[lubicon]

With all the talk recently about global warming, the environment etc. it got me wondering how much we (as Canadians) really care about the environment? Polls repeatedly show the environment to be at the top of the list when it comes to concerns, but when push comes to shove and people realize that it will cost them something to achieve this, then how willing will we be?

I remember about 10 years ago (maybe more), the environment was also near the top of the list of concerns and it quicky disappeared when the economy took at turn for the worse and people became focused on their jobs and taking care of their families. Last week a poll came out that ranked the environment 23rd out of 26 when it came to why people chose the vehicles that they bought. Financial considerations again ranked at the top. Also last week, CBC radio (Calgary) ran a story about the increase in noise complaints to the City as more and more high efficiency furnaces are being installed in Calgary homes, and neighbors complain about the noise they make.

So, it looks like to me we are all 'concerned' about the environment but don't seem all that willing to take a hit personally to make a change. We all want 'the government' or 'somebody else' to make the changes, as long as it doesn't effect us.

I'm curious to know what you all think.

[e909]

With all the talk recently about global warming, the environment etc. it got me wondering how much we (as Canadians) really care about the environment? Polls repeatedly show the environment to be at the top of the list when it comes to concerns, but when push comes to shove and people realize that it will cost them something to achieve this, then how willing will we be?

I remember about 10 years ago (maybe more), the environment was also near the top of the list of concerns and it quicky disappeared when the economy took at turn for the worse and people became focused on their jobs and taking care of their families. Last week a poll came out that ranked the environment 23rd out of 26 when it came to why people chose the vehicles that they bought. Financial considerations again ranked at the top. Also last week, CBC radio (Calgary) ran a story about the increase in noise complaints to the City as more and more high efficiency furnaces are being installed in Calgary homes, and neighbors complain about the noise they make.

So, it looks like to me we are all 'concerned' about the environment but don't seem all that willing to take a hit personally to make a change. We all want 'the government' or 'somebody else' to make the changes, as long as it doesn't effect us.

I'm curious to know what you all think.
When economic conditions improve people start to care more about things such as world peace, the environment, etc. When economic conditions worsen, people tend to be more self-centered. It's to be expected, we all need to survive.

I think you hit the "government or somebody else" on the head. People want the government to magically cure the environment while they still run AC with their doors open, drive an SUV, and run appliances all the time. This just isn't possible.

[murman]

I think you hit the "government or somebody else" on the head. People want the government to magically cure the environment while they still run AC with their doors open, drive an SUV, and run appliances all the time. This just isn't possible.

Speaking of which, why do so many store-front retailers run a/c and keep their front doors open?

[e909]

Speaking of which, why do so many store-front retailers run a/c and keep their front doors open?
People will think they are closed, or something along those lines.

It should be illegal to do that.

[Kevin_foster]

Here's a start:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=125067

[miketoronto]

I don't think people really care when it comes down to it. People say they care, but the vast majority really don't and continue to live their lives the same as usual.

The average person really could care less. I see it everyday in my office with my regular co-workers, who all they worry about is their SUV, Wal-Mart, and their suburban home. They could care less that they are polluting.
And that is how most Canadian's think.

[Champion3]

I'm all for helping the environment. I'm just so glad that I have my SUV so that I can take my refuse to the recycling depot.

/sarcasm

[vid]

Obviously not very much, if we need the government to force us to think about.

[Rob D]

I don't own a car anymore, take public transit or walk everywhere within the city, recycle all items that are accepted at the bins, subscribe to the electronic edition of the Calgary Herald instead of having the actual paper delivered, don't smoke so therefore don't toss cigarette butts all over the place, and I don't have a habit of spitting wherever & whenever I feel like it:)

[Boris2k7]

^ Pretty much what he said, except that my family still gets the hardcopy of the Herald and I will switch out for the online edition sometime in the future...

[WHISTLERINMUSKOKA]

I'm about to quit my job over my commitment to the environment. I kid you not.

[Taller Better]

I get the feeling that most Canadians feel it is just the government's job to do this, and it
does not occur to them that they can do things themselves.. (take public transit, turn down the
thermostat, etc..). How badly do they want to actually "pay" for this.. financially or in terms of ease
and comfort? Will be interesting to watch.

Whistler, what do you mean? What are you going to do?

[Doug]

Planet-friendly design? Bah, humbug.
Andrew Potter
Macleans
February 12th, 2007

All aboard the Save The Planet bandwagon - seats are filling up fast. After years, even decades, of neglect from the political right and the pro-business media, this big blue marble of ours is getting all the love it can handle.

Exhibit A is the recent state of the union address, in which George W. Bush challenged America's scientists, entrepreneurs and farmers to join him in his goal of "Twenty in Ten," which involves reducing gasoline usage by 20 per cent in the next 10 years. Bush's newfound greenery sprouts from a useful confluence of interests: lower gasoline usage will lower America's reliance on foreign oil, so what is good for the planet also happens to be good for national security.
But as the Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out last week, there is a dreary Groundhog Day repetitiveness in all of this, since the promise to make the U.S. energy independent has been a staple of presidential addresses since 1973. The only thing that has varied over the years is the hoped-for technological breakthrough. Nuclear power, wind power, tidal power, synfuels, hydrogen cells...none of those panned out. Do we have any reason to think ethanol will save the planet's bacon from broiling? Given that America has gone from importing 35 per cent of its oil in 1973 to 60 per cent of it today, the answer is, "not really."

For over 30 years now, the debate over sustainability has been marred by a fairly simple misunderstanding: that there is such a thing as a sustainable technology or a sustainable product. We believe, in other words, that sustainability is a function of design, and that we can somehow design our way to a greener, better world. We have missed the fact that sustainability is not a matter of how things are designed, but of how they are used.

Consider the hybrid car. When the first hybrids appeared on the American market seven years ago, they were hyped as a way to save gasoline and help end the country's dependence on imported oil, and to that end, people who bought hybrids were entitled to a substantial tax deduction. What the tax deduction ended up subsidizing, though, was not fuel efficiency, but performance. Hybrid cars squeeze more work out of a gallon of gasoline, and they give better acceleration at the low end of the speed range. So much so that in 2005, ConsumerReports magazine dismissed the hybrid version of the Honda Accord as a "green turbocharger," whose main feature was that it chopped over two seconds off the zero-to-60 time of the standard model. Meanwhile, the effect on fuel consumption was often nil.

This is an example of a kind of law of technological progress: improvements in efficiency end up making things bigger or faster while keeping energy consumption constant. A similar dynamic appears to be at work in the suburban housing market. The single most important consequence of new environmentally friendly housing technologies, for instance, has not been the development of small, extremely cost-effective housing, but rather the proliferation of McMansions. This is because most people tend to buy the biggest house they can afford. If high-efficiency furnaces and state-of-the-art insulation make houses less expensive to heat, people simply buy bigger houses. If low-emission glass and argon inserts improve the insulating properties of windows, they just install bigger windows, so the overall heat loss from the house remains unchanged. Our consumption habits seem to be ruled by a principle of "waste homeostasis," where the energy savings we get from better technology is used to fund better toys.

An analogue to this is the theory of risk homeostasis, developed by Gerald Wilde, a psychology professor at Queen's University. Wilde argues that each of us has a set level of risk that we find acceptable, and that when we lower the level of risk in one part of life we compensate with a corresponding rise in risk somewhere else. Wilde's work is frequently cited by libertarians fighting various forms of state paternalism, who argue that making cyclists wear helmets only makes them less attentive, or that forcing people to wear seatbelts only makes them drive more recklessly. When it comes to social policy, the theory of risk homeostasis says it's pointless for the state to try to reduce overall risk. Rather, the state should directly reward the behaviour it wants more of, and directly punish behaviour it wants less of. So instead of forcing people to wear seatbelts, for instance, the state should impose massively punitive fines for speeding.

The same applies to the environment, where we should start thinking in terms of behaviour, not technology. If we want people to use less fuel, they need to drive slower, so maybe a sizable horsepower tax is in order. If we're bothered by the rise of McMansions, we need to think seriously about a luxury tax on window size and square footage.

President Bush's plan does nothing of this sort. Instead, Bush is proposing to use state subsidies to increase the supply of ethanol, and to bring America's pathetic fuel economy laws up to date. Neither of these will have the slightest effect, which is why "energy independence" will be a feature of state of the union addresses for decades to come.

[Greco Roman]

Well, I care enough to have accumulated a student loan debt and to have spent a few years in school so I can do my part :cool:

I have always cared; ever since I was a kid, and that won't change. I knew that one day I would end up doing something in the environmenta science field. Mind you, I did want to be a dolphin trainer as a young boy.............lol

[Taller Better]

Well, I care enough to have accumulated a student loan debt and to have spent a few years in school so I can do my part :cool:

I have always cared; ever since I was a kid, and that won't change. I knew that one day I would end up doing something in the environmenta science field. Mind you, I did want to be a dolphin trainer as a young boy.............lol

That is very cool! I hope you do well in that field!! :tup:

[vid]

Well, I care enough to have accumulated a student loan debt and to have spent a few years in school so I can do my part :cool:

I have always cared; ever since I was a kid, and that won't change. I knew that one day I would end up doing something in the environmenta science field. Mind you, I did want to be a dolphin trainer as a young boy.............lol

Well slap on some antlers and lets go! :D

[newflyer]

I would say people care very little ... but say they care alot.

On the way riding transit I noticed how any single people were riding along in SUV's.

[Greco Roman]

Well slap on some antlers and lets go! :D


:haha: