

Forget Shorter Showers - onreact-com
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4801/

======
swombat
I find this kind of article worrying. It clearly claims that the only true way
forward is "to abolish the industrial society".

I think that's a very limited view of the situation.

Whenever faced with a big new problem, there are two ways to get past that
problem: either you backtrack, regress back to times when the problem didn't
exist, or you move forward, and figure out ways to solve the problem without
turning your back on progress.

This author effectively advocates turning our backs on progress, giving up the
last few hundred years of development. He would have us go back to living in
small self-sufficient communes, rather than focusing on growth and progress,
to "save the planet". This suggestion is dangerously wrong. It is not "solving
the problem", it is running away from it. The way through this problem is
forwards, not backwards.

Ultimately, there is only one reason to "save the planet": so that we can
enjoy it. There is no point in saving the planet if it means sacrificing
ourselves along the way. AS the author rightly points out, killing ourselves
to save the planet misses the point. Well, so does regressing back a few
hundred years. We are who we are, we are a people/species who want to enjoy
our lives, realise our potential, look to the future, move forwards, built
greater, better, bigger things. That's basic human nature. The proposed
solution goes against this basic human nature, and so it must ultimately fail
(but it can probably cause endless misery before finally being thrown in the
bin along with communism, theocracy, feodalism, and other Bad Ideas).

It is quite possible that fanatical ecologism will be the great blight of the
21st century, as fanatical nationalism was the great blight of the 20th.

~~~
Alex3917
The article isn't worrying, it's just wrong. We can easily reduce US emissions
by 80% without having to destroy the industrial economy. In fact, the most
pessimistic of the economic studies shows (IIRC) that cutting emissions 80%
would put our economy on track to double in size by June of 2040 instead of
January of 2040.

The people who think that reducing emissions means destroying the economy are
just idiots. California is well on their way to doing it already, and they
have by far the strongest economy of any state.

~~~
tome
_the most pessimistic of the economic studies shows (IIRC) that cutting
emissions 80% would put our economy on track to double in size by June of 2040
instead of January of 2040._

Wow! Can you please provide a citation?

~~~
Alex3917
[http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/d...](http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/daily_chart_what_waxman-
markey_will_do_to_the_economy.php)

It's actually even less bad than I thought, because that six month difference
is for 2050 rather than 2040.

~~~
tome
Well that is indeed impressive, with two caveats:

1) I'm not sure why it's the forecast of the _most_ pessimistic

2) The 80% reduction won't kick in until 2050. Indeed there won't even be a
20% reduction until 2020.

------
barrkel
People that blame an amorphous faceless other named "industry" always make me
suspicious - suspicious that they're morons. The output of "industry" is
things we, the people, use directly or indirectly. Saying that 90% of water is
not used by humans, but rather used by "industry", is a mischievous and
deceitful fallacy; _we_ use that water by consuming the output of industry.

By taxing industry's use of things we'd rather "they" use less of, and taxing
industry's output of things we'd rather "they" create less of (such as
pollution, CO2, etc.), we are actually taxing ourselves: these taxes will
increase the cost of those outputs of industry which use and produce more of
what we want them to use and produce less of. By embedding the harmful effects
in the price system, we can alter the balance of supply and demand and shape
industry to where we want it to go, not because it's punishing "industry", but
because it's punishing _individuals_ , i.e. _people_ like us.

~~~
sho
Good point. One way to measure this is by the concept of _virtual water_ :
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water>

------
mattmaroon
This article raises a few points you already knew if you read The Economist
that aren't wrong but aren't unusually insightful either. Other than that, I
really don't like that it separates civilians from politicians and
corporations. We form and staff our corporations and elect our politicians.

The Us vs. Them mentality doesn't work because there's only us. Those in power
don't want to live on a destroyed planet any more than we do, and even if they
did, we're the ones who keep voting them and their policies into office. The
destruction has occurred almost entirely in democratic countries over the last
century.

------
ibsulon
One point is missed: if we start making the small changes in our personal
lives, we are more likely to notice the changes that need to happen in our
corporate lives -- we are our corporations, after all.

Further, they hint around it in the article, but the single biggest thing that
we can do personally is move away from eating and using animal products. I'm
still an omnivore, so I'm certainly not doing my part, but I have started
eating meat less than I used to.

~~~
bmj
_Further, they hint around it in the article, but the single biggest thing
that we can do personally is move away from eating and using animal products.
I'm still an omnivore, so I'm certainly not doing my part, but I have started
eating meat less than I used to._

Or, don't buy industrially-produced meat. It's quite possible to raise animals
in a sustainable manner, but it requires us to not eat meat at every meal.

I think the author is railing on folks who think that by driving a Prius and
taking shorter showers, they are saving the world. It's not the practices are
wrong; it's that unless they are coupled with a greater awareness of how
poorly industry treats our natural resources, they are worthless.

------
jasonkester
I had long assumed that most people realized that short showers, recycling
plastic, driving small cars, turning off lights, and all these other little
things don't actually affect the environment at all. We all do them, but only
for the _sense_ that we're doing something. Not because they actually _do_
anything.

Over time though, I've met enough people that get worked up enough about these
things to realize that many people actually think they are making a
difference.

I usually just nod along.

~~~
eds
Would you please explain how driving a small car (let's take a Prius as the
obvious example) has exactly the same effect on the environment as driving a
gas-guzzler? I don't get it.

~~~
chime
Because you are comparing apples to apples when in fact you should stop eating
apples and eat spinach instead. In relative terms, the Prius vs. Hummer
comparison is easy. Prius is considerably better than the Hummer. The problem
is that in absolute terms, other than different amount of fuel, both of them
require almost the same materials and resources for construction, maintenance,
and lifetime operation. Prius drives on the same roads as the Hummer and hence
needs the entire highway infrastructure to function properly. Prius uses
plastic, metal, and synthetic materials and so does Hummer. Sure, it uses a
lot less of each but the factories that produce these compounds still need to
be built, serviced, and fueled. The spinach to this apples problem? Better
trains and transportation across the entire US such that Walmart no longer
needs a fleet of 10,000 trucks.

The big picture is not the comparison between using Prius and Hummer. It is
whether automobiles should be the primary mode of long-distance transportation
across a nation of 300+ million citizens. The author's point is that the pride
from driving a Prius is overshadowing the anger and fury that we all should
have at the lack of real, efficient solutions. Prius is a wonderful band-aid
but it is not a cure and will never be a cure.

On a personal basis, it is in the best interest for everyone to use fuel-
efficient cars, and reduce energy usage. However, this does not mean that
doing wonderful "green" things will make more than a minor dent to the real
problem of what is actually going on. It is very comforting to use textile
bags instead of plastic at the grocery store but it's really not such a big
deal in absolute terms. Not having to import every single item from China
across the ocean is. The externalities of cheaply manufactured products are
borne by China and the world as a whole. The benefit goes only to the
shareholders and consumers of Dollar stores. What's the easy fix? There isn't.
But using textile bag makes you feel wonderful and proud enough that you no
longer think about the big picture and thus have no real voice when it comes
to changing the big things.

------
Maktab
How did this get posted twice? Does the duplicate check not work for articles
that have been flagged to death? -
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=700251>

Edit: Cached link to that HN page before it got deleted:
[http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:TPxg1J2JO8cJ:news.ycomb...](http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:TPxg1J2JO8cJ:news.ycombinator.com/item%3Fid%3D700251+forget+shorter+showers+site:news.ycombinator.com&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari)

------
pbhjpbhj
If you come across someone with major arterial bleeding and apparent internal
bleeding then do you attempt to stem the external bleeding or do you just
leave them because you can't do anything about the internal bleeding.
Personally I'd apply first aid and call an ambulance, others it seems would
counsel that I leave you to die as one can't immediately solve the whole
problem.

Do your bit for sustainable living short-term and use your vote to progress
long term solutions. Use your consumer power to promote good governance by
businesses.

~~~
sophacles
He's not saying don't do anything. To use your metaphor, he's saying: Don't
put a bandaid on it and claim you saved the man's life.

Moving towards personal sustainability is OK, but there is no use pretending
it is a major fix. It is more of a start, a way to get people thinking about
the world they live in. After that the real work must be done, and not just
harm reduction, but actively fixing the things we've broke.

In fact the article points out one thing that struck me as particularly
insightful: Current environmental thinking suggests we can only live in such a
way as to harm our environment. This suggestion is way too convenient, as it
reminds us all that we are sinners (environmentally). I think that maybe this
sort of thinking is what bothers people about environmental types: it feels
like religion, not any sort of fact based solution.

~~~
barrkel
Environmentalism _is_ a religion, no doubt about it. The full extent of my
involvement and support is in raising taxes for things we want industry to
produce and consume less of, period. Price signals in the economy will do the
rest of the work. Piety not necessary.

------
onreact-com
"Why personal change does not equal political change"

Good point but in fact you need to reach critical mass for the personal change
to become change on the whole. When a large enough number of people changes in
private the private becomes truly political.

If you just change in private and don't tell anybody you might nit change
anything.

With critical mass you should of course apply pressure tactics to gain
momentum. The boycott or recently the "carrot mob" are great examples of that.

------
smithjchris
I agree. To build a society around gain and growth is a bad idea. Several
large civilizations have fallen (think Romans etc) due to this simple mistake.
Modern capitalism is heading the same way.

Society will divide into those who adapt and those who take. The latter will
always fall.

~~~
sho
While I agree somewhat with your sentiment, I don't think your reference to
the Romans would really stand up to analysis. The problems we face today don't
have much to do with being overrun by visigoths.

I also don't like your dichotomy between "those who adapt and those who take".
We are all of us taking, every second of our lives. Everything we possess or
covet on our silly little planet is the gift of our great benefactor the Sun,
and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

