and that drastic measures are required. Despite that belief, you're quite happy to have a powerful energy-sucking computer at your disposal. Obviously you're happy to tell others what to do, but when it comes to your lifestyle you're unwilling to go the whole hog.

I do think it's a big threat, however, I think there's only so much that can be expected of me (or anyone, actually) as an individual. I am going further than I think others should go. Not as far as I could, probably, but I don't think we need to go as far as we can. There's nothing wrong with some luxury.

I'll reiterate my previous question: do you think I shouldn't be allowed to demand the government spends more on development projects without spending all my own money I don't need for survival and all my spare time on development projects? If that's the case probably everybody who complains about anything, ever, is a hypocrite. "You want different traffic laws regarding speeding? But you don't spend every second of your spare time campaigning for it and neither do you spend every penny you've got lobbying for it, hence you're not doing everything you could. You hypocrite." That's just silly.

 

[Tom]

Nope, because I don't spend all my time campaigning for it. In fact I spend no time whatsoever campaigning for it. I have more important things to do.

I'm trying to highlight that green campaigners are, by large, only interested in telling other people how to live their lives, and will only make personal sacrifices based on what they find acceptable. Its a ridiculous irony.

 

[rynnor]

It's not impossible to have a sustainable lifestyle and have a computer at the same time. Once again: a sustainable lifestyle doesn't mean we have to go back to the stone ages.

I dis-agree - I think theres a fundamental problem with your idea of sustainability.

Things like computers are at the top of a pyramid of other industries from heavy mining, industrial chemical production etc. etc.

If you think having a computer is sustainable just because you count the energy used directly in its production its a gross over simplification.

You are picking an advanced product of the consumer society and somehow mentally ringfencing it but without the rest of that system you would not have that pc.

Truely sustainable living is farming or hunting and god forbid if you get ill - anything else is merely posturing within the very system you are campaigning against.

 

[Scouse]

removing from your life anything that isn't necessary for your survival?

You know that's a flawed and over simplistic argument there Tom


If Noblok's got his footprint down yet still owns a computer, he must have made some sacrifices elsewhere. What more can you ask of a human?