babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: The Wizard of Socialism ]
Grey water isn't toilet water (that's black water) and you don't drink it. It isn't potable. It has absolutely nothing to do with reusing it for drinking water.
[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]
Mine will average in the 5-10 min range, but I know plenty of people that'll do a 30 min shower pretty readily (while watering their lawns during a rainstorm). I've got a second sink in the apartment (along with the washer/dryer... Laundry room sink?) and I wash my hair in it instead of the shower.
I understand what you're saying, that makes sense. There would have to be a limit on how much is stored of course.
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] where's the rolling around laughing smiley?
Very informative posts Eliza, ty for sharing.
Wizard of Socialism, if your view in any way represents the NDP platform, the NDP needs to be disbanded in favor of the green immidiately [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 01 April 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]
excerpt:
Ontarians will soon be able to air their linen in public.
Premier Dalton McGuinty is to announce today that clotheslines can no longer be banned in subdivisions or almost anywhere else in the province.
In a bid to curb the use of energy-sucking dryers, the new regulation will overrule neighbourhood covenants – part of the mortgage agreement between many developers and homebuyers – that outlaw clotheslines because they're considered unsightly.
(I used to live in Kanata - only portable, free standing clotheslines were permitted - a rule that pissed off just about everyone who lived there when that development started)
Back in 2002, or 2003, there was talk on Nanaimo city council about charging people who had rain barrels a tax for having them and collecting the rain water.
Banning clothes lines is right up there with that kind of thinking.
What's wrong with world trade ...
It's based on a neighbourhood covenant, it's not a government ban.
I would never buy a house with a covenant. There is some reasonable level at which by-laws can enforce what you can put on your property, but banning things like satellite dishes, or fences, or indeed clotheslines, is far too much.
I don't generally like the notion that we can interfere with what our neighbours do on their own property because we don't want to have to look at it. Noise limits make sense, or anything disruptive or obscene should be limited, but I don't agree with rules that say you can't keep a camping trailer in your driveway.
The environmental impact of banning clotheslines just draws attention to the fact that these are generally bad agreements.
We need to find a way to get these adopted by the general population.
The business world uses a model called....
Forming-storming-norming-performing...
to deal with problems that they face. This would be an effective model to follow to get the general public engaged...
Forget Shorter Showers:
Why personal change does not equal political change
by Derrick Jensen
[excerpt]
^ Precisely.
And don't get me wrong: I think all people conscious of how our personal choices affect the environment should make an effort to minimize the adverse impacts. I know I try to tread upon the earth (metaphorically speaking) with as small a footprint as I can manage, given the circumstances I live in.
But I don't try to pretend that's a political strategy for stopping climate change or making a society that coexists in harmony with nature. Adopting personal austerity programs is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve those goals. Nobody in this thread has suggested that, but there are millions out there who believe that personal lifestyle choice is the way to make a new world. The article I linked to refutes that belief.
Yeah, I agree, and have felt that way for a long time, notwithstanding the fact that I try to do what I can. Reading through this somewwhat old thread, I thought I'd be brought to shame by the efforts of others here, but I find I'm at least in the middle of this pack, if not somewhat above the median.
But, when it comes to issues of recycling, for example, or keeping stuff out of landfills, the government could solve a huge chunk of the problem just by telling manufacturers and retailers that they can't use materials that can't be recycled. That would equal the efforts of the general public, or surpass them, litterally over night.
I have a small window air conditioner in my house. It's for those hot nights. I work in a factory, so I get acclimatized to the heat and humidity before a lot of people do, and I don't generally find day time heat so bad. But if I'm going to work all day with a swampy crotch and sweat dripping down into my butt crack, with my hair soaked with sweat all day, damned if I'm going to feel guilty about my A/C set at 70--- not while electronic billboards on the Gardner get a free pass, not to mention the tens of thousands of billboards that are lit up across the province.
AAAAAAnd, while I'm at it, if people can do hard manual labour deep in hot mines, foundries and factories, how the hell is it that A/C is indespensible for rather sedentary office jobs?
Next summer, I'm setting my air conditioner to 67.
"the solutions presented had to do with personal consumption-changing light bulbs, inflating tires, driving half as much - and had nothing to do with shifting power away from corporations, or stopping the growth economy that is destroying the planet?" I see your point, however, I think we need a balance of both. I don't think personal actions are the cure, but if we don't individually take responsibility for our consumption I am not optimistic the profit makers will change their behaviour. We take action with every dollar we spend - that is either for or against the environment, but they only recognize its effect on their bottom line.
We do need to make our political leaders more accountable though, and where I see a problem is that neo-liberals have turned concern for the environment almost entirely on voters. Perhaps there is an agenda in that, afterall, if you don't like the gas tax you may be encouraged to be less in favour of green policies generally and you get the added bonus of bankrolling your agenda (ie., billboards saying how great you are on the side of highway improvements - yikes).
However, change will be painful no matter how it unfolds. Just like housing the homeless, it seems like nobody wants it in their backyard.
I am a late-comer to this post, but staying true to its purpose here is what I do for the environment. I bought a small house within walking distance from my children's schools, my work and shopping. I own a small fuel-efficient vehicle that I drive sparingly. I recycle what I can - we have a limited range of choices here in the north. I buy local produce when it is available. I have progressively installed energy-efficient appliances, windows, doors etc...
Sorry, I don't get the causal relationship between the one and the other. Are you saying that by changing our personal habits we can shame the capitalist class ("profit makers") into stopping their polluting and plundering ways?
The question is, who's going to bear the pain? Those who resist the creation of a new society built upon principles of harmony with nature in order to defend the privileges they enjoy in this society may have to bear some pain. But there's no reason in principle why living in such a new society has to be painful for anybody.
Having looked at nearly 3,000 homes with a view to lowering their energy consumption, summer and winter, I'm convinced that once people come to understand their part in the grand scheme and Homo sapiens' part in it all, we can give hope to the tads. With understanding - really understanding - the function of furnace and AC unit, the physical law that heat conduction is always toward cold, the place for a hygrometer to meintain ventilation levels...we can act more wisely at the polls, thus (to some extent) bridging that political/personal gulf. An electorate that can distinguish the bs. from the real McCoy is always to be preferred.
Seeing the construction of manors and estate homes with two-storey foyers these days (well, until last year at least), I think of that scene from Doctor Zhivago where the homeless and destitute take up residence in the mansions of Moscow as a future use for those creations in an energy-crunched future.
When my horse comes in, the R17 walls of my 1991 semi are going to be thickened with an inch of R7 insulating board on the interior and another drywall. That will mean putting in new windows at the same time - and that will all mean that perhaps two or three winnings at the track will be needed. The attic has already been brought to R50 (blown insulation is cheap like borscht), and the basement upper walls insulated.
The heating plant is a mid-efficiency (electric start) natural gas furnace nearing the 20 year mark, when thoughts of replacement should get serious (there's a good CO detector).
With the heat load of the house reduced (first) to a minimum, one should be able to get away with less drilling in the installation of a ground-source heat pump (geothermal) for heating a cooling. Hopefully, some of the heat can be stored overnight in winter, allowing use of the cheaper, off-peak electricity rates available with the new smart-meters.
I want to get off NG because it's soon going to have to be brought here by tanker from Timbuktu, and I'd rather not be held to ransom (as all of Western Europe has been) by the supplier. Unfortunately (wince) greater electrical dependency, even kept to an optimal level by high-efficiency units, wiill mean nuclear generation of power when the wind isn't blowing and the sun has retreated toward the southern horizen, behind clouds, etc.
Grass on the postage stamp rear yard is dwindling to a small strip as the two composters churn out material to expand the veggie plot. With a flex hose into a cold-storage bin in the basement, I envisage potatoes and carrots until the early spring, and frozen tomatoes for sauce the whole time between growing seasons.
For protein, there's always those squirrels...
Just noticed the count on posters and viewers in this thread since the original posting by Ghislaine , March of 2008...164 viewers and 47 postings.
Lifestyles seem to be fiercely defended hereabouts.
Well, it's all relative, and one person's progress can easily be trumped and have aspersions cast all over it. I'm sure we all do what we can under our circumstances.
I look at the cost of my vehicle, and envy people who have decent public transit. But if I did without the van, that changes my commute from half hour round trip to 90 min or more round trip. That's a hard sacrifice. I don't think of my vehicle as a penis extention-- as someone here once put it-- but as a time machine. I'm willing to change to a certain degree, but not quite yet.
When you replace your furnace, George, high efficiency is more reliable now. I know twenty years ago there were reliability concerns with high efficiency. And, as an added bonus, the motors are now DC, which saves you on your electric bill, probably to the tune of hundreds a season. A few pounds of coal not burned, too.
With the heat load of the house reduced (first) to a minimum, one should be able to get away with less drilling in the installation of a ground-source heat pump (geothermal) for heating a cooling. Hopefully, some of the heat can be stored overnight in winter, allowing use of the cheaper, off-peak electricity rates available with the new smart-meters.
My brother is (finally) in his straw bale house, and he heats through the floor... hmm, not sure if it's geothermal or not.... I assume it is, knowing him. When I next visit Skunk's Misery, I'll give you my impressions.
A few years ago, we swtiched out our old washer/dryer and got a front load. I not only like the fact it's more efficient; water, soap and electric wise; it also does a better job washing the clothes. The high spin rpm makes the clothes about the same dampness as they were coming out of your mom's old ringer washer (yeah, I remember those) so they dry outside quicker, or, during long stretches of inclement weather, in the dryer quicker.
This would mean a little more if individuals (eg: SUV owners, suburban sprawlers, etc.) weren't singled out for their transgressions. If it's really all about the bigger picture then they really shouldn't be blamed for their choices, any more than I should expect to be lauded for mine, yes?
The individual doesn't have to a a Roger Smith of GM to be culpable, Snert.
TP: "When you replace your furnace, George, high efficiency is more reliable now. I know twenty years ago there were reliability concerns with high efficiency. And, as an added bonus, the motors are now DC, which saves you on your electric bill, probably to the tune of hundreds a season. A few pounds of coal not burned, too."
That's what I told all the retrofit customers in the 90s, Tommy, but as I watched the consumption of natural gas increase in the Tar Patch (one barrel of bitumen meant I could have neated my house for a month in winter) and word that no NG would get past the Tar Patch when the Mackenzie Valley line is finally in action, I opted for lots of insulation and very high efficiency electrical. And while NG is cheap now, watch the price when it comes to eatern Canada by LNG tanker....from a Murmansk shipping terminal.
I'm just commenting on the fact that if the individual level is the wrong level to be looking at for solutions, how is it the right level to be looking at for problems? If this is a bigger-picture, society-level thing then your neighbour with big gas guzzler really isn't the problem.
If my individual choice to recycle and compost is "too little" or "missing the point entirely" then I would think that the opposite choice would similarly be missing the point entirely.
Or, to put it one more way, if stopping my individual bad habits isn't enough to save us, then I guess my individual bad habits aren't really the problem. Anyway, off to dump some leftover paint in the sewer. SHHHHH!
I kind of agree with you, but I hasten to point out that the quoted passage does not necessarily imply that "acts of personal consumption (or enlightenment)" are irrelevant or meaningless. All it says is that they are not a substitute for organized political resistance. Ideally, we should be doing both; but organizing political resistance must be the primary focus.
I have little time for those snipers in the peanut gallery who wag their finger at those individuals who really are doing their part to organize political resistance, berating them for flying in airplanes or driving cars in the course of their work on behalf of climate change resistance.
Another reason for not singling out individuals for blame is that in many cases they don't have a real choice, or at least don't perceive themselves as having a choice. We are all caught in a world not of our own making, and the rules for getting along are not always easy to break.
I pursued this theme further in an old thread about urban environments under capitalism.
Previously, I've bemoaned the fact that London's recycling doesn't include electronic waste.
But, apparently I was wrong, they do. It's just that they've kept it kinda hush hush until today:
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2009/09/28/11158696-sun.html
Of course, I like to pay attention to what's not said, along with what is said. I read this article, and followed the web address for more info, and links there to the Ministry of the Environment, and guess what?
I didn't see anywhere where they say where all this stuff actually goes to be recycled or refurbished.
None of those little rituals matter if you have children. You've just perpetuated the problem and doubled your footprint. All the cloth bags and triple-pane windows amount for squat once you've added yet another consumer to the pile.
The best thing one can do for the environment is get themselves fixed.
But, presumably, not one's parents.
This is very wrong. It's just a variation on the old argument that blames environmental problems on "overpopulation" and firmly gives primary place to the modification of individual lifestyles rather than concerted political action.
The best thing one can do for the environment is struggle to get rid of the capitalist system that is destroying the planet, and thereby ensure a future for the human race - not individual efforts to prevent the birth of future generations.
As Derrick Jensen said in the article I posted at #40 above:
...or, one might add, if we stop procreating the human race.