Updated: October 29, 2014
Not everything is green. There are so many beautiful colors in the visible spectrum, and yet, nowadays, the only color that counts seems to be green. Everything and anything we do gets a green hype. Which is the reason why I'm writing this article, to discuss the unnecessary overload and focus on going would-be ecological at all costs, regardless of the topic.
Cars, personal hygiene, industry, even your diet, everything gets automatically associated with the so-called healthy lifestyles. Only there's a whole bunch of problems with the concept, and we will discuss them all today, from the physical perspective of things. Let us.
Reasons for going green
If we assume that going green means being friendly to the environment, then yes, that's something you should definitely consider, especially if you have the money and time to spare. In other words, you do not face any real existential threats, and you can actually focus on first-world problems. Indeed, this brings us to our point 1.
Green thinking is for the rich
As harsh as it sounds, when you are plagued by cholera, genocide and poverty, I guess there are more pressing matters than using a soap that was tested with rainbow dust or driving a battery-powered car that costs as much as a hundred human lives in less hospitable parts of our planet. Indeed, this brings us to our point 2.
Green is a sweet guilt trip
Why would you go green? It's not like you suddenly decide to become green. Either you live an environment friendly lifestyle, or you do not. And the only reason why you might suddenly remember that you could pollute a little less is when a pang of conscience hits you, but not too hard, more like a little rap on the knuckles, naughty naughty boy.
Let's expand on this a bit, shall we. For example, why would you buy a hybrid car? They are useless. Their fuel consumption is more or less equivalent to any decent turbo-diesel. Less actually. All fuel consumption records are held by turbo-diesels. Even in the USA, the record is held by a TDI. Moreover, hybrid cars cost a fortune, and let's not forget the hundreds of kilograms worth of precious metal that went into the battery cells.
All considered, they are fiscally pointless. However, if you happen to own a huge piece of crap car, then in comparison, hybrid cars may seem like a lucrative option. But not if you've driven frugal, economical vehicles all your life. Ergo, guilt trip. However, when you combine your radical decision to downsize from 50s era 7.0-liter V8 to a pointless hybrid plus the fact the whole world is copypasta babbling about it, then we get to our reason no 3.
Green is posh, and you're a fashionable git
Most people go green so they can brag about. Look at me. I do not flush my crap, because I'm green. It's just an empty statement, of course, but it does not stop morons from sounding holier-than-thou 24/7. Or driving useless cars, or trying to sell their ideas with as much ideology as the Northern Crusade against Livonians in 1198. Now, let's examine a few more stupid green concepts that are being shoved down everyone's throats.
Or should I say Shitless Monday. First, if people eat too much, it's THEIR problem. They should get their shit together and take care of their health and diet. If they need to be herded into thinking healthy by TV programs full of eco-preachers, then lobotomy is the right course of action. Faster and cheaper. Second, trying to force your ideology onto other people is fascism, benevolent or not.
Imagine if someone started a campaign that advised you against praying on Monday, beating your children on Monday, or shooting dolphins on Monday. Immediately, there would be a huge outcry by the wider populace against repression, cruelty and whatnot. The funny thing is, the liberty pendulum swings both ways, and so does the tolerance guillotine. The same cane of hatred that is extended toward conservative groups and their ideals is spared in the exact same amount to groups that preach would-be benevolent notions.
This is simply wrong, regardless of the actual message. Democracy is all about allowing ANY idiot the chance to express their bullshit any which way they want. Therefore, from the purely democratic perspective, people who preach hunting animals with RPG and mortars as just as righteous as those who preach your Monday protein intake. And vice versa.
Now, let's examine Meatless Monday a little closer. There's agenda. Of course, there is. Money. Politics. People who advise that you abstain from eating meat on Monday also have a political message for you. You will be benefiting the planet, and there's the obvious green spin, the global warming. This means that if you want to consume less chicken or beef, you are instead being fed with someone's view of what the world is, how it should be run, and how disputable and still not proven scientific data should be applied to the society as a whole.
You would not subscribe to the Meatless Monday ideology if it related protein consumption to eugenics, now would you? Of course not. But the thing is, a hundred years ago, that shitty concept used to be the fad. It was hugely popular, and everyone who wanted to be posh was trying to have their say. Before you crucify me, I am not comparing a meat-eating campaign with anything, hold your horses, but again, from the purely democratic perspective, there's no difference. And if you think there is, then you are a bigot.
If you want to help people eat healthy, fine. Do it. There's no reason to dress your campaign with slogans, bullshit, false pretenses, dubious ideologies, and the global benefit-for-all mantras that are clearly out of place. Moreover, do not try to force your would-be benevolent ideas onto others, because you are then no better than all those stereotypical bad guys you can possibly think of.
Since when did this molecule become the standard measurement for guilt? Not everything needs to be measured in carbon dioxide, you dipshits. Perhaps it is an important catalyst in the global weather changes, emphasis on perhaps, because there's no clear evidence, only conjectures and extrapolation from a tiny subset of data points. Perhaps it is more important than nitrogen, ozone and other fancy gases in our atmosphere. But it sure is not the holy cubit against which you should measure the building of your house or the production of your shoe.
The very notion that human produce should be measured in this way is wrong. Carbon dioxide plays a critical role in life, humans, animals, plants, everything. Without it, we'd be in a big, big trouble. I will not waste my time linking to a hundred scientific articles here, but you should, if you want, read a little on the role of this molecule in the marine environment, the flora of our planet and such. It is definitely not a molecule you want to trifle with. You do not have the right to bet your silly human games on the entire ecosystem of our planet, with limited understanding of biological, geological and planetary cycles, all which go way beyond simple human activities.
All right, I'll play it your way. You want to reduce the greenhouse impact?
Reproduce less - there's a science link for you.
Quoting from that article:
A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives ? things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.
Who's the dipshit now? Let's look at this way. Do you hear any of those eco-friendly people telling you to buy hybrid cars - which, let's face it, you'd only drive if you have kids, otherwise you'd never get laid - or eat less meat have ever mentioned the impact of having children on the world's greenery? Of course they have not.
In other words, a childless couple can do whatever they can possibly imagine, and they will still produce less total carbon output than an average family with even a single child. In other words, you can toss your meat, hybrid cars, energy-saving light bulbs and recycling down the drain, because it means diddly squat the moment you decide to promote your pointless existence with a bit of DNA cloning.
If people are truly serious about it - and this is their ideology right - remember people have killed in the name of their beliefs, and others have abstained from indulging in wrong activities like sex, alcohol and such, then they should voluntarily decide not to procreate. But I want to see how many green-friendly activists are really ready to make that step, beyond the personal desire to have or not to have kids. In other words, how many potential parents would choose not to have kids in order to save our planet?
How many? I thought so. Hypocrites.
Now, that would be an extreme example, you'd say. But why. Imagine the benefit. You save 20 times more carbon than you would by all other means combined across your life time. That's huge. That's unbelievable. By not having children, you benefit the planet 20 times more than all your other efforts.
So let's take a look at two people. John, a ladies' man, who drives a '68 Pontiac GTO, which eats fuel like mad, but he happens to have no known, accounted-for offspring. And Doug, who drives some hybrid box, but also happens to have a couple of average children, whom he places in the back row, just above the radiation-rich battery cells. Who is the bad guy here? It's Doug, who creates 40x more carbon than John. Of course, if you ask any pseudo-liberal first-world idiot so hot on going green, they will all point at the evil guy and his ancient muscle car.
The real going green
Being green is not a matter of convenience. It is a choice. You cannot be green just because you feel like it on a particular day, in a particular weather. That does not work. That makes you full of shit. If you want to be green, then you do it in the privacy of your home. And you try to ignore the fact that the total private home energy output is only 3% of the world's industrial output, on average.
In highly developed countries, this number goes to 20% or more. In the less developed parts of the world, it goes down to less than 1%. Going back to the US figures, because they are relatively easy to find and digest, roughly 17% of the household energy is invested in cooling systems. De facto, this means air conditioning. Wanna be green? Stop using them. Right there, you can cut your total household energy output by 20%. I can't argue with the heating, because people need to maintain a minimum body temperature to avoid hypothermia, but cooling? Suck it. How many people are willing not to use A/C in the summer?
The same goes with cars, another significant guzzler of energy. How many are willing to drive manual? Turbo-diesel? How many of you are willing to have nuclear plants, the most efficient energy form, installed and operated in your region? How much are you really committed to the idea of going green and saving the planet?
Are you willing to move to a smaller house? Are you willing to drive a smaller car? Drive less? Walk more?
Let's notch it up a little. Are you aware of mercury pollution? It happens mostly because of coal plants, which still constitute the majority of energy sources on our planet. What have you done recently to make sure that coal plants are decommissioned where you live, if you care about that sort of thing, that is. When is the last time you invested time in helping green legislation in the industry sector? Remember, that's where the big impact is, and that's where the big money is. Companies that invest billions in their processes, and they are not going to part easily with their cheap, working and often highly polluting solutions.
Green test: Check if you are an idiot
Here's a little test to help you decide whether you are really committed to the green idea:
You have children, -20 points per child
You drive a hybrid car, -5 points per car
You drive a car with automatic transmission, -2 points per car
You do not use fluorescent lighting in your home, -2 points
You use air conditioning in the summer, -1 point
You prefer to walk any distance less than 2 km, +2 points
You recycle and you donate your old stuff to shelters, +3 points
You keep household pets, -5 points per large pet
You are an idiot, -100 points
If you sum is below zero, you have failed, ergo, you are an idiot.
And so we come to the end of this article. The easy conclusion for you is, he's a raving idiot, and he uses profanities in his text, let's ignore him. The more difficult one is, he's got a point. Of course, ideology cannot be really argued. It does not work. It's pointless. People stick to what they believe, their beliefs are strengthened by like-minded facts or would-be facts, and they ignore or dismiss contradictory evidence.
But if you really are conscious about the future of our ecosystems and not just wildly impressed by passing fads and pseudo-liberal politics, then you will make sure to invest in the few critical areas where you can make real, significant impact. Children, pets, the cooling of your home units, and the industry sector. Everything else is just a silly show. We're done, and now you know what to do. Remember, not having kids is fun. You can then invest all your money driving badass cars, partying all day long and going on vacations. The best part? You are as ecological as it gets.
P.S. The meat and factory images are in public domain.