View Full Version : Being Green is for Losers
That has to be the single most bogus argument I've ever heard.
Consider this- would those same folks still fly even if they weren't recycling and saving energy at home? If so, doesn't their recycling and saving energy at home still result in a net reduction of emissions?
The authors (researchers? :saywhat:) have fallen victim to a pair of logical fallcies here, both false dilemma and false cause (*** hoc ergo propter hoc). The argument could only be compelling if folks who never save energy at home or recycle never flew, either, which would show that the correlation between flying and saving energy was more than circumstantial.
Correlation does not prove causation.
BTW, I can't believe the forum censored '*** hoc ergo propter hoc'. I therefore conclude that our erstwhile hosts are part of an anti-Latin conspiracy. Hey, that's *** hoc ergo propter hoc, too! :tony:
yea, the article goes way too far.
but, it does point out that the impact people are making by recycling is nothing in comparison to their major sources of carbon emissions.
recycling to save the planet when you are willing to travel across the globe is kind of like eating a piece of fruit for breakfast to lose weight but then rocking a dozen volcano tacos for lunch because they taste good. sure the fruit is better than a mcgriddle but in the big scheme of things, what's the point?
datachicane
09-25-08, 11:42 AM
sure the fruit is better than a mcgriddle but in the big scheme of things, what's the point?
Well, the point is that you could have had a Ben and Jerry's rather than the fruit. As I pointed out earlier, it's not a causal relationship, so including both the fruit and mcgriddle in the same argument would be, well, fruitless :tony: .
In any case, it's pretty silly to criticize someone else for not going far enough in a direction when you yourself deny the value of that direction in the first place...
Hey, guys, good news. If we have another Great Depression, we will all get real freaking green in a hurry! :laugh:
recycling to save the planet when you are willing to travel across the globe is kind of like eating a piece of fruit for breakfast to lose weight but then rocking a dozen volcano tacos for lunch because they taste good. sure the fruit is better than a mcgriddle but in the big scheme of things, what's the point?
funny how when the same argument is truth wrt new offshore crude production, it's called "lies."
but if it's regarding something else, in this case recycling, it's "for losers."
devilmaster
09-26-08, 12:53 AM
but, it does point out that the impact people are making by recycling is nothing in comparison to their major sources of carbon emissions.
recycling to save the planet when you are willing to travel across the globe is kind of like eating a piece of fruit for breakfast to lose weight but then rocking a dozen volcano tacos for lunch because they taste good. sure the fruit is better than a mcgriddle but in the big scheme of things, what's the point?
you still don't get it, do ya junior? :shakehead :rofl:
Its not that the article 'goes too far' as you put it, its that they don't correlate.
By that article's (and your) logic, apparently I'm one of those eco-warriors since I save some money by unplugging anything I don't use on a regular basis. Problem is, I haven't flown long haul in a long time.... hell, I haven't flown at all in years. But but but the article says I should be one of those wacky lefties since I save energy at home. Guess I better hit travelocity and see what's cheap for flights cross the country right now....
Perhaps you need a better explanation of what datachicane was saying...
He did use some big words in his post there, it might have gone over your head.
Let's try again. I wanted to find the simpsons clip that explains it, but i found a link that talks about the clip instead...
Posted in Unit 2 on Jul.22, 2006
A nice illustration of a fallacy from The Simpsons:
After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!”
Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment.
Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”
Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”
Correlation does not imply causation. Just because two things occur together, does not mean that one caused the other. Homer argues that as the Bear Patrol vans are correlated with an absence of bears, the former must have caused the latter. Lisa, tongue in cheek, argues that as the presence of her rock is correlated with an absence of tigers, the former must have caused the latter.
At least Homer recognises that the two arguments are on a par, even if he fails to recognise that both are examples of the correlation not causation fallacy.
you still don't get it, do ya junior? :shakehead :rofl:
Its not that the article 'goes too far' as you put it, its that they don't correlate.
By that article's (and your) logic, apparently I'm one of those eco-warriors since I save some money by unplugging anything I don't use on a regular basis. Problem is, I haven't flown long haul in a long time.... hell, I haven't flown at all in years. But but but the article says I should be one of those wacky lefties since I save energy at home. Guess I better hit travelocity and see what's cheap for flights cross the country right now....
Perhaps you need a better explanation of what datachicane was saying...
He did use some big words in his post there, it might have gone over your head.
Let's try again. I wanted to find the simpsons clip that explains it, but i found a link that talks about the clip instead...
first, no reason for you to talk down to me. i thought that was against the rules here? except of course when it applies to you complaining to me.
i also dont see the point of your post, since you just repeated what datachicane said 3 posts above yours.
second, i understand that correlation does not mean causation. :rolleyes: i never said it did, and in fact i said it didnt when i said the article went to far.
i was merely pointing out that these specific people (the ones in the study and those who have similar actions), were doing little help to the environment when compared to their overall carbon footprint.
Methanolandbrats
09-26-08, 10:54 AM
Change begins with little steps.
chop456
09-26-08, 11:00 AM
Look at me. I'm innernet contrarian guy. :tony:
datachicane
09-26-08, 11:30 AM
i was merely pointing out that these specific people (the ones in the study and those who have similar actions), were doing little help to the environment when compared to their overall carbon footprint.
How do you feel about offshore drilling, which, in an eerie parallel, would do little to address the big picture of that problem, either?
How do you feel about offshore drilling, which, in an eerie parallel, would do little to address the big picture of that problem, either?
im for offshore drilling, anwr drilling, and power from solar, wind, bio, hydro, hydrogen, clean coal, nuclear and anything else that might provide cheap, long lasting energy. (obviously oil isnt in the cheap, long lasting category, but is needed for the next 2 decades as we switch to alternatives).
Methanolandbrats
09-26-08, 12:00 PM
im for offshore drilling, anwr drilling, and power from solar, wind, bio, hydro, hydrogen, clean coal, nuclear and anything else that might provide cheap, long lasting energy. (obviously oil isnt in the cheap, long lasting category, but is needed for the next 2 decades as we switch to alternatives).
Forget about cheap energy, that era is over. Energy will be expensive no matter where it comes from, the goal is to make sure it's expensive and abundant. The new era will also stress efficiancy in use as much as production.
datachicane
09-26-08, 12:20 PM
im for offshore drilling, anwr drilling, and power from solar, wind, bio, hydro, hydrogen, clean coal, nuclear and anything else that might provide cheap, long lasting energy. (obviously oil isnt in the cheap, long lasting category, but is needed for the next 2 decades as we switch to alternatives).
So, offshore (and ANWR as well) drilling, we recognize, will have very little impact on our larger energy issues, yet support for it comes from the argument that the limited positive impact that it will have outweighs any inevitable associated negatives. Is that a fair assessment?
The point is that this is a parallel scenario to the argument for recycling and energy conservation- they, too, may have a limited impact on larger energy (or emissions, depending on where your concern is) issues, yet support for them also comes from the argument that the limited positive impact they have outweighs any associated negatives.
Here's the rub: Recycling and energy conservation have no inevitable associated negatives to balance against.
Insomniac
09-26-08, 12:57 PM
i was merely pointing out that these specific people (the ones in the study and those who have similar actions), were doing little help to the environment when compared to their overall carbon footprint.
They don't control emissions of passenger airlines though. So the only feasible options are fly or don't fly. It seems like you feel only a large "savings" makes it worthwhile, while others believe that every little bit counts. Try looking at your food analogy the other way. You already eat that much food, would swapping some of that food for more healthy/less calories be beneficial? Could more be done? Yes. But isn't doing something better than nothing? How about smoking? If you smoke a pack a day, should you only choose between one pack a day or none? Anything else in between doesn't help?
So, offshore (and ANWR as well) drilling, we recognize, will have very little impact on our larger energy issues, yet support for it comes from the argument that the limited positive impact that it will have outweighs any inevitable associated negatives. Is that a fair assessment?
The point is that this is a parallel scenario to the argument for recycling and energy conservation- they, too, may have a limited impact on larger energy (or emissions, depending on where your concern is) issues, yet support for them also comes from the argument that the limited positive impact they have outweighs any associated negatives.
Here's the rub: Recycling and energy conservation have no inevitable associated negatives to balance against.
i dont completely agreen. i think anwr and offshore drilling CAN make a big impact in the short term. even if we develop alternative oil solutions, we need oil still to bridge the gap. its all necessary.
lets put it this way, if we are dependent upon oil for the next 100 years, then anwr wont have a major impact. if its 20 years and we can get into anwr soon, then it will.
i dont completely agreen. i think anwr and offshore drilling CAN make a big impact in the short term. even if we develop alternative oil solutions, we need oil still to bridge the gap. its all necessary.
lets put it this way, if we are dependent upon oil for the next 100 years, then anwr wont have a major impact. if its 20 years and we can get into anwr soon, then it will.
the only problem is it hasn't been sold as a drop in the bucket that can help. it's been sold as the panacea, the return of cheap gas. the same exact fallacy you accuse recyclers of.
no more than 2 months ago you implied that the lifting of an executive order on offshore exploration was the driver resulting in OIL -20%, a further implication being that hey, look, -20% just by talking about it, wait till the legislative ban is gone and e&p firms are free to get to business...
the above contrasted with your recent argument on this thread is incongruent.
They don't control emissions of passenger airlines though. So the only feasible options are fly or don't fly. It seems like you feel only a large "savings" makes it worthwhile, while others believe that every little bit counts. Try looking at your food analogy the other way. You already eat that much food, would swapping some of that food for more healthy/less calories be beneficial? Could more be done? Yes. But isn't doing something better than nothing? How about smoking? If you smoke a pack a day, should you only choose between one pack a day or none? Anything else in between doesn't help?
my wife and i are trying to save money to build up an emergency fund right now. to save, im doing things like working from home once a week, riding the bus on days i dont have school, etc.
i recently had the opportunity to pick up a kickass 7.1 (maybe 7.2) surround sound system for my living room on solid deal. the choice was clear, whats the point in saving 20 bucks a week in parking and fuel if it means im dropping $1100 bucks on speakers?
sure every little bit helps, but speakers arent a necessity. airline travel (for vacations) isnt a necessity either. if people really want to save the environment, they would reduce their air travel as well as recycle a few cans.
of course to be a better study, they should have also asked if people who do travel a lot have reduced their travel recently because of environmental reasons. they'd have to be careful with the wording though as people would more likely have reduced travel because of rising prices rather than the impact on the environment.
sure every little bit helps, but speakers arent a necessity. airline travel (for vacations) isnt a necessity either. if people really want to save the environment, they would reduce their air travel as well as recycle a few cans.
travel for business and family isn't in the same universe as some new speakers
the only problem is it hasn't been sold as a drop in the bucket that can help. it's been sold as the panacea, the return of cheap gas. the same exact fallacy you accuse recyclers of.
no more than 2 months ago you implied that the lifting of an executive order on offshore exploration was the driver resulting in OIL -20%, a further implication being that hey, look, -20% just by talking about it, wait till the legislative ban is gone and e&p firms are free to get to business...
the above contrasted with your recent argument on this thread is incongruent.
if you are going to try to use old statements from me you should get your facts right.
20%? oil was around 150 back then. there was never a time when it dropped 30 bucks. it dropped 10. i also said that it was also due to a drop in the economy and expected demand.
as far as anwr returning us to "cheap" gas. it depends on your definition of "cheap" 1 dollar isnt realistic, neither is 2 or 2.50. 3 might be. personally i'd be happy to just see it hover where it is now without any dramatic spikes. having control of our own oil and energy supply would do that.
travel for business and family isn't in the same universe as some new speakers
well i specifically excluded business, not sure why you decided to put that in there.
for family or vacations or personal trips, its not a necessity. and that puts it in the same universe as speakers. the universe being things that are not necessities. :shakehead
well i specifically excluded business, not sure why you decided to put that in there.
for family or vacations or personal trips, its not a necessity. and that puts it in the same universe as speakers. the universe being things that are not necessities. :shakehead
They don't control emissions of passenger airlines though. So the only feasible options are fly or don't fly. It seems like you feel only a large "savings" makes it worthwhile, while others believe that every little bit counts. Try looking at your food analogy the other way. You already eat that much food, would swapping some of that food for more healthy/less calories be beneficial? Could more be done? Yes. But isn't doing something better than nothing? How about smoking? If you smoke a pack a day, should you only choose between one pack a day or none? Anything else in between doesn't help?
couldnt come up with anything so you just quoted something i already responded to?
yes, when it's apparent you missed the meaning of it and then compare flights to speakers. cancun or tahiti sure. beyond that the comparison becomes absurd. both are luxuries, but the alternative to 7.1 is what you already have, what is the practical alternative to a flight?
and will all of this, practicality is paramount and drives changes in behavior. short of a practical alternative, there is no criticism to be made.
datachicane
09-26-08, 02:42 PM
i dont completely agreen. i think anwr and offshore drilling CAN make a big impact in the short term. even if we develop alternative oil solutions, we need oil still to bridge the gap. its all necessary.
Obviously oil isn't going away in the short (probably even medium) term, and obviously there's a need to bridge that gap.
Here's the simple problem, though:
U.S. oil consumption stands at appx. 7.7 billion barrels/year.
U.S. oil production stands at appx. 2 billion barrels/year.
U.S. oil reserves right now are estimated at appx. 20 billion barrels.
Best case scenario:
Even if our reserves stay flat (they've decreased 30% in the last thirty years), even if our consumption stays flat (it's increased by appx. 30% in the last thirty years), and even if we continue to import oil at the same rate we do now- essentially, the status quo across the board- and even if it were technically and economically feasible to extract every gallon from U.S. reserves (bloody unlikely)- we'd still exhaust those reserves in a decade.
If we were to increase domestic production to match our consumption (eliminating the need to import oil), we'd exhaust those reserves in three years. :eek:
New discoveries may well increase our reserves (although the trend has been downward for many, many decades), but even an incredibly optimistic doubling of our reserves (again, not bloody likely), under the best-case scenario outlined above, would only meet U.S. consumption needs for less than a decade.
Simply put, sloganeering aside, this is not a problem that we can drill our way out of.
Obviously oil isn't going away in the short (probably even medium) term, and obviously there's a need to bridge that gap.
Here's the simple problem, though:
U.S. oil consumption stands at appx. 7.7 billion barrels/year.
U.S. oil production stands at appx. 2 billion barrels/year.
U.S. oil reserves right now are estimated at appx. 20 billion barrels.
Best case scenario:
Even if our reserves stay flat (they've decreased 30% in the last thirty years), even if our consumption stays flat (it's increased by appx. 30% in the last thirty years), and even if we continue to import oil at the same rate we do now- essentially, the status quo across the board- and even if it were technically and economically feasible to extract every gallon from U.S. reserves (bloody unlikely)- we'd still exhaust those reserves in a decade.
If we were to increase domestic production to match our consumption (eliminating the need to import oil), we'd exhaust those reserves in three years. :eek:
New discoveries may well increase our reserves (although the trend has been downward for many, many decades), but even an incredibly optimistic doubling of our reserves (again, not bloody likely), under the best-case scenario outlined above, would only meet U.S. consumption needs for less than a decade.
Simply put, sloganeering aside, this is not a problem that we can drill our way out of.
thats why drilling should be combined with the alternatives. the alternative energy sources increase the likelihood that our oil consumption WILL stay flat or maybe even go down.
so you cant just drill (or recycle), if you want to make a difference you need to look at the big picture.
yes, when it's apparent you missed the meaning of it and then compare flights to speakers. cancun or tahiti sure. beyond that the comparison becomes absurd. both are luxuries, but the alternative to 7.1 is what you already have, what is the practical alternative to a flight?
and will all of this, practicality is paramount and drives changes in behavior. short of a practical alternative, there is no criticism to be made.
the practical alternative to flight is taking a vacation closer to home. (which is why i mentioned that further questions should have been asked in the survey. i mentioned whether flights have decreased for environmental reasons. another could be if travel distance has decreased as well).
Thats the last paragraph of the article:
The frequent flyers said they expected new technology to make aviation greener, echoing comments made by Tony Blair last year, who said it was "impractical" to expect people to take holidays closer to home. He said the solution was "to look at how you make air travel more energy-efficient, how you develop the new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less."
If thats really what people said, how can they say they are committed to saving the environment? If they dont see decreased travel as a practical adjustment to save the planet, what is?
Then there's this guy:
Questioned on their heavy use of flying, one respondent said: "I recycle 100% of what I can, there's not one piece of paper goes in my bin, so that makes me feel less guilty about flying as much as I do."
we're in agreement mostly, just arguing different portions of it.
you're still a smelly celvelander though.
datachicane
09-26-08, 03:28 PM
thats why drilling should be combined with the alternatives. the alternative energy sources increase the likelihood that our oil consumption WILL stay flat or maybe even go down.
so you cant just drill (or recycle), if you want to make a difference you need to look at the big picture.
I don't think you're following me- even if our consumption were to stay flat, and even if the ANWR and offshore drilling were to far exceed even the most optimistic estimates and magically manage to double U.S. reserves :eek: , and even if that production were to magically become available tomorrow :eek:, we'd be right back to where we started today in under thirty-six months.
The U.S. holds appx. 2% of world oil reserves, and presently consumes 25% of world oil production, more than the next five top oil consuming nations combined. Two of those in particular, China and India, are increasing consumption at a staggering rate, with no end in sight. Consumption up relative to production==higher prices, thems the breaks.
The equation is not about weighing the preservation of the ANWR and possible damage to coastal areas against energy independence, it's about weighing the preservation of the ANWR and possible damage to coastal areas against a few months' reprieve from the status quo.
we're in agreement mostly, just arguing different portions of it.
you're still a smelly celvelander though.
and you still love bon jovi.
it's about weighing the preservation of the ANWR and possible damage to coastal areas against a few months' reprieve from the status quo.
yea but i'm cool with that.
datachicane
09-26-08, 03:59 PM
it's about weighing the preservation of the ANWR and possible damage to coastal areas against a few months' reprieve from the status quo.
yea but i'm cool with that.
You'll understand if some of us who live on the coasts are somewhat more circumspect.
Methanolandbrats
09-26-08, 04:32 PM
Two of those in particular, China and India, are increasing consumption at a staggering rate, with no end in sight
Bird flu? :gomer:
hpiIWMWWVco
:gomer: :D
-Kevin
You'll understand if some of us who live on the coasts are somewhat more circumspect.
i got lake erie practically in my backyard. you could have a fleet oil tankers explode 5 miles off the coast and you'd still be better off. :gomer:
but if vision is your only problem, then anwr should be fine for drilling. ;)
datachicane
09-26-08, 06:37 PM
You'll understand if some of us who live on the coasts are somewhat more circumspect.i got lake erie practically in my backyard. you could have a fleet oil tankers explode 5 miles off the coast and you'd still be better off. :gomer:
but if vision is your only problem, then anwr should be fine for drilling. ;)
'Cuz, hey, we can always get another ANWR or coastline, but where else are we gonna find a hypothetical yet theoretically possible maximum 36mos of somewhat less rapidly increasing gas prices?
:saywhat:
'Cuz, hey, we can always get another ANWR or coastline, but where else are we gonna find a hypothetical yet theoretically possible maximum 36mos of somewhat less rapidly increasing gas prices?
:saywhat:
how many times have you been up to the coastal plain of ANWR to enjoy the scenery?
Methanolandbrats
09-27-08, 08:09 AM
how many times have you been up to the coastal plain of ANWR to enjoy the scenery?
There are no roads, waterslides, Starbucks or tour buses there. That's the point.
There are no roads, waterslides, Starbucks or tour buses there. That's the point.
really? theres no roads to this barren part of alaska? :eek:
:rolleyes:
Methanolandbrats
09-27-08, 08:31 AM
really? theres no roads to this barren part of alaska? :eek:
:rolleyes: You don't have the slightest idea why wilderness areas are preserved.
datachicane
09-28-08, 11:52 AM
it's about weighing the preservation of the ANWR and possible damage to coastal areas against a few months' reprieve from the status quo.yea but i'm cool with that.
:shakehead
This still blows my mind.
Hey, Stu, we still have fish out here. Not just for tourists, but, y'know, jobs. For that matter, tourism is a huge chunk of the economy in plenty of these town, too.
I'm sure those guys will be just thrilled to hear that you're willing to jeopardize their livelihoods and communities for the chance that your gas might go up by $2.50 in the next three years instead of $3.00, maybe, if the planets line up just right. I'm also sure you'll be just as enthusiastic to prop them up with your tax dollars if the need arises, right? :rolleyes:
You don't have the slightest idea why wilderness areas are preserved.
Insomniac
09-28-08, 03:39 PM
You don't have the slightest idea why wilderness areas are preserved.
It's because of all the hippie eco-heads, duh.
I think we're about done with this one.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.