WIBU to point out this hypocrisy to environmentally obsessed colleague?

[Morphene]

I've a work colleague who never seems to stop banging on about environmental things. Constantly nagging about people going on holiday by plane, driving to work, using plastic bottles etc.

The thing is that he has two kids and has a third on the way - all very much planned. So WIBU to interrupt his next diatribe by pointing out to him that I could go on a transatlantic flight every year for the rest of my life while driving a fleet of gas guzzlers and it still wouldn't amount to the level of environmental damage his choices are causing?

[Beachbaby2017]

It is an odd one. We might stop at one in part for environmental reasons, but as much as I am an environmentalist, I'm not sure if I could bring myself to do that if I really wanted more.

[Beachbaby2017]

OP is not wrong, though.

[NoncommittalToSparkleMotion]

I feel your pain, but no, saying something won't do anything. Preachy people are never wrong.

Just have stock answers ready whenever he says anything.

"Air travel will kill the planet."
"Maybe your kids will save it for us."

Or similar.

[WhatToDoAboutThis2017]

YANBU. Sanctimonious environmentalists piss me right off.

[LaurieMarlow]

OP's definitely not wrong toosexy

[lmer]

Just out of curiosity but what is the gaurdian article based on tho? Surely if someone made own baby food/breastfed/used cloth nappies then it would be a less amount then those who brought baby food and used disposables?

[LaurieMarlow]

Surely if someone made own baby food/breastfed/used cloth nappies then it would be a less amount then those who brought baby food and used disposables?

Well it would make a minuscule difference.

But have a think about what even the most green people consume across an entire lifetime and tell me, from the planet's point of view, whether more of these is a good thing?

[drinkingtea]

Anecdotally I'd say most environmental bores are hypocritical to an extent, in that they are obsessive and evangelical about one thing but have one or more massive blind spots about environmentally damaging things they continue to do and won't countenance discussion of. That could be obsessing over recycling and reusing but having a lot of children, like your colleague (one of the most self righteous and preachy couples I know on the topic of "treading lightly" also have 5 children...).

There are plenty of others though - I know a vegan who is evangelical and self satisfied and pushy about how her eating habits are saving the world, but who shops obsessively and has wardrobes full of unworn clothes, throws things with tags still on into landfill and thinks nothing of taking multiple weekend breaks by plane per year.

I also know someone who tells people very pointedly and with a little smirk that she only had one child due to overpopulation using up the world's resources, but she has several dogs, all bought from breeders not rescued, who are certainly having a good go at using a similar level of resources in terms of farmed meat if nothing else, and will doubtless be replaced when they die, and two horses (methane?) as well as other pets, and a massive gas guzzler to pull the horse trailer and which she certainly makes a lot of unnecessary trips in, including driving to places to walk the dogs instead of just walking out of her front door!

[JacquesHammer]

Is there a reason why you've not just said to him "I respect your choices but I also make mine and would ask you respect those too"

[SnickersWasAHorse]

It's not about the stuff that is consumed by one baby it's about the massively expanding population.
No one likes to hear it, but it is true. Having children is a huge environmental impact.

Not that I would ever say anything to anyone but having more that two is downright irresponsible.

[picklemepopcorn]

So is your child free status a deliberate decision for environmental reasons? Because it is the choices we make which he is banging on about.

[SnickersWasAHorse]

I know people who are child free for environmental reasons.
I don't have children but not through choice. However we did decide to stop at just one if we did have them, for environmental reasons again.

[drinkingtea]

Snickers having any children at all is downright irresponsible surely, if you're looking at overpopulation. Why 2? Someone else will have 4, so have none and balance them out.

Once you've (generic you) had a child, even one, you're a hypocrite trying to preach about overpopulation.

[Piewraith]

But drinkingtea surely the fewer the better.

[Morphene]

jaques that's a lovely idea, and so good that I did it both the second and fourth times he started in. It was ineffective as you can see....

[SweetheartTreacleTart]

Whilst I see you point OP, i think it could come across as insensitive and rude even, I wouldn't risk it.

[SnickersWasAHorse]

The problem is that we need some children to look after us when we are old.
We can't all just stop having children.

[Morphene]

drinking my reading of the chart is that it is linear with the number of children...so 2 is twice as bad as 1 and 4 is twice as bad as 2.

Similarly you don't have the same environmental burden for eating meat once a decade ago, as for eating it every day.

[Morphene]

Oh it would definitely be rude....no doubt about that. I just hope it would stop him from being rude quite so often in the future. It wouldn't though, which is where this plan falls down!

[Morphene]

snickers indeed...that's why 1 is the perfect number at the moment. Carry on the race, slow the devastation of the planet.

When the overall population is stable at around 10 billion maybe (pulls number out of arse) it will then be appropriate to bring the average back up to 2.

[MorrisZapp]

This always gets reduced down to 'what, so we all have no kids then and the population dies'. Obviously op isn't saying that.

But having kids is basically like straddling two jumbo jets endlessly round the world, whilst throwing plastic waste in the sea. The brand of nappy chosen is totally irrelevant.

[Morphene]

sorry snickers, I see you are with the programme and were responding to a comment! My bad!

[Morphene]

pickle he is banging on about my choice to drive a hybrid and fly on holiday....I would be banging on about his choice to have 3 children.

I did choose the number of children I have - but as I admit earlier, not for environmental reasons.

[BlueAutumnSkies]

Can't you just tell him you don't want to hear it?

"X, I know you're passionate about the environment but please can we talk about something else? It feels like you are preaching and I don't want it to effect our working relationship."

Or as would have happened in my last office "Dave, bore off, no one wants to hear it. I am making a cuppa, fancy one?."

[HerOtherHalf]

We are all guilty of massively over-consuming more than we need for our personal survival. That consumption drains natural resources and adds to pollution one way or another. If people make changes to their habits to try and reduce their environmental impact that's nice but the reality is they're only marginally less damaging than the person who does sod all.

I bet your colleague still uses his central heating when it's cold instead of putting on extra layers, machine washes his clothes, drives when he could walk or cycle, buys imported products when local ones are available, uses an electric vacuum instead of a manual carpet beater, electric or petrol mower instead of manual, electric lights instead of candles made from his own earwax etc etc etc...

Don't waste your time trying to debate with him though. As the old saying goes "don't argue with fools. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Just blank him nicely or tell him to bore off.