Those in the cities, whom can't live "green" blame those that live the "Green" life in the country.
Below is the crux of the article. It's just another among many examples of leftest hippocracy and ignorance.
" it’s not at all possible to live very “green” in the city, and while you can do a lot to reduce your carbon footprint like driving a hybrid vehicle, eating organic foods and using organic products"/..."much of what makes city life unsustainable — such as power generation — is out of your control, the burning of fossil fuels and widespread waste."
“A city has to import its energy, import its water, import its food, and it exports waste — raw sewage,” he said. And that doesn’t even include emissions of all kinds and “excess heat,"
"living in the country is that life there is sustainable: You can drill a well for water, grow a lot of your own foods (without GMOs or pesticides), set up your own power grid via solar or wind and create compost that you can use to keep soil fertile."
"odd: Many of those who advocate for “green lifestyles” are usually progressive and liberal, but actually do live in cities rather than living the life they prescribe for others". “They live in the most unsustainable, non-green environment possible,” he said, like concrete apartment buildings “in the middle of an artificial construct known as a city.”
"Meanwhile, the people who really are living green “are derided as ‘rednecks’ and ‘country people’” with low IQs, “which is completely false,” Adams said, adding that he would take his rural lifestyle and its true sustainability over that of any city-dweller who only advocates for it."
Who among us haven't noticed this. The article is so dead on, I found it difficult to add anything, but it's a discussion that should be had.
" it’s not at all possible to live very “green” in the city, and while you can do a lot to reduce your carbon footprint like driving a hybrid vehicle, eating organic foods and using organic products"/..."much of what makes city life unsustainable — such as power generation — is out of your control, the burning of fossil fuels and widespread waste."
“A city has to import its energy, import its water, import its food, and it exports waste — raw sewage,” he said. And that doesn’t even include emissions of all kinds and “excess heat,"
"living in the country is that life there is sustainable: You can drill a well for water, grow a lot of your own foods (without GMOs or pesticides), set up your own power grid via solar or wind and create compost that you can use to keep soil fertile."
"odd: Many of those who advocate for “green lifestyles” are usually progressive and liberal, but actually do live in cities rather than living the life they prescribe for others". “They live in the most unsustainable, non-green environment possible,” he said, like concrete apartment buildings “in the middle of an artificial construct known as a city.”
"Meanwhile, the people who really are living green “are derided as ‘rednecks’ and ‘country people’” with low IQs, “which is completely false,” Adams said, adding that he would take his rural lifestyle and its true sustainability over that of any city-dweller who only advocates for it."
Who among us haven't noticed this. The article is so dead on, I found it difficult to add anything, but it's a discussion that should be had.
One part is correct, most of the 'greenies' would have everyone else live in a manner that they would not accept. Reminds me of the inquiry many years ago of the head of the Sierra Club about why he lived far outside of town and commuted every day in a large 4 wheel drive SUV to work in the city. I will paraphrase his reply; "Because he wanted to live in the country where it was peaceful and need to work in the city and his commuting sometimes carried him through difficult weather conditions so he had to have the four wheel drive to get to his very important work of saving the planet from all those people who drove 4 wheel drives for fun and were just burning up fuel without a justifiable return on their behavior!"
Modern day GMO's...NO! The old way of cross breeding gave nature a chance to except or reject. Modern Man's way of forcing it... does not!
Yes, and my understanding is there's no evidence GMOs are harmful any more than natural mutations.
What should the Sierra Club director do? He could live in the city. But long term the only answer is to find a way to get people what they want without having to do this justifiable return calculation. I really think SUVs get demonized unfairly. If the owner just uses it a little less, that blows away the savings of a super-efficient car someone drives everywhere. And then there's heating, food, and other products people consume that aren't as obvious as a car. We need to find solutions and not try to be paragons of righteousness.
We naturally disagree on your first statement, we've had these discussions...
This is my understanding and I know how fruits and other plants were cross bread,..(my grandfather used to do it.)::from my comment to chad.
Modern day GMO's...NO! The old way of cross breeding gave nature a chance to except or reject. Modern Man's way of forcing it... does
not!..it's down right sneaky and it fools nature into a harmful and unnatural alliance.
1) Center of power. There is nothing more important to progressives than the accumulation of power.
1a) People. People are more concentrated in a city, thus the ability to influence quantities of people is higher.
1b) Money. Because more people are in cities, so are the sources of money. Money is power in another form.
2) Proximity to nature. Progressives don't really want to be close to nature. They in fact abhor it. They live in cities to surround themselves with the works of their own hands: concrete, steel, asphalt, etc. They don't want to be reminded of the beauty and majesty of nature because it reminds them of something bigger than themselves.
3) Friendliness. In rural areas, even though you may be separated by miles, you know and are known by your neighbors. You depend on them in emergencies because no one is closer - especially not fire departments or police. In the cities, you walk by hundreds if not thousands of people and don't even look at them. Go back a hundred years and people were much more pleasant and respectful - even congenial towards even those they had never met.
4) Sunlight. It has been shown that exposure to sunlight is healthy not only for the skin but for the soul. People are happier and more pleasant when they get a daily dose of sunshine. Surrounded by tall buildings, many in large cities don't see hardly any sun.
The blue splotch of the Birmingham area that is my red state Alabama's major city is a good example.
Me dino knew the local libs would swallow up my vote for Trump but I voted for him anyway.
If you live in a city and can do all that then you are in a city in name only due to your population. My home town is like that now but it still is a country town. Cities out east have no property available to do what with what you have. Each house is practically connected to others and the rest live on top of one another.
Electric cars out here in CT are useless due to the distance we need to travel...not to mention, they are the ugliest things in existence...even uglier than Old Ugly Carl!..laughing
I did it myself this year and it worked exactly as I state.
Growing hydroponically cost a little more because your using electricity but you could grow with fish and produce your electricity from the methane.
Non Organic cost are higher with fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; not to mention the increased health care cost from the lack of nutrition and poisons.