addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › Being "Green" Rationally

Being "Green" Rationally

Plano, TX
Post #: 431
Interesting Essay on Being Green Rationally

A bit vague; doesn't offer any concrete solutions, but this is probably one of the most recent essays written that I have agreed with the most.
Thought I would share it.
Chris J.
Dallas, TX
Post #: 56
Interesting point Sherry. I think that these days the left has come to "own" the issue of environmentalism. I believe that no one genuinely wants dirty air,water, forests, etc., but there is an implication that if one does not toe the line drawn by the likes of Al Gore, the they must want these things. I enjoy some outdoor activities and am very discouraged when I go canoeing and see heaps of garbage on riverbanks, or in the forest. I don't like the fact that the Trinity river smells of sewage. Dallas is not the prettiest of cities, and there are many people proposing development along the Trinity. How many tourists or visitors (never mind the locals) are going to leave with a positive impression, when a river which smells of poo is made a centerpiece of the city?

But, I digress. Taking care of the environment is important, although many proposals to do so would be economically devestating. I think that it is an issue that needs addressing, but not if the solution severely damages our economy. The only way to do this is for reasonable people like us to engage in discussion and not let the lefties dominate it.
Plano, TX
Post #: 440
Absolutely-I agree with you!
My husband refers to the enviromentalists following Gore as "Algorians"-they are like their own cult!

Civil and reasonable discussions about how to take care of the enviroment without putting undue hardship on our economy and personal freedoms is certainly possible. But you are right, the leftists don't make it possible in the general public.
David V.
Atlanta, GA
Post #: 103
The equivocation in her argument is on the word "compromise." The ultimate and inevitable demand of environmentalism is the total destruction of industrial civilization - and 99% of the human race that depends on it. Just how far do you want to "compromise?" 3 billion lives? 2 billion?

Once you accept the premise of environmentalism, you give up the argument. This is very different from the cost/benefit analysis every individual makes when deciding how much money he is willing to pay for a larger house versus a larger back yard. Just which "compromise" is she talking about? She's being intentionally vague to make the latter seem like the former.
Chris J.
Dallas, TX
Post #: 57
David has a point, and it is something that anti-capitalists count on-validating their premises with any sort of agreement. I do not want rivers which smell of sewage, or medical waste on beaches-and as I said in my earlier post I don't believe that anyone wants these sorts of things. I think that compromise means that a mutually acceptable middle ground is reached between sides which disagree. However the watermelons (Green on the surface-Red at heart) which are on the other side have taken such extreme positions that meeting them halfway (or even a quarter of the way) would result in utter disaster. This is why I suggest that a rational discussion be initiated on the subject. There are no wacky environmentalists among us- so we could discuss it here.
I have always believed that the market is the solution (YAY Capitalism!) I tell environmentalists that their goals should be to inform people about issues and try to convince them to make choices based upon their beliefs (fuel efficient cars, energy saving bulbs, whatever). If these things prove themselves worthy industries will provide more. If people want 50 mpg cars, the car companies will make them, and the ones that don't will not do well. However the watermelons do not want to engage in discussion, they want to stifle dissent and dictate to others how they should live.
Mesquite, TX
Post #: 43
Here's an interesting link. It's a test, sent to me by a friend.

Global Warming Test
A former member
Post #: 80
David is 100% correct!

Despite her sappy, group-hug, let's all have a good cry writing style, she tries to cover the fact that she has no idea where this would end. She has, in fact, not thought the issue through! She's counting on everyone else not to have thought the issue through either.

"One too many hurricanes"?

Clearly she needs constant feed of lithium!

A former member
Post #: 5
I applaud Jessica for at least attempting to crystallize a core issue that is at the heart of "being green". I do not agree that she has to have thought through the issue to any great depth to be able to provide the value of eliciting and illuminating a simple principle. It is often overlooked and ignored.

She reminds us that corporations may want to do better for the environment, they also have momentum and responsibilities; they cannot turn on a dime. Compassion for this principle (from the activists) is in order. "Outlaw the use of incandescent bulbs," for example, may spell reduction of carbon emission in the world on a mass scale, but it also spells the total annihilation of the livelihood of a mass number of honest, hard working, tax -paying American families.

It is clear that there is a fresh new zeitgeist of awareness in the air. Hopefully, this one will not be the passing fad that so many other little green acknowledgments we've had since the sixties. Any piece of information, in my opinion, is of value in raising awareness.

I think that Jessica might have closed by reminding us that we are the source of the corporations' revenue. Our purchasing decisions drive corporate behavior much more effectively than words. She could have provided just a small list of concrete actions that we can all take. Here is just one, for example, that I myself have taken (written in a style that Jessica could have used):

ACTION ITEM: Purchase a few energy-efficient light-bulbs. Use them in places where you don't mind the quality of the light or under lamp-shades which tend to warm the quality of the light while also hiding the strange shape of the bulbs. Of course, if you want to be really extreme, you can use them for the vanity bulbs in your bathroom, thus making the bold statement, "I am green (and so is your face)!" But seriously, these bulbs last nine years and use less energy. You'll be saving yourself money while saving the planet. But try to remember (nine years from now) that these bulbs have mercury in them, so you should not just chunk them in the trash bin or it's all for naught!

Being green is not easy. This is due, in part, to the fact that corporations do not provide us with easy options. And that is due, in part, to the fact that we have not taught them otherwise. The real action that we can all take is to speak with our wallets rather than just our mouths. This is what corporations listen and respond to.
Dallas, TX
Post #: 304
One line she used stood out to me: "The demand for environmentally friendly business is a cry people are beginning to hear." There's also a cry for universal health care, a cry for prayer in school, a cry for a lot of things that should not be. If there was really a demand no one would be shopping at "non-green" businesses. She has to think this issue out before she speaks likes this because her premise is wrong. It is not the purpose of corporations and businesses to determine what products would be the "best" for us or the environment, only to produce goods to satisfy our demands. Nor is it anyone's responsibility for "delegating resources in a responsible manner while meeting demand", that is what the market does, delegating only makes it worse.

- Travis
A former member
Post #: 81

Well said!

The only cry I hear for environmentally friendly business is from activists, who want to destroy business, western civilization and human life itself. As someone who manages a large department in a large corporation I do not hear my staff demanding more environmental programs. Such programs as exist would not be there except for morally weak executives who want to "appear" environmentally friendly and refuse to stand up for the proper conduct of business. These executives are supported by community relations staff who in general add no value to the enterprise. They merely sit around and "promote" these programs to justify their jobs.

What I do hear from corporate staff is a cry for low heath care costs, higher wages, more benefits. None of these reasonable desires is met by environmental programs.

I would suggest that the person who wrote that article is perhaps familiar with the theory of business but hasn't actually had the experience of operating a business. Her premise is completely wrong.

On top of that, the suggestion that I should have to remember the chemical makeup of a light bulb a decade after its purchase is not...quite...practical or reasonable.


Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy