Try your no-car experiment with children or in a rural area. You will find it a little harder. So I guess you will remain "not a hypocrite" until you move or have kids. The point is, you do what you can within your limits. And like others have mentioned, what we can do through lifestyle change is only a drop in the bucket versus the major climate change driver: the ever-growing global economy.
And on another note - and I am sure this has been addressed on this message board before - so what if the climate changes? It has happened before, it will happen again. A great extinction will occur; it has happened before, it will happen again. Really it is the old geologist paradigm. We are a brief chapter in this earth's history (at this rate very brief). In the end we will not have mattered and really how many species we have taken down with us will not have mattered. The root of the conservation argument has a idealogical (religious?) basis. And that is that there is value in what is presently here on earth. So much value that we bemoan each extinction (a VERY common event through time) and each spoiled view (again, ephemeral with or without us). And why is this value attached? Because we put it there as INDIVIDUALS, not even as a species. Joe-blow doesn't care about the fairie shrimp, I do (who is right and why?). In the end it is selfish, we appreciate biologic diversity because we will thrive in those environments, we appreciate good views because they make us smile. First and foremost, the native american looked 7 generations ahead so that their descendents would thrive, not so that the resources they used would remian unspoiled. The earth and life upon it do not care about this self-reflecting species. We would be pompous to think that we could destroy all life on Earth. We could take out 90% (maybe) and then 500 million years later your back in action. Imagine the views then, breath taking I am sure. On 3/25/07, adam herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have been reading some excellent rants and diatribes about the issue of > consumption, particularly North American and most particularly about > gasoline vs. ethanol vs. biodiesel. I really would like to believe that > most of the folks writing these are "practicing what they preach" and have > sold their combustible engine vehicles in favour of a bicycle and/or > public > transportation however, having just graduated with an M.S. in Marine > Biology > I realize this is sadly not the case. I was labeled as a trouble-maker > for > making comments like "if you're a scientist and stay abreast of global > warming trends AND still drive a gasoline vehicle you are a hypocrite." > finger-pointing is a tough one as you are often branded as self-righteous > but leading-by-example is a SLOW process, so the question I pose to this > BLOG is how do you get colleagues to change without alienating them? like > I > said, many of the essays I read on this listserv resonate with me, but > they > are just words falling on an already preached to choir. I would like to > add, that I have been happily without a vehicle for 1 year & 5 months and > love it. there are just so many reasons beyond doing the right thing as > to > why walking, biking and/or taking the bus is enjoyable: you see more > wildlife en route, you find great stuff along the side of the road, you > have > time to read (on the bus), you rarely have to wait for traffic, you get > exercise and so don't have to go to the gym, etc. etc. make the > commitment > and feel the freedom. in situations where science has allied with > industry > to such a degree that scholastic acheivements are overshadowed by material > possessions what can one do but be a trouble maker? your experiences and > comments are appreciated. > Adam Herbert >
