To think that people generally don't give a toss about the environment...

[poshsinglemum]

And certainly not enough to actually make a difference and stop the destruction of the planet?

I used to be really green but gave up because people just laughed at me for being veggie, not owning a care and banging on about green issues like a sanctimonious bore!

We can all do our bit such as recycling but noone is likely to give up their car and foriegn holidays and why should we? they make life so much more enjoyable and convenient.

I'd love to eat organic but it's too expensive and I love a bit of junk food.

Most people care about money, consumerism and being middle class whatever that may mean.

It's a real shame but I just think that humans are too selfish to live lives that don't somehow don't damage the environment.

It used to bother me but now with age, I am sadly apathetic about it too. I love nature and animals etc but I am too lazy to adopt a totally green lifestyle.
I was inspired about the thread on recycling.

I care but I'm not as green as I'd like anymore.

Lapsed veggie (but I will only buy organic meat, so can only afford it a couple of times a month), disposable nappies, few more car journeys than I'd like and the heating is on too much.

But I do recycle everything, grow some veg, try not to buy food with huge air miles and only buy food in season, walk to work most days and the dc's get lots of second hand clothes and toys. And

With a bit of luck I can get on top of it again once the dc's are older.

chil - I agree. THey are 'green' by default. My parents recycle very little because they use very little. They have little in their food waste in because they compost everything.

OMG Chil, I've just aged twenty years.
Yes to all that, except I have a laptop.

I do care enough to feel guilty about not caring enough to actually do anything, if that makes sense :)

I'm quite green etc but, if I'm honest, I do it for other reasons, not necessarily because it's good for the environment.

eg, not having tv on standby, energy saving bulbs, efficient boiler all save money. I grow my own veg but I can grow stuff cheaply that I either can't buy in the supermarket or would be expensive to buy at Farmer's markets (fresh borlotti beans, rainbow chard, cavolo nero etc) I buy meat from local smallholders/butchers because it tastes nicer than supermarket meat. I don't fly but that's because it's a pita with small children etc etc

I don't think I'd do all this stuff, purely for the common good, if it was more expensive/tasted worse etc

I am torn, as always.
In theory I want to be green and I certainly recycle fastidiously. And I am conscientious about lights/heating etc.

However, tis all for nought,I'm sure, as I fly a lot, have several cars, drink starbucks,use a tumble dryer etc etc etc.

We live in a house with no central heating, no tumble dryer and no games consoles. We don't go on hols abroad cos we can't afford it. We have an allotment so compost and recycle everything we can. We buy quite a lot of stuff second hand - we live in a nice area which helps - and take all the dds clothes to charity or give to friends which they have outgrown. We also try not to use the car too much and walk or bike as much as possible.

However, our house is not particularly energy efficient - not ours, rented - half the windows are not double glazed, it is damp and the cooker is so old it takes twice as long to cook anything. Also cos we don't have a tumble, in the winter we have to take the wet washing to the laundrette in the car.

So we do try to be green but I do think that if we had more money then we would probably go abroad and have a tumble dryer etc.

The entire 'green movement' and 'green industry' makes me grind my teeth. In most cases it is pure economic illiteracy to adopt green measures. There are lot of so called 'green industries' making a lot of money out of Govt subsidy and consumers being forced to purchase green products at the behest of Govt regulation.

I have a personal 'green' rule that I apply in my life that I would like Govt to adopt it whenever considering a 'green initiative'. That rule is to ask myself whether it makes economic sense to adopt any particular green intiative.

For example, it makes economic sense for me to work at home and not have a car and to get my shopping delivered free of charge. I save a lot of money that way.

It makes no economic sense for me to buy green electric though. It is far more expensive. I hate the fact that my eletricity supplier is forced to buy electricty generated with renewable sources under the mandatory Renewables Obligation. We talk about fuel poverty and then load electricty bills with expensve 'green' electric. Its a nonsense.

I used to come into contact with a lot of 'green campaigners' and people form 'green industry' who universally drove around in cars, flew around the planet to conference after conference and almost all lived on the public purse in academic jobs or Govt employment in quangos or worked for firms receiving huge public subsidies. It was self interest written large.

Do you see no purpose to environmentally friendly measures at all then beenbeta? Don't you beleive that we need to use less and pollute less? Or is all that concern swept away by your contempt for hypocrisy?

What I object to is the pressure of the 'end user' or consumer in terms of green issues when much more would be accomplished if big business would take measures.

For instance, went to Mark's and Spencer's a few months ago. MIL forgot a bag, so she bought one for 5p or whatever as it's an environmental measure. Fine. But half of the plastic trays from the Dine out for £10 offer was not recyclable.

But yes, I care about the environment. Am not sure that I am making a huge difference in that while I recycle, buy locally where possible, I also have family in the USA and we like to visit each other.

proyaffle makes a good point though. Does it matter what galvanizes one to act 'greener?'

I don't care.

Like others have said it's a selfish pursuit to save humanity not the planet.

I drive and will continue to drive untill my eyes give out.

I fly EVERY chance I get!

I eat meat of EVERY description from Shark from Japan to Zebra from Africa.

I refuse to use the "Energy Saving" bulbs because by the time they put out ANY amount of decent light, I have fumbled around and found the thing I wanted too in eerie half light.

I overfill the kettle, wash on 40, have baths and use the hose to wash my car!

I have and will always have a suspiscion that this whole "Green Movement" is just another way the Government is trying to control us and make us act a certain way while taking away free though and denying people the ability to make their own minds up, since we have this "SAVE THE PLANET!" rammed down our throats.

Also, I am under the belief that a lot of it is posturing to feel good about oneself "I recycle and eat nothing but green beans and fart magic rainbows that heal injured puppies" If people were so happy and content with what they "do" to save the planet, they wouldn't be posting or talking about the myriad of things they do in front of other people.

Gore - I have no obection to environmental measures. I object to the waste and misallocation of economic resources that so many green initiatives create.

For example, I think we should shut down all coal fired power stations in the UK and replace them with gas fired power stations which are highy efficient, emit little no SOx or NOx gasses and far far less CO2 than coal. That would make economic sense and environmental sense.

Electric produced from wind or nuclear power plants costs 5 x what electric from a gas fired plant costs once build costs and decommissioning is taken into account. Yet this is the very road we are running down and completely ignoring the fact that clean burning gas fired power plants could be built and producing electric on the sites of old coal fired power plants with 3 years and without any subsidy.

"Like others have said it's a selfish pursuit to save humanity not the planet"

Doesn't that matter then? How odd. I don't see that saving the human species is really that selfish an aim.

Don't we have a finite supply of gas though? Isn't that part of the problem - that all fossil fuels are finite. BTW I agree that they are a much cleaner option than coal - but they can only be a stop-gap.

We are going to destroy this planet in its current form and the powers that be know it's inevitable. Why else are they spending billions exploring space and the possibilties of human's living on other planets.
No-one asks what rights we have to invade these other plants to plunder their resources and ruin them too like we have the earth. These planets may suport life in the future of their own evolution. So why should we have the right to simply plant ourselves there and destroy it befor emoving on to the next...

We have learnt nothing from the past when we invaded the americas and australia and took what was there ignoring the peoples already living there? We carry on planting our flag and calling it ours just because we can and because we want, WANT more than is sustainable.

People only take notice when they want too. A couple I know made a huge deal about their organic chicken. How much smaller it was for more money but it lead a happy life at least and so they could feel guilt free eating it. I asked why they had jumped on this bandwagon now? Well because we didn't know before was their answer.
No, you chose to shut your eyes to it and laff at me for being vegi these last 26 years... And when I asked if they were going to give up their takeaways as not organic chicken... Well you can guess the answer.

And excessive packaging won't be resolved until government start taxing packaging highly. I'm amazed they haven't thought about this money spinner already tbh.

Of course we have learned something from the Americas and Australia; might is right.

The stronger have always taken away from the weaker, long before any of that. Gengis Khan nearly ruled the world that way.

No way are 'we' going to worry about some possible evolution that might happen in 10 million years in a galaxy far far away.

No we do not have a finite supply of gas. That is another big 'lie' peddaled by the green movement because of its irrational hatred of the oil industry.

Natural gas is a ubiquitous fuel, available in every corner of the planet. It is flared off as a waste product in some places. The technology of transporting large quantities of it are readily avalable and we do not have to be dependent on any single country to get safe secure plentiful supplies.

Gas really is the fuel of the future. Wind energy is unreliable and if anything is a finite resource then uranium is a very limited one available to mine in only a few places.

i think it's only responsible to recycle and try to cut down on consumption, but it's a fantasy to think we can turn back the clock.

we need to adapt.

I didn't know that.

But what is wrong with using multiple technologies - wind power where there is a plentiful supply of it, hydro power in the Scottish highlands for example, tidal power elsewhere. And gas where there is nothing else?

I tend to agree re nuclear power - dad was a nuclear engineer and he always thought that it was the fuel of the future, especially when global warming began to be an issue (he made me read Lovelock in the early 80s). But even he has accepted that it may not be the way to go now.

BTW I'm not sure that a 'mistrust' of the oil industry is such a bad thing - irrational hatred no, but there are issues with the burning of oil and the exploitation of it.

OP: "Most people care about money, consumerism and being middle class whatever that may mean."

Eh? Where are you getting that from? What you mean is that you don't know 'most people' and so you assume that this is all they care about. I'd hazard a guess that 'most people' (which obviously includes 'most people' on MN) have lots of things they care about but you're probably not just aware of them.

On the environment issue - some people care, some people don't. Its kind of like football but with slightly bigger consequences. Sorry. Not very controversial there. Maybe some sliding scale of caring:

1 - Does the recycling
2 - Only buys A+ rated appliances
3 - Grows their own
4 - Is part of some conservation group
5 - Buys recycled clothing
6 - Lives in a tree
7 - Lives in Brighton

The further up the scale you are, the more you care. I'm a 3!

If the government was really trying to cut emissions they would help every household and business to get a wind turbine/solar pannels to cut at least some of their electricity grid needs. I feel they should at the very least be covering their lighting needs themselves.

And they would insist that every new build had this as standard, including all new business premises.

I also believe each town, village and city should be responsible for it's electricity usage and should put up turbines enough for their needs and not farm it out to the countryside. I am sick of hearing that this or that proposed windfarm will generate enough for 10 towns etc. Why should we have their wind trubines here, let them have their own in their park or green spaces.

But no, we only want huge big wind farms where most of us can't see them. Because it's not about the environment, or saving money. It's about big business and making money.

gillybean2 - getting every new build house and pulic building properly insulated and heated by an efficint gas boiler would be a good idea too.

Yes wind farms are about big business and nothing more than that. The only thing they generate is subsidy.