KCRag Forum

I've bought into the "green movement," but realistically we're about to see a huge surge in this stuff and an even larger bubble burst than the dot.com's a decade ago.  Everyone is promoting green eco-driven products, but how many will actually survive...only a few.

Despite my frequent toting of a recycled cloth sissy bag to carry my groceries home from the store I have to wonder....in the earth's history it's rebounded from an ice age, great floods, volcanic mayhem and a mystery radiation meltdown that fried T-Rex.  The world was left nearly completely barron after each event.  Yet with such natural and unequaled devistation the Earth bounced back and regained life as usual on its own.

So, is a 1960's gas guzzeling monster truck of jeep really harming the environment and is feminizing myself with this rediculous sissy grocery sack really doing a damn bit of good other than displaying an outward expression of my willingness to play dress-up for the sake of Mother Nature?

I've also spent nearly $300 on curly lightbulbs for my home, yet this information and the warnings on the bulbs suggest I should have some concern for what these twisty gimmicks may actually do to the environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

I like the new bags cause they carry more stuff and don't rip.

I heard home depot is going to start some large scale cfl recycling center.

Slappy the Wang wrote: I've bought into the "green movement," but realistically we're about to see a huge surge in this stuff and an even larger bubble burst than the dot.com's a decade ago.  Everyone is promoting green eco-driven products, but how many will actually survive...only a few.

Despite my frequent toting of a recycled cloth sissy bag to carry my groceries home from the store I have to wonder....in the earth's history it's rebounded from an ice age, great floods, volcanic mayhem and a mystery radiation meltdown that fried T-Rex.  The world was left nearly completely barron after each event.  Yet with such natural and unequaled devistation the Earth bounced back and regained life as usual on its own.

So, is a 1960's gas guzzeling monster truck of jeep really harming the environment and is feminizing myself with this rediculous sissy grocery sack really doing a damn bit of good other than displaying an outward expression of my willingness to play dress-up for the sake of Mother Nature?

I've used the cloth grocery bags since the 90s. I really can't say whether I'm doing good or not. I started using them before the plastic bags were so widespread-I was after saving trees. I don't think they are "sissy bags" and when I see others using them, I think they care about their impact on the earth.

I know you aren't old enough, but I remember when I was a child and we had droughts, we shared bathwater. Dad always got to be first because he was the man, then we kids, then Mom. EWWWWWW!!!! I'd sure hate to go back to those kinds of things, but it's possible. Just an extreme example of living a greener life.

We all do things, just not the same things because we aren't the same. Our priorities are different.

For instance, at some point, we will probably get a car that gets better mileage, but I'll probably keep my SUV for trips and the like. I'm hot on a bright red Honda Fit right now. But that could change.

Slappy the Wang wrote: I've also spent nearly $300 on curly lightbulbs for my home, yet this information and the warnings on the bulbs suggest I should have some concern for what these twisty gimmicks may actually do to the environment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg

We have tried those several times, several different types and we just plain hate the light they give out. We are still incandescent and LED, etc.

Get this though-my 90 year old mother in law bought one of those for a lamp. Guaranteed for 7 years. She kept the package and the receipt so she can take it back if it doesn't last the 7 years.

KCPowercat wrote: I like the new bags cause they carry more stuff and don't rip.

I like them for the same reasons as you do, but they are definitely not new. I bought my bags at Target in the early 90s. They are canvas bags with "Kids for Saving Earth" logo on them. And they have lasted this long with regular use.

Actually, I grew up with water shortages and having to make a trip to a National Guard station to retrieve the families water from a giant rubber bladder.  I also grew up farming corn, soybeans and black angus...droughts were a big deal.  But I'm not sure my lightbulb or the sissy sack would have saved the cattle or a single bushel of scorched corn.

Regardless, I try to act in a manner society currently deems "responsible," but I think we'll all feel pretty sill in a few years when this effort is demonstrated to be fruitless.  In the 50's kids would practice nuke drill by hiding under their desks...as if thermal fallout was somehow deflected by laminated wood.  I think our current efforts are similar.  

BUT, picking up hippie chicks has never been easier.  Take about 6 sissy bags into a Whole Foods and you can walk out with six Bohemian soccer moms carrying the bags back to your place.

nota wrote: We have tried those several times, several different types and we just plain hate the light they give out. We are still incandescent and LED, etc.

Get this though-my 90 year old mother in law bought one of those for a lamp. Guaranteed for 7 years. She kept the package and the receipt so she can take it back if it doesn't last the 7 years.

They FINALLY have a "soft-white" version of the bulbs rather than the "blue" light the original version dispersed.  MUCH MORE tolerable and similar to a traditional bulb.

I do my best not to pollute.  I re-use what I can.  I re-cycle what I can.


But in the end, my small sacrifices are no match for a family of 8 moving here from a poor nation.

Maitre D wrote: I do my best not to pollute.  I re-use what I can.  I re-cycle what I can.


But in the end, my small sacrifices are no match for a family of 8 moving here from a poor nation.

Like Iowa?

The things that has always seemed like it could be improved to me are plastic trash bags - It just doesn't seem efficient to put a bunch of highly degradeable material like food waste and paper inside of a very slow degrading plastic bag.  Surely something could be invented that stays watertight when it lines the can but breaks down quickly in the landfill. 

I was thinking something similar when I looked at my office trash can.  everyday the bag is replaced and I maybe throw 4 things in it daily....think of how many office trash bags are tossed daily.

another thing I did to green it up was to quit using the disposable coffee cups where I get coffee.  got a pimpin' purple mug....saves the coffee guy money as well.  more coffee places should give discounts for bringing your own cup.

LenexatoKCMO wrote: The things that has always seemed like it could be improved to me are plastic trash bags - It just doesn't seem efficient to put a bunch of highly degradeable material like food waste and paper inside of a very slow degrading plastic bag.  Surely something could be invented that stays watertight when it lines the can but breaks down quickly in the landfill. 

I think they have that plastic now, it is in some of the plastic bags you get at the stores however I imagine it isn't in the trash bags yet-maybe not strong enough?

Building demolition, eco-style. Cool to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwf9LoS9Xt8

Floor-by-Floor Demolition Blows Minds, Saves Environment

According to the company, this method greatly reduces the environmental impact of the demolition, as well as the time. Kajima says that it speeds up the task by 20%, while making it easier to separate materials for recycling, as well as reducing the amount of products released into the air.

The process is called daruma-otoshi after a Japanese game that makes players take the bottom parts of a column—using a hammer—without disturbing the rest of the parts above. This method doesn't disturb the columns above either, but it somehow disturbs my mind.

Very strange for the Pope to get into the green camp..
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQWr ... gD91VPT6G0

The best way to reduce consumption is population control, which doesn't exactly fit into the Catholic agenda of having large families.  Kinda getting into hypocritical territory to be pro big family and desire to reduce global consumption.

Let's say a single person who never has children would be a factor of 1x consumption over 100 years. A person who has a few kids who have a couple kids who have a couple kids each would be increasing consumption by 6-15x over 100 years.  If it's a pro-big family who encourages their offspring to have large families, one person may pro-create 50-100x more consumers over 100 years. 

A person who never procreates can selfishly consume as much as they want and not even come close to consuming as much as 1 generation of green conscience families, and obviously much less for 5 generations.

I don't know how a guy could truly believe in Catholicism and still feel it's vitally important to protect the planet at the same time. Either you're hoping for the 2nd coming or you're not. Which is it?

Plus, I don't think Catholics are encouraged to have big families. It's mainly a birth control thing. It used to be sac-religious to use bc because it was messing with "God's plan". That's why they had big families. Nowadays, I don't know any Catholics that actually take that stuff seriously.

ignatius wrote:The best way to reduce consumption is population control, which doesn't exactly fit into the Catholic agenda of having large families.  Kinda getting into hypocritical territory to be pro big family and desire to reduce global consumption.

what...?

a)  Catholics don't "encourage" big families.  They have a thing against using artificial birth control, but they encourage "natural" family planning (which involves married couples coordinating their sexual activities with the menstrual cycle to aim for the window of time when pregnancy is least probable).

b)  yeah, I honestly don't know many Catholics who really follow this.  The vast majority who know about other means of contraception use them.

c)  in third world countries where there are demographic explosions some archbishops are encouraging artificial contraception under the table.  I'm guessing someone's going to have to update this idiotic policy, because it's one of those things that even many "good" Catholics don't follow. 

kcmetro wrote: I don't know how a guy could truly believe in Catholicism and still feel it's vitally important to protect the planet at the same time. Either you're hoping for the 2nd coming or you're not. Which is it?

I think you may be crossing evangelical fundamentalist concepts about "the rapture" and more mainstream Christian concepts about the 2nd coming.  Some fundamentalists have a big thing about emphasizing how the 2nd coming could happen at any moment, and in fact is imminent, and really use it as a fear inducing concept and it's a big part of how they view the world (the idea that the rapture is about to happen and we are in the end-times).  Catholics don't.  The 2nd coming isn't pushed in that manner.  I mean, yes it could happen at any moment, but it could also happen 10,000 years from now.  Either way, you're supposed to conduct your life in an appropriate manner, because when the shit goes down everyone "living and dead" gets judged apparently.  So to Catholics it doesn't matter if it happens within their lifetime.

kcmetro wrote:Plus, I don't think Catholics are encouraged to have big families. It's mainly a birth control thing. It used to be sac-religious to use bc because it was messing with "God's plan". That's why they had big families. Nowadays, I don't know any Catholics that actually take that stuff seriously.

I think the big-families thing had more to do with the fact that many Catholics came from poor countries where high infant mortality rates encouraged the production of more babies, so folks were used to having lots of children.  Once counties industrialized, or folks moved to industrialized countries, and health facilities and other factors improved, it took a generation or two for these "big family" habits to die out.  But they do.  That's why Western Europe, Japan and other industrialized countries have such low birth rates (regardless of the local religious beliefs), while places like Latin American, Africa and Southeast Asia have been blowing up (again regardless of religious beliefs).  The faster many of those countries industrialize and improve economically the more likely that birth rates will go down.

ComandanteCero wrote: I think the big-families thing had more to do with the fact that many Catholics came from poor countries where high infant mortality rates encouraged the production of more babies, so folks were used to having lots of children.  Once counties industrialized, or folks moved to industrialized countries, and health facilities and other factors improved, it took a generation or two for these "big family" habits to die out.  But they do.  That's why Western Europe, Japan and other industrialized countries have such low birth rates (regardless of the local religious beliefs), while places like Latin American, Africa and Southeast Asia have been blowing up (again regardless of religious beliefs).  The faster many of those countries industrialize and improve economically the more likely that birth rates will go down.

There are still countries where the Catholic Church has actively attempted to achieve its political goals through breeding - most notably Northern Ireland.  At the current birth rates, Catholics will have enough votes to win an independence referendum within the next generation. 

well, i wouldn't call that fulfilling the political goals of the Catholic Church as much as fulfilling the political goals of Catholics in Northern Ireland (who are in a very particular historical/political situation).  Sinn Fein and the Catholic Church aren't synonymous.

ComandanteCero wrote: well, i wouldn't call that fulfilling the political goals of the Catholic Church as much as fulfilling the political goals of Catholics in Northern Ireland (who are in a very particular historical/political situation).  Sinn Fein and the Catholic Church aren't synonymous.

Some historians might likely debate that last sentence.  Also, is it a coincidence tht the Irish Church is one of the most vehemently vocal branches about birth control/abortion? 

My point is that there are still examples of people breeding for religious political purposes on large scales all around the world.  Its not just the Catholics - Jews are on pace to be an ever shrinking minority in Israel, even if they do eventually shed the West Bank/Gaza because the arabs are reproducing at over double the rate.  Breeding is one of the only forms of ethnic cleansing still legal.  None of this political/religious motivated breeding can be good for the  environment - especially given that the areas where it tends to occurr are probably the least able to economically support the booms.