Gordon Fleming and Shelly Cobb are your typical green California couple. Gordon recycles, reuses, and bikes to work. Shelly raises chickens in their backyard and worries if her sushi is local. They might live in eco-harmony – except Fleming claims Cobb is in a high priestess phase and Cobb counters that Fleming’s hot showers are too long. According to an unrepentant Fleming, “I like to see the water pouring down.”
The New York Times recently reported that they are not alone. Therapists say they are seeing a rise in bickering between couples and family members over how much they should adjust their lives to accommodate environmental issues. Apparently, it is driving some couples eco-insane.
According to the Times, friends or family members who are not devoted to the environmental cause can become irritated by life choices they view as self-righteous or politically correct. The reason green issues can seem so contentious is that they are morally charged. Therefore, the green lines are going up in homes across the country as to who uses reusable bags, who buys organic eggs, and who calculates his or her carbon footprint.
People seen to always be able to find an excuse for enmity.
Ah the Religion of Green. Your sins? Exhaling carbon dioxide, living in America, and generally just living. How can your sins be forgiven? They can’t, but if you live a ascetic life and maybe die young, you might one day be considered carbon neutral.
I’m going to stick with the God of the Bible Who takes away all your sins if you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. There’s a lot less guilt that way.
The problem with the Religion of Green: no written definitive list of sins. The Green Prophet, Al Gore, needs to get a revelation from Gaia and write down this stuff.
Although you still will have the people going above and beyond. Christians have followers who believe dancing is a sin despite it not being written in the Bible and many Christians interpret the Biblical condemnation of drunkenness as a prohibition on all alcohol.
From the article I have to add another screening question to my dates. If any of them are into this Green religion, they can date someone else and make them miserable.
#2 srgothard
Theres plenty of reasons to believe if you ‘live green’ you’ll live longer. Vegetarians generally live longer healthier lives for example. You’ll also generally live longer if you eat less – its one of the reasons Indian yogis can live so long.
Living within your means and sustainably is green philosophy. And there’s plenty of evidence that a non consumer/material goods philosophy leads to a generally happy life.
Being green is completely compatible with the Christian faith. There’s a whole Christian movement around that. Unless you think God wants us to consume the worlds resources as fast as we can because the rapture is coming anyway.
Ha ha – people who are trying to live sustainable lives are big stupid hypocrites, because they are breathing. Brilliant. Or the end game of trying to live sustainably is to kill yourself. Yes – nice one. Because pretty much any any idea taken to the extreme is going to look pretty stupid.
And no I’m not a vegetarian. I do drive a non hybrid car. Yes I breath, and have no problem doing so.
‘I’m going to stick with the God of the Bible … There’s a lot less guilt that way.’
Hilarious.
And anyways for you its clearly not about whats right or a generally good thing to do, but what lessens your guilt. Oh God will be so impressed.
And how is this any different than the argument that the husband doesn’t do enough around the house and wants to hang with his buddies and the wife is obsessed with redecorating each season and spends too much time whisking children to some dance, violin, sports or other thing that SHE told the children they will do whether they expressed half an interest or not.
Look it is real simple, for him, get a water barrel and a solar water heater. No more hot shower issues.
For her, STFU and make him a tofu sammie or whatever else these tree hugging, cringing sycophants eat!
Cursor_
#4 freddybobs68k
“Vegetarians generally live longer healthier lives” Yeah, tell that to my sister who gave up meat. She was sick all the time. Don’t know how she’s doing now, since we haven’t talked in years.
“Living within your means” is always good advice. But since a lot of people make other jealous of people who have more than them, most people don’t.
#6 Jetfire
‘“Vegetarians generally live longer healthier lives” Yeah, tell that to my sister who gave up meat. She was sick all the time. Don’t know how she’s doing now, since we haven’t talked in years.’
There are nutrients you need that you get easily from meat that can be harder to get from vegetarian diet.
Look at Japanese diet and health + life expectancy for example. Some could be genetics – but if you look at Japanese people living in the US with the US eating habits, then you’ll find its mainly about what they eat.
Its not a radical idea that Americans are generally less healthy because they eat too much, and too much of the wrong things.
Having too much meat – and especially beef, is a big part of that. That doesn’t mean having no meat at all. Just less. If you want to be healthy, and live longer.
If you want to be sick, and die younger – then knock yourself out. Smoking can be quite fun too so I hear.
#7 What? It’s like common sense? Yeah, don’t eat TOO much. Don’t eat garbage. Look at our teeth and digestive system. We’ve evolved over millions of years as omnivores. We’re designed to eat plants and animals. Not JUST one or the other. A little meat/fish is good for you. You’re welcome to make it organic, free range, sustainable or whatnot…wonderful. But nothing wrong with a little chicken, eggs, fish, even beef now and then. But yeah, you can’t live on McDonalds hamburgers twice a day for 10 years (not sure if that counts as beef though).
Who’s the hot women in the image? Anyone know? 🙂
freddybobs68k said, on January 19th, 2010 at 6:31 am
“Living within your means and sustainably is green philosophy. And there’s plenty of evidence that a non consumer/material goods philosophy leads to a generally happy life.”
I agree that living within your means is a green philosophy, but only in countries where currency is green in color.
Take reusable grocery bags. If I use them, I am depriving myself of plastic grocery bags and therefore have to purchase plastic trash bags. That cost money (aka green) when reusing disposable grocery bags to line my trash cans make more sense economically.
Take hybrid cars. I save money by driving a 15 year old vehicle. They don’t make fifteen year old hybrid used cars. If they did, you would have to spend thousands to replace the battery. I can live without a new car and I can definitely live without a $500 a month car payment.
I live across the street and down the block from work. I moved there to save money on gas. Sure, I have to drive to the nearest city to buy anything, but when I lived in the city and drove to the small town where I worked I used more gas. It is a currency decision. I don’t think about the environmental impact of where I live. I think of the economic impact.
I don’t recycle the newspaper. I am not paying to get a newspaper so I can say I recycle. I can read all that stuff on the Internet. A green person would get a newspaper just to be seen recycling it.
I don’t recycling pop (or soda) bottles and cans. My state has a deposit of $.05 on each can or bottle. I return my empties for the deposit. I will not forfeit my deposit to recycle my cans or bottles.
I do take hot showers. It is cheaper than the alternative. I can spend about 15 minutes in the shower. The cost of water and electricity to run my water heater is much less the the alternative. I calculated what it would cost to not shower. A subscription to World of Warcraft costs $15 dollars a month in money. If I calculate the time and electricity it takes to play World of Warcraft, it cost more. This is even including the cost of consumables like soap and shampoo.
My point was to say that it cost more money to live a green life. It is not living within my means to do so. I am still happy and enjoy myself without a fancy new hybrid, a row of recycling bins, and a diet consisting of leaves and twigs.
#8 Glass Half Full
Agreed. And no its not rocket science.
‘Designed’ is a bit strong. And even if true – it’s easily provable by the millions of vegetarians, vegans, or close vegetarians that you don’t have to eat meat and do just fine. So clearly its not a design requirement.
Living healthy – is in fact a very green thing to do. But ‘being green’ to a whole swathe of the population is apparently abhorrent and somehow un-american. Irrespective of what it means and how positive it can be.
It seems to me almost a child like response, such as…
o I want to do what I want to do
o I don’t care if it’s true – la la la
o I’m not going to change anything I do for you or anyone else cos I’m ‘free’
o Great granddaddy never even heard of green
o Its a scam by Al Gore/Government/Industry/ecotards/new world order
o Something about cowboys the frontier etc.
o I like stuff big. Trucks. Steaks. Etc.
o Something Jesus/God/Church related – along the lines of its all created by God for us to consume. Thus consuming it is right.
o Green = killing babies/people.
o Green means hating people – as it implies liking animals/plants more than humans.
Etc…
Sure people who take the idea of green to the extreme may do stupid things. But that’s generally true and not a property of ‘being green’.
#4 freddybobs68k,
I always forget that tone is unclear online. I am not saying that living green will kill you. I was saying that by definition, dying early would be better for the planet.
I am not saying that living green is contrary to the Bible. I was saying that attempting to atone for your carbon footprint is a religion of works that are never enough and that the God of the Bible does not require good works in order to take away our sins.
Do not assume that living morally makes one free of guilt. Guilt is not a feeling but a judgment: guilty or not guilty. No one can be perfect, and therefore everyone has sin and therefore guilt, but God through Christ takes away out sin and guilt.
If you want to have peace with God and no guilt, you don’t have to eat organic eggs, install solar panels, or buy carbon offsets. You don’t need to be wealthy, intelligent, or healthy. The Religion of Green is only for those with the luxury of time, money, and physical strength. Christianity is for everyone.
Didn’t he drop five and say that there were only ten? Something about being confronted for his extravagant lifestyle, house, and plane.
# 13 pedro said, on January 19th, 2010 at 8:11 am
“#3 Here’s Mr. Gory presenting the 15 Green Commandments.”
When I slip on a pair of charcoal galoshes, that’s when I’ll calculate my carbon footprint — not before!
Are her tits made of a green material?
I dont think so… But i like it!
The hot woman people, are you blind! Someone find out her name!!! 🙂
The good news? Women are recyclable.
#10
‘A green person would get a newspaper just to be seen recycling it.’
No, I don’t think so. Who buys something purely to dispose of it it? It’s completely ungreen.
Most of what you say I agree with. Green doesn’t require owning a hybrid, or other commercialization of green. That said if you were to buy a new car, buying a hybrid might be a good idea and save you money over the lifetime of the vehicle. I can’t remember where I saw it – but Top Gear (who aren’t very ‘green’) were going to take an old VW Rabbit and put a new diesel engine in it. It should do over 75 mpg. A prius is only 55 mpg.
I agree that ‘living green’ can cost you more money – but thats generally when you are doing it wrong. Generally it costs you less, because you consume less. Also it has to be taken over the whole life cycle. A CFC bulbs costs more up front, but saves you much more over the life time of the bulb (less energy and less bulbs).
Being green doesn’t mean driving your hybrid SUV to buy steaks for the whole family every night from whole foods. That’s completely missing the point.
Sounds like you are fairly ‘green’ – although your main incentive is saving money. Well that’s a pretty good reason – and leads to the same main ‘green’ goal of consuming less and more responsibly.
#12 You’ve got it easy though. Real Soon Now ™ your god’s going to poof you away to heaven and you won’t have to worry about trivial stuff like taking care of your environment. The rest of us, though… we’re gonna be here a while, so don’t get in our way while we’re trying to keep things going, mmkay?
# 12 srgothard
‘I was saying that by definition, dying early would be better for the planet.’
Well depends what you do presumably. Also depends on what you view as ‘better for the planet’. If I saved a big section of rain forest I could argue I was overall a net benefit for the earth, if I believed the planet was better that way.
Is a wild deer living ‘better or worse’ for the planet? Presumably the planet is indifferent. It’s just a lump of rock in space.
It’s (as usual) really all about humans. I’m sure its possible for humans to live on earth with 95% of species dead. But what kind of world would that be?
We could use up the majority of the earths resources and only have carrying capacity for a say a few million people. Is that better or worse for the planet? The planet doesn’t care – but people might.
Anyway just because we can’t all be a net benefit to the world, doesn’t mean we should not care about trying to lessen our impact.
‘Christianity is for everyone.’
The majority (66% of the world) might disagree. Saying it or believing it doesn’t make it so.
Anyway whatever happened to faith being personal?
His and her’s hair shirts for all the eco-emo folks.
Perhaps a store could open in major shopping malls.
freddybobs68k said, on January 19th, 2010 at 10:03 am
“‘A green person would get a newspaper just to be seen recycling it.’
No, I don’t think so. Who buys something purely to dispose of it it? It’s completely ungreen.”
I disagree. All the carbon footprint test I take give you credit for recycling newspaper, but no credit for not taking the paper at all.
I still reject the term green. I embrace the word cheap. The cheaper I am in certain areas mean I can spend freely on other things that matter.
#23 Benjamin
“I disagree. All the carbon footprint test I take give you credit”
Which tests are you talking about?
Anyways you are saying people who want to be green do such tests, and because of that then buy newspapers so they can dispose of them to score better on such tests?
I don’t believe anybody does that. Certainly nobody who understands what ‘green’ means. It’s the complete opposite of being green. But would be rate highly on the ‘not getting it’ scale.
Since no one is going to lengths to find out the sexy womans name I’ll put up my offer again.
If you think green and/or climate change is dumb, please come sign my legally binding contract so I can actually prove to you how pollution and such is harmful. It’ll cost you your life but at least you will know the truth.
Again, I’m serious. Just contact me or leave contacts and I’ll come over with my lawyer and we could do it Kevorkian style. Bring your kids too.
I don’t think people are doing that. I think they made lousy assumptions when they designed the tests. Just google for carbon footprint calculators and see if that is the assumption they make.
freddybobs68k said, on January 19th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
“Which tests are you talking about?
Anyways you are saying people who want to be green do such tests, and because of that then buy newspapers so they can dispose of them to score better on such tests?
I don’t believe anybody does that. Certainly nobody who understands what ‘green’ means. It’s the complete opposite of being green. But would be rate highly on the ‘not getting it’ scale.”
So once we eliminate all the “culture war” BS, what we have remaining is two people agreeing that green and cheap work very well together. nice
Uncle Dave, thanks for the belly laugh. Funny stuff! It just goes to show that some people can never be happy.
I wonder what a Greenie does when he/she becomes so distraught over their carbon footprint and damage to the planet. It would seem that the logical solution to this conundrum is to kill themselves.
But how does a Greenie commit suicide so that it doesn’t hurt the environment further? Poison is out because their body would become toxic to the environment. Firearms are out due to their lead content. Carbon monoxide poisoning by sitting in the garage with a running car won’t work if they drive a Tesla. Suffocation with a bag over their head would require nasty plastic.
Finally, when their remains are ultimately disposed of, the funeral home will either bury them in a coffin covered with a non-biodegradable concrete sarcophagus or they will use a CO2 belching furnace for the cremation. What is a suicidal Greenie to do?
If they could only figure out a way to choke to death on tofu and subsequently fall into a compost heap. Or perhaps they could throw themselves into the lion pit at the zoo. Or swim out into shark infested waters. At least the bugs/animals would have a nice meal as they give back to Mother Gaya.