Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Green Geeks? 244

Posted by Cliff from the hug-a-tree-lately dept.
sigmatt asks: "I've often wondered where Slashdot readers stand on environmental issues. This might be considered a little off topic for this site, but so many programmers that I know, including myself, are outdoorsy people in their other life, and I'm interested in the opinion of the wider geek community. The local issue in my part of the world at the moment is logging of old growth forests, primarily used for wood chips. The wood chips are not very valuable (as low as AU$7 a ton - that's US$3.50!), but it is the easy option - and I suspect it leads to the highest profits and quickest company growth. Unfortunately, our wonderful forests - with so many potential future uses (fine furniture, tourism, and, of course, my own hiking trips) are being wasted away at an alarming rate. Recently the tactics of those opposing the practice of woodchipping our old growth forests have turned to attacking the tourism industry in order to try to make a government who won't listen change its mind. For example this site ripping off another site, and the posting of a controversial bill board in Sydney airport. What do you think about these approaches?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Green Geeks? More

Green Geeks?

Comments Filter:

  • Environmentalism (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Pfft. I drive an SUV, and not one of those wimpy, fuel-sipping RAV-4s or something, but an older model powerwagon. It gets awful gas milage, (1 highway, 0 city) and I often drive alone when I could take public transportation for free.

    I smoke several packs of ciggarettes a day, and litter constantly. I dump used oil in storm drains, and I pee in sinks and miscellaneous corners. I fart constantly, adding to the vapid air pollution of my home city, Los Angeles. I spit everywhere, and I never wash my clothes.

    To top it all off, I never recycle, and constantly throw away things that could easily be reused. I generate so much refuse that I usually must stuff trash in my neighbor's recepticles, as mine is almost always overflowing.

    Yes sir! I'm your average slashdot user.

    • ...at least the AC is 100% biodegradable! (Except for fillings, surgical implants, and many prosthetics. And the inorganic brain.)

      Why, he/she has fertilized this thread already!

      (kidding)
    • and I never wash my clothes.

      Well, that is environmentally sound, at least. The amount of water and power used in washing (and drying) clothes is really quite shocking.

  • What hysteria! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @12:15AM (#4748479)
    Obviously you haven't read about how good old American industry is benefitting you:

    http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/about.html

    The more CO2 we create, the greener the earth will get! Duh! Then you'll have plenty of forests to hike in! Just listen to the trustworthy oil companies you sandal wearing pinko and get back in line.

  • Earth in the balance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MacAndrew ( 463832 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @12:18AM (#4748497) Homepage
    One thing our presidential hopeful Al Gore got right was the title of his book. "Balance" is the key to environmentalism, and you've hit on this tension between long-term and short-term uses for resources; likely you also have an entirely independent aesthetic motivation (as I do) that nature is ours to share: We should consider the impact to other species regardless of whether they benefit us somehow.

    This balancing issue, coupled with the more emotional conservation for conservation's sake, is a hot one in the United States. We now have a government tilted towards oil-and-gas-and-timber interests, which our my interests, too, as I am one of the consumers of this stuff. But I think they have the balance terribly wrong, and that we will a terrible price in lost resources, greater pollution, and even war (to safeguard oil supplies).

    So, (1) what's man's cut of the pie; and (2) what fraction do we eat now, what later; and (3) how efficiently do we burn it. The first question is philosophical; the latter two economic.

    How does this relate to technology? Well, I suppose reduce, reuse, recycle applies as much as elsewhere. Keep the number of gadgets in check, buy energy-efficient ones, and turn them off when not in use; try to rehabilitate equipment when practical; and finally recycle materials to the extent possible, with reputable firms (see the recycling thread today). Recycling is the last line of defense.

    And turn off the computer to take a walk now and then. :)

  • Zodiac (Neal Stephenson) covers this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @12:46AM (#4748634) Homepage Journal
    I'm just rereading Neal Stephenson's "Zodiac", which pretty much covers this entirely. It's his "Eco-thriller", set in modern-day fictional Boston. Among the key points:

    * you need treehuggers for building awareness, nasty people for sabotage, scientists for evidence, and guerilla PR people to counter large PR/legal budgets. All have to be environmentally motivated, clearly not all are the same psych type. So geek activistist are handy for several roles.

    * it's a more bitter fight than you might think

    * there aren't always easy answers

    * all his novels build to an apocalpyse (the Big U, Zodiac, and Snow Crash, in order, each widened the area of potential destruction) and, hey, just like his endings, there's rarely total victory for either side.

    Anyway, it's a great primer for _effective_ dealing with these mega-complex environmental damage issues, for those who think it's as easy as putting up a billboard or doing a few phone calls.
    • Yes, this is why we should at least accept "annoying" activists. Although many are professional hysterics, they usually DO have a point for their zealousness. It's not like America couldn't use some moral goading.

      • "Environmentalists" OPPOSING a cellphone tower that puts out 1/10th the radiation as the one it replaces just shows how idiocy their "Science" is.

        AS to the moral goading, I haven't seen it from environmentalists-- anyone with any scientific background discounts these kooks and terrorists.

  • The ultimate personal contribution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @12:55AM (#4748676)
    Is to limit population growth. My wife and I have only one child.
    • Why one? Why not none? I would think that population growth could be stemmed much faster if the people concerned about it would have zero children amongst them. After all, since you can't predict how many children your child will have, you alone could be responsible for a bunch of grandkids, more than making up for your "restraint."
      • Why not none? Have you ever been married to a female with her biological clock ticking? Did you ever feel the drive to create a life form in your own image. Unless you've been there, it's hard to understand. The best we could do was to recognize our own limitations and have one child. Hopefully, she will have the education, values and drive to make a positive influence upon society.

    • I think the ultimate contribution is to raise the kind of children that are not only tolerant and intelligent, but can keep their mouth shut in a movie theater - that would be a miracle-level contribution.

      Personally, I think being a parent is overrated - anybody can become a parent, given a partner. Parents that help their children reach their potential and become well-adjusted parents and members of society are the most under-rated resource we have - if they still exist anymore.

    • Oh yeah, my wife and I have two psycho killer children! Talk about limiting population growth!

      But seriously, if you're an intelligent, environmental person with good health, the best thing for the environment is probably to have as many children as possible. Not all humans are a net detriment to the environment. Some are actually a net positive.

    • I've got one and then one-on-the-way, and then I'm getting snipped: long story.

      However, it should be noted that your "one-child" in an industrialized culture consumes and pollutes at a rate of about 100 times that of a child in a non-industrialized one.

      Other posters at this level have pointed out quite well that you can mitigate this by raising the child with an awareness of these issues, and win in the long-run.

  • Someone is pulling your leg. There is no way in hell you could buy a ton of ANY material for $3.50. The cost of harvesting a ton of material will be orders of magnatude larger, as will the cost of moving it to the store/warehouse or your yard.

    Shit, it costs $3.50 to get some pimple faced teenager to deliver a pizza! And they don't even have any heavy equipment!

    -- Bob

  • Fatherly wisdom.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jag164 ( 309858 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @01:50AM (#4748939)
    I once questioned my father about the bizarre tatics of th ACLU. He responded to the like of,

    "Son, there are rights and wrongs, there are normal people and extremists. Thankfully the normal people prevail, but without the extremeists, nobody will keep the normal people in check. Though I don't agree with the tatics of the ACLU, we need them. They keep us in check."

    I think my father's statement applies to the ACLU, Tree huggers, and every left/right wing extremeist bozo out there.

    So in essence, I think you are silly for hugging the trees, but thank you for hugging the trees. And to answer the question, this geek could care less.

    • My thoughts exactly...but on Stallman, not the ACLU. I usually disagree with him, but as long as he pushes the hyper-free line, the regular software companies push the totally closed line, and we end up somewhere in the middle, I'm happy as a clam.

      And the gun nuts. I don't really want to own a gun, but all those people *with* guns provides the big benefit of gun ownership -- extreme difficulty for any power to acquire power over the government and then move to a dictatorship -- for me already.

      And just about every other extremist group out there. Even Christian lobbyist groups probably have some benefit, though I can't think of what it might be at the moment.
    • Son, there are rights and wrongs, there are normal people and extremists...

      It's a mistake to think that the ACLU are extremists. They appear to be because they take on extremely unpopular cases. There is a reason for this: Extreme, unpopular cases are the thin end of the wedge; the kind of cases where the defendent is so unpopular that people will sit still or even applaud when our basic rights are eroded. Then those bad decisions become precedents, and it becomes easier to abrogate our rights the second time, and the third...

      The ACLU, by protecting the rights of horrible and unsavory people, are protecting your rights from the most insidious kind of threat.

  • -1 Flamebait on the MQR standard (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:04AM (#4749004) Journal

    I wish we could mod articles--I'd surely put this one as "-1 Flamebait".

    Failing that, there should be a new category "Rile Slashdot" (or maybe just "Foodfight!") for questions like this. As far as I'm concerned, it falls in the same category as:

    • I know that, like me, most slashdot readers prefer emacs to any of the other so-called editors. But there must be some weirdos out there using the other crud. I'd be interested in hearing how you justify it.
    • Is the US the best contry every, or what?
    • Who has better orgasms, men or women? I'm interested in the average slashdot readers' view.
    • I don't know how to program, but I'm considering an open source program to protect the rights of the music industry, with the eventual goal of selling my company to Microsoft. Can anyone give me some tips on how to start?

    In other words, I think the article is flamebate.

    -- MarkusQ

    • Actually, it would be hillarious if any of these got posted.

      I know that, like me, most slashdot readers prefer emacs to any of the other so-called editors. But there must be some weirdos out there using the other crud. I'd be interested in hearing how you justify it.

      Hehe. I mean, this is so egregious that it's awesome.

      Is the US the best country ever, or what?

      Probably not that exciting here, but assuming it isn't too unsubtle, there's probably enough kuro5hin crew here to start a huge war.

      Who has better orgasms, men or women? I'm interested in the average slashdot readers' view.

      Okay, I actually laughed out loud after this one. A masterpiece.

      I don't know how to program, but I'm considering an open source program to protect the rights of the music industry, with the eventual goal of selling my country to Microsoft. Can anyone give me some tips on how to start?

      AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
  • A post that's on-topic. Quite often there are comments (especially in the YRO section) on /. about how US-centric discussions are: and equally often there are replies that this is a US based site: fair enough. This post, however, comes from Australia, and environmental issues are a world-wide problem: let's get some frickin' perspective people.

    One of the first posts (a troll) was about the US Green party; Australia, also has a Greens Party [greens.org.au] (who are just now starting to look up on their fortunes as other, more established parties splinter [theage.com.au] and stagnate). Germany's Greens are of course part of their Federal Coalition Government.

    In answer to the original poster, green activism is great, and it's good to see people getting good at it (eg, the high quality billboard at Syd. airport). Any projects for geeks to get involved in? websites that need designing, mailing lists that need setting up, that could be a useful thing for /.ers who wanna be weekend warriors (you know who you are ;)

  • I'm another (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anthony ( 4077 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:21AM (#4749083) Homepage Journal

    Western civillisation has made some great advances in protecting us from the dangers and deprivations we face from nature. Shelter, food production, health services, social order, etc. The downside is that we tend to become disconnected from the natural world, seeing it as a completely controllable resource to bend to our will. The actions of the majority are unconcious of the consequences.

    I am the ACT coordinator of The Ecodemocrats [democrats.org.au] and recently held a successful public forum on No Waste by 2010 [act.gov.au]. After contemplating my career recently, I have decided that I am not going to spend the next half of my working life in a cubicle in front of a computer. I have applied to enrol for a part-time BSc (Resource & Environmental Management) [anu.edu.au]. I am keen to find out more about "Sustainablilty" as a sensible approach replacing "Sustainable Development" with a synthetic approach and how it can influence our current and future society.

    Personally, we are a one-car family, using public transport where possible. Recently I have bought a bicycle that meets a large amount of my non-commuter travel needs.


    • Hey, if you want to be in tune with nature, notice that when the sheep population is high, and the wolf population low, the wolf population explodes, and when its big and the sheep population is small, they die off.

      Take some economics classes- look at market economics. IF you really want to help the environment (rather than just get more burocrap control over people) use market forces to do so.

      Don't try to force people to do things that are not in their best interest-- make it profitable.

      For instance, STOP subsidizing logging on public land, sell the land and then paper recycling will be a lot more profitable.

      You have given up your car- that's fine, but if you are thinking other people "Should" then you are anti - human rights, and you're going to make a piss poor environmentalist.

      Figure out how to make it profitable, and you will be harnessing the forces of nature, rather than trying to defy them.

      • You have given up your car- that's fine, but if you are thinking other people "Should" then you are anti - human rights, and you're going to make a piss poor environmentalist.

        It looks like you think loggers and farmers who accept massive governments subsidies to do wasteful things should stop, right?

        So why shouldn't this guy think that car owners should get a similar clue about their subsidized waste?

  • You can help right now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quintessent ( 197518 ) <my usr name on toofgiB [tod] moc> on Monday November 25, 2002 @02:30AM (#4749117) Journal
    Generating electricity creates enormous amounts of airborn pollution. Turn off lights. Turn off your monitor and/or computer when you don't need them. Turn off the TV. Recycle. Carpool. Ride the bus. Buy an efficient vehicle. Walk. Ride a bike. Ride a scooter. Install appropriate insulators around your water heater and on your windows. If you buy a house, be environmentally conscious.

    Replace bad habits with good ones.

    • No, having government controlled energy companies creates enormous amounts of pollution.

      IF the government wasn't involved then no electricity would require air pollution.;

      This country has enough natural gas to run every city off of it, burning clean, with no pollution (After scrubbing.)

      But we don't have that because gas taxes are so high. If the government weren't trying to regulat the car industry, the oil industry would pump the natural gas out (Rather than burning it off, or pumping it back into the ground) when they get oil and we could have clean energy supply.

      More often than not the government WORSENS environmental situations by ignoring secondary effects of their policies... maybe cause none ofh tem read any economics after Marx.

      • You make some sweeping statements of fact. In such cases it is usually helpful to provide sources to back them up. For all I know, you heard this stuff from Art Bell on Coast to Coast. Nothing personal. It's interesting, so it'd be nice to know if it's credible.

        • Don't take my word for it, look into it. In prudhoe bay, one of our largest finds, they seperate out the NG and pump it back into the ground. The fires you see at oil refineries at the smoke stacks are often NG they are burning off (though other types of plants also burn other stuff off to reduce pollution)

          The thing about economics is you have to actually study it- its not really useful for soundbites.

      • IF the government wasn't involved then no electricity would require air pollution.;

        This country has enough natural gas to run every city off of it, burning clean, with no pollution (After scrubbing.)

        And why would they be doing the scrubbing if they weren't required to do so,

        And how is it that CO2 isn't pollution?
  • I remember reading an article a few years back where a guy had done the research for his company to consider purchasing recycled paper. His conclusion was that the process of recycling paper caused more damage to the enviroment than the creation of virgin paper.

    I think the article was in Inc. Magazine.

    Does anyone here know anything about that?


    • Don't worry, that won't stop the socialists from trying to pass laws requiring the use of recycled paper.

      After all, if its bad for the environment, they're all for it! That's why they're called "environmentalists".

    • As is likely with the paper in your recycling bin, the answer is mixed. I can provide a thumbnail but urge you to look around online for some dispassionate source better informed. Things may also have changed in recent years.

      Recycling paper, especially mixed (non-white) paper is a dirty business. The paper has to be broken down into pulp, polluting water, and worst must be deinked with bleaches, which produces nasty stuff like dioxin. Mixed paper and newspaper is much dirtier than office paper. Recycled paper can't quite replace virgin paper because recycling breaks down fibers (this is why shopping bags are always made from virgin wood -- strength) and the very nicest office papers are at least partially cotton (hold a sheet up to the light to look for a watermark).

      But ... it's important to consider the end use. Our insistence of snow-white paper for all out copying and printing needs requires a lot more processing than off-white. Producing new paper has a significant environmental impact. Make sure the playing field is level -- are new and recycling plants held to similar standards and costs? And on and on.

      A funny thing happened while I was growing up. When I was a kid, junk newspaper was worth money. When I was a grownup, you had to pay to have it removed and recycled (although in many places this costs a lot less than outright disposal). Supply and demand. But how quick are we to say the problem is pointless recycling, rather than to question why we have so much newspaper? When I was a kid we were taught to recycle (then it sounded novel, but Americans were GREAT recyclers during the material shortages of WWII). Now kids are taught reduce, reuse, recycle. This applies to office paper -- it is many times better not to use a piece of paper than to recycle it. What happened to that paperless office? Why do so many people print out all of their email? Anyway, recycling is the last line of defense, not the first.

      Last note ... a lot of people paint environmentalists, or activists of lots of other stripes, as stupid extremists bent on a suicide pact. The smart ones, which includes most people, understand the need for balance, and always criticize the stupidity of recycling that harms the environment. But such counterproductivity occurs in any industry. Recycling is largely amenable to the same analysis of economic efficiency as any industry -- how do the pros weigh against the cons. I think a lot more harm is done by failures to consider the environment that by misguided efforts to save it.

      Here in Virginia we have very good curbside recycling, and everything else goes to a waste-to-energy incinerator. Now, I'm not willing to take it on faith this is the perfect arrangement, and would like to see a study assessing what a sheet of paper does for us Virginians going to recycling rather than incineration. Assume nothing -- there are private and political scams in recycling as much as anywhere else.

  • Don't blame me, I voted for Nader... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @05:27AM (#4749805) Journal

    Sure, the Greens are rather extreme, but ultimately I find their extremeness the least harmful of the possible choices.

    The democrats want to take away our guns. That would lead to horrible results, as it would take away the true power from the hands of the people and into the hands of the government. They want to keep draconian drug laws. Not only are these laws unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, they affect directly what I can and cannot do. They will appoint Supreme Court justices who tend to take away state rights. They generally stand for the death penalty. The anti-terrorism bills they pass take away basic freedoms of Americans.

    The republicans are no better in some areas, like terrorism and drug laws, and are worse in some others. They want to implement school vouchers, which will destroy the public schools which both of my parents teach in, by taking away the smarter and more wealthy kids and leaving all the poor dumb ones. They are generally lenient towards monopolies, unless those monopolies happen to be labor unions. They tend to be less aware of economic bads like pollution which need to be mitigated through taxes. They tend to favor making the income tax system even more regressive than it already is. They want to make unconstitutional abortion laws which fly in the face of the Commerce Clause.

    The libertarians are probably the most dangerous of them all. They want to keep government regulation of the monetary system while removing all checks on economic bads and monopolies. They want a free for all with regard to drugs such that it will no longer be possible to determine what is safe and effective. They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Needless to say for most, they would destroy our country.

    The greens have their own crazy ideas, but I don't think any of them would destroy our country. They want tough discrimination laws. While I disagree on principle, because I think anyone who wants to be a racist should be free to do so, I personally am not a racist, and stopping discrimination isn't exactly a bad thing. They want to limit or eliminate the use of nuclear power plants. While I feel that as long as the power plant pays taxes which pay to dispose of the economic bads they create they should be allowed to stay, I don't think it would be that big of a deal if the price of energy went up a little bit. Yeah, we'd probably see some inflation, but inflation isn't such a bad thing unless you have a lot of cash, and I don't. They want a high minimum wage. Again, I disagree on principle, but I don't think it's going to hurt society if we pay our burger flippers a little more. And if a higher minimum wage actually does cause higher unemployment (I doubt it would, but would just cause higher burger prices), then that would be quickly repealed, and no real harm would be done (since there would be unemployment available in the mean time).

    So basically while I disagree with the Greens on a lot of issues, I don't think they're significant enough to override the places where I strongly agree with them. Drug laws, tax justice, political reform, state power, free speech, environmental importance (though not their precise handling of it, I favor economic stimulation rather than legislative), national debt, trade, anti-trust enforcement, etc.

    Actually my biggest fear about the greens is their tendency to be overly pacifist with regard to foreign diplomacy. And that's the single reason why even though I did vote for Nader I really didn't want him to actually win. But in reality, if he had won, I'm sure that he would have chosen a strong cabinet which would have made up for most of his weaknesses in this regard.

  • Guess the question has been answered. Most slashdot posters are anti-environmentalists.

  • Practical, non-radical, everyday environmentalism. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by raygundan ( 16760 ) on Monday November 25, 2002 @10:55AM (#4751162) Homepage
    I'm an environmentalist. But not one of the crazy, chain-yourself-to-a-tree types-- I just make an effort to reduce my impact, without sacrificing huge things from my life. Here's my short list of things you can do that will make a big difference without upsetting your lifestyle terribly or requiring you to cover your property in solar panels.

    1. Replace your lightbulbs with compact fluorescents. Yeah, some of them suck, but not all of them. Several brands are indistinguishable from incandescents. They are available dimmable, 3-way, R30 and R45 reflectors, etc... and they use around 1/5 the power of incandescents of the same brightness.

    2. Turn off your PC when you're not there. Yeah, it's gonna kill your d.net stats, but every bit helps. Leave your server box up, but do you really need all five of those desktops on?

    3. Lower your thermostat 1 degree from where it sits now in winter, and raise it 1 degree in the summer.

    4. Insulate your house and water heater well.

    For extra credit:

    5. Consider a reasonably efficient car as your next purchase. I have a Civic HX-- gets about 40mpg. Other options: Civic (also available as a hybrid), Jetta TDI, Toyota Prius, Ford Escape HEV, etc... Your car uses as much power as your house. This is a good place to cut down. But you don't even have to go this far-- if everybody picked a vehicle that got 1 or 2mpg better than their last, we'd all be better off. So step up to a cleaner car, but there's no need to go straight for a 1-person go-kart powered by your sense of self-satisfaction.

    6. Look for more efficient refrigerators, water heaters, AC, heaters, washing machines, dryers, and so forth. When yours wear out, consider a cleaner model.

    • Hmm, I wonder how much energy we'd save if we disconnected slashdot, and all the client and host computers at once? OK, I'm talking crazy.

      BTW, the Philips Earthlight series are the best CFL's I've tried so far. Remember CFL's and very different from conventional humming/flickering/cold-sensitive fluorescents. Also, the CFL's only really make sense in applications where they are on a LOT, if you hope to recoup their purchased price and the greater environmental impact of their manufacture and disposal.

      *

      I would like to know, whoever is listening, what real people set their real thermostats to, summer and winter? Where do you live? Do you use a setback thermometer bill? What's your worst summer electric (A/C) bill and winter gas/oil/coal (heat) bill? If you have electric heat, well, how scary is your winter electric bill?

      I live in N.VA (across from DC), with relatively mild summers and winters. Electricity is cheap (~4/kwh), I think natural gas about average. Thermostat is a setback, 82F summer, 67F winter (you get used to it, really!). Furnace is 78% efficient gas, A/C is new SEER 10 IIRC.

      Electric bill topped out around $80 this summer's record-breaking heat wave; and gas is normally $100-200, worst ever was near $300 during the gas price spike. Our house is being renovated by me, and the state of insulation is atrocious, yet our bill tends to be lower than other people's -- so I'm wondering if I'm cruel to my family setting the thermostat. They only turn blue occasionally.

      Well, that's probably too much info -- but discuss amongst yourselves....

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close