Do you think an environmentalist who drives a car is a hypcrite? What if they have more than one car? What if they use electricity from coal or nukes?

How "pure" does an evironmentalist have to be not to be a hypocrite?

I don't have a problem with one driving a car so long as it isn't a VW van with black smoke pouring out the back.

I had a conversation with someone a while ago and she said to me I could not be an environmentalist if I owned a car. Ever since then I felt I needed to get rid of my car. It took two years but last Friday I became car free.

I am not ready to call anyone a hypocrite if they drive a car but for myself I felt I needed to be car-less.

I really think it depends on the kind of car. Could you call yourself an environmentalist and drive a hummer? Personally, I don't think you should, but whatever. People eat meat and call themselves environmentalists, those are the worst kind of people. Not really, but they're pretty bad.

If I had to guess I would say more environmentalists are omnis than veg*ns.

I agree with the above - As long as it's not THAT bad, than it has to do with your lifestyle. I think that one day I might own a car - for long distance traveling, to concerts and confrences, but not everyday use.

mmm yes I believe it is all about intent...I call myself an environmentalist, and yet I do not have water conservation equipment installed in the house because I am renting...it's about ability and intent....perhaps they really do need a car? Or don't have green power in their local area? Or perhaps they are planning to do something but haven't yet?

It's like the transition some make to veg*nism ... We are not all perfect but our ideals and aspirations are in the right direction.

I am not ready to call anyone a hypocrite if they drive a car but for myself I felt I needed to be car-less.

Yeah, really I think that there is only so far you can go, you may have a family and need that car for something, I mean everything depends on your paitcular enviornment, any enviornmentalist who can't see that should really think about it a bit more. A car is essintal for many people now a-days. So I dont know, I would say defiantly not.

I agree. In a perfect world, I'd live more in the city and I'd be able to walk or ride a bike everywhere I needed to go, but being that I live in a small town, I have to drive everywhere b/c nothing is within walking distance (except the CVS that is across the street from my apartment - woohoo). I also have a baby so I couldn't see dragging him out in the winter to walk somewhere, etc...

It's not feasible for everyone to be car-free. While it would certainly be better for fewer people to own cars, the term 'environmentalist' is somewhat general anyway, so I don't consider a self-proclaimed environmentalist who drives a car a hypocrite.

You don't have to be car-free. But there is no reason to buy a car that gets less than 30 MPG unless you have 6 people in your family and need the extra seats.

I'm an environmentalist and I drive. I hate to drive, and I'm looking for a new job so I won't have to. But that does not make me a hypocrite. I live my life the best I can, and that's all anyone can ask of him/herself, right?

I agree with those who say we should do the best we can. If doing the best we can still gets us labeled as a hypocrite, oh well.

The reason I asked is because someone I know who has spent his entire adult life helping the enivronment, as a park ranger, and now educating people about resource depletion, was called a hypocrite because he sometimes drives a car that isn't fuel efficient and has a truck for his work.

How environmentally correct can a person actually be in an unenvironmentally correct society? I don't see how some people can be so harsh and judgemental. I'm not saying this to people who try to make an effort to do things that are beneficial for the environment. I'm referring to the overzealous and unrealistic ones. I mean, just sh!tting down a little pipe that will be flushed back into the ocean and/or our water system is detrimental to our environment. So it seems to me that unless each and every one of us is going to move into an already existing log cabin (or sleep under the stars or under a somewhat sheltered tree branch), make fire with stones and sticks, bury our sh!t in designated areas in the ground, eat just the minimum, not watch tv, not use any electricity, for that matter (that includes all these boards and websites we love to surf on), use the moon and our cook fire to see by after dark, and basically get rid of just about every bit of material possessions we own, not a one of us can say we are entirely environmentally correct. And that's just the reality/dilemma we live in.

I consider large portions of the environmentalist movement to be pure bunk.

I never really thought they were hypocrits though. My impression is that they are more 'misguided' than anything else.

I consider large portions of the environmentalist movement to be pure bunk.

Really?...that thought scares me.... that there are legitimate environmental concerns out there...and people are aware of them, but don't think they are serious, so do nothing.

I am curious though...and maybe I am wrong about the seriousness of such issues.....what do you see as "pure bunk"?

I think that they can have a car. As for more than one car I don't think anyone needs more than one. Some occupations cars can come in handy such as pizza driver. If the term environmentalist becomes too narrow I believe less people might try as hard as they do to protect the environment. At least they would be helping in other ways by being an environmentalist even if they have a car.

I can't speak for das_nut but... there are things like... driving to an environmentalism rally and making signs on cardboard & wood using toxic markers or paints. hm.

I remember going to an anti-war rally a couple of years ago - to which I drove - and a woman I knew had a sign there that read something like "if you drove here, you're part of the problem" ... she owns an old diesel VW rabbit that she converted to biodiesel...

it's stuff like that that makes me question my commitment to my beliefs... :\

The Environmental Club at my school came to a Vegetarian Society meeting once and got really offended when we were talking about how eating lower on the food chain is more energy efficient and saves resources.

I think people who claim they are doing great things for the environment should look ito their diet and how it affects the earth.

OregonAmy :-

mmm It wouldn't make me question my beeliefs...but i agree I sure would be frustrated ! I do believe there are legitimate hypocrites out there....

Like the woman who attended a vegan lunch function I was at ..she was an omni but came for the "like minded folk" and turned to be with disdain dripping from every pore and said "sooo what forms of animal rights activism are you into?"

She had the gall to literally turn away from me and scowel because I hadn't thrown red paint on KFC buildings...meantime she's chomping chicken herself. wtf?

I am curious though...and maybe I am wrong about the seriousness of such issues.....what do you see as "pure bunk"?

I'm going to make this rather short, because a full discussion of my beliefs is cause for another thread (one I'm planning, along with such other soon-to-be-classics like "why nuclear power is good" and "why peak oil isn't a concern for energy sources".)

I basically question the motives of a large part of the environmental movement. The major organizations have a vested interest in maintaining a crisis -- by building mountains out of possible molehills, the major organizations get more donations.

Then the rhetoric steps in and the name calling begins. I've seen professionals labeled as 'industry pawns' as soon as they start to question the degree of man-made global warming. When books questioning the size of the environmental problem are published, they tend to be attacked, with the vast majority of the attacks being against the author or the idea, with very few attacks against the logic or the science.

Then there is the science itself. First off, having a model isn't science. Yet the untested, unproven predictions of these models are often treated as science. Data itself is often interpreted in ways favorable to global warming, although other interpretations are possible. I end up seeing some rather big inconsistancies in data when I look, which makes me skeptical of the whole idea. (Funding for scientists involved in climate research is something else I'd love to investigate one day).

Finally, there are the conclusions. Everything is a catastrophe, and there cannot be any tradeoffs. Nobody sits down and says "its more important to save 10000 sq miles of land for conservation than to let the global temperature average increase by .05 degrees" (or vice-versa). Nobody sits down and tries to figure out if man-made global warming is only accelerating the natural climate shift. (To do such a calculation seems to be a good way to be labled an industry pawn.)

Ack. That was a lot longer than I expected, and a lot more rambling. Sorry. Hopefully, one day I'll have time to write the full version of my rant out.

rant away das_nut, as a science student I am well aware of the ways in which statistics can be twisted to support almost any arguement...but I guess I had not thought this to be the case in regards to environmental reports...I am honestly interested to hear what you have to say.

I think that if one were to call themselves an environmentalist, and they need a car, it should be the most fuel-efficient one they can afford.

das_nut

You made a lot of claims about the legitimacy of environmental sciences and if you have some evidence that doesn't come from editorials I would like to hear it.

The scientific community attacks the science not the individual or even the interests behind the individual. The reason that mainstream scientists don't accept alternative explanations to climate change is because that argument is over and now they are debating more in-depth aspects of climate change. I do not know what your background is but in the scientific community every meaningful study that is published is vigorously debated. It is not about personal attacks, it is about seeing how a hypothesis holds up to conflicting views.

Nobody sits down and tries to figure out if man-made global warming is only accelerating the natural climate shift.



Yes they do! Climatologists definitely take natural cycles and fluctuations into account. This is part of their science.

Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3 °C in the last 40 years. The warming is believed to be a combination of man-made climate change, a cyclical change in atmospheric circulation known as the Arctic oscillation, plus feedbacks caused by melting ice, which exposes bare ground and ocean. These absorb more solar heat than white ice and snow.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500-climate-warning-as-siberia-melts.html

I'm going to make this rather short, because a full discussion of my beliefs is cause for another thread (one I'm planning, along with such other soon-to-be-classics like "why nuclear power is good" and "why peak oil isn't a concern for energy sources".)

I'm looking forward to that. I'm leaping to the conclusion that the peak oil discussion will be based on the premise that peak oil means we're running out of oil or running out of energy, or some such silliness.


If you base your argument on a strawman, it shouldn't be too hard to win said argument.