This is turning into a Bob-the-Coward discussion! It started with the What-is-an-individual? post, which could have replaced
Brian's speech if it weren't tl;dr.
Logic dictates that either one reuses their water bottles, or one does not. (The former possibility includes, vacuously, never using a water bottle at all, as well as reusing some but not all of their water bottles.) There are no other possibilities.
Very faulty and totally
irrelevant logic! But since you aren't interested in putting a stop to CO
2 emissions, I can see why you are so obsessed with water bottles.
Again, logic dictates that if one candidate on a slate promises to take action on climate change, one can either vote for that candidate or not. The latter possibility includes, but is not limited to, not voting at all. Those are the only options where voting in that election is concerned. It is you who are portraying that as a damned if you do, damned if you don't choice. You might even be correct about that, but you haven't followed that up with any suggestion for what to do about it.
And now you have appointed yourself the dictator of logic as well as of alternatives.
I not only gave you a
suggestion, I even gave you a
link:
"It's the whole idea of
representative democracy! It's in its
nature!"
If the electoral
system is what prevents you from doing anything
effective against global warming, maybe it's time for you to think
outside the system and the restraints it puts on people's brains. I'm sorry, but if voting for a guy who promises you to something
real about global warming and then doesn't, maybe you've got it all wrong when you keep hoping and getting disappointed and never learn anything from the process.
See?! There's the alternative to voting and not voting! It's a very obvious one!
The candidate (or party) who claims to want to reduce carbon emissions might be lying! Maybe I should vote for the candidate who openly supports pro fossil fuel policies instead. After all, they might be lying too! Or a candidate who is silent about the issue, because just maybe they're secretly on my side! Or I could write myself in, just in case by some miracle I might win, rather than that just being a minor variation of not voting at all. But voting for some candidate or not voting at all are still the only choices.
You are really stuck in that rut, aren't you?!
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Albert E.
You should do that to demonstrate that you actually have a better alternative in mind, rather than merely crapping on all the alternatives anyone else suggests. But if you prefer the crapping approach, I certainly can't dictate to you otherwise, contrary to your claim.
I haven't crapped on or in your water bottles even though I have heard that some homeless people reuse them for that purpose. People crap all over your recycling ideas whenever they get onboard their private jets. I have pointed it out to you, and I don't feel like doing it again. I'm with Albert on that one. Your ideas don't work, and instead of accepting the fact that they don't work, you get terribly upset. If you actually thought they worked, you would come up with the evidence. People have been recycling for at least 50 years, and things are only getting worse.
(Hmmm, I wonder if Bill Maher recycles his water bottles. I wonder what it would do for his ratings.)
The "insight" you've offered here is to state the obvious, which is that U.S. politicians are feckless and will not keep their promises with regard to energy and climate issues. I think more insight than that is gained by considering why that is so, and a large part of the answer is gained by examining ways that voters are, and correctly see themselves as, dependent on fossil energy.
I have actually considered
"why that is so" and examined the
"ways that voters are." More than you, apparently. Politicians will not keep their promises because you let them. And you let them do it again and again, and you'll let them do it the next time, too. It's the whole point of
representative democracy. (Do you want another link?! OK, here's
a very short one!)
What you appear to be missing, in your eagerness to crap on every choice offered, is the most important way in which reducing personal usage is beneficial: to reduce the degree of dependency. Are people who walk or bicycle to work more likely, or less likely, to support policies intended to keep gasoline prices low? Are people who grow fresh produce in their own gardens more likely, or less likely, to support globalization policies that facilitate shipping fresh produce from another hemisphere? Are people who reuse water bottles more likely, or less likely, to support restrictions on the uses of plastics in consumer packaging? Are people who take cold showers more likely, or less likely, to participate in local energy plans that replace 24-7 availability of unlimited fossil-fueled power with renewable sources that might come with limitations in amount or schedule?
We're getting awfully scatological, aren't we?!
Are people who walk, bicycle, grow their own produce, reuse water bottles and take cold showers more or less iikely to trust politicians who promise to end global warming? Are those people more or less likely to vote for those politicians again and again and again even when those same politicians do absolutely nothing to stop CO
2 emissions? And are those cold-showering, bicycling, walking, produce-growing and recycling shiny happy people satisfied with those candidates if only they an encouraging word to the recyclers now and then and praise their will to be green?
We all know the answer, don't we?!
