Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Do you recycle? I don't even have the option. (Also incentivizing "green" behavior)

18911131416

Posts

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Things that are easy and universally beneficial aren't discussed or controversial.

    I can't believe the aesthetics of solar panel (possibly with exception of historical buildings) is even being discussed though. Now, return on investment, if there are better things to focus on, subsidies and if we should beeencouraging them...that's worth at least a discussion.

    But NIMBY fuckers who don't want their neighbors to put up panels? They are so ridiculous they aren't wotrth engaging.

    _J_AManFromEarthrockrngerGennenalyse RuebenMillMuddypaws
  • KiplingKipling Registered User regular
    I would have PV panels on my house if my house didn't have woods at the edge of my property. The cost/benefit isn't there when the sun only sees day light at about 10 a.m in the morning during the summer.

    Does anyone have a Nest thermostat? I'll probably end up getting one regardless, but any opinions would be helpful from someone who has one.

    3DS Friends: 1693-1781-7023
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Kipling wrote: »
    I would have PV panels on my house if my house didn't have woods at the edge of my property. The cost/benefit isn't there when the sun only sees day light at about 10 a.m in the morning during the summer.

    Does anyone have a Nest thermostat? I'll probably end up getting one regardless, but any opinions would be helpful from someone who has one.

    We are planning on upgrading to a nestor similar too when our tax returns come back. They looked cool and Apple easy to use when we looked at one at Lowe's. Our current 5 + 2 day is a pain to reprogram, and our weekdays are different with daycare and babysitting so we don't get nearly the benefit.

    We've been working hard to squeeze every bit of efficiency we can out of our home and will start doing big upgrades in the next five to ten years.

    PV panels aren't that great where we live so we are looking at other better investments first and hoping cost drops. Need a new roof in the next couple years but $30k just isn't in the budget.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Things that are easy and universally beneficial aren't discussed or controversial.

    I can't believe the aesthetics of solar panel (possibly with exception of historical buildings) is even being discussed though. Now, return on investment, if there are better things to focus on, subsidies and if we should beeencouraging them...that's worth at least a discussion.

    But NIMBY fuckers who don't want their neighbors to put up panels? They are so ridiculous they aren't wotrth engaging.

    I don't know, frankly I think it's the height of goosery for you to unilaterally decide what is or is not important. There are probably thousands of things more that you could be doing to help the environment, or your community, or society in general. I'm not even going to list any because I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness. Aesthetics is a MAJOR factor in the purchase of a home. So much so that people often need to be reminded to check the durability of a house, or what the potential savings of well done craftsmanship are, but you never hear anyone say "don't forget to make sure you like the way it looks". Acting like your better than everyone else because you happen to not care about solar panels is not at all productive, and largely meaningless. I'm sorry that were you draw the line for doing the right thing over the easy thing is different than where someone else would draw it.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    spacekungfuman
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness.

    But we should be, damn it.

    kime
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I think it's valid to say "We should try and make prettier solar panels".

    Archspacekungfuman
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    The lasting legacy of the American Right's obstructionism and denial of environmental policy and climate change (respectively and cohesively) will be to set green energy research back approximately 25 years.

    Wait, scratch that

    The lasting legacy of the American Right's obstructionism and denial of environmental policy and climate change (respectively and cohesively) has set green energy research back approximately 25 years.

    I remain incredibly irate (perhaps naively so) that we didn't use this recession as a springboard to invest in large-scale local projects to reinvent and push forward green technology implementation at all levels, but especially in low-income areas.

    Shoulda shorn up the grid, invested in solar panels, pushed for more green tech, and paid and trained legions of citizen workers to do all the blue-collar parts (installing solar panels, geothermal, bringing all houses up to efficiency standards).

    A Green New Deal is my American Dream that we will never have for at least two decades

    Arch on
    lonelyahavazagdrobArdolkimeHarry DresdenshrykeSo It Goes
  • MichaelLCMichaelLC In what furnace was thy brain? ChicagoRegistered User regular
    You can't get some gooses to use a plastic spoon with flecks in it. What's the chance they'll pick up a wrench?

    Mugsley wrote:
    So now I need to get it trimmed and adjusted, and all in.

    Steam:MichaelLC
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness.

    But we should be, damn it.

    And if you push this attitude, you don't convince people, you just alienate them. You need to celebrate the small victories, not make people feel like they are bad people if they don't change their whole lives to suit whatever cause you care about. All this accomplishes is making change seem to costly, so people just give up and don't change at all.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2013
    _J_ wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness.

    But we should be, damn it.

    And if you push this attitude, you don't convince people, you just alienate them. You need to celebrate the small victories, not make people feel like they are bad people if they don't change their whole lives to suit whatever cause you care about. All this accomplishes is making change seem to costly, so people just give up and don't change at all.

    Said another way: We need to coddle lazy, ignorant, selfish people.

    Also, "suit whatever cause you care about"? Recycling isn't about some random individualistic campaign that some care about and others respectfully disagree with on moral grounds. It's the recognition that we are a social species, who have but one planet, and it would be damn keen if everyone chipped in to preserve that planet for the sake of the longevity of the species. We have a finite supply of resources. Helping the species conserve those resources through reuse is...it's just what a rational self-aware being in 2013 does.

    When you throw a glass jar in the trash, rather than recycle it, you are fucking over the future of the human species.

    I really, genuinely, do not understand what is wrong with you, such that you priviledge your own minor convenience over the preservation of the species.

    _J_ on
    Gennenalyse Rueben
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness.

    But we should be, damn it.

    And if you push this attitude, you don't convince people, you just alienate them. You need to celebrate the small victories, not make people feel like they are bad people if they don't change their whole lives to suit whatever cause you care about. All this accomplishes is making change seem to costly, so people just give up and don't change at all.

    These are not bad sentiments but they still don't excuse your incredible narcissism and laziness. Especially when you constantly start threads that are "Well what's the deal with socially progressive issue X?" and highjump through flaming mental hoops to disavow the effect your apathy and greed have on society. Stop pretending you care to make yourself feel better, or learn to accept that if 99% of the people here that live outside your New Money Faux-Bourgeois microcosm are telling you you're being a goose, you're probably being a goose.

    _J_So It Goes
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2013
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness.

    But we should be, damn it.

    And if you push this attitude, you don't convince people, you just alienate them. You need to celebrate the small victories, not make people feel like they are bad people if they don't change their whole lives to suit whatever cause you care about. All this accomplishes is making change seem to costly, so people just give up and don't change at all.

    Said another way: We need to coddle lazy, ignorant, selfish people.

    Also, "suit whatever cause you care about"? Recycling isn't about some random individualistic campaign that some care about and others respectfully disagree with on moral grounds. It's the recognition that we are a social species, who have but one planet, and it would be damn keen if everyone chipped in to preserve that planet for the sake of the longevity of the species. We have a finite supply of resources. Helping the species conserve those resources through reuse is...it's just what a rational self-aware being in 2013 does.

    When you throw a glass jar in the trash, rather than recycle it, you are fucking over the future of the human species.

    I really, genuinely, do not understand what is wrong with you, such that you priviledge your own minor convenience over the preservation of the species.

    I don't care what you call it. If you want people to behave better, you will be best served by actually making it easier to change than trying to make them feel bad about their refusal to act in the way that you prefer, IMO. Like I said before, legislation is best, but where we can't force people to serve the public good, we should do whatever we can to encourage it, including education, positive reinforcement, and lowering the barrier to change. Curbside recycling pick up is one way of lowering the recycling barrier, with the added benefit of also making it much easier to force recycling by law, since you have made it so easy to do and to monitor.

    As to my own behavior (and this addresses Giggles' post too) I could easily recite my whole rationality and collective action spiel, but I think everyone knows where I stand on collective action problems. And yet, despite my sincere belief that my personal consumption habits do not matter, I have switched from paper cups to mugs at work and am looking into drop off at target as a result of this thread, so even if this is really just a thread about why SKFM doesn't think recycling matters (which is false) there has been a net positive outcome from this discussion. This is often the case with threads like this one, but noone wants to pay attention to these positive outcomes, because its more fun to talk about how SKFM twirls his mustache while tying women to train tracks (coal fired, super polluting trains of course).

    spacekungfuman on
    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness.

    But we should be, damn it.

    And if you push this attitude, you don't convince people, you just alienate them. You need to celebrate the small victories, not make people feel like they are bad people if they don't change their whole lives to suit whatever cause you care about. All this accomplishes is making change seem to costly, so people just give up and don't change at all.

    Said another way: We need to coddle lazy, ignorant, selfish people.

    Also, "suit whatever cause you care about"? Recycling isn't about some random individualistic campaign that some care about and others respectfully disagree with on moral grounds. It's the recognition that we are a social species, who have but one planet, and it would be damn keen if everyone chipped in to preserve that planet for the sake of the longevity of the species. We have a finite supply of resources. Helping the species conserve those resources through reuse is...it's just what a rational self-aware being in 2013 does.

    When you throw a glass jar in the trash, rather than recycle it, you are fucking over the future of the human species.

    I really, genuinely, do not understand what is wrong with you, such that you priviledge your own minor convenience over the preservation of the species.

    I don't care what you call it. If you want people to behave better, you will be best served by actually making it easier to change than trying to make them feel bad about their refusal to act in the way that you prefer, IMO. Like I said before, legislation is best, but where we can't force people to serve the public good, we should do whatever we can to encourage it, including education, positive reinforcement, and lowering the barrier to change. Curbside recycling pick up is one way of lowering the recycling barrier, with the added benefit of also making it much easier to force recycling by law, since you have made it so easy to do and to monitor.

    Not everyone can or wants to be convinced. Being civil can also be a weakness in debate against people who have no shame or are trolling the opposition. I agree with some of your methods like positive reinforcement but that is only part of changing culture. Lowering the barrier for change is something America's done on this issue for decades and its gotten the movement nowhere. Especially on such a significant issue like the environment, you'd think it'd be a higher priority to not live next to a toxic waste dump or have oxygen to breath or clean water to drink. But no. Fuck 'em.
    As to my own behavior (and this addresses Giggles' post too) I could easily recite my whole rationality and collective action spiel, but I think everyone knows where I stand on collective action problems. And yet, despite my sincere belief that my personal consumption habits do not matter, I have switched from paper cups to mugs at work and am looking into drop off at target as a result of this thread, so even if this is really just a thread about why SKFM doesn't think recycling matters (which is false) there has been a net positive outcome from this discussion.

    So you occasionally change your mind on little things. Do you want a medal for it? By doing the absolute minimum to move forward you're not impressing anyone.
    This is often the case with threads like this one, but noone wants to pay attention to these positive outcomes, because its more fun to talk about how SKFM twirls his mustache while tying women to train tracks (coal fired, super polluting trains of course).

    No-one wants to but it drifts into that because you can't help making yourself the center of attention on controversial subjects you'd be a goose not to realize people would find fault with. If you don't want negative attention don't post things that will enrage people.

    Harry Dresden on
    Gennenalyse Rueben_J_Giggles_FunsworthSo It Goes
  • Giggles_FunsworthGiggles_Funsworth Paranoiac Bay Area SprawlRegistered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness.

    But we should be, damn it.

    And if you push this attitude, you don't convince people, you just alienate them. You need to celebrate the small victories, not make people feel like they are bad people if they don't change their whole lives to suit whatever cause you care about. All this accomplishes is making change seem to costly, so people just give up and don't change at all.

    Said another way: We need to coddle lazy, ignorant, selfish people.

    Also, "suit whatever cause you care about"? Recycling isn't about some random individualistic campaign that some care about and others respectfully disagree with on moral grounds. It's the recognition that we are a social species, who have but one planet, and it would be damn keen if everyone chipped in to preserve that planet for the sake of the longevity of the species. We have a finite supply of resources. Helping the species conserve those resources through reuse is...it's just what a rational self-aware being in 2013 does.

    When you throw a glass jar in the trash, rather than recycle it, you are fucking over the future of the human species.

    I really, genuinely, do not understand what is wrong with you, such that you priviledge your own minor convenience over the preservation of the species.

    I don't care what you call it. If you want people to behave better, you will be best served by actually making it easier to change than trying to make them feel bad about their refusal to act in the way that you prefer, IMO. Like I said before, legislation is best, but where we can't force people to serve the public good, we should do whatever we can to encourage it, including education, positive reinforcement, and lowering the barrier to change. Curbside recycling pick up is one way of lowering the recycling barrier, with the added benefit of also making it much easier to force recycling by law, since you have made it so easy to do and to monitor.

    Not everyone can or wants to be convinced. Being civil can also be a weakness in debate against people who have no shame or are trolling the opposition. I agree with some of your methods like positive reinforcement but that is only part of changing culture. Lowering the barrier for change is something America's done on this issue for decades and its gotten the movement nowhere. Especially on such a significant issue like the environment, you'd think it'd be a higher priority to not live next to a toxic waste dump or have oxygen to breath or clean water to drink. But no. Fuck 'em.
    As to my own behavior (and this addresses Giggles' post too) I could easily recite my whole rationality and collective action spiel, but I think everyone knows where I stand on collective action problems. And yet, despite my sincere belief that my personal consumption habits do not matter, I have switched from paper cups to mugs at work and am looking into drop off at target as a result of this thread, so even if this is really just a thread about why SKFM doesn't think recycling matters (which is false) there has been a net positive outcome from this discussion.

    So you occasionally change your mind on little things. Do you want a medal for it? By doing the absolute minimum to move forward you're not impressing anyone.
    This is often the case with threads like this one, but noone wants to pay attention to these positive outcomes, because its more fun to talk about how SKFM twirls his mustache while tying women to train tracks (coal fired, super polluting trains of course).

    No-one wants to but it drifts into that because you can't help making yourself the center of attention on controversial subjects you'd be a goose not to realize people would find fault with. If you don't want negative attention don't post things that will enrage people.

    Don't forget the part where he gets uncomfortable with the overwhelming amount of people who hold opposite points of view, forcing SKFM to change the topic of discussion and warn people not to derail his thread. That's always my favorite part.

    Harry Dresden
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    I think it is self evident that we are not all saints who are wholly concerned with the welfare of others/the planet more than our own happiness.

    But we should be, damn it.

    And if you push this attitude, you don't convince people, you just alienate them. You need to celebrate the small victories, not make people feel like they are bad people if they don't change their whole lives to suit whatever cause you care about. All this accomplishes is making change seem to costly, so people just give up and don't change at all.

    It's perfectly fine to structure a strategy around stupid, irate and needlessly intractable dumbasses.

    It's also perfectly fine to simultaneously call those people what they are in situations where it's not relevant to the above.

    Like right now. With you.


    That we need a strategy that works on people as goosey as you does not negate your gooseyness or our ability to call you on it.

    Gennenalyse Rueben
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2013
    Also, just to reinforce the issue...
    I know this sounds like a crazy thread to have in 2012, but I don't recycle at home. It isn't because I don't want to. I can't. I live in a private community that pays for private waste removal, and we don't contract with a recycling company.

    He's confused "I can't do X" with "Doing X is mildly inconvenient for me." It's entirely possible to collect recycling materials and transport them to a recycling center. However, that simple act of "putting things in bags, and driving those bags, yourself, someplace." has rendered the act to be impossible for SKFM.

    Very, very strange conception of possibility.

    Edit: Really, the thread title needs to be changed to, "Do you recycle? I don't, because i'm a lazy goose."

    _J_ on
    Gennenalyse Rueben
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    Quid on
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Also, just to reinforce the issue...
    I know this sounds like a crazy thread to have in 2012, but I don't recycle at home. It isn't because I don't want to. I can't. I live in a private community that pays for private waste removal, and we don't contract with a recycling company.

    He's confused "I can't do X" with "Doing X is mildly inconvenient for me." It's entirely possible to collect recycling materials and transport them to a recycling center. However, that simple act of "putting things in bags, and driving those bags, yourself, someplace." has rendered the act to be impossible for SKFM.

    Very, very strange conception of possibility.

    Edit: Really, the thread title needs to be changed to, "Do you recycle? I don't, because i'm a lazy goose."

    This. Growing up we had containers in our garage for paper/glass/plastic, when they were full we'd bring it all in the car to the transfer station for recycling. Not because we were granola-crunching hippies, but because recycling is just something you do.

    steam_sig.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Also, just to reinforce the issue...
    I know this sounds like a crazy thread to have in 2012, but I don't recycle at home. It isn't because I don't want to. I can't. I live in a private community that pays for private waste removal, and we don't contract with a recycling company.

    He's confused "I can't do X" with "Doing X is mildly inconvenient for me." It's entirely possible to collect recycling materials and transport them to a recycling center. However, that simple act of "putting things in bags, and driving those bags, yourself, someplace." has rendered the act to be impossible for SKFM.

    Very, very strange conception of possibility.

    Edit: Really, the thread title needs to be changed to, "Do you recycle? I don't, because i'm a lazy goose."

    This is the first time in my life after I started recycling where I don't have curb side. It never even occurred to me that there was another method, because for me that was what recycling was. In this thread a number of people have loudly stated that they recycle by drop off, so I looked it up, and the town/county don't operate drop off centers as far as I can tell. So then people in this thread said "use bottle returns." I have always thought of those as the gross places that homeless people go with their stolen shopping carts full of bottles and cans, but someone suggested target might accept recycling indoors, so I am going to look into that the next time I am in target. How is this not a pretty reasonable progression?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Also, just to reinforce the issue...
    I know this sounds like a crazy thread to have in 2012, but I don't recycle at home. It isn't because I don't want to. I can't. I live in a private community that pays for private waste removal, and we don't contract with a recycling company.

    He's confused "I can't do X" with "Doing X is mildly inconvenient for me." It's entirely possible to collect recycling materials and transport them to a recycling center. However, that simple act of "putting things in bags, and driving those bags, yourself, someplace." has rendered the act to be impossible for SKFM.

    Very, very strange conception of possibility.

    Edit: Really, the thread title needs to be changed to, "Do you recycle? I don't, because i'm a lazy goose."

    This is the first time in my life after I started recycling where I don't have curb side. It never even occurred to me that there was another method, because for me that was what recycling was. In this thread a number of people have loudly stated that they recycle by drop off, so I looked it up, and the town/county don't operate drop off centers as far as I can tell. So then people in this thread said "use bottle returns." I have always thought of those as the gross places that homeless people go with their stolen shopping carts full of bottles and cans, but someone suggested target might accept recycling indoors, so I am going to look into that the next time I am in target. How is this not a pretty reasonable progression?

    do you want a congrats for moving towards not being a person who makes terrible, harmful assumptions about "Lower class" people?

    I mean, congrats I guess.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    Let's be clear here: that's not an actual solution, that's just a way for you to not have to challenge your prejudices. I really fucking hope you never fall on hard times, because it's pretty clear you'd have no goddamn way to survive them.

    Lh96QHG.png
    apricotmuffins_J_Gennenalyse Rueben
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    Let's be clear here: that's not an actual solution, that's just a way for you to not have to challenge your prejudices. I really fucking hope you never fall on hard times, because it's pretty clear you'd have no goddamn way to survive them.

    This is a thread about recycling. I am looking into a way to recycle. I would say that is exactly the kind of "actual solution" that is appropriate for this thread.

    Has anyone seen these new "home bathroom towel dispensers?" They are meant to replace hand towels with single use paper towels at home. That seems like a terribly wasteful product and I hope it does not catch on.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    Let's be clear here: that's not an actual solution, that's just a way for you to not have to challenge your prejudices. I really fucking hope you never fall on hard times, because it's pretty clear you'd have no goddamn way to survive them.

    This is a thread about recycling. I am looking into a way to recycle. I would say that is exactly the kind of "actual solution" that is appropriate for this thread.

    Has anyone seen these new "home bathroom towel dispensers?" They are meant to replace hand towels with single use paper towels at home. That seems like a terribly wasteful product and I hope it does not catch on.

    Paper towels vs cloth is a hard one to figure out, environment wise.

    Paper towels manufacture cycle is pretty green from forest to recycle to incinerators/compost pile.

    Cloth is worse to manufacture and washing them takes a lot of water and energy.


  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    Let's be clear here: that's not an actual solution, that's just a way for you to not have to challenge your prejudices. I really fucking hope you never fall on hard times, because it's pretty clear you'd have no goddamn way to survive them.

    This is a thread about recycling. I am looking into a way to recycle. I would say that is exactly the kind of "actual solution" that is appropriate for this thread.

    Has anyone seen these new "home bathroom towel dispensers?" They are meant to replace hand towels with single use paper towels at home. That seems like a terribly wasteful product and I hope it does not catch on.

    Paper towels vs cloth is a hard one to figure out, environment wise.

    Paper towels manufacture cycle is pretty green from forest to recycle to incinerators/compost pile.

    Cloth is worse to manufacture and washing them takes a lot of water and energy.


    I wish everyone would move to washing their clothing in cold water. It is equally effective for cleaning, saves energy, and is much better for your clothing, so it lasts longer.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    Let's be clear here: that's not an actual solution, that's just a way for you to not have to challenge your prejudices. I really fucking hope you never fall on hard times, because it's pretty clear you'd have no goddamn way to survive them.

    This is a thread about recycling. I am looking into a way to recycle. I would say that is exactly the kind of "actual solution" that is appropriate for this thread.

    Has anyone seen these new "home bathroom towel dispensers?" They are meant to replace hand towels with single use paper towels at home. That seems like a terribly wasteful product and I hope it does not catch on.

    Paper towels vs cloth is a hard one to figure out, environment wise.

    Paper towels manufacture cycle is pretty green from forest to recycle to incinerators/compost pile.

    Cloth is worse to manufacture and washing them takes a lot of water and energy.


    Cloth can only be less green if you are super careless about washing and run a load for like 2 dish towels every time they get dirty.

    Throw them in with whatever else you are washing (e.g. towels) and the water/energy impact of washing is basically zero.

    steam_sig.png
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Yeah, our paper industry is relatively ok...when you discount things like runoff and transportation costs, but no way can disposing of paper towels compare to cloth hand towels.

  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    Let's be clear here: that's not an actual solution, that's just a way for you to not have to challenge your prejudices. I really fucking hope you never fall on hard times, because it's pretty clear you'd have no goddamn way to survive them.

    This is a thread about recycling. I am looking into a way to recycle. I would say that is exactly the kind of "actual solution" that is appropriate for this thread.

    Has anyone seen these new "home bathroom towel dispensers?" They are meant to replace hand towels with single use paper towels at home. That seems like a terribly wasteful product and I hope it does not catch on.

    Paper towels vs cloth is a hard one to figure out, environment wise.

    Paper towels manufacture cycle is pretty green from forest to recycle to incinerators/compost pile.

    Cloth is worse to manufacture and washing them takes a lot of water and energy.


    Cloth can only be less green if you are super careless about washing and run a load for like 2 dish towels every time they get dirty.

    Throw them in with whatever else you are washing (e.g. towels) and the water/energy impact of washing is basically zero.
    That's a strange way of looking at it. It's like saying that nothing ever uses energy when you wash it because you can just throw it in with the laundry.

    Anyway, it counterintuitive but let's look at a paper towel vs a cotton cloth one. Paper towel is grown with no added chemicals or water and provides a habitat for animals while it is grown. The cotton one uses tons of chemicals for fertilizer and pesticide and a lot of added water with no added benifit to the environment. The paper towel is usually made from recycled paper. The cotton towel has about a years use then you are done with it. The cotton towel doesn't have biodegrade well or provide much energy when you burn it like the paper towel.

    The main advantage the cotton towel has is that It weighs less than a years supply of paper towels (and thus uses less energy in transport) but most of that gets ate up washing it.

    So anyway, the difference in the enviromental impact of paper towels and cloth usually comes down to where they were made and grown and how much energy it takes to move them.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    Let's be clear here: that's not an actual solution, that's just a way for you to not have to challenge your prejudices. I really fucking hope you never fall on hard times, because it's pretty clear you'd have no goddamn way to survive them.

    This is a thread about recycling. I am looking into a way to recycle. I would say that is exactly the kind of "actual solution" that is appropriate for this thread.

    Has anyone seen these new "home bathroom towel dispensers?" They are meant to replace hand towels with single use paper towels at home. That seems like a terribly wasteful product and I hope it does not catch on.

    Paper towels vs cloth is a hard one to figure out, environment wise.

    Paper towels manufacture cycle is pretty green from forest to recycle to incinerators/compost pile.

    Cloth is worse to manufacture and washing them takes a lot of water and energy.


    Cloth can only be less green if you are super careless about washing and run a load for like 2 dish towels every time they get dirty.

    Throw them in with whatever else you are washing (e.g. towels) and the water/energy impact of washing is basically zero.
    That's a strange way of looking at it. It's like saying that nothing ever uses energy when you wash it because you can just throw it in with the laundry.

    Anyway, it counterintuitive but let's look at a paper towel vs a cotton cloth one. Paper towel is grown with no added chemicals or water and provides a habitat for animals while it is grown. The cotton one uses tons of chemicals for fertilizer and pesticide and a lot of added water with no added benifit to the environment. The paper towel is usually made from recycled paper. The cotton towel has about a years use then you are done with it. The cotton towel doesn't have biodegrade well or provide much energy when you burn it like the paper towel.

    The main advantage the cotton towel has is that It weighs less than a years supply of paper towels (and thus uses less energy in transport) but most of that gets ate up washing it.

    So anyway, the difference in the enviromental impact of paper towels and cloth usually comes down to where they were made and grown and how much energy it takes to move them.

    Why are your hand towels only lasting a year? Ours last years and years, no problem. Also, we wash in cold water exclusively, so that must cut down on energy use, and like it was said before, you don't just toss dish towels in the machine on their own.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote: »
    What the US really should do is pass legislation at the federal level making approval automatic for installation of solar facilities of certain pre-approved types in all residential buildings, so (sorry SKFM) people like SKFM can't say 'not in my back yard' to it and have their HOA's ban the installation. The only house/building which shouldn't have solar panels is...

    i) My house's roof would collapse if I put solar panels on it
    ii) I live in a historic building
    iii) For some reason, I don't want solar

    We should also make all roofing material which isn't high albedo illegal for new buildings. It's completely insane to see new houses going up with black roofs and people being unable to get planing permission for solar panels. Solar panels (or solar water heating) is pretty much a universal good. Add high albedo roofs and suddenly we'd be using little to no energy in our homes and we'd be powering all the light industry and office buildings in the city with solar power from the city while using power plants as a backup.
    I know this is from a couple of pages ago, but I felt the need to bring it up, because it tends to be a huge obstacle to environmentalism: historic buildings are largely bullshit. I know this makes me sound like the villain from a 1980s movie (probably involving plucky, rookie upstarts competing against rich, veteran jocks in some sort of sport to save their community center), but an awful lot of the time people look for reasons to declare buildings "historic" just so they don't have to see denser development. Denser development is good. In fact, it's awesome. And while I recognize the fact that there absolutely are buildings out there which should be preserved for legitimately historic reasons, just as often I'm seeing it be used by NIMBY assholes. And to clarify, I am absolutely not saying that developers are angels. They tend to also be awful people, it's just that in this case, their interests and the interests of the environment happen to coincide.

    I mean, I look at stuff like this and think it's fucking stupid. It's not that I don't have sympathy for the guy who painted those, or the people who would like to preserve them; I understand that, they're pretty awesome. However, when you're using murals as a medium, you have to recognize that they are inherently temporary. Buildings get torn down, new buildings get put in their place, especially in a city that's growing like Seattle is. The alternative to tearing down that building and building a better, denser school is expanding outwards; 1) that's fucking awful, and leads to the sort of sprawl you see in Phoenix, and 2) there isn't really anywhere for Seattle to expand outwards.

    kimeHarry DresdenrockrngerQuidGennenalyse Rueben
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    edited February 2013
    rockrnger wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    rockrnger wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    The people who care enough about change are the ones that should be putting in the effort to make it an easy choice for those who don't care much, IMO.

    Do you honestly not perceive a problem in this thought?

    I think it is a very pragmatic statement, but I'm a pragmatic guy. I think that whenever "this is good for society" and "people don't want to do this" collide, the right answer is to find a way to change the latter. I generally am big on legislative solutions, but where they are not available, I think the best solution is to find ways to make the desirable course of action more palatable to those who don't like it.

    Legislation that lead to better dish soap caused you to start buying and throwing out huge amounts of plastic ware.

    People on this board badgering you to just clean your own mug lead to you no longer wasting disposable coffee cups.

    No, it was not the badgering at all. It was the people who said they bring their own sponge or use lousy paper towels and still do it. Reasonable solutions are helpful. Meanspirited attacks are actually counterproductive IMO. Claiming that a problem is not a problem and that I should stop being grossed out by not wanting to associate with homeless people is not a convincing argument, but "target probably does bottle return indoors" offers an actual solution.

    Let's be clear here: that's not an actual solution, that's just a way for you to not have to challenge your prejudices. I really fucking hope you never fall on hard times, because it's pretty clear you'd have no goddamn way to survive them.

    This is a thread about recycling. I am looking into a way to recycle. I would say that is exactly the kind of "actual solution" that is appropriate for this thread.

    Has anyone seen these new "home bathroom towel dispensers?" They are meant to replace hand towels with single use paper towels at home. That seems like a terribly wasteful product and I hope it does not catch on.

    Paper towels vs cloth is a hard one to figure out, environment wise.

    Paper towels manufacture cycle is pretty green from forest to recycle to incinerators/compost pile.

    Cloth is worse to manufacture and washing them takes a lot of water and energy.


    Cloth can only be less green if you are super careless about washing and run a load for like 2 dish towels every time they get dirty.

    Throw them in with whatever else you are washing (e.g. towels) and the water/energy impact of washing is basically zero.
    That's a strange way of looking at it. It's like saying that nothing ever uses energy when you wash it because you can just throw it in with the laundry.

    Anyway, it counterintuitive but let's look at a paper towel vs a cotton cloth one. Paper towel is grown with no added chemicals or water and provides a habitat for animals while it is grown. The cotton one uses tons of chemicals for fertilizer and pesticide and a lot of added water with no added benifit to the environment. The paper towel is usually made from recycled paper. The cotton towel has about a years use then you are done with it. The cotton towel doesn't have biodegrade well or provide much energy when you burn it like the paper towel.

    The main advantage the cotton towel has is that It weighs less than a years supply of paper towels (and thus uses less energy in transport) but most of that gets ate up washing it.

    So anyway, the difference in the enviromental impact of paper towels and cloth usually comes down to where they were made and grown and how much energy it takes to move them.

    Why are your hand towels only lasting a year? Ours last years and years, no problem. Also, we wash in cold water exclusively, so that must cut down on energy use, and like it was said before, you don't just toss dish towels in the machine on their own.
    I was just tossing numbers out, feel free to plug in your own to see which is better for you but I would be amazed if any if a clear winner emerged.

    The point is that a whole bunch of variables go into every environmental option and you can't just assume that the more durable one is the better one.

    rockrnger on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    What the US really should do is pass legislation at the federal level making approval automatic for installation of solar facilities of certain pre-approved types in all residential buildings, so (sorry SKFM) people like SKFM can't say 'not in my back yard' to it and have their HOA's ban the installation. The only house/building which shouldn't have solar panels is...

    i) My house's roof would collapse if I put solar panels on it
    ii) I live in a historic building
    iii) For some reason, I don't want solar

    We should also make all roofing material which isn't high albedo illegal for new buildings. It's completely insane to see new houses going up with black roofs and people being unable to get planing permission for solar panels. Solar panels (or solar water heating) is pretty much a universal good. Add high albedo roofs and suddenly we'd be using little to no energy in our homes and we'd be powering all the light industry and office buildings in the city with solar power from the city while using power plants as a backup.
    I know this is from a couple of pages ago, but I felt the need to bring it up, because it tends to be a huge obstacle to environmentalism: historic buildings are largely bullshit. I know this makes me sound like the villain from a 1980s movie (probably involving plucky, rookie upstarts competing against rich, veteran jocks in some sort of sport to save their community center), but an awful lot of the time people look for reasons to declare buildings "historic" just so they don't have to see denser development. Denser development is good. In fact, it's awesome. And while I recognize the fact that there absolutely are buildings out there which should be preserved for legitimately historic reasons, just as often I'm seeing it be used by NIMBY assholes. And to clarify, I am absolutely not saying that developers are angels. They tend to also be awful people, it's just that in this case, their interests and the interests of the environment happen to coincide.

    I mean, I look at stuff like this and think it's fucking stupid. It's not that I don't have sympathy for the guy who painted those, or the people who would like to preserve them; I understand that, they're pretty awesome. However, when you're using murals as a medium, you have to recognize that they are inherently temporary. Buildings get torn down, new buildings get put in their place, especially in a city that's growing like Seattle is. The alternative to tearing down that building and building a better, denser school is expanding outwards; 1) that's fucking awful, and leads to the sort of sprawl you see in Phoenix, and 2) there isn't really anywhere for Seattle to expand outwards.

    If it wasn't for these laws, we wouldn't be celebrating the 100 year anniversary of Grand Central Terminal right now. I respectfully disagree that these laws are a problem, we just need to make sure that they are not overused.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    This seems like the right time to post this:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/catherine_mohr_builds_green.html

    I thought that was interesting, but it also seems to tell a dangerous story. If the things that are easy to do have very little absolute impact and the things that have more of an impact are very hard (like deciding to live in a house you like less or being so extreme in designing a new house) then it isn't clear that you should do anything if you don't value the outcome of the hard thing more than the cost. If using normal towels, recycling bottles, using a mug at work, etc have negligible impacts and are overwhelmed by the bigger impact things (car with bad gas mileage, house that isn't super optimized) and I don't care enough to make those big changes (I don't) then maybe I shouldn't bother with the mug at all, if all it does is stroke ego, not really help.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    This seems like the right time to post this:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/catherine_mohr_builds_green.html

    I thought that was interesting, but it also seems to tell a dangerous story. If the things that are easy to do have very little absolute impact and the things that have more of an impact are very hard (like deciding to live in a house you like less or being so extreme in designing a new house) then it isn't clear that you should do anything if you don't value the outcome of the hard thing more than the cost. If using normal towels, recycling bottles, using a mug at work, etc have negligible impacts and are overwhelmed by the bigger impact things (car with bad gas mileage, house that isn't super optimized) and I don't care enough to make those big changes (I don't) then maybe I shouldn't bother with the mug at all, if all it does is stroke ego, not really help.

    Every little bit helps.

  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    I would posit that any time we keep more trash from being added to a landfill and more energy from being used to make unnecessary disposable products, we are helping. Just because thing X doesn't do as much as thing Y doesn't mean you shouldn't do thing X. What you are saying is like an obese person saying, "Well, since I can't lose all this weight immediately, what's the point of not eating these donuts? I'll just eat them because not eating them doesn't help me as much as losing all this weight immediately." It's silly. Baby steps are just baby steps, but eventually they lead to bigger and better things, like running marathons. We don't poo-poo the baby steps because they aren't marathons. I swear, you really do like finding ways to justify lazy decision making. You'll notice that the speaker didn't negate the green decisions they were making just because not all of them would save the planet alone.

    Harry Dresden
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    Man, I quite like the look of PV cells. I'd install them in a minute if I owned a home with the proper sun exposure (currently I rent).

    I could not give less of a shit if the neighbors think it looks tacky.

    kimelonelyahava
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    What the US really should do is pass legislation at the federal level making approval automatic for installation of solar facilities of certain pre-approved types in all residential buildings, so (sorry SKFM) people like SKFM can't say 'not in my back yard' to it and have their HOA's ban the installation. The only house/building which shouldn't have solar panels is...

    i) My house's roof would collapse if I put solar panels on it
    ii) I live in a historic building
    iii) For some reason, I don't want solar

    We should also make all roofing material which isn't high albedo illegal for new buildings. It's completely insane to see new houses going up with black roofs and people being unable to get planing permission for solar panels. Solar panels (or solar water heating) is pretty much a universal good. Add high albedo roofs and suddenly we'd be using little to no energy in our homes and we'd be powering all the light industry and office buildings in the city with solar power from the city while using power plants as a backup.
    I know this is from a couple of pages ago, but I felt the need to bring it up, because it tends to be a huge obstacle to environmentalism: historic buildings are largely bullshit. I know this makes me sound like the villain from a 1980s movie (probably involving plucky, rookie upstarts competing against rich, veteran jocks in some sort of sport to save their community center), but an awful lot of the time people look for reasons to declare buildings "historic" just so they don't have to see denser development. Denser development is good. In fact, it's awesome. And while I recognize the fact that there absolutely are buildings out there which should be preserved for legitimately historic reasons, just as often I'm seeing it be used by NIMBY assholes. And to clarify, I am absolutely not saying that developers are angels. They tend to also be awful people, it's just that in this case, their interests and the interests of the environment happen to coincide.

    I mean, I look at stuff like this and think it's fucking stupid. It's not that I don't have sympathy for the guy who painted those, or the people who would like to preserve them; I understand that, they're pretty awesome. However, when you're using murals as a medium, you have to recognize that they are inherently temporary. Buildings get torn down, new buildings get put in their place, especially in a city that's growing like Seattle is. The alternative to tearing down that building and building a better, denser school is expanding outwards; 1) that's fucking awful, and leads to the sort of sprawl you see in Phoenix, and 2) there isn't really anywhere for Seattle to expand outwards.

    If it wasn't for these laws, we wouldn't be celebrating the 100 year anniversary of Grand Central Terminal right now. I respectfully disagree that these laws are a problem, we just need to make sure that they are not overused.
    Grand Central Station is legitimately historical, and an incredible building. There are absolutely places like that worth preserving, but I think we go waaaaayyyy to far in letting legitimate development get held up by NIMBY assholes abusing our desire to preserve places like that.

    Gennenalyse Rueben
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    This seems like the right time to post this:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/catherine_mohr_builds_green.html

    I thought that was interesting, but it also seems to tell a dangerous story. If the things that are easy to do have very little absolute impact and the things that have more of an impact are very hard (like deciding to live in a house you like less or being so extreme in designing a new house) then it isn't clear that you should do anything if you don't value the outcome of the hard thing more than the cost. If using normal towels, recycling bottles, using a mug at work, etc have negligible impacts and are overwhelmed by the bigger impact things (car with bad gas mileage, house that isn't super optimized) and I don't care enough to make those big changes (I don't) then maybe I shouldn't bother with the mug at all, if all it does is stroke ego, not really help.
    The whole point of the speech is that the big stuff isn't really all that hard if you just take the time to look at it.

    Take her insulation, the new technology, spray in, is awesome but it doesn't make enough of a difference vs the older blow in. The resulting building was cheaper and more environmentally friendly. All at the cost of an afternoon of research.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    What the US really should do is pass legislation at the federal level making approval automatic for installation of solar facilities of certain pre-approved types in all residential buildings, so (sorry SKFM) people like SKFM can't say 'not in my back yard' to it and have their HOA's ban the installation. The only house/building which shouldn't have solar panels is...

    i) My house's roof would collapse if I put solar panels on it
    ii) I live in a historic building
    iii) For some reason, I don't want solar

    We should also make all roofing material which isn't high albedo illegal for new buildings. It's completely insane to see new houses going up with black roofs and people being unable to get planing permission for solar panels. Solar panels (or solar water heating) is pretty much a universal good. Add high albedo roofs and suddenly we'd be using little to no energy in our homes and we'd be powering all the light industry and office buildings in the city with solar power from the city while using power plants as a backup.
    I know this is from a couple of pages ago, but I felt the need to bring it up, because it tends to be a huge obstacle to environmentalism: historic buildings are largely bullshit. I know this makes me sound like the villain from a 1980s movie (probably involving plucky, rookie upstarts competing against rich, veteran jocks in some sort of sport to save their community center), but an awful lot of the time people look for reasons to declare buildings "historic" just so they don't have to see denser development. Denser development is good. In fact, it's awesome. And while I recognize the fact that there absolutely are buildings out there which should be preserved for legitimately historic reasons, just as often I'm seeing it be used by NIMBY assholes. And to clarify, I am absolutely not saying that developers are angels. They tend to also be awful people, it's just that in this case, their interests and the interests of the environment happen to coincide.

    I mean, I look at stuff like this and think it's fucking stupid. It's not that I don't have sympathy for the guy who painted those, or the people who would like to preserve them; I understand that, they're pretty awesome. However, when you're using murals as a medium, you have to recognize that they are inherently temporary. Buildings get torn down, new buildings get put in their place, especially in a city that's growing like Seattle is. The alternative to tearing down that building and building a better, denser school is expanding outwards; 1) that's fucking awful, and leads to the sort of sprawl you see in Phoenix, and 2) there isn't really anywhere for Seattle to expand outwards.

    If it wasn't for these laws, we wouldn't be celebrating the 100 year anniversary of Grand Central Terminal right now. I respectfully disagree that these laws are a problem, we just need to make sure that they are not overused.
    Grand Central Station is legitimately historical, and an incredible building. There are absolutely places like that worth preserving, but I think we go waaaaayyyy to far in letting legitimate development get held up by NIMBY assholes abusing our desire to preserve places like that.

    "legitimately historical" will get you into trouble. It's a distinction that permits some kinds of nostalgia, but not others.

    Just stick with your initial conviction: Historical buildings are bullshit.

Sign In or Register to comment.