Topic
Become a member to post in the forums.
here's a question … does anyone really believe the marketing claims about companies or their products "greeness"
i mean we don't really believe their claims about breathability, insulation (until en-ratings came out), comfort, etc … because we all know that big companies will claim whatever they want to sell …
do you really believe their claims about how many trees they hug ;)
Just like everything else in this whole "green movement" they try to guilt trip us into buying something we don't want so they can look enviormentally responsible. Oh and don't get so proud of yourselves for buying that "eco friendly" pack before you figure out how much pollution is created by those giant cargo ships bringing it overseas from asia?
Ill just stick with my non eco-friendly pack. The durable one I plan on useing for a long time to come.
Joseph
IMHO, the real challenge is how to live on this planet and make as little impact as possible. I recycle at home and at work, and I try to make good choices as a consumer, but everything I buy is made and moved about with fossil fuels and polluting products. Even organic products make their impact, with manure runoff problems and the like, and they are still transported. I guess that is where population issues kick in.
No free lunch, but everyone should try to make an effort. One of the best examples I have seen is the reduction in floourocarbon products like Freon 12 in air conditioning products. I saw the changes first hand in the automobile indiustry and it was quick and very effective. If we keep going at the problems in the same way, progress will be made. Giving up isn't an option.
As to BPL (or any other reviewer) promoting the use of polluting products: if they review and recommend such products, they become part of the problem, not the solution. The turnover of gear, the way it is made, who makes it, the sustainability is a legitimate concern. I prefer not to support stuff that will be thrown away oafter season, made with toxic materials, or in factories with poor working conditions and low wages. Getting the real truth and finding products that satisfy that criteria is a very daunting challange. Putting your head in the sand is no excuse: you are part of the problem or part of the solution.
The planet you save may be your own!
>> One of the best examples I have seen is the reduction in floourocarbon products like Freon 12 in air conditioning products. I saw the changes first hand in the automobile indiustry and it was quick and very effective.
Was R12 really damaging the Ozone? As countries around the world adhere to the Montreal Protocol, should we expect the Ozone hole to shrink? Is it a problem? Are other compounds more damaging? Hard to say, as it is all theory. In the US, R12 was phased out beginning in the late 80's and manufacture ended in 1995, and other countries around the world supposedly followed suit. According to some scientists we had a record size ozone hole in 2007, and near record in 2008. There are hundreds of theories as to why and why not.
As to gear reviewers, can they really know what the facts truly are?
Here is one… CFL light bulbs. The US Government is pushing everyone to use them (they subsidize the sale of them). However disposal is a huge problem. The mercury content classifies them as a hazardous material, and should be disposed as hazardous waste. Only problem is there is no way for most people to get them unbroken to someone who can properly handle the waste. Would we be better off to stick with incandescent light bulbs?
And another one… the Toyota Prius has gotten big press on its above average lifetime emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxide. But it is slightly worse than average in the emissions of non-methane hydrocarbons and particulate matter. Additionally when you consider the materials manufacturing of the vehicle, it is worse in all the above mentioned pollutants over the car's life compared to other vehicles in its class. Maybe SUV's aren't the demon they are accused of being.
Like Dale says, we cannot give up, but sometimes it is almost impossible to figure out what is what. Craig made a good point to use things as long as we can when it makes sense. For example my dad still uses the refrigerator and stove he purchased 60 years ago. Has this been good or bad? Depends upon who you talk to.
It is up to each individual to decide for himself/herself how they will live their lives. But do not pass judgment on anyone.
"But do not pass judgment on anyone."
Gosh Nick, you just want to take all the fun out of life, don't you!
When we were in China for a year in our 8th floor walk up "healthy apartment" at the University of the Minorities we discovered on our first day that our fridge was dead. So a day later it was fixed by a couple of guys with big tanks of freon . They did the aircon too hanging off the steel angle iron with these rusty bolts into a concrete hutong that most likely had not much re bar . Fixed it they did eight stories up .There is no Workman's Comp. There are no standards. But every window had a base unit and wall mounts in the whole structure. You can impose standards here but it's a world atmosphere. If you can afford it in China you turn it on.
As countries around the world adhere to the Montreal Protocol, should we expect the Ozone hole to shrink?
Yes, we should and yes, it has. The Montreal Protocol is a great example, if not the greatest example of successful international regulation meeting a certain goal (protecting the ozone layer). There are lots and lots of other examples where national regulation worked really well (such as the endangered species act saving the Bald Eagle) but as an international regulation aimed at an environmental goal, it is quite remarkable. If global warming was as simple, and the cost to each country as small, we would solve that problem the same way. Unfortunately, it isn't.
All of this suggests that while companies (like Patagonia) may do a lot of good by trying to make their products with as little negative impact as possible, it may not make much of a difference. Regulation is solving the Ozone problem, not simply buying products that are "good".
so … i'm going to ramp up my percentage of green insulation in my gear matrix, with the intention to save the earth, while at the same time in order to do the hike i fully intend on doing, i will be partially funding the flying of a large reaction engined aircraft the pukes god knows what into the izonosphere … and me compromising my safety and success with using second rate materials is going to help.. what ?
i suspect that the best thing to come for our environment from my walking is that while i am walking, i won;t be working and thusly the gov't will have fewer taxes stripped out of my wages, and perhaps a bit less funding then to pay irresponsible people to breed.
the problem is not "green" or otherwise technology.
there are nearly THREE times as many living people as there were in 1980. to ignore the population debacle soon to arrive while debating fringe issues seems to me .. to be like politics, without substance, and a rather poor form of theater.
—
all that said. waste IS repulsive. i get ill. real physical sick, at the sight of the resources and human effort discarded into your basic landfill.
cheers,
peter v.
A rant on not giving taxes to the gov't for "breeding". Wow, that definitely goes chaff-ville.
Montreal Protocol? I have to admit I don't know much about it but the fact that it didn't take place in all the state capitals around the US or at the very least Washington DC and would only apply to the US bothers me. Just looks like one of the steps we have taken to get us to this point where we are on the verge of becoming one big socialist utopia ruled over by an all powerful one world government. Remember, this is America where personal liberties still trump everything else. Personal liberties like being able to choose whats best for ourselves. International regulations and treaties are not aimed at solving the global warming problem (which by the way is just a theory not a fact)but an attack on our economy, our personal liberties and our national sovereignty. Global warming hysteria is just the weapon they are useing.
"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tryant." -James Madison
Joseph
"Montreal Protocol? I have to admit I don't know much about it…"
You might want do a quick check to see what it is before making assumptions about it. It was not mandatory, it doesn't only apply to the US (but to any country that wants to sign onto it). Sure it applies more to a large industrialized nation than others. The assumption that the US signed on to it not to protect themselves, but as a power grab to control citizens seems far fetched at best. How does getting rid of CFC's control the population? Read the science behind it, sure it's a theory, but that's all science is. Rather than look at these situations as some way to control us, why can't it be seen as a way to solve a problem and push innovation (which could benefit, not hamper your country)?
"Just looks like one of the steps we have taken to get us to this point where we are on the verge of becoming one big socialist utopia ruled over by an all powerful one world government."
We're very close, desperate times indeed my friend. I saw some black helicopters circling Los Angeles this morning…It appears to me that they were fixing GPS coordinates of the houses of registered gun owners, those that oppose health care reform, and global warming skeptics.
If I'm not mistaken, I could swear I saw Ban Ki-moon riding shotgun in an Apache.
Cheers, off to my bunker.
Let me draw the Redwood Curtain a little tighter…
The UN and the rest of the world has been giving alot of grief to the US and its citizens for over consuming and over polluting for as far back as I can remember. Even while France had been detonating nucleur bombs on islands and sending radioactive waste across the border into Germany. While the UK and Japan have been clearly overfishing the oceans. The rest of the world hasn't been any kinder on the planet than the US.
How could banning cfc's hurt the US economy and not the rest of the world? Simply, The US was the largest producer of automobiles, refrigerators and AC's on the planet. Causing them to stop what they are were doing and put fortunes into designing something totally new most likely harmed the industries. The American consumer is probably still paying for it.
Isn't it strange that we have had so many record snowfalls and record lows this winter while we are being told we are overheating the planet and we must act fast. Isn't it even more strange that scientist 15 or so years ago were warning that the icecaps would melt and totally submerge florida by this time.
How about the falsified temperature data that scientist were using as proof of global warming.
There is absolutely no proof of global warming. So why create the hysteria? Because scared people do stupid things. Like agree that billions of tax dollars should go to saving the planet. Or we should tax the american people nearly 60 cents a gallon of gas. Or we should shut down all oil platforms off the coasts. Good thing Obama raced down to the gulf during that spill. That was about as fast as Bush got fema into action after the hurricanes.
Bush had 911 to get the patriot act passed and alot of military contractors fed, He also had the hurricanes to test out what disregard of rights the American people would overlook during marshal law. Obama has Global Warming and the gulf oil splill to see how fast the American people would beg for socialism from the great messiah himself. He also has the underwear bomber so that his sicko TSA thugs can get excited either be seeing us all naked or giving us advanced pat downs before we travel.
So once again: "Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -James Madison
I used to be a liberal. Even somewhat of a socialist. Hell, I voted for Obama. I used to believe in Global Warming, socialized healthcare and gun control. But for some reason I had the overwhelming urge to think for myself. Now I believe in the US Constitution, person responsibility, and fending for myself by yes, carrying a loaded handgun on my side everywhere I go including backpacking.
Joseph
P.S. Someone please show me some real evidence of global warming or that there is a hole in the ozone layer. And when I say evidence I don't mean a news report from msnbc or a paragraph out of your 4th grade childs government approved textbook!
"isn't it strange that we have had so many record snowfalls "
Sure it is. Especially if you don't believe the oceans are warming.
If you don't believe the oceans are warming, you wouldn't expect more moisture in the air, and wouldn't expect larger storms, and wouldn't expect more precipitation from those storms. It is really strange all of these things are happening, when we know the oceans are not warming. Strange indeed.
The US doesn't over consume and over pollute?
The fact that pretty much the rest of the world signed on to the Montreal Protocol means we weren't at a disadvantage. At the time Dupont controlled about 25% of the CFC production, which was the largest share worldwide, but hardly a run away where they'd be the only ones effected. The next closest percentages were from foreign companies.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0045-04.pdf/$file/EE-0045-04.pdf
The companies had 10 years to come up with an alternative. For a company like Dupont that is making hand over fist and has a vast knowledge of chemicals this seems completely reasonable.
Here's some pictures for you:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast17sep_1/
You can dig up the old issues of Nature if you want more scientific evidence.
Global warming is a misnomer. It should be called Global Climate Disruption, because it doesn't create a uniform 'warming' as implied.
Should tax dollars should be used to reduce energy consumption (through new alternative means or through efficiency) or to coal, oil, and nuclear which have getting it all and proven to be insanely expensive and damaging to the environment and our health?
I tend not to respond to these sorts of arguments, but I can stay silent only so long in the face of some of the uninformed opinions being bandied about here.
Joseph – your second post begins with the admission that you know very little about the Montreal Protocol, but then you spend a couple paragraphs criticizing it and linking it's effects to the general demise of the great American way of life. To me, this is indicative of your generally misinformed, yet highly opinionated view of the world.
Do you really think that all of the scientists around the world working on the issue of climate change are part of some massive conspiracy to subject the world to an oppressive totalitarian regime? Perhaps a more reasonable line of reasoning is that they simple care about our future on this planet and are doing their best to understand a small subset of the impacts our existence has on the life-support systems of the Earth. As for real evidence, kindly read through this document:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
It is the latest complete report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that details the combined findings of more than 2000 scientists on various subjects related to climate change. Of particular interest to you will be the section "Summary for Policymakers" and the sub-sections "Observed changes in climate and their effects" and "Causes of Change". These state that warming of the global climate is unequivocal, and that this warming is having noticeable effects on global systems. It also states that it is "very likely" that most of the observed warming is due to anthropogenic effects.
The fact that the planet is warming is true. Human activities are the likely cause of this change. However, neither of these two facts mean that we should create mass hysteria, eliminate cars, and roll the clock back 10,000 years of human history. They are simply factors that we must consider when we make decisions. The reality is that simply existing on this planet means having an "impact" on the environment. Of course, the Earth has considerable capacity to absorb such impacts and maintain an relatively stable equilibrium capable of maintaining life. That capacity, however, is limited. Nations around the world are continuing to develop and this planet cannot support a population of 7-9 billion people living like Western people do today. Somewhere, something will have to give.
Therein lies the crux of this whole argument – how can we provide the most welfare to the greatest number of people? You could say screw everyone else, I'm not changing how I live just so some African living in a mud hut in a jungle can have electricity. That is a personal choice. I however, happen to believe that everyone born on this planet should have some chance at a fulfilling life. That belief might include giving up some of the material junk that provides me with little or no benefit to my overall well-bring and life satisfaction and conferring it to someone to whom a intact set of clothes and a pair of shoes would change their life. Basically, what I am saying is that the most important point to all of this environmental stuff is promoting a transparent understanding of the true impacts of our actions on both the natural world and our fellow humans. Given that understanding, how you then choose to act is up to you.
At the time Dupont controlled about 25% of the CFC production, which was the largest share worldwide, but hardly a run away where they'd be the only ones effected. The next closest percentages were from foreign companies.
Here is the thing for me… many scientists are sincere in their efforts to improve the planet, but often their zeal is not completely supported by facts. They, and others, try to push changes "just in case they are right."
It is just like data analysis… you can slice and dice the information to support your theory, and slice it another way to disprove it. If you are driven by an agenda, then that is not necessarily good at all.
If the earth is warming, it is not the first time. It was covered with ice a few years ago. The problem is determining causality.
Considering Freon is Dupont's trademarked name for their blend of CFCs it's reasonable to assume they controlled the lion's share of the Freon market. Freon=CFC, CFC≠Freon. I honestly couldn't tell you what it was replaced with, so I'm not going to speak as to how much it cost them to develop something new. It seems like the American companies tried to do it the cheapest way again (even if it's not with the most responsible way, which could lead to another phase out/"power grab".
Yes the earth has warmed/cooled before, but not at the same rate and it seems probable that the tons of greenhouse gases we're pumping into the air is speeding that up.
Still haven't replaced R12. R12 was not corrosive like R134a nor does it have as high of an enthalpy, so we still burn more electricity using R134a than R12. R134a is not poisonous to humans at least just like R12. Its why you can buy a 60 year old R12 refrigerator that still runs whereas a modern refrigerator running on R134a will eat through the tubing, condensor, evaporator in a few years requiring Wholesale refrigerator replacement.
Trade-offs.
>> Basically, what I am saying is that the most important point to all of this environmental stuff is promoting a transparent understanding of the true impacts of our actions on both the natural world and our fellow humans. Given that understanding, how you then choose to act is up to you.
Couldn't say better, Aaron. Thanks for summing it up.
"There is absolutely no proof of global warming."
Actually, other than the propaganda, the proof of global warming is incontrovertible.
"Isn't it even more strange that scientist 15 or so years ago were warning that the icecaps would melt and totally submerge florida by this time."
Reality is that the rate of glacial melting, the reduction of the Arctic sea ice, and recession of glaciers like the one feeding the Ganges have far exceeded even the most alarmist scientists' predictions.
If you want to see photographic evidence of what's really happening to our ice, rather than what the politicians want you to believe, look here:
http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/
I figured I would be ridiculed after my last statement so I must thankyou all.
I read all the reports you provided I got and they are pretty convincing. The problem is I can look at graphs and computed models all day and the only thing I think of is I can make those same graphs and computed models by myself on this very laptop. I can read report after report and only get someones opinion from it.
I realize we have an affect on the planet. I also realize it is each persons responsibility to do something about it. So lets focus on the things we know are a problem. Like cleaning trash out of lakes and streams, lowering the amount of trash going to the landfills everyday by recycling and reusing. More importantly teach responsibility and accountability to others. I know my responsibilities and I don't need anyone else forcing me to do anything.
It has become a trend for the US federal government and the UN to coop movements like the enviormentalist movement. We don't want them involved. If we look to them to solve all our problems we are giving up the ability to solve any of our own problems. We will end up asking for permission to do anything in the end.
If you think a company is producing to much pollution then let them know you don't approve of there actions by not buying there products. If the majority of Americans believe the company is irresponsible then they will either change there ways or go under. Thats the way things get done in a free market capitalism. Don't ask the government to over regulate or over tax them or show favortism to another company. You will end up with one state run company who decides what you buy or you go without.
To show you what I mean, A few years ago TVA had a flyash spill which obviously had a very bad impact on the enviorment. Because they are the only energy provider in the area I have no way of letting TVA know I am mad about the spill. Not only can I not switch to another energy provider I have to help pay to clean up the flyash spill! On top of that I will obviously have to help pay the nearly 12 million dollarsin EPA fines and the lawsuits from homeowners in the area.
If we are paying so many taxes and taxing business so much to supposively protect the enviorment we are taking not only the resposability out of our hands we are also destroying any ability to be able to afford to do it on our own. I would like to be able to put new windows and doors in my house to lower my utility bill each month. The fact that I am going to have to fork over two grand to the federal government before april 15 kinda makes that a little difficult now.
So lets leave the Federal Government, the UN and scientists out of it and focus on the problems we know for a fact need to be fixed. But if you are truly worried about global warming then ride a bike or walk everywhere and don't buy from manufacturers who produce greenhouse gasses. That way YOU have the power to change the planet not the Federal Government or the UN. Because there kind of change is not good for mankind let alone the planet.
Joseph
I find it odd that it always costs more money to fix the flaws of our society. If education fails…spend more money. If health-care fails…spend more money. If the weather changes…spend more money. If buying your old backpack harmed the earth… buy a new backpack that harmed it less.
If people were truly concerned about the enviromental impact of their purchases, they would buy one backpack and use it until it becomes a frazzled cord of threads, then buy another one and run it into the ground. And if that's you, then my hat's off to you. But most of the people frequenting these forums are gearheads owning 5 or more backpacks.
Go green is just a marketing gimmick.
"I can read report after report and only get someones opinion from it."
Maybe you should try looking at the data in the reports, and form your own opinion? That IS what data is for, after all.
"The problem is I can look at graphs and computed models all day and the only thing I think of is I can make those same graphs and computed models by myself on this very laptop."
Do you have any clue as to what goes into those computer models? Climate scientists don't just play around with laptops creating graphs. They're building their knowledge of meteorology and climate into the models, and using the data that they're gathering to test and verify their models, then using the models to create projections. There's a reason that they use supercomputers to run those models.
Become a member to post in the forums.
advertisement
Discover under-the-radar ultralight gear from small brands.
© Beartooth Media Group Inc.
Loading...
