I saw another one yesterday. This petite woman was driving one of the largest SUVs ever made (I think it was a Navigator, it was huge anyways) and she had a license plate with some birds. If she was really concerned about nature, why wasn't she driving something smaller? to top if off, she kept then engine running for about 5 minutes before she finally pulled out and started driving.

Jeez, this thread can go no where but downhill, so I'll race to the bottom.

Yes some people glorify the 'outdoors'. They completely buy into the image sold to them by the manufacturer of their enormous gas guzzling SUV; the lumbering beast climbing up the side of a pristine mountain, parked on a cliff edge while surveying the majestic skyline before them. In reality, the vehicle in the commercial was either trucked in on a trailer, or air lifted by helicopter and only drove the 40 ft needed for the commercial. There is no way that the vehicle would arrive that clean and perfect otherwise. If it actually drove there the plastic trim would all be ripped off it would be dusty and covered in mud. I'm not sure which makes me feel worse: that there are people that fall for that marketing hook,line, and sinker or that there are people sleezy enough to sell that dream to gullible fools.

---

**************************************
MacResource User Map: [www.zeemaps.com]#

I'm sure she needs it because she does lumberjack outreach work and drives a prius whenever she can

---

In California it's an institutionalized scam, the state promises to allocate a paltry amount to such and such org. or maybe .org if you send them a premium to get a picture on your plate. So the Hummer owner can expiate a little of the guilt by sending in an extra few bucks that will never make any difference anywhere.

It's one of those ironies akin to naming suburban subdivisions after the thing they had to destroy in order to build (i.e. Hidden Lake, Forest Glen, Wild Creek, etc).

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

> If it actually drove there the plastic trim would all be ripped
> off it would be dusty and covered in mud.

Depends which commercial.

=All= environmental plates and stickers on =all= motor vehicles are equally hypocritical. And there's no shortage.

This is huge, Ford Excursion:

[www.bbspot.com]

[www.bbspot.com]
Detroit, MI - Ford Motor Company announced today the new Ford Exorbitant. The Ford Exorbitant seats 50 comfortably, and even comes with a spare Ford Explorer.


As I was composing this, a commercial came on about the new Arrowhead bottled water "eco-friendly" bottle that uses 30% less plastic. I feel sad that there are enough people in the US that will fall for this scam that they actually had the balls to come out with this product and make the commercial. If you want to reduce the plastic used to get you water, why not just use a cup made out of a recyclable material like glass or aluminum and get your water from the tap? (for the minority of people that have tap water that is actually worse than the municipal water they fill the bottles with, 5 gallon bottles use much less plastic per ounce of water held and are reusable)

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

Well, people aren't going to give up bottled water all together so better bottles do make an improvement. I certainly hope nobody buying the product thinks its a drastic improvement.

I wonder how it compares to the Poland Spring bottle -

---

Quote
Black Landlord
=All= environmental plates and stickers on =all= motor vehicles are equally hypocritical. And there's no shortage.

No offense Black Landlord, while I applaud your efforts to be more environmentally friendlier than most, all vehicles (even the "man" powered ones) are fairly hypocritical. You may not be using gasoline directly by riding a bike but virtually everything you have is non-environmentally friendly - including the bike (with its rubber tires, plastic parts, metal parts...all of those have a huge environmental impact).

When it comes to protecting the environment, we're ALL guilty of not doing so.

To be fair, there are thousands of ways to reduce one's destructive environmental footprint. Your vehicle isn't the sum total of how you impact the earth. This person could be committed to purchasing only locally grown food or could be the driving force in habitat restoration or perhaps have politically protected entire swaths of outlying woodlands from unscrupulous development. No one is without vice. Hiding it wouldn't really be genuine either.

Quote
mattkime

I wonder how it compares to the Poland Spring bottle -

Poland Spring is to the east what Arrowhead is to the west (Hardee's/Carl's Jr., Sav-on/Osco, etc.), so the comparison would be physically identical, only the names, color of labels, and bottling sources have been changed to maintain regional identity and market share...

---

Sometimes it is what it is...
and then there's times when it's really better.



==

Quote
vision63
To be fair, there are thousands of ways to reduce one's destructive environmental footprint. Your vehicle isn't the sum total of how you impact the earth. This person could be committed to purchasing only locally grown food or could be the driving force in habitat restoration or perhaps have politically protected entire swaths of outlying woodlands from unscrupulous development. No one is without vice. Hiding it wouldn't really be genuine either.

A week of driving erases a lifetime of trying to eat only locally grown food.

Quote
Stephanie

Quote
Black Landlord
=All= environmental plates and stickers on =all= motor vehicles are equally hypocritical. And there's no shortage.

No offense Black Landlord, while I applaud your efforts to be more environmentally friendlier than most, all vehicles (even the "man" powered ones) are fairly hypocritical. You may not be using gasoline directly by riding a bike but virtually everything you have is non-environmentally friendly - including the bike (with its rubber tires, plastic parts, metal parts...all of those have a huge environmental impact).

When it comes to protecting the environment, we're ALL guilty of not doing so.

You're missing the point a bit-- it was hat driving a vehicle while sporting a pro-environment sticker or plate is hypocritical, not that any type of vehicle is hypocritical in and of itself.

But are you actually suggesting that the only way to live in harmony with the environment is to kill yourself? Or that one should not be proud of significant sacrifices one makes?

Quote
Black Landlord
You're missing the point a bit-- it was hat driving a vehicle while sporting a pro-environment sticker or plate is hypocritical, not that any type of vehicle is hypocritical in and of itself.

But are you actually suggesting that the only way to live in harmony with the environment is to kill yourself? Or that one should not be proud of significant sacrifices one makes?

Never suggested killing oneself.

I'm saying that to some degree, we're all hypocritical since no matter WHAT we do, we're having a negative impact on the planet. Your bicycle still contributes to pollution (in the manufacturing process).

So we're all hypocrites. & fwiw, I care very much about the environment. I'm very conscientious of how much (and where) I drive, I recycle everything I possibly can, etc. etc. But that doesn't change the fact I still have a negative impact on the environment.

I too roll my eyes when I see huge SUVs with environmentally supportive bumper stickers but I don't seem to have the same reaction when I see those same bumper stickers on more economical vehicles.

I'm just saying we're all guilty. It's inevitable that the products we use and our habits, way of life, etc. is going to cause pollution, etc.

It is not always obvious what is "better" for the environment. I was a dinner the other night talking about little things we were doing, and some woman said to me, "well, if you really cared about the environment, you wouldn't have had kids!" And technically, she is right. I heard another talk from a person who admonished us for buying fruit in the winter - citing the environmental impact of getting that fruit into my hands. We did stop buying bottled water - we bought 6 of those really nice water bottles - but to be honest, who knows who many months of plastic water bottle waste make up for what went into making those bottles.

Everything one does - from leaving computers on all the time (I do) to buying frozen vs. fresh-squeezed OJ can be criticized in some way. Who knows, the woman in the SUV might be doing something else that makes up for her car. So, while it is fun to point out these ironies (I like the subdivision naming thing - I never heard that before), it is hard to point fingers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2008 11:48AM by volcs0.

We all seem to be saying the same thing . . .



(when's the last time that happened?)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2008 11:51AM by Black Landlord.

Quote
Black Landlord
We all seem to be saying the same thing . . .



(when's the last time that happened?)

we all must be on the same wavelength today... a first on this forum?

"It's flexible... easier to crush for recycling"


WHAT? The size of the machines that handle regrind will have no problem with
BRICKS made of PETE. I'm sure the machine doesn't think "oh good, a nice, easy,
FLEXIBLE ton of bottles coming through...."

I hate charade hypocrisy of all types.

Quote
Black Landlord

Quote
vision63
To be fair, there are thousands of ways to reduce one's destructive environmental footprint. Your vehicle isn't the sum total of how you impact the earth. This person could be committed to purchasing only locally grown food or could be the driving force in habitat restoration or perhaps have politically protected entire swaths of outlying woodlands from unscrupulous development. No one is without vice. Hiding it wouldn't really be genuine either.

A week of driving erases a lifetime of trying to eat only locally grown food.

One bad thing doesn't "erase" the good thing. That's too rigid a criteria. Were that the case, not a single one of us would ever be doing a good thing. We all have sin.

Keeping the engine running is bad. But who's to say she didn't have a valid reason for driving a large vehicle?

What does "petite woman" have to do with it? If it was a 6'2" manly man with a grizzled beard and Krispy Kreme ass, would it be okay? Would we then assume, Well, he must have a boat that needs towing?

I am not against petite women driving huge SUV if they need it. But please, have some common sense and refrain from putting on of those plates on your car.

Quote
space-time
I am not against petite women driving huge SUV if they need it. But please, have some common sense and refrain from putting on of those plates on your car.

If the choice is between driving a grossly irresponsible waste and death machine with a 'normal' plate, and driving a grossly irreesponsible waste and death machine with a foofy plate that channels $9 and change after administrative costs to some wildlife fund that lost it's 'normal' funding in the last 7 years, then the better choice is still the foofy plate.

I can top that easy.

It is not uncommon to see a Hummer, Explorer or 2 ton Pickup around here (Western New York) with wind power, sierra club, and all kinds of liberal environmental anti-big oil, anti-gun, Al Gore Global warming hysteria bumper stickers.

The real kicker is that I live in a densely populated suburb and there is always one right in front of me coming to a full stop before going up the 1 inch crack that leads off the road into a Burger King!

Quote
Black Landlord

Quote
space-time
I am not against petite women driving huge SUV if they need it. But please, have some common sense and refrain from putting on of those plates on your car.

If the choice is between driving a grossly irresponsible waste and death machine with a 'normal' plate, and driving a grossly irreesponsible waste and death machine with a foofy plate that channels $9 and change after administrative costs to some wildlife fund that lost it's 'normal' funding in the last 7 years, then the better choice is still the foofy plate.

then please save those $30 foofy fee and donate $20 directly to that widlife fund and keep $10 for yourself, it's a win-win situation and the government is out of the loop.

Quote
Mike Johnson
Keeping the engine running is bad. But who's to say she didn't have a valid reason for driving a large vehicle?

If it was a 6'2" manly man with a grizzled beard and Krispy Kreme ass, would it be okay?

SIG MATERIAL!

Anyway, I don't think that vilifying people who make poor environmental choices is a viable strategy. All that does it keep them entrenched in their positions, the opposite of what we want to accomplish.There will always be people who are completely unaware of the longterm consequences of their actions. Frustrating I know, but true. Also, people will always want to have the ability to be independent and able to travel (i.e. cars). It's a wonderful ability so it's obvious why people will never give it up entirely.

IMHO, we (our society) need to figure out a longterm strategy that is based on incentives and positive choices. It's the only way. In some way, a carbon tax or at least a gasoline tax needs to be implemented, with the tax monies put into offsetting automobile CO2 generation (i.e. dramatically improved public transportation, wind power installations, solar R&D, etc.). It should be implemented over a relatively long period so as not to be punitive to people who are for whatever reason in wasteful situations (i.e. living in far-flung suburbs and commuting via car to a distant job). I doubt that such a strategy is politically viable in the U.S. for the present (especially with the Limbaughs and O'Reilly's of the right wing spouting rubbish to their dittohead followers). We'll probably wait until global warming starts having serious negative consequences, by which time significant environmental degradation will be a foregone conclusion.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
davester
Anyway, I don't think that vilifying people who make poor environmental choices is a viable strategy..

I think it has value as part of a multi-pronged approach.

I'm tired of hearing "the time is not right to suggest people drive less, or consider giving up car ownership altogether".

Like anyone's going to let us know when the time is right for that message?

What does "petite woman" have to do with it? If it was a 6'2" manly man with a grizzled beard and Krispy Kreme ass, would it be okay? Would we then assume, Well, he must have a boat that needs towing?

Exactly.

Why is there even a qualifier? Is there a minimum size requirement to drive an SUV?

I'm all for pointing out ways to minimize one's impact, but pious and vilifying attitudes are probably more counter productive than valuable.

That dinner volcs attended sounds like a barrel of fun. People who start a sentence with (or otherwise include) "If you really cared..." tend to have an agenda other than the original issue at hand.

volcs may have bee very charitable in is response. I wold have suggested ways she could improve her carbon footprint-- like ceasing to exhale thus reducing her CO2 contribution to global warming.

If she really cared.

And I would help, because I really care, about her caring.

---

I am that Masked Man.

All you can do, is all you can do.

There’s trouble — it's time to play the sound of my people.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

Chelsea Tractors Rule OK!

Quote
Black Landlord

Quote
davester
Anyway, I don't think that vilifying people who make poor environmental choices is a viable strategy..

I think it has value as part of a multi-pronged approach.

What? That approach will do nothing but alienate the people who need to be influenced, the opposite of the goal. "Environazis" do nothing but give people a reason not to take them seriously.

Quote
Black Landlord
I'm tired of hearing "the time is not right to suggest people drive less, or consider giving up car ownership altogether".

Who said that? Nobody here. Strawman argument in action.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

>Well, people aren't going to give up bottled water all together so better bottles do make an improvement.

I've never bought bottled water. At work we're replacing bottled water stations with coolers
that look exactly like the big bottle dispensers but without the big bottle, it's filtered and it's
very good, I know because I have well water and I hate municipal water.

---

Grateful11

"she had a license plate with some birds."

How did anyone interpret a license plate with birds on it as "environmental"?

Many hunters have these kind of license plates on their SUVs and no "environmental" person would interpret the license plate as a pro-environment statement. Is it because of the petite driver?

JJ

"How did anyone interpret a license plate with birds on it as "environmental"? "

even better, destroy their habitat, then shoot them too!

>>Many hunters have these kind of license plates on their SUVs and no "environmental" person would interpret the license plate as a pro-environment statement.

I'm a bit confused. I was under the impression that many hunters were environmentalists even if they're stylistically not tree huggers.

Quote
mattkime
I'm a bit confused. I was under the impression that many hunters were environmentalists even if they're stylistically not tree huggers.

Yeah!

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Out of the way, coming through.

Class envy is nothing new

Are dolts a class?

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan