How do you conserve resources? And where do you splurge?

[Dave McReynolds]

As for your claim that we could enjoy life and the planet more if we just did it your way, that's exactly what I mean. YOU may enjoy living that way. However, I may not. I understand that. However, based on your statement, I can't see that you do.

Not true, I find immense pleasure in trying to figure out how I can better our family/home efficiency, beat the system rigged to promote excessive consumerism, deny utility and oil companies as many of my hard earned dollars as I can figure out how to, make a small-small dent in how I negatively impact the planet and the rest of humanity.

 

some to simply say that I refuse to be TOLD by people who claim to know how I should live my life.

I find “working the puzzle” on trying to beating them at their own game so to speak - great enjoyment!

 

I think what this comes down to, when we compare the common elements of Fernando's and Ken's comments, is that people do what pleases them. Should this come as any surprise to all of us? Madison Avenue had this figured out many years ago.

 

As repugnant as its adherents may find the concept, if environmentalism were viewed as a product, and its proponents looked for the buttons to push to make people pleased by using it, it would be much more successful than if it were viewed as a moral duty to the planet and to future generations of people and animals. Although, make "moral duty to the planet" a product, and make people pleased by doing it, and you get to the same place.

 

Following my own logic, these are the things I do for the planet:

 

1. I don't watch very many movies or subscribe to cable TV, thus saving the planet my share of the resources needed to produce those worthless things.

 

2. I don't smoke cigarettes, thus sparing the air.

 

3. I don't drink boxed wine, thus contributing to the recycling of glass products.

 

4. I don't take expensive, resource consuming vacations on airplanes to Europe, and instead sacrifice by backpacking or hunting in the mountains closer to home.

 

I could list more, but I think these illustrate the point.

[scaudy]

So farms some how make livestock reproduce faster? I have raised pigs, cows, chickens and sheep (I am from farm country) and am not sure I agree with that concept. In some areas hunting certain animals keeps population of that animal in check. Are you sure that cows and pigs would not fall into that same category if we stop eating them and making most not able to reproduce? How is the population going to dwindle over time if we consume less? One would think that since the lower the consuption in a specific country then the higher the population then huh? Well lets do some research on cattle then. The US consumed around 90 lbs of beef per person per year in 1976. In the 80's 90's and 2000's that has declined to an average of around 60 in around 1998 and then increased to 67 lbs of beef per year in the last 10 years or so. The population of cows has decreased between 1997 and 2007 from 98,989,244 in 97 to 96,347,858 in 07.

 

As a world population we have 1.3 biilion cows as a total. In order of percentage by country population of cows. India 28.9%, Brazil 18.79%, China 14.03% and USA 9.7% ( Canada is less than 2%). With logic presented here you would think that India has the highest consumption of beef and yet they are the lowest. US 44 kg and India 1kg average per person. We could make a big dent in cattle population by killing all if the cows in India and feed the hungry and make leather MC jackets and boots cheaper in the procees.

[Smoky]

We do what we can. Compost, recycle, buy used, repair and service, keep for a long time.

 

It's snowing, first time this year, and my wood stove has been fired up for 5 days now.

 

Two of us in a big house, 5 vehicles.

 

Eating less meat, go veggy a day or two each week, this to try and keep our weights down.

 

To me, going green usually just means avoiding waste and consumption, and I agree that in the large picture, all of this is good, in the short term, it usually means I'm saving money, and this too is good.

 

Maybe I can save enough for a 6th vehicle in the garage.

[SweetP]

Cows are sacred in India so I suspect few are actually eaten, at least in the Hindu communities.

 

Curious as to who counted the cows.

[Polo]

As a world population we have 1.3 biilion cows as a total. In order of percentage by country population of cows. India 28.9%, Brazil 18.79%, China 14.03% and USA 9.7% ( Canada is less than 2%). With logic presented here you would think that India has the highest consumption of beef and yet they are the lowest. US 44 kg and India 1kg average per person. We could make a big dent in cattle population by killing all if the cows in India and feed the hungry and make leather MC jackets and boots cheaper in the procees.

 

A total percentage of 28.9% is larger than 9.7%. If we go to a per-capita basis, the obvious question is How many people live in India?

 

Besides cows are sacred in India, thus there isn't a choice about eating them.

 

I accept the position about the increase in cow population because the demand for their beef affects the inclination to breed them. However, on a conservation note, I don't want yet another species to become extinct, so if my little contribution, will ensure that cows are bred, and thus not go extinct, I think I'm doing a good thing.

 

I just had a double jalapeño burger for lunch. I'm doing my part.

 

It is said that 92.3% of statistic results are flawed 62.25% of the time as viewed by 86.12% of statisticians. I'm about 53% sure of that...

[scaudy]

Another thought. How many forests and etc would we need to clear to produce enough dirt farms to support the increase in vegetable consumption. That would also increase fuel for the tractors and fertilizers in our water. While it may be ideal to not use the chemicals it is simply not realistic as we would need much larger farms and more water to produce at the level that would be required. That would just be the next crisis I guess. It never ends, in the 80's we were headed for an ice age, 2000's it is global warming, I say do what we done in the 70's to cause the ice age (that never happened) and cool the earth off a bit. Now we are just destroying everything air, water, dirt, trees, flowers, plants,rocks.... I give up.

 

What I am doing to help out. I eat as much beef and pork as possible to help offset what you vegetarians are not consuming and thus I am reducing the population of animals.

[scaudy]

Sacred yes. But the question is what do they do to increase the population or do they just let them be and not kill them? They abviously mass breed them just like the US farmer. It does not matter per capita because the cow produces the same methane and we are talking about population of cows.

[Polo]

My point is that the per-capita ratio is way skewed by the population differences. They don't kill them. I frankly don't know if they breed them for milk or what.

 

But your bringing up the methane issue, just stinks!

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Sacred yes. But the question is what do they do to increase the population or do they just let them be and not kill them? They abviously mass breed them just like the US farmer. It does not matter per capita because the cow produces the same methane and we are talking about population of cows.

 

I don't think they take any special efforts to mass breed them. I think people feed them, nobody eats them, and so they reproduce, just like lawyers on Wall Street.

[scaudy]

 

 

I don't think they take any special efforts to mass breed them. I think people feed them, nobody eats them, and so they reproduce, just like lawyers on Wall Street.

 

 

Now that is funny....

[David]

As repugnant as its adherents may find the concept, if environmentalism were viewed as a product, and its proponents looked for the buttons to push to make people pleased by using it, it would be much more successful than if it were viewed as a moral duty to the planet and to future generations of people and animals. Although, make "moral duty to the planet" a product, and make people pleased by doing it, and you get to the same place.

 

Yesterday I went to the Hertz website to rent a car. I'm flying into BWI, and need to drive to western MD.

 

In pricing the cars, the Mercury Marquis was about $60/day, and the Toyota Prius was about $120/day. They both have similar sticker prices and are readily available.

 

That's a perfect example of something.

[Ken H.]

I don't think they take any special efforts to mass breed them. I think people feed them, nobody eats them, and so they reproduce, just like lawyers on Wall Street.

Hummm, me thinks some people need to learn a bit about animal husbandry in the livestock industry these days. These days in most places a bull never gets even close to a heifer, boar to a sow, etc. It’s all very tightly controlled artificial insemination with highly tracked (and computerized) genetics driving what (re)produces what. When we lived in Kansas I knew two different people who ran semen businesses. One in bulls the other boars. Literally 100s of closely genetically tracked options. The size of the industry is mind-boggling, it’s big business all designed to produce the max amount of marketable beef/pork/whatever product in the minimum time and cost possible.

 

Cows that are just out there making more cows and people just happen to decide to eat some of them is no where near the reality of today’s livestock industry.

 

It isn’t your grandfather’s barnyard anymore going on.

 

[Polo]

Cows that are just out there making more cows and people just happen to decide to eat some of them is no where near the reality of today’s livestock industry.

 

It isn’t your grandfather’s barnyard anymore going on.

 

Is there a livestock industry in India?

[Ken H.]

Yesterday I went to the Hertz website to rent a car. I'm flying into BWI, and need to drive to western MD.

 

In pricing the cars, the Mercury Marquis was about $60/day, and the Toyota Prius was about $120/day. They both have similar sticker prices and are readily available.

 

That's a perfect example of something.

Well it’s a perfect example of price gouging. But I don’t follow, what’s your point relative to conservationism?

[David]

It's an example of the marketplace telling us that for many/some consumers, this is not an issue based on finance but on belief.

[David]

How do I conserve resources? Mainly, I don't let Mark Davis lead our rides more than absolutely necessary, since he always gets lost and wastes precious resources.

 

It's fun to see a thread like this on a website for owners of $20,000 motorcycles with $5,000 worth of clothing driving all over the planet for fun.

[Ken H.]

As a world population we have 1.3 biilion cows as a total. In order of percentage by country population of cows. India 28.9%, Brazil 18.79%, China 14.03% and USA 9.7% ( Canada is less than 2%).

Is that number of cows a moment in time? I don’t think that paints the real picture. A better number to know would be the number of cows raised and slaughtered over a period. Then I suspect the “throughput” of cows in the countries that use them for food, vs. where they are sacred and live out a natural life would be much higher.

 

Besides none of this negates that fact that if people decided to eat less of them, there would be less of them, and that alone would be an environmental plus. Regardless of the actions of people in the world that do not eat them for whatever the reason.

 

[Dave McReynolds]

I don't think they take any special efforts to mass breed them. I think people feed them, nobody eats them, and so they reproduce, just like lawyers on Wall Street.

Hummm, me thinks some people need to learn a bit about animal husbandry in the livestock industry these days. These days in most places a bull never gets even close to a heifer, boar to a sow, etc. It’s all very tightly controlled artificial insemination with highly tracked (and computerized) genetics driving what (re)produces what. When we lived in Kansas I knew two different people who ran semen businesses. One in bulls the other boars. Literally 100s of closely genetically tracked options. The size of the industry is mind-boggling, it’s big business all designed to produce the max amount of marketable beef/pork/whatever product in the minimum time and cost possible.

 

Cows that are just out there making more cows and people just happen to decide to eat some of them is no where near the reality of today’s livestock industry.

 

It isn’t your grandfather’s barnyard anymore going on.

 

You do realize that my comment was aimed at the sacred cows wandering around India, don't you? Do they really keep the bulls and heifers separated there? Is this to discourage immoral behavior between the sexes?

[Ken H.]

Another thought. How many forests and etc would we need to clear to produce enough dirt farms to support the increase in vegetable consumption. That would also increase fuel for the tractors and fertilizers in our water. While it may be ideal to not use the chemicals it is simply not realistic as we would need much larger farms and more water to produce at the level that would be required.

Well it would be an interesting study that I don’t think has been done. But on a very basic view, beef cattle are considered about 2 – 5% efficient in creating protein usable to humans. Or to put it anouther way, of all the grain, grass, water they consume they burp or _hit back out 95% of it as waste. While most typical editable plants are 50 – 60% efficient. So at a high level it seems unlikely the scale would tip toward animals vs. plants in efficient use of land/water/air/nutrient resources to produce food for humans.

[Ken H.]

It's an example of the marketplace telling us that for many/some consumers, this is not an issue based on finance but on belief.

Not sure there’s a coloration between Hertz gouging people to rent a Prius vs. a Marquis, and invalidating people who decide to drive/own one as a conservation practice/belief, but maybe I’m still missing your point.

[Ken H.]

It's fun to see a thread like this on a website for owners of $20,000 motorcycles with $5,000 worth of clothing driving all over the planet for fun.

Yeah the irony of that doesn’t totally escape me either.

 

But still, I don’t think that in itself invalidates other things we do. Which is worse, do one bad (conservation) thing and as many other good things as one can figure out how to do, or say ‘screw it all’ and do as many bad things for conservation as one happens to want to do to please oneself regardless of the collateral consequences?

 

[elkroeger]

...owners of $20,000 motorcycles...

 

Jeez, is that what you guys are all riding? Mine only cost $5000.

[elkroeger]

In the meantime, where’s everyone else’s lists? There must be more ideas not yet mentioned?

 

Yes there is something not yet mentioned: I VOTE GREEN. HA! There. I said it!

 

Let the games begin!

[David]

...owners of $20,000 motorcycles...

 

Jeez, is that what you guys are all riding? Mine only cost $5000.

 

Now you know why we don't let you ride with us.

[SweetP]

If you appeal to someone's 'sense of civic duty' or politial correctness, you can double the price.

[Polo]

It's fun to see a thread like this on a website for owners of $20,000 motorcycles with $5,000 worth of clothing driving all over the planet for fun.

 

I know, I know...

 

But with a physisque and looks like mine, it seems improper to wear anything less.

[David]

It's an example of the marketplace telling us that for many/some consumers, this is not an issue based on finance but on belief.

Not sure there’s a coloration between Hertz gouging people to rent a Prius vs. a Marquis, and invalidating people who decide to drive/own one as a conservation practice/belief, but maybe I’m still missing your point.

 

The point is that some businesses have switched their marketing "pull" from "you need this" to "this will make you feel good."

 

Here's another example: today I received an email suggesting that I update the GPS in Julie's Acura "because it's more environmentally sound to get somewhere without getting lost on the way." No kidding. Just a couple of years ago the "pull" would have been to save me time when I'm driving.

 

I'm just saying that it's not only the greedy bastard consumers listening to marketing messages, but all sides.

 

Why do hotels want you to use the same sheets the second day? Is it really to save water? If that's the case, then why the hell doesn't any single hotel pass along the savings when I do that?

[russell_bynum]

It's an example of the marketplace telling us that for many/some consumers, this is not an issue based on finance but on belief.

Not sure there’s a coloration between Hertz gouging people to rent a Prius vs. a Marquis, and invalidating people who decide to drive/own one as a conservation practice/belief, but maybe I’m still missing your point.

 

The point is that some businesses have switched their marketing "pull" from "you need this" to "this will make you feel good."

 

Here's another example: today I received an email suggesting that I update the GPS in Julie's Acura "because it's more environmentally sound to get somewhere without getting lost on the way." No kidding. Just a couple of years ago the "pull" would have been to save me time when I'm driving.

 

I'm just saying that it's not only the greedy bastard consumers listening to marketing messages, but all sides.

 

Why do hotels want you to use the same sheets the second day? Is it really to save water? If that's the case, then why the hell doesn't any single hotel pass along the savings when I do that?

 

Yup. Lisa was telling me how many of her conferences these days aren't sending you printed materials anymore...they send you pdf's (with instructions on how to print them yourselves.) They claim it's for green reasons, but it's saving them a bunch of money by passing the cost to print and ship materials to the attendees. Of course...they don't give any of that money back to the attendees in the form of more/better services at the conference or via lower registration fees.

[scaudy]

ummm well I don't think so. Small farms produce around 75% of the beef and they are typically fed on corn fields once the corn is picked or land that is not desireable for other purposes. If you try and feed a cow grain to get them to market you will lose your hide quickly. Cobs and stalks on the other hand are good for business. Most high end hay goes toward the horse industry and not cattle. The bull does get close to the cow quite often honestly. That is the cheep way and all that they can afford or have time for. The artificial stuff come more into play with Dairy and breeding for a name in the biz for shows. Having worked on one of the top dairy farms in the world as far as genetics goes we still done things the old fashioned way unless we were getting genetics from another farm. We did however sell most all bulls at a young age to other farms that needed one or they were sold as second rate feeder calves. You will not get market price for milk breeds at market as the quality of meet is lesser. The milk porduction was almost second tier to breeding. In the dairy farm when milk stops flowing the cow becomes a fast food combo meal. Dairy farms are usually larger in areas that are even less desirable to crop production but they do feed more grains to get the best quality and quantity from the herd. The only figures I can find for AI is from 1997 and pegs AI at 7% in feeder beef production due to costs. I suspect that number is significanlty higher for dairy farms though. Although AI was not introduced to increase population (she can only get pregnant at certain times nd they do a good job of knowing) as it was introduced to increase milk production in milk cows and size and quality is what is touted in feeder beef calves. Most small farmers also have a second job and don't have the time it takes to make AI a viable way of reproduction (monitoring and etc). I also worked on a pig farm that had pigs ranked in the top 10 in the US and guess what... yep those were some happy boars. On a side note, the dairy farm was one toured by Japanese as part of learning how to create an ideal farm. We also had a heifer (female before having a baby) break her leg and an artificial leg was constructed just to keep her alive a few more years because of her genetics and rank in the US. Her estimated worth if sold was valued at around 11k and eggs could be sold at 3500 a pop. OSU done the operation and doctors across the US came and participated. She was around 9 mos old and was not producing eggs as of yet. On the pig farm I got to see the collection of semen in one of the top boars. I could not believe what that guy done to the pig and they had to pick me up off the floor laughing. I wouldn't shake his hand after that.

[Vicious_Cycler]

It's an example of the marketplace telling us that for many/some consumers, this is not an issue based on finance but on belief.

Not sure there’s a coloration between Hertz gouging people to rent a Prius vs. a Marquis, and invalidating people who decide to drive/own one as a conservation practice/belief, but maybe I’m still missing your point.

 

The point is that some businesses have switched their marketing "pull" from "you need this" to "this will make you feel good."

 

Here's another example: today I received an email suggesting that I update the GPS in Julie's Acura "because it's more environmentally sound to get somewhere without getting lost on the way." No kidding. Just a couple of years ago the "pull" would have been to save me time when I'm driving.

 

I'm just saying that it's not only the greedy bastard consumers listening to marketing messages, but all sides.

 

Why do hotels want you to use the same sheets the second day? Is it really to save water? If that's the case, then why the hell doesn't any single hotel pass along the savings when I do that?

 

Amen! Follow the money. Savings are rarely passed along. Dividends may be passed along to the shareholders, but its been awhile since I've seen a dividend (gives a whole new meaning to DRIP investing!). Mostly savings are bonused out to the robber baron CEO's (that's for you Ken ) and the boardroom. You want to save the planet? Make it work financially.

 

I don't mind doing environmentally responsible things if I get a dividend. I recycle as much as I can b/c there is less cost in recycling than new production, or so I'm told (and also b/c there is a monstrous landfill in my county). I use CFL's b/c they last longer. Better for the environment? I don't know but in the long run they seem better for my household supply overhead. That's my focus. Hybrid autos are reported to never save enough fuel money to offset their cost. Make it financially competitive and I'll consider it. Heck, I'd drive a Tesla if I could afford it!

 

But still, I don’t think that in itself invalidates other things we do. Which is worse, do one bad (conservation) thing and as many other good things as one can figure out how to do, or say ‘screw it all’ and do as many bad things for conservation as one happens to want to do to please oneself regardless of the collateral consequences?

 

I'm not against balance. I am against loss of freedom to make my own choices even if those choices result in collateral consequences. The kneejerk I have is when I suspect someone is proposing to better suited to make those choices for me b/c as John Q. I really don't have their expertise or access to information. If there are better choices, make them competitive and I might be compelled.

 

But to give up my brand fun b/c my brand of fun is wasteful with collateral consequences will have to wait on the rise of the new Soviet American and the OWG!

[11101110]

I have looked at electric tankless and even put in a 400 amp service with that in mind. but there is only one brand that actually throttles the power to the elements so you get a steady temp regardless of flow. But I am not sold on that brand. The Navien brand is a 98% effecient gas fueled heater. That is only 1% less effecient thatn a tankless electric (they are only 99%).

 

Um, you are aware that a 99% efficient electric heater is not 99% efficient, right? The power plant that generates the electricity is about 50% efficient, and cross-country transmission of the elctrical power lowers that number even further.

 

oh yeah, thermaldynamically it is horible. I would much rather have the gass to burn at 98% then let the power company burn it in a CCGT that might be 60% then loose up to 10% in transmission. Of course If I had my own little nuke reactor I wouldn't have a problem. I tankless electric is still way more effecient than a electric tank.