Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech
South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones
Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the postBeer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?
U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the postHow The Press Can Remain Relevant
Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the postBe Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.
Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the postObama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...
Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the postObama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the postPalin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?
One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post
Why I Can't Reduce My Carbon Footprint
Tony Romm is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.
It would not be Earth Day weekend without the requisite guilt: Pesky environmentalists proselytizing their cause ad nauseum, hoping to influence at least one group of complacent bystanders to evaluate their carbon footprint. Though annoying, their cause has ample merit: A recent study by the National Climate Data Center reveals that the period between January and March 2009 was the eighth hottest on record. The next three months, for that reason, are certain to pan out no differently.
So on the heels of an excessively warm Earth Day, from the couch in my excessively warm apartment in Washington D.C., I decide to question my own impact on the environment. To do so, I locate an informal quiz at EarthDay.net, one of the "holiday's" leading advocacy groups. The verdict: I am a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste of Earth space, living a lifestyle that, if emulated by billions, would destroy the Earth more than four times over:
I'm shocked; until now, I have no idea I'm truly wrecking the Earth, and I thus feel guilty. I subsequently consult the Web site's quiz-specific conservation guide, hoping to gain some insight into which specific behaviors contribute to my planet's downfall. What I find, however, verges on asinine.
The top tip EarthDay.net offers me is predictable: I should replace my most common household appliances with machines or devices that are more energy efficient. Although I have not the resources to make any such purchases right now, I estimate their cost using BestBuy.com anyway. My findings are hardly surprising. To replace the old refrigerator, washer, dryer, air conditioner and television in my apartment with the cheapest (and smallest) ENERGY STAR-compliant appliances on the market, it would cost me approximately $1,900, sans delivery and tax. This hefty sum excludes a host of other inefficient appliances that I normally use -- including my laptop and stove, for instance -- which would presumably cost me even more to replace.
(Click to read more about the quiz and what it means.)
The Web site also suggests I reduce my daily animal product intake by half, meat and poultry especially. I find this section considerably troubling, given that I eat poultry (never meat), at most twice per week. But I note it anyway: Abstaining from chicken and turkey saves me a few dollars -- until I decide to purchase an equivalent, pre-packaged good (which the Web site also discourages). On balance, I find I've actually spent more money than I would have normally budgeted for food, probably in a halfhearted attempt to purchase only those items packaged using recyclable materials. I also discover that I've produced about two times as much waste as I would have if I just ate the damn chicken sandwich I wanted in the first place.
Discouraged, I return to my checklist to note one final peculiarity -- my "energy land" consumption is massive. I start playing with the quiz's questions in a feeble attempt to lower this rating, and I discover only one: Turning off all power to my apartment, which somehow only reduces my overall Ecological Footprint by .2 global acres. I note similar changes to this measurement when I consent to living in a small house without any running water, or otherwise deprive myself of basic human amenities (that my apartment, much less the District, would not let me shut off even if I asked). I realize, at this point, that there's little net benefit to such massive inconvenience -- maybe $120 saved each month so that I can write this article in the dark without Internet -- so I quit the quiz and begin reflecting.
And it is at that point I realize I'm not alone in my frustration. It is somewhat indisputable that addressing global warming is a unparalleled "moral imperative," as the Goreacle told lawmakers at a committee hearing last week. The perennial images of melting ice caps and potent storms are haptic reminders of humankind's manifest wrath on the lonely planet that they greedily inhabit. To be sure, the green movement has its doubters, some of whom have received more attention than is naturally warranted. But Americans on balance seem to be slowly admitting their role in the Earth's progressive climate change, even if they are simultaneously taking credit for breakthroughs that are wholly fictional.
Consequently, it is no longer guilt or doubt preventing scores of Americans from altering their lifestyles in the name of a global pursuit. Rather, it's the economy: Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people, suggests rationalism, an implicit understanding of losses and gains, and amid America's economic meltdown, that calculation has itself become a contradiction. How does a family without a steady income outfit their empty kitchen with a new set of energy-efficient appliances? How can an underpaid D.C.-based, entry-level journalist afford an energy efficient car, much less any personal form of transportation? And why should either feel guilty for those inabilities?
Hypotheticals aside, this has been the ubiquitous struggle of the modern environmentalist movement: how to balance a legitimate, rational concern for the environment with the equally legitimate, equally rational economic constraints that tug constantly at families' wallets. The green thumbs among us have not an answer to this quandary, and it is evident in a number of their public information campaigns -- this quiz included. Indeed, I reckon I am not the only college student this weekend to question the utility of Earth Day-induced guilt; it is 88 degrees Fahrenheit here, which is hot even by the District's standards. I also know I'm hardly the only soul too poor to afford to save the planet. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I can't -- at least, by the real environmentalists' rigid standards.
It would not be Earth Day weekend without the requisite guilt: Pesky environmentalists proselytizing their cause ad nauseum, hoping to influence at least one group of complacent bystanders to evaluate their carbon footprint. Though annoying, their cause has ample merit: A recent study by the National Climate Data Center reveals that the period between January and March 2009 was the eighth hottest on record. The next three months, for that reason, are certain to pan out no differently.
So on the heels of an excessively warm Earth Day, from the couch in my excessively warm apartment in Washington D.C., I decide to question my own impact on the environment. To do so, I locate an informal quiz at EarthDay.net, one of the "holiday's" leading advocacy groups. The verdict: I am a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste of Earth space, living a lifestyle that, if emulated by billions, would destroy the Earth more than four times over:
I'm shocked; until now, I have no idea I'm truly wrecking the Earth, and I thus feel guilty. I subsequently consult the Web site's quiz-specific conservation guide, hoping to gain some insight into which specific behaviors contribute to my planet's downfall. What I find, however, verges on asinine.
The top tip EarthDay.net offers me is predictable: I should replace my most common household appliances with machines or devices that are more energy efficient. Although I have not the resources to make any such purchases right now, I estimate their cost using BestBuy.com anyway. My findings are hardly surprising. To replace the old refrigerator, washer, dryer, air conditioner and television in my apartment with the cheapest (and smallest) ENERGY STAR-compliant appliances on the market, it would cost me approximately $1,900, sans delivery and tax. This hefty sum excludes a host of other inefficient appliances that I normally use -- including my laptop and stove, for instance -- which would presumably cost me even more to replace.
(Click to read more about the quiz and what it means.)
The Web site also suggests I reduce my daily animal product intake by half, meat and poultry especially. I find this section considerably troubling, given that I eat poultry (never meat), at most twice per week. But I note it anyway: Abstaining from chicken and turkey saves me a few dollars -- until I decide to purchase an equivalent, pre-packaged good (which the Web site also discourages). On balance, I find I've actually spent more money than I would have normally budgeted for food, probably in a halfhearted attempt to purchase only those items packaged using recyclable materials. I also discover that I've produced about two times as much waste as I would have if I just ate the damn chicken sandwich I wanted in the first place.
Discouraged, I return to my checklist to note one final peculiarity -- my "energy land" consumption is massive. I start playing with the quiz's questions in a feeble attempt to lower this rating, and I discover only one: Turning off all power to my apartment, which somehow only reduces my overall Ecological Footprint by .2 global acres. I note similar changes to this measurement when I consent to living in a small house without any running water, or otherwise deprive myself of basic human amenities (that my apartment, much less the District, would not let me shut off even if I asked). I realize, at this point, that there's little net benefit to such massive inconvenience -- maybe $120 saved each month so that I can write this article in the dark without Internet -- so I quit the quiz and begin reflecting.
And it is at that point I realize I'm not alone in my frustration. It is somewhat indisputable that addressing global warming is a unparalleled "moral imperative," as the Goreacle told lawmakers at a committee hearing last week. The perennial images of melting ice caps and potent storms are haptic reminders of humankind's manifest wrath on the lonely planet that they greedily inhabit. To be sure, the green movement has its doubters, some of whom have received more attention than is naturally warranted. But Americans on balance seem to be slowly admitting their role in the Earth's progressive climate change, even if they are simultaneously taking credit for breakthroughs that are wholly fictional.
Consequently, it is no longer guilt or doubt preventing scores of Americans from altering their lifestyles in the name of a global pursuit. Rather, it's the economy: Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people, suggests rationalism, an implicit understanding of losses and gains, and amid America's economic meltdown, that calculation has itself become a contradiction. How does a family without a steady income outfit their empty kitchen with a new set of energy-efficient appliances? How can an underpaid D.C.-based, entry-level journalist afford an energy efficient car, much less any personal form of transportation? And why should either feel guilty for those inabilities?
Hypotheticals aside, this has been the ubiquitous struggle of the modern environmentalist movement: how to balance a legitimate, rational concern for the environment with the equally legitimate, equally rational economic constraints that tug constantly at families' wallets. The green thumbs among us have not an answer to this quandary, and it is evident in a number of their public information campaigns -- this quiz included. Indeed, I reckon I am not the only college student this weekend to question the utility of Earth Day-induced guilt; it is 88 degrees Fahrenheit here, which is hot even by the District's standards. I also know I'm hardly the only soul too poor to afford to save the planet. It's not that I don't care, it's just that I can't -- at least, by the real environmentalists' rigid standards.
Categories
Most Popular Stories »
- U.S. retailers are on sale
- The Rivalry: 145 games strong
- Slideshow: Lehigh-Laf week
- HAWKS SKIN LEOPARDS
- Macys thanksgiving day history
Recent Comments »
Page 2/2
Post Your Comments Below
Previous 20 Comments
J.C.
7:16PM 7:16PM May 2nd 2009
Anybody who believes caterinas math is an idiot.And anybody who votes based on this kind of math is an even bigger idiot.Get your head out of the sand and do some research.She would need something like a 40 ft. windmill with a constant 10 mph wind (thats 24 hrs a day)to produce that kind of power.There is no such thing as green energy or carbon neutral energy.Even burning wood(which even Al Gore now says cant be classified as a renewable energy source)is not good for the environment, many greenhouse gases are released.Some of this gas is 21 times more potent than co2.
Rating :
Report!
brian
11:03PM 11:03PM Apr 29th 2009
I live in central Texas and I can go out any day of the week and kick up fossils from the ocean ....yes ocean people ......the world was hot once before ...why not again ......go shake your tree branches somewhere else you granola eating hippies....
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Gregory Dittmer
4:55AM 4:55AM Apr 30th 2009
brian
11:03PM 11:03PM Apr 29th 2009
I live in central Texas and I can go out any day of the week and kick up fossils from the ocean ....yes ocean people ......the world was hot once before ...why not again ..
######################################################
You are really over simplifying the earth's history. If the earth was actually so warm that central Texas was in the ocean, the world would be in a heap of trouble if it ever got to that level again! Fortunately for 80% of the world population it took a lot more than just heat and rising sea levels to have the ocean in Texas.
Rating :
Report!
brian
12:22AM 12:22AM May 1st 2009
All Im saying gregg is that this is natural ...thats all ...we cannot stop this cycle....so if you wanna go green to save on bills and clean up the enviroment thts great ...but everyone acts like we can stop the earth from doing its natural thing ....
Rating :
Report!
Carol
4:30PM 4:30PM Apr 30th 2009
Haha, well I'm sure you're not "a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste of Earth space", but I believe America could use a lesson in reducing waste. Although I'm an Earth/Environmental Science and Biology major who fully supports that anthropogenic actions are radically accelerating the planet's naturally occuring warming period right now, I think that the idea of cutting back on energy use and consumption transcends its scientific origins. I think that the United States should look to some of the poorer, less developed countries as far as lifestyle goes. Do we really need a huge house? Is our tap water really dirty enough that we must purchase bottled water? Do we need the air conditioner on high when we feel just fine with it on a lower setting? Poorer countries often don't have access to clean water on a daily basis, much less do they have the money or resources to blow 300 dollars on a pair of shoes that they wear once. These people are so grateful for what they do have, and that is absolutely incredible. I think reducing our impact on the world helps environmentally, but also socially. It will be hard (trust me, I'm a 20 year old girl who of course loves the mall...) but I think if we all cut back a little we really can make a huge difference. I know it sounds cliche, but I really believe it.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Carol
4:21PM 4:21PM Apr 30th 2009
Haha, well I'm sure you're not "a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste
of Earth space", but I believe America could use a lesson in reducing
waste. Although I'm an Earth/Environmental Science and Biology major
who fully supports that anthropogenic actions are radically
accelerating the planet's naturally occuring warming period right
now, I think that the idea of cutting back on energy use and
consumption transcends its scientific origins. I think that the
United States should look to some of the poorer, less developed
countries as far as lifestyle goes. Do we really need a huge house?
Is our tap water really dirty enough that we must purchase bottled
water? Do we need the air conditioner on high when we feel just fine
with it on a lower setting? Poorer countries often don't have access
to clean water on a daily basis, much less do they have the money or
resources to blow 300 dollars on a pair of shoes that they wear once.
These people are so grateful for what they do have, and that is
absolutely incredible. I think reducing our impact on the world
helps environmentally, but also socially. It will be hard (trust me,
I'm a 20 year old girl who of course loves the mall...) but I think if
we all cut back a little we really can make a huge difference. I know
it sounds cliche, but I really believe it.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Carol
4:31PM 4:31PM Apr 30th 2009
Haha, well I'm sure you're not "a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste
of Earth space", but I believe America could use a lesson in reducing
waste. Although I'm an Earth/Environmental Science and Biology major
who fully supports that anthropogenic actions are radically
accelerating the planet's naturally occuring warming period right
now, I think that the idea of cutting back on energy use and
consumption transcends its scientific origins. I think that the
United States should look to some of the poorer, less developed
countries as far as lifestyle goes. Do we really need a huge house?
Is our tap water really dirty enough that we must purchase bottled
water? Do we need the air conditioner on high when we feel just fine
with it on a lower setting? Poorer countries often don't have access
to clean water on a daily basis, much less do they have the money or
resources to blow 300 dollars on a pair of shoes that they wear once.
These people are so grateful for what they do have, and that is
absolutely incredible. I think reducing our impact on the world
helps environmentally, but also socially. It will be hard (trust me,
I'm a 20 year old girl who of course loves the mall...) but I think if
we all cut back a little we really can make a huge difference. I know
it sounds cliche, but I really believe it.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Carol
4:41PM 4:41PM Apr 30th 2009
Haha, well I'm sure you're not "a greedy, hoarding, inefficient waste
of Earth space", but I believe America could use a lesson in reducing
waste. Although I'm an Earth/Environmental Science and Biology major
who fully supports that anthropogenic actions are radically
accelerating the planet's naturally occuring warming period right
now, I think that the idea of cutting back on energy use and
consumption transcends its scientific origins. I think that the
United States should look to some of the poorer, less developed
countries as far as lifestyle goes. Do we really need a huge house?
Is our tap water really dirty enough that we must purchase bottled
water? Do we need the air conditioner on high when we feel just fine
with it on a lower setting? Poorer countries often don't have access
to clean water on a daily basis, much less do they have the money or
resources to blow 300 dollars on a pair of shoes that they wear once.
These people are so grateful for what they do have, and that is
absolutely incredible. I think reducing our impact on the world
helps environmentally, but also socially. It will be hard (trust me,
I'm a 20 year old girl who of course loves the mall...) but I think if
we all cut back a little we really can make a huge difference. I know
it sounds cliche, but I really believe it.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
dale
1:33AM 1:33AM May 1st 2009
This is the result of Darwinian theology gone wild. In this view the animals are our cousins, so to eat them is immoral and the environment is the creator, so to alter it is to invoke mother natures' pagan rath.
Follow long enough and human sacrifice will once again be needed..................... oops. I forgot. Abortion is good for the planet.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Lisa
8:36PM 8:36PM May 1st 2009
I really don't see how I can reasonably reduce my carbon footprint much more. I don't own a car. I rarely use public transit, preferring to walk to classes or to go shopping.
I don't eat a lot of meat, fish or poultry, mostly because I'm a terrible cook.
I replaced all my light bulbs with CFL's except for the fluorescents already in the kitchen. It helps keep the apartment from getting so hot. And I don't leave lights on in rooms where I'm not. I don't have an electric or gas clothes dryer. I prefer line- or air-dried clothes. In winter, the drying clothes provide needed humidity in my dry climate, and in summer, they act as an evaporative cooler. I have a small, new, LED flat-screen TV. I have a laptop computer and an inkjet printer. I have a clock radio and a microwave. My apartment has a dishwasher, but I have no idea how to use it, so I don't. My apartment has a washing machine. I do use that. It's a top-loader. Until it breaks down, I won't replace it with a front-loader. I have a refrigerator. It's probably not an Energy-Star model. I keep the computer, TV and printer on power strips and turn the strips off when the items aren't in use. I don't use the air conditioning much. I shut off the power to that at the main switch when I'm not using it, too. I like to be warm, even in summer. My average monthly electricity bill, in LAS VEGAS, is about $25 a month.
I don't engage in recreational shopping. I wear my clothes until they are too ratty to wear any more. Same with my shoes.
I'm simply living the way I learned to live from my parents. I'm living the way people lived in the 1970's (I was in High School then).
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
MyKisa
6:28AM 6:28AM May 2nd 2009
return to the cave
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
dave
4:17PM 4:17PM May 2nd 2009
I wish there was a way to have a quiet, sensible conversation about this topic without people immediately going to Extremist Screaming points-of-view, which really doesn't help anyone. Good grief, why don't we bring up abortion and gun control, too? Answer: Everyone is burned out on arguing those.
Hello global warming people:
First, programming computer models of something as complex as the Earth's climate is probably impossible, and you need to stop saying you've done it. There are too many mathematically chaotic conditions, and too many things we don't know anything about, which twist the climate around. I have a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science and seeing the claims put out by these folks is embarrassing. Look. I, too, can take a computer and make it show the world is heating up. So? I can also make it show it's cooling down. Or it's going to end in 2012. Or the Sky Is Falling. Or you're all aliens.
We do not really know why the Earth goes into Ice Ages or why it comes out of them, but we do know it has them periodically.
There is considerable geological evidence that there were was ice in Maine 10,000 years ago, and in Ohio 20,000 years ago. We are coming out of a recent Ice Age, and the planet is warming up. The planet has done this before. This is supposed to happen.
Please stop pissing and moaning about ocean levels coming up six inches. They came up THREE HUNDRED FEET not that long ago. Somehow you never mention that basic fact, because it makes six inches look lame. This is lying by omission.
Hello anti-global warming people, there is some data that may indeed show that infrared heat being re-radiated from the Earth may be reflected by CO-2 and other gasses. Right now we think about 10% of the CO-2 is manmade, 90% is from Good Old Mother Nature. If indeed we are overwarming the planet ... which is one damned tricky thing to figure out ... then possibly we should do something about that.
What's needed is good science and good basic research. Regrettably, many on both sides have helped to poison the wells for basic research. It's nearly impossible to get a paper published in Science or Nature if you're not "for" global warming. And just try getting a grant. And if you need to eat, you'd best be studying something related to global warming, because that's where the money is. I know, I know, studying "Underwater Basketweaving in an Age of Global Warming" sounds like a stretch, but it'll work.
Sensible people need to boo and hiss whenever the extremists start yelling, and just calmly point out, "Hey, there's evidence on both sides of this. Let's do some real science, investigate, and quit the dramatics."
-- Thanks,
Dave
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Gregory Dittmer
9:17PM 9:17PM May 2nd 2009
dave
4:17PM 4:17PM May 2nd 2009
Please stop pissing and moaning about ocean levels coming up six inches. They came up THREE HUNDRED FEET not that long ago. Somehow you never mention that basic fact, because it makes six inches look lame. This is lying by omission.
####################################################
There is one thing you seem to overlook Dave. The sea level was NEVER 300 feet higher while homo sapiens have been around! The fact that the majority of earth's population sits on land no higher than 30 feet above sea level.
Someone else claims they can find evidence of the ocean in the middle of Texas which, in itself, is no big deal. You can also find layers of what used to be the sea floor some 2,500 feet up the mountains in West Virginia. The only thing that really matters in your view and the sea shells in mountain caves is the fact that humans were no where near being here on earth.
Men have built cities and nations in areas that would be the sea bed if not for pumps and sea walls... six inches can make a world of difference to them. Even somewhat more reasonable people have built on land that is just a foot or two above high tide... they too will be having trouble should the sea levels rise.
You seem to think that since the earth has gone through tremendous changes through millions of years people should not be concerned with any future changes. Whether mankind has caused global warming or even IF there is global warming, there is no escaping the fact that mankind, as a whole, has done a lot to destroy the natural balances that existed before WE came along. Refusing to acknowledge the damage mankind has brought and can continue to do is just as silly as ranting about rising sea levels and global warming.
Rating :
Report!
ab
1:25AM 1:25AM May 3rd 2009
exactly what i was going to say. going green in some respects helps you save money too! open your shades instead of turning on the light. use cfl's. don't use that horrible old air conditioner, its such an energy waster! and be careful how much tv you watch, that uses a lot of energy too. your bills will go down and so will your impact on the environment.
and remember, you don't really need all of that stuff to survive. if you compare the way americans (and most other modern people) live to the way humans originally lived, its pretty much absurd how much we use and throw away and shelter ourselves from any kind of inconvenience or discomfort. sometimes its good not to be 100% comfortable all the time, it builds character!
and not all environmentalists are crazy. i just really care about the planet and animals, and that in itself is motivation enough for me to turn off the lights and not leave the water running.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Grossness54
9:46PM 9:46PM May 3rd 2009
Plenty of people are willingly driving cars that don't guzzle gas and switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, since they're saving money that way, and this makes perfect sense. Here's what people DON'T want to hear: lectures on how evil it is to eat meat, dairy or eggs or for that matter anything but a locally-grown strict vegan diet (preferably raw), and hassles on how they have to hit the gym and slim down because they're using up too much of the earth's resources since it takes more energy to move around if you're on the heavy side. Of course, nowadays THAT'S defined as anybody who weighs a few pounds more than Kate Moss. I guess the enviro-nannies would be thrilled with the lifestyles of many of our stupor-models, since what they ingest is plant-based (cigarettes, caffeine and cocaine).
Here's a hint for those folks who want to make us obscessed and guilty about leaving "carbon footprints" by, let's face it, simply existing, and it's expressed in the finest tradition of old Brooklyn: "Shaddupayouface!"
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Previous 20 Comments