Does Buying Green Make you a jerk

[Soul Queen]

http://www.smartmoney.com/spending/deals/buying-green-makes-you-do-bad-things/

Short article about a psychology study. It would have been interesting to see the reasons people gave about their choices.

For instance, where the green people less charitable because they assumed that because they were making "wise" decisions that other people could as well? Or were they naturally jerks? (That one i bet is hard to pinpoint in a study).

[mrjohnchimpo]

no, but issuing fake tickets for people that love Christmas does:

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/104128/Are_Christmas_lights_a_crime

[matty]

both are cool articles but that second one has me cracking up.

It's time to take a stand against the "ignorance, waste, and hubris" that has made Christmas nothing but a "perverted consumer orgy."

perverted consumer orgy! :lol:

I don't know why that's giving me the giggles so bad.

[paul]

I can sort of see the argument here. I personally feel that "buying green" is a narcissistic load of crap anyway. It's a marketing ploy, that appeals to the desire to "be better people" and allows access to that feeling by simply spending money and doing nothing else.

If you want to help the environment, buying less or buying used stuff is by far better. Promoting that behavior is not a very effective marketing strategy for any product though, so "buy green" was invented to appeal to the current environmentalism fad. It's lame. Big surprise that people who put their energy in to "buying green" instead of "doing good" are jerks.

[paul]

It's time to take a stand against the "ignorance, waste, and hubris" that has made Christmas nothing but a "perverted consumer orgy."

Yeah, geez. And here I was just going to take the day off and do some cooking. Maybe I do need some more Christmas lights if that's what I'm missing out on!

[zero2056]

Since it seems additional information continues to be leaked from a corrupt or incorrupt source about the statistics used in the global warming scare, I'm 100% against supporting anything with the "green" label until further accurate proof is provided.

In fact, I'll go out of my way to not buy it.

With the exceptionally frightening (supposed) 1% rise in certain parts of the worlds tempearature over the last decade (note, some parts of the world have decreased over the past 100%), and other bogus articles about ice shelf melts, I'm calling bullshit. That will be a unpopular statement, but fuck it. We're not all going to die or drown in the next 20 years due to global warming.

The past two years in Missouri have been the rainiest, coldest summers (and winters) I can remember. Apparently, we're immune to the warming effect.

I believe Gore's "Inconvient Truth" has also been shot full of holes in how he manipulated facts, again for profit.

I think we'll find out in "x" amount of years its an entire money making scheme to raise the price of energy now through cap and trade, rather than let economics run its normal course.

[matty]

The past two years in Missouri have been the rainiest, coldest summers (and winters) I can remember. Apparently, we're immune to the warming effect.

You're immune! You are! :p

they changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" because of your statement above. it's not that the world is getting hotter, it's that there are greater extremes/unpredictability in range of temperature. So saying that the past two years have been the rainiest coldest summers (and winters) you can remember only lends support to climate change.

and yeah, we won't all drown like rats in 20 years, but in 200 years Manhattan will be underwater unless we do something NOW. Even if we stopped all emissions right now, it would still get worse for a few years. It took hundreds of years to cause this problem, and it will take hundreds of years to undo it. There is no overnight fix.

Which is my bitch about the climate change hoo-hah: don't insult us by telling us the world is ending in 20 years. I'm an adult, and I can comprehend a 200-year impact. Just give it to me straight, scientists!

[slam]

as for buying green, let's define the term first. of course, there are all of the commercial products 'labeled' green. some of those are probably bullshit (i'm not sure i can buy proctor and gamble going green, for real). others, such as perhaps recycled paper products, are probably good for the environment in general. then there are all of the groceries one can buy, that are either organic, or locally produced, or, in the case of dairy, not pumped full of hormones. i'd say in these cases, going 'green' is not only healthier but also better for the environment.

of course, simply buying and consuming less prepackaged food in general is 'greener' and healthier to boot.

so not all green purchasing is bullshit. in this experiement, people were asked to look at a website of products, or a website of 'green' products. that's a pretty strained method of deciding whether people prefer 'green' stuff anyways. seems more like they proved that people who wish to appear green are jerks. go figure.

as for the environment: i believe the industry groups have done an excellent job of making it appear that there is less consensus than there really, actually is. every time a prediction is made, or changed, or altered radically from what was previously the accepted theory, people see that as a weakness in the underlying science itself. it's exactly the opposite. every fault that is found only leads to a better understanding of things. climate models are notoriously difficult beasts to create, and they can rely on a ton of different variables.

if you don't believe that the world is warming, in general, then where are all of the glaciers going? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850)

[Soul Queen]

On a related topic...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/12/16/stupidity/index.html
The title was catchy
Weathering the storm of stupidity (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/12/16/stupidity/index.html)

Climate change deniers arm themselves with ignorance and fight bravely against science

[zero2056]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?m od=rss_Today's_Most_Popular


There is real doubt and real proof that results have been altered and things that did not jive with what was supposed to be supporting rather than resisting the climate change theory is documented. You can stick to your guns and deny that if you like, but I choose to think independently about the situation.

Do any of us know that perhaps 1,000 years ago Manhattan was already partially under water? I don't recall being there or having a bunch of self-important climatoligists recording data at that time for us to tell us the daily temp? Do you realize as recently as the 80's we thought we were heading for the next ice age? What's the opinion going to be in the next decade? Will we stay on the climate change bandwagon, or will it change to something else.

I love the arrogance of humanity that we can somehow predict what is going to happen in 50 years, 200 years, pick your time frame. Give me a break. The weather man can't tell me if its going to do tomorrow and yet a large number of people have just simply accepted this as fact. Let's focus on mastering the 7-day extended forecast, and then maybe these blowhards can get some credibility.

I'm simply stating that we don't have enough data to know if this is natural long-term cycle of good ol' Mother Nature or if its because of human activity. I think everyone can agree that humans are releasing more Co2 into the atmoshere than before, but what is not known is if this is the true cause of any abnormalities in climate (if any in fact exist).

To state your undying belief in either camp of thought is simply stating your comfortable making an assumption on something none of us know anything about. I'll choose to play the role of skeptic.

[zero2056]

On a related topic...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/12/16/stupidity/index.html
The title was catchy
Weathering the storm of stupidity (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/12/16/stupidity/index.html)

Climate change deniers arm themselves with ignorance and fight bravely against science

Quoting an article from Salon.com is like posting a quote from Glenn Beck. Zero credibility.

[zero2056]

if you don't believe that the world is warming, in general, then where are all of the glaciers going? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850)

This wikipedia snippet does in fact support that glaciers have in general (although not across the board) been receding since 1980, but this article also contradicts itself in about the second paragraph admitting there was substantial glacier buildup in between 1952-1980, followed by the period of resumed decline we're in now.

Why would the mass pollution build-up of the 1950's through 1980 when were undoubtedly releasing more greenhouse gases each successive year (war construction, the commanality of the personal vehicle which was not a fuel efficient auto, extreme rapid increase in electricity consumption and production) lead to a cooling period and an advance in the glacial mass worldwide. No explanation.

Again, even the articles being linked here are uncertain as to what they're trying to prove, which is refreshing as the articles doesn't really claim to support any overall warming trend, other than in the past 20-30 years. It clearly states that unless there is a change in the climate cycle glaciers will continue to recede. Well... you don't say. Who can argue with that statement? Nobody.

Global climate change more than just part of a normal larger cycle we don't understand yet, or human made doomsday? Status: Unknown.

[zero2056]

You're immune! You are! :p

they changed it from "global warming" to "climate change" because of your statement above. it's not that the world is getting hotter, it's that there are greater extremes/unpredictability in range of temperature. So saying that the past two years have been the rainiest coldest summers (and winters) you can remember only lends support to climate change.

and yeah, we won't all drown like rats in 20 years, but in 200 years Manhattan will be underwater unless we do something NOW. Even if we stopped all emissions right now, it would still get worse for a few years. It took hundreds of years to cause this problem, and it will take hundreds of years to undo it. There is no overnight fix.

Which is my bitch about the climate change hoo-hah: don't insult us by telling us the world is ending in 20 years. I'm an adult, and I can comprehend a 200-year impact. Just give it to me straight, scientists!

Wrong. I'm immune and invincible!

Climate change it is! I can live with it. It's like I moved to Seattle without having to move. Summers in the 80's with rain every week suit me just fine. You should see the friggin' garden you can grow with that type of support from mother nature, not to mention the condition of the fairways and greens at the golf course.

I agree with the doomsday 20-year approach offered by enivronmentally sensitive politicians and activists being insulting to force feed it to the public et. al, but simply assuming that (pick your favorite coastal city) is going to be underwater within 200 years is equally as insulting. Who has this crystal ball, and better yet, can it tell me the upcoming numbers for the Powerball drawing.

They're all guessing... I'll agree they think they're making educated guesses with data they have analyzed, studied, etc., but in the end its a guess/hypothesis. We won't know until it happens.

[Soul Queen]

Quoting an article from Salon.com is like posting a quote from Glenn Beck. Zero credibility.

I thought it was amusing. Considering the recent thread on the board. I threw it as a rub your nose sort of thing. It was an opinion piece. (that I happen to agree with).:lol:

[slam]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?m od=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

salon.com is zero credibility, but some researcher from the cato institute who gets an opinion piece in the wsj is credible? how do you define credible, exactly?

i'm not even certain which part of the global climate change you don't agree with, zero. do you not agree that the earth, as a whole, is warming? do you not agree to the fact that humans are causing it? let me know which part of the argument to argue.

you call yourself a skeptic, but you seem incredibly receptive to any bit of news that goes against the theory that humans are causing a global temperature increase.

do you realize as recently as the 80's we thought we were heading for the next ice age?

a skeptic might have noted that Time magazine ran the article about global cooling in the 70's. that's hardly the same as an international consensus of scientists, or thousands of peer reviewed articles. i swear, sometimes i think you're getting your arguments from sean hannity. you know that being a skeptic is more than just swallowing all of the opposing side's bullshit, right?

here's the thing: i read a lot of science publications. from those that are light on the details (wired), to those that get pretty heavy (new scientist). i read science blogs. i've been doing this for a good chunk of my life. and the consensus that i've seen, in data and publications, is that the earth is warming, and that we humans are almost certainly a large part of it.

these same publicatons frequently publish articles that go against what's accepted science. take dark matter for example. they publish all kinds of articles with crazy different theories on what's going on. many scientists, in a strange way, love to be incorrect in their theories. it just proves to them that what they're studying is way more interesting than they had guessed! it's not like all of the newtonian physicists quit their jobs after einstein proved that parts of their theories were wrong.

what i'm getting at is that there is very little dissension in the scientific community that i observe (maybe i'm only reading the 'liberal' science news...) if you want to argue with me that the earth is not warming, or that CO2 is not a major cause in it, then post some science. show me some articles from a science publication. don't quote me the latest headlines from some opinion section.

[matty]

I agree with the doomsday 20-year approach offered by enivronmentally sensitive politicians and activists being insulting to force feed it to the public et. al, but simply assuming that (pick your favorite coastal city) is going to be underwater within 200 years is equally as insulting. Who has this crystal ball, and better yet, can it tell me the upcoming numbers for the Powerball drawing.

If the coastal cities don't wind up underwater, great. I don't want them to. but if they DO end up underwater, it's far, far too late to do anything to save them.

Better safe than sorry, and there's nothing wrong with taking care of our only planet.

[paul]

Better safe than sorry, and there's nothing wrong with taking care of our only planet.

Even if you are unconvinced by the evidence pointing towards the significance of human activity on the global temperature, there are still many reasons to take action to reduce that activity. Most CO2 generating processes also have secondary effects that are also bad. Burning coal releases mercury and strontium, among other things into the atmosphere. Reductions in rain forest area result in the loss of species we'll never get back, and which may be useful to humanity in the future. Extracting fossil fuels leads to unbalanced economies that promote corruption, war, and despotism in many parts of the world.

Even if it turns out that reducing consumption and developing renewable energy sources and production methods doesn't stop climate change, I can hardly believe that humanity will be sorry that we did it. There are many side benefits.

My original gripe with "buying green" wasn't that climate change science is wrong. It's that "buying green" represents the co-opting the cause of environmentalism by marketing companies and corporations, and should be taken as BS.

By the way, "climategate" doesn't prove shit. Out of hundreds of institutions, one of them turned out to have some questionable practices. Take any group, and there's always a rotten apple or two in the batch. What's important is the overall consensus. Especially if you compare climate research institutions to governments, or investment banks, or any other group of like institutions, their record for accountability, truthfulness, and transparency is exceptionally good.

[zero2056]

I concur that the earth's climate is changing. I'm not sure if its warming or not. In my little piece of earth, I would suspect that "warming" is not what is occuring. My primary disagreement is to question if it is 100% human activity causing the "change", and therefore wondering if we can actually do anything about it.

My single source of news these days is the WSJ. CNN, maybe if I catch some tv time. But I'm out of time and desire to review anything more extensive than that, and manage to accomplish that because the job will pay me for staying on top of the financial side of things. Thank you for attempting to discredit my opinion (although I'm sure I have no "credit" here anyway) by linking me to Fox News or whatever nutjob network the show Hannity and Colmes is on. I don't watch Fox for the same reason I don't watch MSNBC. Their both full of shit and make money off of sensationlistic, biased, journalism.

For a fellow that sounds like he sits around diligently studying a multitude of scientific journals and blogs (very arguable that a blog is not any more credible than Salon.com, btw) , why did you post something from Wikipedia?

Whatever. It's besides the point. We can post articles back and forth with more scientific "clout" behind them, with statistics and factoids supporting our viewpoints, but its pointless. That's the problem with statistics..,. if you want to support something, you can find some data to back you up.

Paul retorted with the most sensible approach which is (summarized), "why not.. it will only improve the environment as a whole". I agree with that. I apologize for hijacking your thread as well. The only thing I don't agree with is that we have no idea if the instances my article link addressed is the only case of colleagues forcing their subordinates to come up with scientific research that only supported their cause, and not disprove what is considered the current bandwagon theory, which is the basis for my post...its proven that has occurred... is it completely out of the question that this has not occurred elsewhere?

But anyway, Paul is 100% correct. IF we can find a way to make electricity to support the modern world, and reduce emissions whether they are or are not causing the recent warming trend, then that's wonderful. But... you have to be able to point to where that is coming from, and for it to be economically viable. Right now, neither of those have been accomplished.

Simply stated, the best, most well-informed, cutting edge scientist is still using data that they are collecting, creating models, etc. That entire process is subject to human error.

Yes, I hope they are trying to remain as unbiased as possible, but Science is not without bias. To set a hypothesis to prove CO2 is causing catyclysmic global warming sort of sets the stage for doing anything you can to prove that fact. The opposite is true in that you can also disprove the theory, but that would be unpopular in the current media and political environment (which again, is the subject of the emails that were leaked... the data supporting the opposite viewpoint was unpopular).

I don't claim to read scientific journals or scientific blogs. I'm saying, use common sense... the same scientists that say CO2 is going to make us all drown in 20 years (I'm already working on a new set of gills), all admit that the planet's temperature has fluctuated as far back as they can calculate/document. How do we know how much of this is caused by human actions and what is caused by a potential natural warming of the planet? Without that basic understanding, I would say its impossible to make any of these assumptions that "x" and "y" are going to happen, if you can't prove that you understand everything that is going on with what you're using as your "control" group. Isn't that the basis for all scientific experimentation?? If you don't know what you're starting out with, then how the hell do you come up with a reliable conclusion?

There is an entirely different line of thought out there that the planet's warming and cooling trends are in line with the solar flares and increased solar radiation, but that doesn't get much news time. Maybe that's because its been discredited, and therefore proven untrue (I don't know). Maybe it was discredited by another scientist that didn't like the fact it didn't clash with their viewpoint.... maybe its discredited by a smear campaign from a major corporation (take your pick) that wants to see increased investment in alternative fuels by the gov't to boost their bottom line.

I guess it all boils down to I don't understand how there can be no doubt in your mind, when there is reason for doubt to be present, even if that sole reason (my reason) for that doubt is the fact that were basing everything on a 100 year snippet from the 4.6 billion years planet earth has been in existence.

New environmental policy decisions which will create economic booms and busts as a by product from it are being based upon this information, and that same information being used actually documented a 30 year cooling period when arguably industry was at its nastiest for America (50-80).

[slam]

Thank you for attempting to discredit my opinion (although I'm sure I have no "credit" here anyway) by linking me to Fox News or whatever nutjob network the show Hannity and Colmes is on.

yeah, sorry about that. i regretted that line later. i shouldn't compare anyone to president-asshat-hannity. you just got under my skin.

For a fellow that sounds like he sits around diligently studying a multitude of scientific journals and blogs (very arguable that a blog is not any more credible than Salon.com, btw) , why did you post something from Wikipedia?

i thought a wikipedia article that cites around 100 scientific journals would abbreviate my point for me. and i admit, i don't study journals or nothing like that. all i'm saying is that i follow science in general. and in the media i follow, there's isn't much debate about whether we're impacting the climate. the detractors i hear are in non-science media, like CNN, or WSJ, or some other place that gets paid to attract consumers, not publish peer-reviewed scientific studies.

The only thing I don't agree with is that we have no idea if the instances my article link addressed is the only case of colleagues forcing their subordinates to come up with scientific research that only supported their cause, and not disprove what is considered the current bandwagon theory, which is the basis for my post...its proven that has occurred... is it completely out of the question that this has not occurred elsewhere?

of course it's not completely out of the question. is it out of the question that, perhaps, this is simply a rare occurrence? isn't the latter, in fact, far more likely?

why are you so convinced that there is some vast Big Science conspiracy trying to make you buy green cleaning products and consume less oil? shouldn't you be skeptical of that?

How do we know how much of this is caused by human actions and what is caused by a potential natural warming of the planet?

i feel that, in this debate, you're missing my point. of course we don't know anything for sure. that's science, man! i don't know that the earth is warming! i don't know that humans are causing it! all i know is that there is a whole fuck-ton of evidence to support both theories, and very little data to support the opposing viewpoint.

you admit that the earth is warming. do you believe in the 'greenhouse effect'? i mean, do you believe that certain chemicals, such as carbon-dioxide and methane, are capable of trapping heat in our atmosphere? if so, do you believe that we, as humans, have emitted enough of those chemicals into the atmosphere to have a measurable effect? do you believe that increasing those emissions will increase the effect?

i just don't understand your argument other than "no one knows for certain and therefore it's 100% bullshit" :huh:

[zero2056]

I'm not arguing that CO2 is a contributing element to the atmosphere of this planet and makes it liveable. A greenhouse effect is necessary for Earth to support life in the fashion that it does.

After your last post, I think I understand where we fail to see eye to eye. My concern is with the economic ramifications of what is currently being discussed and agreed upon at these European summits. I believe your concern is that by not doing something now, we're effectively opening the door into the unknown wider each day, which is going to result into something negative.

I don't think the situation is that desperate (my opinion). Current research/speculation is not compelling enough to change my mind. I think supply and demand of fossil fuels will drive the price up where a free market would cause alternative sources of energy to be formed and utilized which would naturally reduce emissions. If it costs $10 a gallon to fill your tank, you're going to be in the market for an electric car with or without mandates. The last accord I saw didn't even propose doing anything until 2014 anyway. I think a race of sorts is on between the automakers, at which thankfully, Ford, an American automaker is doing quite well. If fuel for transportation is changed, then energy providers will move in tandem.

Where my concern lies is again that we're taking these theories from scientists as fact (we cannot state that these theories are fact or a law (i.e i would consider an absolute law to be gravity... its based upon research, and what is believed to be accurate data at this time), using that to formulate policy and new restrictions now, which is going to have negative economic impact for some and postive impact for others.

I'm arguing that though they are all experts in their field, these scientists have no way of knowing if their studies and what we're basing all of this policy on is accurate in any way, shape or form because they have no idea what Mother Nature is doing with or without our influence. I acknowledge that humans maybe causing change by existing and causing additional carbon emissions, but I don't believe we're doing it all by our little lonesomes.

I think some of these scientists (and definitely Mr. Al Gore) have personal agendas to profit and be in the spotlight from exploiting the situation, and I have a problem with that. I think that there maybe alternative theories that are not being as publicized and again point to the emails leaked that this maybe occurring. I acknowledge that that email leak very well could be aimed at "fence sitters" such as myself that don't buy into the man-made climate change bit 100%, but I think its irresponsible to brush off the fact that they did exist and not give more credit to the potential of this happening more than once, in more than one laboratory, in order to alter the outcome of these studies.

I think we're jumping the gun on trying to form these pacts amongst nations for carbon emissions to be reduced by "xx/xx/xxxx".

I think ultimately, China, India, Brazil, etc. have no way to actually meet these expectations even if agreed upon and imposed.

I think its a competitive disadvantage for the United States and the developed world, when the developed world needs no further disadvantages.

I think its a major competitive disadvantage for the "real" third world into ever developing.

I think technology and innovation will solve any potential problems that may occur, but I do not think it will be any government funded program that discovers the next alternative fuel source. I would bet anyone that the owner of the next patent on our next energy source is held by and discovered by one of the world's major existing energy companies. The upside is too great for them to not throw a ton of R&D money at the solution.