No love for Eco gear?
- This topic is empty.
Feb 10, 2011 at 2:27 pm #1695071Barrie GrieveBPL Member
@barrie_grieveLocale: Fife, Scotland
Why all the talk about saving the planet?
You want to save the planet?
Oh, you enjoy the pretty views as you walk down the trail.
There is pretty much two ways this will go down –
a. The S*#T WILL HIT THE FAN (Then freeze in the ice age (everybody is watching Greenland))
b. Just do what YOU can to lower YOUR consumption and minimising your waste and try to set a clean and low impact style of living.
Example – I've just recently renewed my sleeping bag and insulated top from Buffalo, a Special 6 shirt and a Superbag. They replaced an 18 year old Mountain shirt and a 4 season inner and outer bag bought at the same time (they were going bald).
The moral is I KNOW that barring fire I'll still be using them in 15+ years and the old one's pertex shell has been cut up for towels and the fiberpile is a dog blanket – no waste and minimal consumption.
Basically if you can't or don't want to by eco or green products then buy something that'll LAST!Feb 10, 2011 at 3:16 pm #1695095AnonymousInactive
"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."
I don't think the primary concern is with the warming per se but, rather, that the rate of warming is exceeding the ability of countless life forms to adapt, which in turn could have a major impact on the food chain, agriculture, and measures to protect vulnerable populations, to mention a few dangers. There seems to be very little doubt in the minds of the vast majority of climate scientists about the role anthropogenic CO2 plays in the warming. Also, often overlooked is the acidification of the oceans, with potentially disastrous effects on the food chain and organisms that produce ~50% of the O2 in the atmosphere. The causality for acidification, the increasing level of primarily anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, is well understood and not in doubt. If we wait until 100% of climate scientists are 100% sure of the causality, we are rolling the dice on our future on the only planet we have. Why? So more and more people can have more and more stuff? I think we can do better, and find it telling that the most adamant opposition to the consensus position of the vast majority of climate scientists comes primarily from those involved in making the stuff.Feb 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm #1695105Rakesh MalikMember
"I think we can do better, and find it telling that the most adamant opposition to the consensus position of the vast majority of climate scientists comes primarily from those involved in making the stuff."
What's even more telling is that the opposition to global warming is primarily based on propaganda rather than science. The anti-global warming crowd are relying on the fact that the public is largely scientifically illiterate, and too lazy to think for themselves.
Whether or not global warming is happening isn't a matter of debate, it's a matter of scientific research and climate modeling. The scientific research and climate models confirm global warming beyond any possibility of doubt.Feb 10, 2011 at 4:29 pm #1695122
I didn't mean to come across as ridiculing, so I'm sorry if that's the case. I'll just say a couple last things and leave it at that.
"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."
We know that greenhouse gas emissions (and the ton of other pollutants that come from non-renewables) are a problem. Just because you can't see them with your own eyes, doesn't mean they aren't there causing a problem. I realize it may be difficult to accept something that you can't prove for yourself as easily as looking at a piece of garbage, but I encourage you to investigate it for yourself.
The problem is that the Feds are already involved in keeping the polluting going. It's not like the oil companies pay for everything involved in finding, securing and producing oil & gas. They are heavily subsidized. Same for nuclear power. Why is it too much to ask they do the same for other cleaner forms?
That would be the way things work in a free market capitalism, but we don't live in a completely free market, nor would you probably want to. You could fight back against the TVA by limiting your energy consumption and/or producing your own energy. But I understand that might not be monetarily feasible. So it seems like your stuck not having another option, why would it be a bad thing for an oversight agency to step in?
I agree with you that the system (federal and state) as is, is broken. But we differ because ideologically I believe an oversight/regulatory system can benefit us, but the corporate money/power that runs it doesn't care about us. And you see that reflected in the things they do.
I also believe scientists need to be an integral part of fixing problems. Technological advancements can create change at a level that individuals will find very difficult.Feb 10, 2011 at 7:11 pm #1695205Brian AustinMember
@footeabLocale: Pacific Northwest
I find it rather amusing that in most of the debate on "global warming" or when they changed it to "climate change" they never bother to bring up that pesky fact that the earth very recently was covered by giant glaciers over most of North/South America, Europe and other regions as well.
These glacier magically appeared without human interference and magically dissapeared without human interference as well. Their remnant glaciers can still be seen in Greenland and Antartica.
Yet, funny thing, none of their climatology prediction programs can account for this well known period of time in VERY recent history. We are now supposed to believe that their climatology prediction programs are now correct when they are demonstrated by history to be wrong? Pull my other leg will ya.
Do humans have an impact on environment? Yes.
Do these genius idiots believe that the earth is somehow perfect in stasis at this magical moment in time and that we can somehow not make the sun burn hotter or cooler or manipulate our magnetic field around the earth? What a joke.
Conservation is a good ideal to strive for in sustainability. Its not reality though. Wind is a joke, can't rely on it and there is no viable energy storage solution for the forseable future baring a miracle breakthrough in battery or capacitor technology and ditto for… Solar is horribly expensive though getting better. grandparents house was solar using simple aluminum plates and flowing water through a refrigeration system to harvest the free energy. May as well use nuclear fuel that is naturally decaying in the ground and warming up our earth causing added "climate change". Something those idiot greenies won't even acknowledge. I call a huge difference between a conservationist and a greenie. One has a rational brain on their heads and the other does not. Someone who will spend money buying a "green" hiking shirt when they already own 10 shirts. Or eat "organic" veggies/fruits brought in from Chile/New Zealand… That isn't green at all that is just stupid.Feb 10, 2011 at 9:42 pm #1695273
"Solar is horribly expensive though getting better."
"May as well use nuclear fuel that is naturally decaying in the ground"
When you actually take into account the cost of producing a nuclear power plant, mining the minerals, dealing with the waste, etc. it's more expensive than solar. So this logic doesn't really make sense to me. Both have a weakness in that they rely on rare earth minerals that will eventually run out when used in mass quantities (though Uranium is more rare). Passive solar obviously doesn't have the same requirements. Can you imagine the advancements if the Feds put even half as much money into solar R&D as they pour into nuclear? Solar has the benefit that it doesn't put tons of radioactive waste in concentrated amounts into the ground, air and water. Isotopes that have half lives that dwarf our existence. Furthermore enriching Uranium only contributes to nuclear arms issues. Lastly what would have happened had some planes not flown into the WTC but rather a couple nuclear reactors? We need to phase out nuclear things for everyone's good, not ramp it up. *If you seriously think it's a good idea, volunteer to house some of the nuclear waste, they're having a hell of a time finding people that want it and increased demand means increased waste.
*supposed to be tongue-in-cheekFeb 10, 2011 at 10:03 pm #1695279josh wagnerMember
i read an article awhile ago that totally changed my viewpoint on things. it basically argued that recycling is worse overall for the environment than just throwing stuff away. it went into depth about the need for a 2nd plant, and a 2nd truck to come pick stuff up, and the refining that takes place, the fuel the need to melt the materials, and the special equipment needed to make the new stuff. the tests they run. basically they summed it up to carbon footprint being larger than if we just threw everything away. totally messed me up!
now i just try to keep things simple. i try not to use much more than i have to. i still recycle. i buy "green" products when conditions permit – whether they are truly green or not. i pack my lunch in a plastic tub that i wash instead of sandwich baggies that i used to throw away.
i'm not a fanatic in that i reuse my gray water and go nuts over things. it's been my experience that all the trouble in the world is caused by fanatics about 1 thing or another.
good thread. interesting viewpoints across the boardFeb 11, 2011 at 1:58 am #1695322Brian AustinMember
@footeabLocale: Pacific Northwest
They are designed to have a plane flown into them at 550 mph. The 3 foot thick concrete laughs it off. Picture what happens when a plane runs into a cliff side. You can even find youtube videos of it. In that case it was an f6 phantom. Only part to actually faze said nuclear concrete reactor shield was a slight dimple created by the engine. The rest of the plane simply vaporized.
Biggest expense of Nuclear is the litigation. That and an effective and real program for waste disposal. Unlike popular opinion, most nuclear waste needs to be stored for all of 100 years or so before its safe enough to drink and the hotter stuff can be recycled. Recycled = more expense.
Enriching uranium = nuclear arms, that is laughable as it entirely depends on the reactor type built. Its obvious that one is trying to get nuclear grade verses A power reactor for energy. 2 entirely different designs.
Solar is optimal. No one will argue that. Problem is the super low Temp hot to temp low or energy high to energy low state which defines your efficiency that and you can't rely on solar for your entire power requiring traditional methods on top of solar anyways. Gets back to the energy storage problem that requires a brand new invention energy capability. No, lithium batteries are not even close. If I lived in S. Cal, AZ, NM, TX would install solar in a heartbeat.Feb 11, 2011 at 6:08 am #1695345William BrownSpectator
@matthewbrownLocale: Blue Ridge Mtns
Rakesh wrote: "What's even more telling is that the opposition to global warming is primarily based on propaganda rather than science. The anti-global warming crowd are relying on the fact that the public is largely scientifically illiterate, and too lazy to think for themselves."
It's based on common sense. When the high preist of climate change doesn't even believe it, why should the common layman believe it?
Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. (Businessweek 2007)
It's the same idea as wacthing a greedy televangelist like Kenneth Copeland or Benny Hinn telling people to give while all they do is take.
The average Joe may not be as intelligent as the top scientists, but he can see the hypocrisy in someone's life.
If someone truly believes something, he will live it out in his life. And all the mountains of data in the world can't hide that truth.Feb 11, 2011 at 6:26 am #1695349Chris BensonMember
The problem is that Al Gore's hypocrisy does not support the arguement that the science behind climate change should be discounted. That's not common sense, it's deductive fallacy.
Might be time to merge this thread with "The Carbon Flame War" in Chaff.Feb 11, 2011 at 7:28 am #1695366Joe ClementBPL Member
>Might be time to merge this thread with "The Carbon Flame War" in Chaff.
Amen to that. I try not to read these threads, since they are always full of people from the PNW and NE insisiting that all of us in the SW bear the added cost, vista-destroying profile, and lower efficiency of solar and wind power. If you think eco-power is so frickin' cool, move to where you can actually use it, instead of having the rest of us bear the burden of easing your conscience.
As to the OP……………if there were 2 products of equal weight function, and cost, I'd probably buy the more eco of the 2.Feb 11, 2011 at 7:37 am #1695374W I S N E R !BPL Member
So nobody in New Mexico imports energy or resources from anywhere beyond their border?
Fascinating. How do you do it?Feb 11, 2011 at 7:39 am #1695377Dale WambaughBPL Member
@dwambaughLocale: Pacific Northwest
The Olympic Peninsula died for your wood houses.
Vantage, WA. It is hear too.
I want my salmon back
Feb 11, 2011 at 7:51 am #1695385William BrownSpectator
@matthewbrownLocale: Blue Ridge Mtns
Good idea Joe. Not sure why I am talking about earth science when this forum is dedicated to gear.Feb 11, 2011 at 8:05 am #1695390Aaron ReichowMember
@areichowLocale: Northern Minnesota
Amen to that. I try not to read these threads, since they are always full of people from the SW insisting that all of us in the MW, PNW, and NE bear the added cost, vista-destroying profile, and idiocy of tapping freshwater reserves. If you think self-righteousness is so frickin' cool, move somewhere with a sustainable supply of fresh, potable water, instead of having us ship/pipe our water down there so you can water your lawns, golf courses, and live a normal life.
Don't let that stop you from recycling – recycling costs more energy, but that's what it's like today with our current processes. In the long run, emission-free energy is the one thing we'll have a lot of. Trust me- there's a much smaller carbon footprint to trucking your plastic and aluminium to a plant than it will be to forage old dumps for usable material. Recycling might not make sense in the short-term, but in the long term it's extremely important that it be popularized and that there is an infrastructure to support it. In the end, you have to decide what's more important: how warm and fuzzy your conscience is when you think about you good you are for having a slightly smaller carbon footprint -or- the long term sustainability of our civilization. That said, Reduce and Reuse come before Recycling!
> It's based on common sense. When the high preist of climate change doesn't even
> believe it, why should the common layman believe it?
That's a telling statement. The thing is, we're debating the conclusions supported by scientific evidence, *not* religion. Al Gore is the PR man, not a preacher spewing his theology. You may be used to the rhetorical tools of religion, but it'll take more than that to refute actual evidence.Feb 11, 2011 at 8:34 am #1695394
I used an example of a plane, which was probably a bad one (assuming all the reactors always get built to spec), but the bigger point I was trying to make is that they are targets for attacks. It doesn't take a lot to create a huge toxic mess.
There's a reason the litigation is so expensive, no one likes to pay billions of dollars to clean up (either if a melt down occurs, or when the waste starts building up).
Where do you get the information that the radioactive isotopes only need to be stored for 100 years before they can be drank? Are you talking about tritium? The hotter stuff (I assume the isotopes with half lives in the thousands) can't be recycled. It's a pipe dream, that they were talking about 20 years ago that still hasn't happened.
I oversimplified when I said that enriching uranium contributes to nuclear arms. I know that the process it goes through for nuclear power is completely different. However the training, facilities and knowledge required to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants puts those that want to build nuclear weapons well on their way. It usually takes 10-20 before they start testing weapons, so hopefully we'll be allies by then, right?
Solar power can't prove the answer to the energy issue as is, I completely agree. There has to be some kind of shift. Either a massive decrease in energy use (through cutting back or efficiency -not of the panel but of the house, appliance, etc) coupled with a de-localization of the energy production. Or some massive paradigm shift in energy storage/transmission capabilities with an increase in the energy created by the panels (or whatever).
Sorry to contribute to the massive derail.Feb 11, 2011 at 9:01 am #1695401Jason DelsoBPL Member
I like beer.
And I agree that this should be moved to Chaff (at the least)Feb 11, 2011 at 9:09 am #1695403James DeMonacoBPL Member
I think the whole "eco fabrics aren't really that beneficial" argument, explaining these weight increases as drops in the bucket is an invalid argument, and a hypocritical one given the nature of this forum.
Is banning nukes bad because there are still so many deaths attributed to bullets? Just because something has a small impact, doesn't mean it is not worthwhile.
If our motto here is "every ounce counts", does that not teach that a bucket in the rain is filled by droplets?
I own and use a GoLite Peak with recycled fabrics and am very proud of that. I don't mind the extra ounce or two it adds, thats not a deal breaker to me. For me, it's bigger than its environment impact since its more representational of an idea. It's sort of like taking the "leave no trace" motto back home to the modern world with us.
Just my 2 cents :)Mar 6, 2011 at 5:32 am #1705035Rakesh MalikMember
"It's based on common sense. When the high preist of climate change doesn't even believe it, why should the common layman believe it?"
That statement demonstrates that you're not using common sense.
How does Gore's hypocrisy contradict the results of what the entire scientific community has shown to be true through observational evidence and sophisticated modeling?
What you're describing is propaganda, and has nothing to do with common sense. As such, it proves my point — the only counter-evidence that the anti-global-warming community has posited so far has been propaganda, since science says that it's real, because it's real.Mar 6, 2011 at 5:56 am #1705039Tim ZenSpectator
You wonder how many resources (servers, disk space, power … ) are used to rehash the pros and cons of "Eco" products.
The whole Eco marketing campaign is just a method to continue over consumption.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Watch the Tarptent Dipole Review Premiere on YouTube:
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.