Back in the day...we didnt have the "green thing"

[kermitology]

One does not burn volts. Appliances consume Watts.

[Daradon]

Yeah I was going to say, half of those comments wouldn't even apply to my father and he's 60. I'm not sure how old the writer is (or probably 'supposed to be').

As far as that 'generation' being better to the environment it's s silly comparison. Obviously simple and earlier ways of doing things ARE better on the environment, but they didn't do it out of care, or even knowledge. They did it because it was the best or only way of doing things at the time. As soon as better ways came along, that generation changed the way the did things just like everyone that came after them.

A pretty ignorant 'pat on the back' article.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah I was going to say, half of those comments wouldn't even apply to my father and he's 60. I'm not sure how old the writer is (or probably 'supposed to be').

As far as that 'generation' being better to the environment it's s silly comparison. Obviously simple and earlier ways of doing things ARE better on the environment, but they didn't do it out of care, or even knowledge. They did it because it was the best or only way of doing things at the time. As soon as better ways came along, that generation changed the way the did things just like everyone that came after them.

A pretty ignorant 'pat on the back' article.

How is it ignorant?

It's a great article and the "going green" people are usually the biggest hypocrites.

I worked at this guys house a couple months back and all he could talk about is how he only buys "green" products. Everything in his house had some sort of label saying it was "green" and good for the environment.

Guess what he drives? A V8 Lexus.

They want to take away our plastic bags? Eff them.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by puckluck

They want to take away our plastic bags? Eff them.

No matter what you think about the ignorant person preaching to you, using a re-usable bag when you get groceries is a better idea then using an endless supply of plastics bag you just throw away.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

No matter what you think about the ignorant person preaching to you, using a re-usable bag when you get groceries is a better idea then using an endless supply of plastics bag you just throw away.

Using one pair of underwear and just washing it over and over every single day (by hand) is also better for the environment though no?

Why stop at plastic bags?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by puckluck

How is it ignorant?

It's a great article and the "going green" people are usually the biggest hypocrites.

I worked at this guys house a couple months back and all he could talk about is how he only buys "green" products. Everything in his house had some sort of label saying it was "green" and good for the environment.

Guess what he drives? A V8 Lexus.

They want to take away our plastic bags? Eff them.

The views of certain people don't validate the article.

And while I'll agree many people who claim to be green really aren't and are hypocritcal, some people who claim to be green really are.

Either way, it doesn't change the silliness of the article or my argument which is people 'back then' weren't more green because they actually cared more about the environment. (Or cared at all in many cases) It's just the way things were at them time.

The article suggests (while not directly) that they were green. They weren't, they didn't even know about 'that' (or like I said in many cases even cared).

As well, while the lifestyles of citizens may have been more 'green' in nature of simplicity, there are many many horror stories of industrial carelessness and crimes against nature. They still happen today, but not with the same per capita frequency. Industry has had to clean up through new laws and public pressure thanks to green movements.

So yes, the article is ignorant.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Using one pair of underwear and just washing it over and over every single day (by hand) is also better for the environment though no?

Why stop at plastic bags?

This would make sense if you currently wore plastic boxers that you threw out at the end of each day.

[photon]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Using one pair of underwear and just washing it over and over every single day (by hand) is also better for the environment though no?

No, because the underwear can be worn a fixed number of wear/wash cycles before it isn't usable anymore, that doesn't change if it's worn on consecutive days or not.

1 pair of underwear lasts 365 wear/wash cycles (lets say), so you can either do that in 1 calendar year, or buy 7 pair, wash once a week, and wear them out in 7 calendar years... but the amount of resources used is the same (presuming you use 1/7th the water and 1/7th the soap and 1/7th the physical effort for 1 vs 7).

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

This would make sense if you currently wore plastic boxers that you threw out at the end of each day.

I still say screw the people who want to take my plastic bags away from me.

This earth is not going to be saved because we re-use plastic bags. Lets start at more efficent vehicles (which we're starting to do, but could still be much better).

Just something that pisses me off about the people who have a huge smile on their face thinking they are some kind of superhero saving the world for re-using their plastic bags and buying "green" windex and putting it in the back of their v8 Lexus.

These are the people I'd call ignorant.

This world is beyond the point where plastic bags is going to make a difference. We are pretty much screwed.

[sa226]

Most grocery stores these days have plastic grocery bag recycle bin things.

I'm not sure how they recycle them, and it probably isn't as good as re-usable bags. But its better than throwing them away.

[opendoor]

I usually use reusable bags, but I also like to use the plastic or paper ones to hold my recyclables so it's not like they get thrown out either way. Either way works for me.

I just don't get people who don't even bother to recycle paper and plastic stuff assuming there's a fairly easy venue to do it (either a city pickup or drop off location). Even if there's only a marginal environmental benefit at least it keeps it out of landfills.

[macker]

Was skiing in Fish Creek Park and saw a bag of dog crap hanging from a tree.....took a closer look and it was in one of these bags : www.clearbags.ca
Still not right

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Okay. As one of the token environmentalists here.... I think many of us have lamented that our grandparents had it right. I've often commented on how little my Nana Miller lived on.... she wasn't environmentally friendly because she wanted to be, but because she HAD to be. When she died at the age of 92 she was still using the same cups and saucers that she got as a wedding present at 18.

I think the problems of waste grew over time.... from the boom of the 50s, to the abundances of the 60s, through the me-generation of the 80s.... waste just became a way of life. Replace things that are broken rather than repair. Heck, a friend of my throws away a perfectly fine working printer every 6 months because it's cheaper to buy a new printer with ink than it is to buy new ink cartridges.

That said, my favourite lyric of all time is Don Henley's "Out on the road today I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac."

i don't know about your friend or whether or not he did his research, but cartridges from HP that come with your printer are 30% full. its cheaper to buy the ink. Most printers don't come with 100% full cartridges. I do have a printer that i bought for 300 and its cartridges are 480 to replace them all. I also have another printer that i bought for 125 and it costs 50 to replace them. Both laser, the cheaper one is black and white only. Research is key to finding the most efficient way to manage your money, especially on ink and printers.

[4X4]

Why don't you guys just throw them in your blue bin? I use them for kitchen garbage bags, so I have an excuse for throwing them out.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I still say screw the people who want to take my plastic bags away from me.

This earth is not going to be saved because we re-use plastic bags. Lets start at more efficent vehicles (which we're starting to do, but could still be much better).

Just something that pisses me off about the people who have a huge smile on their face thinking they are some kind of superhero saving the world for re-using their plastic bags and buying "green" windex and putting it in the back of their v8 Lexus.

These are the people I'd call ignorant.

This world is beyond the point where plastic bags is going to make a difference. We are pretty much screwed.

Just FYI, yeah, he is still being "green". Big whoop if he wants to utilize more power. At least he is choosing a fairly fuel efficient vehicle. lexus is known for its efficient engines. It also offers the v8 engines in 2 HYBRID chassis, Engine Code 2UR-FSE.

[saskflames69]

This is my day..

#### me

[krynski]

Originally Posted by photon

No, because the underwear can be worn a fixed number of wear/wash cycles before it isn't usable anymore, that doesn't change if it's worn on consecutive days or not.

1 pair of underwear lasts 365 wear/wash cycles (lets say), so you can either do that in 1 calendar year, or buy 7 pair, wash once a week, and wear them out in 7 calendar years... but the amount of resources used is the same (presuming you use 1/7th the water and 1/7th the soap and 1/7th the physical effort for 1 vs 7).

how about we just skip the underwear? who needs it?

[BigBrodieFan]

I read it on FB earlier and I thought it was a really neat article, I never thought of things like that. The biggest factor I think, is the difference between using the throw away diapers opposed to the cloth diapers (not that I ever did that), but my mom did.

[jammies]

Back in "ye old days" they also burned craploads of coal and oil and vented it directly into the atmosphere without any kind of scrubbing or processing, dumped toxic chemicals into rivers willy-nilly because it was cheap to do so, shot practically all the bison, killed off all the passenger pigeons (of which there were BILLIONS), drained hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of marshland to build suburbs, and destroyed millions of acres of farmland in the Dust Bowl because they overused the soil. Just to name off a few examples - by no means exhaustive.

So shut it, gramps.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Either way, it doesn't change the silliness of the article or my argument which is people 'back then' weren't more green because they actually cared more about the environment. (Or cared at all in many cases) It's just the way things were at them time.

The article suggests (while not directly) that they were green. They weren't, they didn't even know about 'that' (or like I said in many cases even cared).

In other words "you geezers didn't call it being green, so even if you did recycle and try not to throw everything in the garbage, it doesn't count".

Originally Posted by Daradon

As well, while the lifestyles of citizens may have been more 'green' in nature of simplicity, there are many many horror stories of industrial carelessness and crimes against nature. They still happen today, but not with the same per capita frequency. Industry has had to clean up through new laws and public pressure thanks to green movements.

So yes, the article is ignorant.

What do you mean by "per capita frequency"?

And I know I know, everything is green now. We are all at peace with Gaia. It even says so on my bathroom cleaner. But the funny thing is that all of us in this enviro-conscious era use more energy and consume more crap than anyone else, ever.

A lot of it is painted green though, and now we know what to call it, so we we are all good.