Vomit-worthy. - Page 5

exactly, but are they really doing themselves any favors, i'm sure modern clothing is far less green then wool, leather and other natural materials.

Instead.....plastic, how wonderful.

Agreed the Green BS is another knee-jerk over-reaction trend.

I do whats most effective for me, and driving a in reasonably gas-conscious fashion is something i do because its cost effective, same with the clothing, ect. Having enough clothes to last you 5-10 or more years without replacement is much more efficient.

This is really stupid. I would like to recycle last nights dinner in your face.

I would be in favor assuming I lived in an area with a lot of Indians.

do you use a clothes line or a dryer?

I agree totally that there are a raft of stupid fucktards that think they can consume and legislate their way to a better world and that these people are to be mocked and generally ostracized.

The problem is that you're taking the outliers of the so-called green movement and pretending like they are an accurate representation of the movement as a whole. I totally agree that douchetards like PETA and the militant vegans are a fucking waste of space. I also agree that the opportunists that are making an easy buck of peoples guilt and ignorance are to be despised.

However the basic premises of the real and long suffering green movement is just that your choices and actions actually effect the world and that there are good reasons to give a shit about the consequences of your actions.
Can you actually say with a straight face that coal fired power plants were better 50 years ago or that capturing the methane from a land fill and using it for power is a bad thing? Most people in the green movement are pro logging, pro hunting, pro fur, pro energy but they want these things to be done in such a way that does not cause unnecessary harm and that takes in account secondary damages or unforeseen consequences.

f'n proles

I agree that "green consciousness" can be annoying when it comes to worthless, inconvenient, feel-good measures (*cough*compactflourescentlightbulbs*cough*). These, however, are nothing new: Microsoft Bob: Bob The Environmentalistl

How are CFL's worthless?

What do you view as being more harmful to the environment, a little extra CO2 from the additional fossil fuels necessary to generate the electricity to power a normal light bulb or a shit ton of CFLs that don't put off very good light and contain elemental mercury?

This is why "green ideas" are generally bad.

Ever heard someone say "We should have hydrogen powered cars!"? There is no natural repository for hydrogen on this planet, it has all escaped our atmosphere. It's all locked in the form of water or other compounds such as Urea. Which means you have to liberate the elemental hydrogen. To do this you either need A) Electricity or B) Another chemical compound.

Production and refinement of B requires more of A. It isn't complicated, people are just too stupid to think things through or cave into the types of people that become apoplectic when you tell them you leave a few lights on in your house when you go on vacation.

Any idea can be bad if it isn't well thought-out. Assuming that something is bad just because it happens to be considered 'green' suggests an unwillingness to fully examine and understand the issue, which I personally find unsatisfying in making assessments of the quality and effectiveness of a concept. I would make the same point to someone who suggested that all green ideas were always good.

With the CFL example, I would have to disagree. When I was living in Seattle, I got my first (and free) CFL. I took it with me from apartment to apartment for about seven years until it finally burned out last year. In that same amount of time I would have gone through many more traditional bulbs.

I also disagree that one needs more of them to achieve the same lighting - but that's based solely on my experience at home and at work. I use them in my home, and my office is LEED-certified Silver and makes use of CFLs and other lower-energy lighting options.

YMMV, but I think just dismissing them (or any other suggested green idea) out of hand because they are associated with the green movement mean depriving one's self of the opportunity to make a positive difference. Even on a more basic level, it may also mean missing out on financial savings. I buy 'green' energy through my power company. I'm not entirely thrilled with the fact that it's wind power (still researching that issue), but my electric rate is set for the year, while others around me are subject to the price instability of traditional kilowatt hours.

Every CFL I've ever used I've found inferior to traditional filament bulbs, and I've spent a lot of time bathed in fluorescent light, it's not just "being familiar" with one or another. It's what I prefer, to each his own. When someone breaks a CFL, they throw it away. They don't isolate it and take it to some special hazardous waste transfer station. You know who gets exposed to it? Garbage men, janitors etc. I'm not saying it's going to kill them or even do anything to their health, but it's something to consider. I stand by my statement, I don't know what you'd like me to clarify. "Generally bad" meaning for the most part, often, usually, not always. The majority of corporations realize that if they slap a "green" label on their product and charge an extra buck for it regardless of what additional environmental impact it takes to make it idiots will buy it out of some misplaced belief that their very existence is a bane to this planet. I don't dismiss much out of hand, but I also know BS when it's being spouted. Most of the people that preach about "green" technology couldn't pass a high school physics class. I also doubt that all your electricity is generated via wind power. You really have no way of proving this and the utility company doesn't have to prove it to you other than fixing your electric bill. Short of you having a bunch of windmills on your property or lights going out when the wind isn't blowing at the windfarm, I'm not a believer. FWIW when I was in college living with 3 other guys we had 4 desktop computers, 2 fridges, a mini-fridge and a kegerator not to mention the lights, a tv and usually an xbox that were on. The electricity portion of our power bill rarely rose over $60 total. Our gas bill on the other hand....if they could have agreed to fix that I wouldn't have cared if it came from captured cow farts.

SO true, it is inherentily the un educated who think they are experts when it comes to green.

i like that i studied both physics and chem in high school, at least that way i can make informed points of view

Green is the new Christianity. It used to be, "that's not very Christian of you." Now it's, "that's not very green of you."

The mercury issue is definitely one that needs to be better addressed. Much like how batteries shouldn't be thrown in the regular garbage. Education could help, but a lot of people know and a lot of them who do know don't care anyway.

No need for clarification - we just appear to disagree on how seriously to take suggestions. "Green" makes you skeptical and assume its probably not so good - I look at it a bit differently.

As for the wind power - all of my electricity is not directly generated by wind. But the power company is required by law to purchase kilowatt hours equivalent to what I'm using from alternate (in this case wind) power sources. So the kilowatt powering my fan right now may come from coal directly, but the kilowatt hour I'm paying for will be purchased from an alternate source. My undertanding is that it's retroactive, so let's say I use XX kilowatt hours this month, my power company will have to buy XX kilowatt hours from a green power source next month.