Things that make you want to cry....

SATNAVREMOVED

Cardew wrote:

You beat me to it!

I have absolutely no argument with anyone who wishes to implement themselves, what they consider, sound environmental practice.

I do object however to those people who try to 'lay the finger of blame' on other people. e.g.

The idiots who pass moral judgement on those who go on holiday by plane.

Condemn as ‘selfish’ those who leave a TV on standby(and waste 50pence a year).

If these paragons of virtue looked closely at their own malpractices, instead of being so critical of other, they might find that owning a computer, using the internet and posting hundreds of messages on this forum was also a waste of the ‘earth’s precious resources’

Frankly there is an unhealthy undertone to some of the threads in this section of MSE.

HERE HEAR...:T

Sybarite

Cardew wrote:

The idiots who pass moral judgement on those who go on holiday by plane.

Condemn as ‘selfish’ those who leave a TV on standby(and waste 50pence a year).

Frankly there is an unhealthy undertone to some of the threads in this section of MSE.

I don't pass judgement on people who holiday by plane - at least there's a cultural benefit. I do on governments who make it economically viable to airfreight blackberries from Peru or are terrified of taxing airline fuel to reflect the C02 emitted from the most environmentally damaging form of transport we have.

I turn the TV off, but it's more to do with lowering my bills and having had it drummed into me as a child than anything else. Again I'd much prefer it if manufacturers addressed the problem rather than have to concern myself with it.

I think the freedom to own SUVs, diesels or whatever else is important, but do wish that more people were disuaded from making inefficient vehicle choices through a taxtion structure that more realistically penalises such car ownership in proportion to the damage such transportation causes (amongst the other issues associated with these vehicles).
I also wish to have the 'freedom' to enjoy decent air quality, something that owners of larger more pollution emitting cars are presumably unconcerned about when they make their vehicle choice.

I find that disregard a very 'unhealthy undertone' in their actions.

Similarly the 'sanctimonious messages' objected to have have been posted by those who are obviously concerned with consuming in an ethical context on a vent board. I haven't really seen any serious postings from the 'selfish' detractors for not at least attempting to alter our current patterns of consumptions. If there's a valid argument for say driving an SUV in a urban area that's fine, but other than a preoccupation with being able to drive over speed bumps at speed, one hasn't been posted.

Similarly I don't thinks SUV drivers are the anti-Christ, but it does sadden me that people are prepared to focus on the minutiae of owning a big car regardless of everything they know about the bigger implications of such a choice.

Enviromental issues do seem to raise some very strong feelings on both sides of the green divide - usually because such choices involve a level of ambiguity and a complex set of variables to negotiate if you want to make an informed choice. There is only a certain level of concern to which I can expend my time, patience and sanity on, say, dithering about which apples to buy at the supermarket - or indeed whether I should to go to the supermarket at all. With certain issues it's a no-brainer though; big car+urban streets=duff choice.

I generally start from an 'I should' rather than a 'you should' perspective - but willful selfishness from those who are informed of the facts but don't care about the impact their willful actions have on other people, is something I do find a little provoking: it's an informed act of selfishness.

kittiwoz

There is someone in Manchester who actually drives a Hummer. That pees me off no end. I saw a 4 wheel drive with bull-bars the other day. That annoyed me. I hate it when people drive too close to the curb so I can't pass them in traffic queues when I'm on my bike or when they pass too close and force me into the gutter.

My housemate keeps throwing cans in the bin and I have to pick them out again and wash them for recycling. That is a big irritant. Also he leaves lights on all the time.

I hate how in all the discussions we ever had about the environment and the future of engineering the lecturers would talk about having to meet the demands of consumers for new, up-to-date and fashionable products when it is my firm belief that this is a demand artificially created by companies who have realised that if they make washing machines to last twenty years they can't sell nearly as many as if they conk out after three. Also I think it reflects the idea so prevalent in engineering that you can design a product from a purely technical perspective and then get an aesthete to give it a "trendy" styling and that constitutes complete design which is a complete missunderstanding of what good design is about. That annoys me because I'm studying industrial design and hope to have a career in it.

Sybarite

I totally agree. I'd love a washing machine that lasted for 20yrs - miele are supposed to be for 10. If legislation forcing manufacturers to be responsible for the cost of safely disposing of their obsolete products is passed, I wonder if greater longevity will become a more dominent influence in design and manufacture. Similarly, repairs may then become more of a viable economic option for the producer to offer.

Pointless artifically created obsolence is the factor I hate the most. Why are TVs still being made with only analogue tuners or only 1 scart socket when the manufacturers know this will be inadequate for most users in a couple of years. That sort of thing.

SATNAVREMOVED

Sybarite wrote:

Why are TVs still being made with only analogue tuners or only 1 scart socket when the manufacturers know this will be inadequate for most users in a couple of years. That sort of thing.

I guess so they can sell more! I once read a true story about a motor mechanic who was jailed for fitting parts that had a defined short lifespan...

Cardew

Sybarite wrote:

I don't pass judgement on people who holiday by plane - at least there's a cultural benefit. I do on governments who make it economically viable to airfreight blackberries from Peru or are terrified of taxing airline fuel to reflect the C02 emitted from the most environmentally damaging form of transport we have.

I turn the TV off, but it's more to do with lowering my bills and having had it drummed into me as a child than anything else. Again I'd much prefer it if manufacturers addressed the problem rather than have to concern myself with it.

I think the freedom to own SUVs, diesels or whatever else is important, but do wish that more people were disuaded from making inefficient vehicle choices through a taxtion structure that more realistically penalises such car ownership in proportion to the damage such transportation causes (amongst the other issues associated with these vehicles).
I also wish to have the 'freedom' to enjoy decent air quality, something that owners of larger more pollution emitting cars are presumably unconcerned about when they make their vehicle choice.

I find that disregard a very 'unhealthy undertone' in their actions.

Similarly the 'sanctimonious messages' objected to have have been posted by those who are obviously concerned with consuming in an ethical context on a vent board. I haven't really seen any serious postings from the 'selfish' detractors for not at least attempting to alter our current patterns of consumptions. If there's a valid argument for say driving an SUV in a urban area that's fine, but other than a preoccupation with being able to drive over speed bumps at speed, one hasn't been posted.

Similarly I don't thinks SUV drivers are the anti-Christ, but it does sadden me that people are prepared to focus on the minutiae of owning a big car regardless of everything they know about the bigger implications of such a choice.

Enviromental issues do seem to raise some very strong feelings on both sides of the green divide - usually because such choices involve a level of ambiguity and a complex set of variables to negotiate if you want to make an informed choice. There is only a certain level of concern to which I can expend my time, patience and sanity on, say, dithering about which apples to buy at the supermarket - or indeed whether I should to go to the supermarket at all. With certain issues it's a no-brainer though; big car+urban streets=duff choice.

I generally start from an 'I should' rather than a 'you should' perspective - but willful selfishness from those who are informed of the facts but don't care about the impact their willful actions have on other people, is something I do find a little provoking: it's an informed act of selfishness.

I have little to dispute in your(as usual) well reasoned arguments. That said, with respect you have moved the discussion away from the point I was making about the unhealthy undertone in many posts on this forum. However valid your points, they are not answering the exam question.

Like you, I wish the Governments around the world could find a way to curtail some of the practices(like blackberries from Peru)you mention. I read somewhere that there are upwards of a dozen cargo aircraft engaged every day in flying flowers from the ‘Third world’ to more affluent countries. Doubtless there will be a counter-argument that this, and blackberries, provides employment in poor countries.

In the majority of cases there is also little justification for the use of 4x4s in an urban environment. However where do you stop with the ‘how can you justify’ approach?

I used the example of computers, the internet and hundreds of posts on this forum. As in the above paragraph, there is little justification for this other than we want to; this applies equally well to the ‘consumerism’ that we all indulge in to a greater or lesser extent. Clothes, make-up, electronic appliances etc etc.

To give but one example. My TV left on standby 24/7 will use approx 50 pence a year in electricity costs. I choose not to switch it off at the plug thousands of times a year to save that 50p - that is my choice – and yet was criticised for being selfish.

The title of this thread was ‘Things that make you want to cry’. For me it is the attitude of some who post on this forum.

martinpike

This one made me want to laugh. A colleague at work told me how every time he goes to his offsprings houses, he goes around switching all the lights on.

When asked by them why he does it, he replies to the effect that he thought they liked it like that, because that's what they did when they lived with him!

Seems now that they are paying the bills, they are a little more enlightened!

Pun intended.

gromituk

Sybarite wrote:

I love the 'its safe for the kids argument' yep save until they get out of the car and breath in 4x more exhaust pollution

I believe they are likely to be experiencing very high levels of pollution within the car, too, even if it happens not to be from their own vehicle.

underfloor heating

The electric variety, I hope! The water variety can actually be beneficial because it requires lower temperatures than radiators which leads to condensing boilers operating more efficiently. But it has a slow warm-up time so is wasteful for dwellings that aren't occupied most of the day.

economy 7 electricity

I'm not sure that's a big problem - power stations can't be switched on and off rapidly.

(finger grease on the bulb shortens the life btw)

You can't actually touch the bulb of these lamps, so grease can't get on there - the reason why they fail is just that they're badly made!

Sybarite

gromituk wrote:

I believe they are likely to be experiencing very high levels of pollution within the car, too, even if it happens not to be from their own vehicle.The electric variety, I hope! The water variety can actually be beneficial because it requires lower temperatures than radiators which leads to condensing boilers operating more efficiently. But it has a slow warm-up time so is wasteful for dwellings that aren't occupied most of the day.I'm not sure that's a big problem - power stations can't be switched on and off rapidly.You can't actually touch the bulb of these lamps, so grease can't get on there - the reason why they fail is just that they're badly made!

Yep, I seem to remember that cars sit in their own pollution corridor, I'm with you one this. If you live next to one of the main arterial road in London it's supposed to shorten life expectancy (depending on number of years exposure) by an average of 10 yrs. Predictably this has greatest impact on those with the lowest income levels to tend to live in such areas.

I have electric underfloor (and ceiling) heating (the ceiling variety is a bad joke). I wasn't aware of the benefits of underfloor water heating though. Presumably this means you can link to a carbon neutral fueled boiler or solar WHT.

Economy 7 is just an irritant, not particularly a green issue. My heating and water systems are especially unadaptable, to the extent that the heating cannot be controlled to come on for say an hour in the morning, but does come on all night, exactly when I least want it.

GU10s are just a pain generally, but I was actually thinking of the tiny bulbs commonly used in desk lights & the long ones that go pop each time an insect lands on them.

Sybarite

On a separate issue;

I've intentionally dropped litter once in my life - an apple core - when I didn't know what else to do with it & I couldn't but it in my pocket.

However I frequently see people blithely throwing things out of their cars or in the street.

I had the notion that littering is both unslightly and a healthy hazard drummed into me at school & at home - as I suspect most people have.

I wondered if anyone has ever challenged a litterer & been given a justification for it by the offender - however spurious?

Not a topic of global importance I know, but I find it difficult to comprehend why people still do it.