Comments on: The Accidental Environmentalist

By: Cameron

Cameron — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:47:56 +0000

Awesome, we’re on the same page then. Sorry to veer off-topic!

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:57:53 +0000

Cameron,

1-no, it isn’t.

2-yes, it is. What would you expect?

3-we were given a mandate at the beginning to exercise good stewardship over the earth. To the extent that we haven’t done that, we should make reasonable efforts to correct the damage. Moving forward, we should do it as much as we reasonably can.

4-OK, maybe this is true in some situations. So what? You and I each have stewardship obligations regardless of what extremes (on either side) people go to.

It is a dangerous theology (particularly #3) to think that we can make a mess of the earth and wait for Jesus to clean it up. We’re not toddlers and He isn’t our mother. We were given an obligation to take care of the place, and I expect people who chose greed or laziness or ignorance over good stewardship to have to pay a price for that. (And I am somewhat worried that I might be in that group.)

By: Cameron

Cameron — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:15:45 +0000

No offense taken, Julie. I may not have worded my thoughts well originally, but I don’t think these points are incorrect:

1 – The causal relationship of C02 to temperature is unproven.

2 – ‘Inconvenient Truth’ is full of exaggerations and myths.

3 – We can’t ‘save’ the planet, even if we needed to. It will be saved when it is baptized of fire, renewed and receives its paradisiacal glory. We can be good, frugal stewards, though.

4 – Environment-friendliness is the new moral code in the current status quo of moral relativism. Like all good things, the adversary distorts it to extremes to impede our agency.

I do not see how these points are dangerous theology. I do apologize for being a little off-topic. I appreciate and agree with your OP – I have had the exact same thoughts you have shared in your post here. I appreciate your thriftiness. It’s something my wife and I strive for as well.

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:27:15 +0000

Cameron, I apologize for being so dismissive. I’m not sure where to even begin with your comment. I don’t agree with any of it, and I think your theology is dangerously wrong-headed.

By: Zack

Zack — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:05:20 +0000

http://sustainability.publicradio.org/consumerconsequences/

My wife was telling me about these. It’s kind of fun. It asks some questions about your lifestyle and tells you how many “earths” it would take to sustain the world’s population if everyone had the same habits as you. Obviously the thing is kind of silly and it asks questions like “do you do X more than the average person?” without telling you what the average is.

It’s a pretty fun way to put consumption into perspective. I took one a while back that graded much more harshly than this one.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:57:05 +0000

#30 – Julie, I was being serious. I’m curious what part of my post you were rolling your eyes at, though. Or was is the whole thing…?

By: kew

kew — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:36:40 +0000

Ardis, you are awesome. I enjoyed the post and I think there are a lot of little things we can do that will help us wisely use our resources. I’m glad the author has been successful in her efforts. Does anyone have their own data on savings from painting a roof?

By: bbell

bbell — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:27:02 +0000

I am with Julie on this one. If you live frugally by definition are being more environmentally responsible.

I think my families total gas intake is about 1000 gallons a year. We have 7 here under this roof.

I find a lot of PC environmentalism to be silly though. Its no longer a way of being responsible. Its now a belief system that borders on a religion for many. Carrying your waste around because you want to recycle it is a good example of this.

Here where I live in TX we have 2 garbage bins. One for Recycling and the other for regular garbage. I participate but I wonder about the energy and cost it requires to actually recycle. I guess I would like to see a study if it is really of benefit to recycle a lot of the stuff that is recycled. Think of all the costs involved in shipping, processing, shipping again, remanufacturing, shipping again and then repackaging etc.

By: Julie M. Smith

Julie M. Smith — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:14:17 +0000

jks, keep in mind that my 80-90% number (which I admit is a guess) wasn’t just about gasoline, but rather total resources. I think we’re so incredibly low in other areas (i.e., electricity, packaging, new durable goods) that we make up for using more gas.

By: jks

jks — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:07:03 +0000

I think you’ve got the right idea about environmentalism. Often what I do to be frugal is environmentally friends. Often what makes sense for my family is healthier and family friendly and ends up being environmentally friendly too (lower down on my priority list).
I can’t help, though, but quibble with the actual numbers. I think that you might be doing better than average, but not better than 80-90% of households. I think there are a lot of people in smaller houses and apartments who don’t drive a lot and have a smaller footprint than you.
I think the way you are considering your gas usage needs to be re-thought…that “the average American uses 500/gallons/year. That means our 5-person household would be expected to average 208/gallons/month, or (roughly) 13 fill-ups” The average American probably does not include children, just adults. My family of six typically has used about 750 gallons per year, but that has been while my husband took the bus (for 10 years). Now that he has to drive it is probably double that. But I just cannot see the average family of six using 3000 gallons year.