the Breakthrough Institute

Student Climate Movement Needs a Breakthrough

October 31, 2007 |

This weekend 5,000 student climate activists will meet in Washington, D.C. Let's hope a substantial number of them see the challenge of energy and global warming as fundamentally intellectual and conceptual -- not just strategic and tactical. This isn't simply a matter of mobilizing a few more campus groups or passing another city-wide or state-wide resolution about the need for pollution limits. Global warming is a civilization-wide challenge, one that demands our best thinking and largest selves. I did an interview with Powershift organizers that you can read here.

Comments

Hi Sid,

Consumerism and non-consumerism are two extremes ideologies. Both are based on good intentions. Consumerism, if taken to the extreme, will result in Earth irreversible damage. Non-consumerism, if taken to the extreme, will be applicable to very few people and therefore be ineffective.

However, my observation is that the developed world is going in the path of extreme consumerism. The life cycle of most "non-perishable" products become shorter every year. Product warranties become shorter, consumers are encouraged to replace perfectly functional products with newer ones. The older ones are usually dumped. How many people replace their functioning cell phones with a "free" new one? How many people buy a new printer just because it costs less than replacing the ink cartridge kit or the toner kit?

What message do we send to the manufactureres when we replace their products every year? Make a shiny product, use inferior materials, go through less quality inspections, and give a short warranty. No one cares about the long time usage as long as he gets an extra gigabyte, an extra mega pixel, or an extra mile per gallon.

Old products become undesirable, which means it is more difficult to sell used stuff, which means many people prefer to dump them rather than to go through the effort of selling their old products for a small fraction of what they paid for them, just short time ago.

Many products cannot be fixed, once they break down. Either they do not have spare parts in the market or their repair will cost more than a new product. In this way many products end up in a landfill just because a little piece of plastic was broken or for a short circuit.

Now what about replacing products for energy conservation reasons? Is buying a new energy efficient car or appliance, while your current one is perfectly functional, good for the environment? How much natural resources and energy is required to manufacture, transport, market, advertise, sell, and deliver a new car? How much damage to the environment is caused by getting rid or recycle your old car? Cars and appliances are a more realistic examples for the percentage of natural resources vs. human ingenuity. The iPhone example is an extreme one.

One bad aspect of consumerism are the packages of perishable food. Our grand parents used to go to the grocery store with their own bags (neither plastic nor paper) their eggs box, their milk bottles and fill them. The products that had their own packaging had a much larger actual product per package ratio, like sacks of rice and flour. These sacks were then recycled for other home usage. They did not have recycling bins in their yards. Today the ratio between the actual product and its package became much smaller. Tea bags are now coming in an individual plastic bag to preserve "freshness" - I cannot tell the difference between a fresh and an old tea. The same with one-tea-spoon size sugar or instant coffee, or artificial sweetener bags. They used to be found only in restaurants. Now everyone buys them. Go to Costco and see how they package these small gadgets, like bluetooth headsets and memory cards, in huge transparent plastic cases.

Why not channel human ingenuity into developing products with long term vision, with fixable parts, with green thinking. Why not enhancing the 'cap and trade' system from the Kyoto Protocol beyond energy consumption. Companies and individual should pay the realistic price to erase their foot print on the environment. If you manufacture a printer you should pay NOW the price it takes to get rid of it at the end of its life cycle without hurting the environment. Maybe then replacing the ink cartridge kit will be the more economic solution and it will be recycled efficiently.

I think that we need to formulate 'wise consumerism'. It is our children and grand children that will have to pay the price for our reckless consumerism.

Regards,
Danny

By Daniel on 2009 06 23

As you say: "It would also be inaccurate to say that the legislation "would mandate emissions reductions" since firms would be able to increase emissions if they purchased off-sets. And it would be inaccurate to say that the legislation "would reduce emissions" since the reduction of the emissions is by no means guaranteed or even mandated."

So what's the point of this bill? Two come to mind:
(1) a Wall Street bailout, creating a junk market where emitters will be forced to deal in dubious tree offsets to continue or increase their emissions; and
(2) an emitter bailout, stripping the EPA of jurisdiction over CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act, which recently was upheld by the Supreme Court.

By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 06 04

My thoughts exactly, Nar. While he may be in for a few political reality checks in the near future, I believe Chu is a man with a vision. How exciting is it to finally have a competent scientist in this position rather than a businessman!

By Tyler Burton on 2009 03 29

I think the fact that Energy Secretary Chu is first and foremost a scientist and not a traditional policymaker or lobbyist will be an asset to the "reinvention" of the way the DOE approaches energy issues. It seems he may have a keen understanding as to where money should be spent to get the best scientific results -- the labs.

By NarWilliam on 2009 03 29

Subject: Evolutionary Panaltruism and Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth in the Age of Cosmic Genealogy

As empirical attributes of cosmic genealogy, universal forelaws of empathy and compassion (seated within the genome of humankind and all intelligent life) form the foundation of evolutionary panaltruism. Pursued both cosmically and locally (exemplified by Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth). evolutionary panaltruism constitutes the core of unified science.

Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth, aimed at bringing active freshwater and inactive freshwater (ice) into proportional balance and culminating over time in an essentially ice-free, predation-free planet with substantially greater land mass (made viable by replenishment of freshwater acquifers and storage of freshwater where once resided coal and petroleum), has been proposed as a new cornerstone for the United Nations.

Cosmic genealogy - new age, new vision, and new direction dating from the landmark and pivotal work of Louis Pasteur in 1859 disproving spontaneous generation - manifests in modern times revolutionary research and discovery (merging astrobiology and astronomy) conducted and led by the late Sir Fred Hoyle, by N. C. Wickramasinghe, Brig Klyce, Halton C. Arp, and others.

"Life comes from space because life comes from life."
- Brig Klyce, Astrobiology Research Trust

Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth, employing existing and proposed technologies in conjunction with accelerated desalination strategies, can commence in earnest with the utilization for freshwater of tabular Antarctic icebergs. Anomalous freshwater intrusion into ocean waters as a result of climate change translates into sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion, placing at risk all low-lying coastal and island communities.

Antarctic Treaty Consultative Members are urged to undertake at the earliest possible time (preferably before ATCMXXXII, 06 April - 17 April, 2009, Baltimore, MD, USA) all appropriate steps preliminary to recommending implementation of Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth under United Nations (World Meteorological Organization) auspices and mandate. www.geocities.com/CosmicGenealogy/GlobalWaterEquilibrium.html

In forelawsship on board,

Robert E. Cobb
www.geocities.com/CosmicGenealogy/

By Robert E. Cobb on 2009 01 14

thank for your information

By Khalfaoui lias on 2008 10 20

This is the fifth try to enter the "right" Captcha text. I am a human being.

I don't understand changing a message because of a poll. Can you imagine Churchill before WWII in England? Polls would show him that he must portray the Hitler issue in terms of the "immediate and long-lasting economic, personal and national benefits" that would accrue to England if it placed itself on a war footing and prepared to hurl its 18 year olds onto battlefields to die. I think he just kept on message, we'll have to go to war with this guy and fight to finish him before he finishes us, until the public turned to him as the crisis intensified.

By david lewis on 2008 10 20

Here's the next post in this continued dialog with Eric Pooley:

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/10/discussions_with_eric_pooley_o.shtml

By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 10 17

Nick, before you entirely dismiss this twenty-four year old policy wonk, please read my continued dialog with Eric Pooley here. I think you'll find I've put plenty of thought into these ideas, and my position is open to both discussion and refutation. Few other discussions are more critical given the state of our economy and our climate, and the political opportunities marked by what will no doubt be an historic election in just a few weeks. Flat out dismissing it with a frankly insulting appeal to authority just doesn't do it justice.

By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 10 17

I think I'll side with the "longtime financial editor and columnist and a current Shorenstein Fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government" over the 22-year old kid who'll shill whatever ideas Nordhaus and Shellenberger plant in his head (not matter how stubborn and close-minded).

By Nick Stern on 2008 10 17

Anon, thanks for the clarification on the vote count. Still, with at least 11 of the 48 voting for cloture on Lieberman-Warner voicing their opposition to the actual bill, that leaves you with just 37 votes for a climate bill as full of holes as Lieberman-Warner. With 60 votes almost certainly necessary to move a bill as contentious as climate legislation through the US Senate, we're a LONG way from a solid super-majority ready to vote in carbon regulations in 2009.

Assuming Democrats swept all eight potential pick-up races in the Senate, and assuming all eight of these new Senators are gung-ho for climate legislation, you'd still be 15 votes shy of a filibuster-proof 60 votes (which means you'd still need the entire Tech 16 to join in, or an equal number of Republicans). Plus, most of those new Senators will come from swing districts, meaning they are probably more likely to follow the centrist Tech 16s lead, than liberal climate champions like Barbara Boxer.

In short: anyone counting on the election to deliver an easy victory for climate legislation is either sorely mistaken or willfully ignorant. Unfortunately, those are just the facts.

By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 10 15

Jesse, you and I have a basic disagreement. I think a mandatory declining cap on GHG emissions is essential, and you don't. That's fine, but then you go on to disagree with me on some points I never make. I don't advocate "a Cap and Dividend proposal designed to enact the highest carbon price possible and rebate nearly all of the revenue to consumers, leaving very little to spend on clean technology development and deployment." As a matter of fact, I don't think the carbon price needs to be sky-high to drive clean tech.(But unlike you, I do think a carbon price is a crucial accelerator.) Apparently, since I refer to Peter Barnes in my column, you assume I advocate for all of his policies; that's reading way too much into one name-check. I do agree with Barnes' basic argument that consumers must be cushioned from energy price increases that result from cap-and-trade -- and so do a good many Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate, so we'll see how the politics play out. You argue that creating such a cushion wouldn't leave enough money for cleantech RD&D. I think you are wrong, and I think you create a false choice -- either a cap or a huge investment in clean technology. I'm in favor of both, and in favor of using the former to finance the latter. Having looked hard at the numbers, I'm convinced that a cap-and-trade bill can raise enough money for both RD&D and consumer relief, without resorting to a sky-high carbon price. By the way, how do you propose we raise the necessary cleantech RD&D money? What's your magical funding mechanism?

By Eric Pooley on 2008 10 14

Not to quibble, but your "Technology Ten" is actually 9 who voted for cloture (Bayh, Levin, Lincoln, McCaskill, Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Stabenow, Webb) and one who didn't (Brown). So with the addition of Salazar, Byrd, Conrad, Dorgan, Bingaman and Johnson (of which only Salazar and Bingaman voted for cloture)you are at 11 fewer votes than the 48 claimed by the proponents of the CSA. So, its actually two steps forward, 11 steps back. Ok, only 1 Senator difference, but with the current polls showing Very close Senate elections around the country, that 1 vote may actually make a difference.

By Anon on 2008 10 14

Another aspect is that many news stories report that, while the US will be affected by the carbon issue, that other countries will be hurt far worse and it may end up being a net benefit to the US. Such conflicting reports are a contributor to public apathy. I am not saying the reports are fake or are intentionally trying to mislead, just that a coherent picture has not formed in the US public imagination to drive actions.

By R Margolis on 2008 10 14

This is exciting! With the announcement of the Vattenfall 30mw CCS plant in Spremburg going online early last month, the EU is set to break the deadlock over this issue once and for all. Maybe now that a "winner has been picked", as you say, then the format wars of speculation over how and when and where will dissolve away. Of course, instead of leading we will be following, but for a country that can't make up its mind left or right this is perhaps the best place for us to be, in step behind a smart international standard.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/21397/

By Tyler Burton on 2008 10 08

You better look. Your broker or other financial advisor may tell you not to open your 401k, or not to worry, that it will all come back. This is not sound financial advise in my opinion. They simply want to retain your funds and keep people trading - BECAUSE THEY ARE MAINLY PAID ON COMMISSIONS.

Wall street certainly was thinking of itself, and now is the time for the American people to think for themselves. Many people are "getting flat" or "going to cash" in their 401k's and pausing their contributions until the market picks back up - and I agree.

This turn-around can take years and it's unacceptable for money managers to lose your hard earned income like this. Take the bailout into your own hands people.

We don't deserve to ride this crisis to the bottom.

Eric

By Eric Hanna on 2008 10 08

Hi Ben,

1. I don't agree with your point on consumption. Your analogy with slavery is flawed. Slavery ended in the 1800's in the U.S., because of various reasons. But consumers refusing to buy cotton from slave owners is not one of them. Instead, one reason (among others) that slavery ended when it did in the U.S. was the spread of industry. Technological progress and the growth of the industrial economy in the north (providing a better alternative to the feudal plantation economy of the south) played a much larger role in ending slavery. It is important to note that prior to advent of the industrial economy, almost all societies everywhere practiced slavery (though the exact forms may have differed from place to place). Even today in pre-industrial feudal economies, slavery is common. In India, though banned by law, a form of slavery known as "bonded labor" is still common in places where pre-modern feudal economic structures are prevalent (see this). In Saudi Arabia, slavery was open, legal, and widespread till as recently as 1962, when it was banned by royal decree. Even today, near-slavery working conditions are common for many foreign workers in the Arab world because these workers do not have any better alternatives. Also partly true for many illegal immigrants in the U.S. The bottom line is that if you want to do away with some existing mode of operation, a viable technological and economical alternatives must be developed.

2. You say that "if I buy a commodity crop from the developing world, I am encouraging that crop to be grown at the expense of other crops for local consumption" and presumably you believe that this is what causes poverty. Indeed this can happen in some rare situations. For example, in North Korea today, or in the Soviet Union under Stalin, the authoritarian govt. may force farmers to grow something for export instead of food for local consumption, leading to famines. However, for most of the world this is not the case. Though various govt. regulations and trade restrictions play a role, most farmers in the world today are reasonably free to produce what they judge to be the best return for their labor. If a Kenyan farmer decides to grow flowers for sale in Europe instead of food for local consumption, he does so because that gives him the best return for his labor. It is good thing that the economic and technical infrastructure exists for him to sell his flowers in Europe, because it increases the demand for his labor, which in turn enables him to improve his quality of like, send his kids to school, etc. The reason for poverty in the developing world is not lack of natural (non-human) resources, but rather the lack of demand for human talent and labor. Most would agree that Americans are better off today than they were 100 years ago. This is not primarily because vast amounts of natural resources have been discovered over the last 100 years, but rather it is because the much greater demand for their talent and labor supported by improvements in technology, economic systems, education, etc. Yes, this process does utilize natural resources, and unfortunately it has been accompanied by greenhouse gas emissions, loss of pristine natural areas, and other negative side effects. But the centrality of the human effort must be recognized. The question is: how to preserve and extend the gains of development while reducing the negative side effects.

3. I am sure that you sincerely believe that your decisions are more moral than others. As a moral belief, that is perfectly fine. Everybody is entitled to his/her own moral belief, just as everybody is entitled to his/her personal spiritual beliefs. As long as you present non-consumerism as a moral belief and not as a rational hypothesis claiming that "non-consumerism helps save the World", that is perfectly fine. My own reasoned position is that non-consumerism is neigther necessary nor sufficient to solve massive environmental problems like global warming.

By Sid Shome on 2008 06 28

Sid,
A number of points.
1. As far as I can tell, those of us who are trying to reduce consumption agree that sustainable consumption is the solution. I support sustainable consumption as it exists - I try to buy free trade and organic goods, and allow my interaction with "human ingenuity" to come from things like music and literature, which are available online or from the library at the cost of almost no natural resources. And, like Arduous, I buy used. But right now the vast majority of consumption is not sustainable and has clearly negative ecological and (thus) social consequences, so I try to limit my contribution to those consequences by limiting consumption. Continuing to consume as normal now because consumption can be sustainable in the future would be like buying cotton from a slave plantation in the 1800's because slavery would be abolished in the future.
You write that "Energy consumption does not cause global warming, emissions do." True in theory, but until we develop other sources of energy, energy consumption causes emissions and thus does cause global warming. While I certainly support investment in alternative energies, until they are implemented energy consumption carries moral costs that I cannot deny.

2. I think you tend to simplify your characterization of global poverty. Consumption can also increase poverty in that it increases the power of international corporations and the corrupt governments they support, who encourage poverty-increasing things like debt and the destruction of local economies. For example, if I buy a commodity crop from the developing world, I am encouraging that crop to be grown at the expense of other crops for local consumption. I know that this is not the source of all poverty and that things have gotten better in places like China. But there are enough problems with regular products to make me question how much good my consumption will actually do for the developing world. When more fairly traded and sustainable products are available, I'll change that attitude.

3. About judgment: I trust that you care for the planet and its inhabitants, Sid. But I do think that the decisions I am making are the most moral ones, and that other decisions would be less moral (though not evil). Thus I respect your position but I would like you to accept that we have an ethical disagreement; my decisions are more than simply a "lifestyle choice." On the road to sustainability, there are a lot of vexing issues to confront. It is important that when we disagree, we respect each other while also accepting the ethical quality of our disagreements.
Ben

By Ben Bokser on 2008 06 24

Hi Asa,

Well, I did mention crude oil for transportation in my post. Anyway I am pretty sure that even if you include the energy used to manufacture and transport the iPhone and add it to the other non-human resources used, it will still not be more than 10% of the total cost. In any case, the 10% is not an accurate number from some technical paper. Maybe the non-human resources will cost 12%; maybe 8%; maybe 5%. The point I'm trying to make is that human resources constitute the bulk of an iPhone, rather than non-human resources such as oil, sand, etc. Suppose someone were to offer to sell the raw materials and also the gasoline that goes into manufacturing and transporting an iPhone, how much would people be willing to pay for thay? I bet it would be less then 10% of what they would be willing to pay for a fully functioning iPhone.

True, oil today is at a point where most of the cost is simple raw material cost. There are many other items in this category as well. Gold or diamonds, for example. When you buy a diamond ring, you pay more for the raw materials than for the skill of the artisans, the services of the retailer, etc. But the vast majority of consumption in today's modern world is not in the diamond-ring category of natural-resource-heavy consumption but rather in the "iPhone" category of human-resource-heavy consumption. I argue that human-resource-heavy consumption is actually a good thing because it creates demand for human talent and labor, which is something desirable. It is precisely the lack of demand for human talent and labor that causes poverty.

I think the key to solving global warming does not necessarily lie in reducing energy consumption but in reducing emissions. Energy consumption does not cause global warming, emissions do. The key is to develop new ways of generating energy that produce much less emissions than is the case today. For this massive investments in energy technology and energy infrastructure are required.

By Sid Shome on 2008 06 16

A minor quibble: the consumption I have the most problem with is energy consumption. Sid, you completely neglect the energy built in to consumer items, even services. 10% of the iPhone may be raw materials, but the rest isn't all human resources: a good chunk is energy+transportation. A customized Mac laptop is finalized in China and then _flown_ to the US.

And the biggest of all is oil (gasoline). We're at the point where well over half the cost of a gallon of gas is simple raw material cost. And there's very little human resources and innovation going into that gallon of gas.

You'd think a blog focusing on global warming wouldn't completely forget energy.

By Asa on 2008 06 16

Hi Arduous,

You justify non-consumerists getting judgemental on the grounds that since it goes against the grain of society they need to be ultra-defensive about their personal choices. Put it that way - that non-consumerists' judgemental-ism is nothing more than a defense mechanism - I see our point. However, I do have a minor quibble here. Do non-consumerists really need to use unjustified claims like "I'm saving the planet" or "I'm helping the poor" as crutches when just saying "I do this to save money" or "I do this in order to have more time for family", etc., would suffice.

Anyway, seen purely as a defense mechanism rather than as a claim based on fact and reason, I see no problems in non-consumerists making whatever claims they want.

I am glad that you care about improving the quality of life for people in the developing world while still being environmentally sensitive. I agree completely. In fact I will go even further and say that without improving the quality of life for the bulk of the world's population, environmental sustainability is simply impossible. So if one is really interested in long-term environmental sustainability, one needs to also focus serious attention on how to improve the quality of life for people in the developing world.

Thanks a lot for sharing the links about some of your and Colin's reservations regarding non-consumerism. In fact Colin makes a point in his post that is very close to a point that I was myself trying to make in my post.

BTW, I didn't get your point about the $10 CD player. If you want to pay more, surely you could buy a $15 CD player. Or a $50 one. If you are willing to pay sufficiently high prices, the manufacturer will gladly make the CD player in the U.S. complying with all U.S. regulations on working conditions.

By Sid Shome on 2008 06 14

Sid, I think when you see non-consumerists getting judgemental, it's pushing back at consumerists who can also be incredibly judgemental. Let's be honest here. Your post was written with a tinge of judgement in it. That's fine, I get it, and I don't really mind. It's human nature to judge others. But non-consumerists are going against the grain of society, so I think they tend to get a lot more judgement. How many times in a given day are you forced to defend your non-non-consumerism? Not very often, I'd guess. Whereas I have to defend my personal decisions on a very regular basis.

Non-consumerists, as well as regular consumers who sometimes buy used, do have an important function in our society. To a certain extent, we're sort of like the scavengers in the eco-system. By living off of used items, we ensure another use for an item, we stall items from arriving at a landfill, and we slow the use of valuable resources. In essence, we're buying time until new technologies can be made.

And because I buy less, it means that when my year ends and I start buying new again, I can afford to spend more on what I do buy. Again, going back to the $10 CD player, I believe that that CD player is worth more than $10 when you factor in the human labor that went into it. I would rather pay more money for a CD player that will last longer, and that I know was made in conditions where workers were paid fairly and treated properly.

I understand your reservations about non-consumerism as well, and I share them. In fact, I've written about some of my reservations with non-consumerism here.

And Colin has written about his issues here.

We're not mindless to the problems. You don't undertake a year long experiment of non-consumerism without contemplating the ramifications. And especially as an Indian-American, I know that even the underpriced $10 boombox is providing needed jobs to a Chinese person who might not otherwise have a job. That's why I don't support movements to only buy stuff made in America.

But after weighing things carefully, I believe that this is what is right for me. I take care when I talk about my experiment to speak in personal terms. I agree every person is different. But ultimately, if you feel judged, that's ... not really my problem. We all get judged. We all judge. You judge American environmentalists who you deem hypocritical. No big deal.

And for the record, I don't think you care less about humanity or the planet. Neither does Colin. But ... if you feel that is implied, again, not really my problem. What would you have us do? Quietly hide our way of life, never speak up, never write? That hardly seems fair.

That's why I kind of think this attacking of personal environmentalism at best doesn't make a ton of sense, and at worst risks alienating your allies. I told this to Michael, and I'll say it again to you, I'm your ally. Like you, I care about the people on the planet. I care about the poor in India. I care about increasing the quality of life for those living in the third-world, and I believe we CAN do it, AND we can do so in environmentally sensitive ways.

So don't try and force a wedge between us by arguing against points no one is even making. Don't assume there's judgement just because I choose to live a different lifestyle than you do. Dude, I want an iPhone too, okay? I get it. They're pretty. Calm down and stop seeing "implications" in our very existence as an alternative-lifestyle. Instead, let's focus our attention on where we do agree. Let's figure out ways to build a better life for everyone on the planet.

By arduous on 2008 06 13

Hi Arduous,

I'm glad that you see your turn towards non-consumerism of "stuff" mainly as a personal choice that makes you happy because it helps with your personal finances and allows you to redirect your consumerism towards concerts, restaurants, etc. I'm glad you are not judgemental towards people who have different consumption patterns from your own. I basically see non-consumerism as no better or no worse than consumerism of various sorts. I'm glad we agree on this. I have no problem whatsoever with people making personal choices on consumption or on any other issue. If people say "I'm doing this to save money" or "to spend more time with friends and family", or simply "because I enjoy it" or "I'm very good at this", that's perfectly fine with me.

Unfortunately, I sometimes get the feeling that non-consumerists tend to judgemental. I have a problem when a non-consumerist says "I'm doing this to save the planet" or worst of all "I'm doing this for poor people in Africa". Noble sentiments all. But how is non-consumerism going to save the planet, especially if by the term "planet" you include the human beings living on it? And by what stretch of imagination is non-consumerism going to help the poor people in Africa? Moreover, though it is not explicitly stated, the implication that such non-consumerist statements carry is that others (i.e., non-non-consumerists) are somehow less concerned about the planet, or about the poor in Africa, than they are.

By Sid Shome on 2008 06 13

I think you're misunderstanding non-consumerists. I don't think a single non-consumerist would claim that consumption was evil. Period.

Every non-consumerist has many varied reasons for becoming a non-consumerist. For me personally I stopped buying new stuff because I realized I had too much crap, that I wasn't good at personally recognizing what was I needed versus what I wanted. I also was spending too much and saving too little, and I was slowly realizing that while a CD player at Target may cost $10, that CD player was worth way more than $10 in terms of resources and human effort. And that iPhone you mention? I would bet it's also worth more than $199 in terms of human effort.

Plus, buying used (when I had to buy) made sense. Used stuff was cheaper, and readily available (thanks to garage sales, Craigslist, Ebay, Freecycle, etc.) I didn't have to deprive myself really if I bought used, because I could easily live off of buying stuff that other people had bought new. Also, by buying used, I am essentially helping to build a market for used goods. I am investing in the "reusables" market. Good for my pocketbook, good for the planet.

And frankly? My life is now better than it was 10 months ago. I have more money in the bank. I don't have to worry about paying off my credit card bill. I know what I need, I know what I want, and I know the difference. And because I haven't been buying so much stuff, I can afford to spend money on experiences, which I have found to offer more real pleasure than things. Instead of buying purses and dresses, I go to concerts and restaurants and spend more time with my friends. For me, it's a no brainer. Accumulating stuff didn't make me happier. But spending money on experiences does. I also found that I had more money to donate to non-profits or political causes. More money to ensure officials get elected who will push for alternative energy investment.

And no, I don't think we should go Judgey McJudgerson on other people who make different decisions, which by the way, goes for consumerists and non-consumerists alike, ahem Mr. Fallacious Argument. That's not my intent. I merely point out my life as an alternative path for people to follow if they choose to do so. But mostly, I live my life because it makes sense for me.

By arduous on 2008 06 13

This is a pretty simple reading of the poll. You could look at the numbers and draw a very different conclusion. Quoting from the same Gallup press release:

About two-thirds say they worry a great deal or a fair amount about it [global warming], and only 17% say they don't worry at all about it...

There has also been an uptick in the percentage of Americans who say global warming will pose a serious threat to them in their lifetimes, from 25% in 1997 to 40% today.

That certainly sounds like growing awareness of the issue, its immediacy, and its seriousness.

Also, from the available information in that press release you could say that issues of water and soil pollution (the issues that people reported that they were PERSONALLY the most worried about) would an effective way to build an awareness of climate change by drawing to connections between these issues.

By David C. Brock on 2008 04 22

This is not surprising to me. It shouldn't be to you either because neither you nor I have personally felt the impact. Therefore, it's NOT REAL to us.

If it doesn't itch; should I scratch it anyway?

By Charles on 2008 04 21