I think I need to merge these two blogs into one. It's silly having two very scant blogs when you can have one fat one, so if anyone is reading this, please refrain from commenting on 'the philosophy of green' as your comment will be sucked into virtual oblivion soon, unless there is someway to transfer posts from one blog to another (is there? Please don't hold back if you know anything).
Anyway, back to the topic of this post. I've always found buying things second hand a useful form of way of conservation. Now we live in the dawn of the amazing freecycle, it's not even about buying anymore, but the concept is a very old one. Second-hand things have always sold so cheaply because they were that one step away from being incinerated or dumped in a big hole in the earth, but thankfully the thoughtful owner thought that someone else might want it, and someone else usually does. Second-hand items have traditionally served as the resort of the poor. But despite this, the ethos of scrap heaps, flee markets, jumble sales and the rest, has always been about not wasting. I'm not only amazed by how easily people throw things away these days, but how unresourcesful people are when it comes to purchasing goods. Everything has to be brand new. I come from a culture that especially derides second-hand things- possibily because of their traditional association with poverty, and horrifically too, their association with dirtiness. But this attitude is still all too prevalent everywhere else, too.
I have already started in this strange new nascent trend of buying second-hand, not because it's cheaper, but because it's more environmentally sound. The money incentive has even been reversed as some second hand things are becoming more expensive than their brand new counterparts. This would be the case for any mass produced item and second hand item trying to compete economically- there is simply more of the mass produced item. This is happening alot with books, where the case for conservation is especially acute- the raw material we're conserving in this case is something we all know and love- well at least most of us. The other day, my brother was ordering a book from Amazon. He went to the Amazon market place to look for the cheapest offer and I suggested he buy a second-hand one despite the price difference of 1 pound. He looked at me like I had just uttered the most absurd sentence in the history of absurdity. 'Why would I want to do that, when the new one is cheaper?' He asks calmly but with brimming mortification. "To save trees" I said. "TREES??? Who cares about Trees?!?". Well at least he was honest.
Really though, buying all your books second-hand can be a great and easy alternative to planting trees. Happy reading!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm not entirely sure about the economics of recylcing. Did you know if you drive to the bottle bank any good you were about to do by recycling those bottles has been undone by driving there.
I guess the signal you send to the market by recycling is important though.
Though I do agree, my spending on books would be immense were it np
ot for Amazon market place.
you don't have to drive to the bottle bank...
and besides, recycling is a different issue from carbon off-setting, it is about reducing landfill waste and incinerator pollution primarily as healing the greed of modern economic growth.
It always makes sense economically to re-use rather than extract anew and cause useless emmissions by burning surplus.
One reason why we're in the mess we are in this modern day and age (and by mess I mean the stark dividing line between rich and poor and environmental degradation) is the blind growth of first world economies- devastating the resources of the world (particualrly the third world) just to feed a relentless consumer economy in the developed world, with most of the goods being wasted to make way for the new batch.
Okay so your probably thinking I'm increadibly contrary which admittedly isn't too far from the truth. I do like your vision for the enviroment and what not but I think it unlikely to be feasible. The enviroment is one of those public goods that's particularly susceptible to the tragedy of the commons, the more I do to preserve it the more I susbsidise someone else to abuse it. Hoping people take responsibility is a tad optimistic.
Man has always been destructive, our ancesters far from living in harmony with the enviroment abused it and the only reason they didn't cause enviromental damage on the scale were are was they didn't posess the technology we do. The point is nobody is going to preserve the enviroment without immediate incentive, so instead of relying on common good I'd prefer to rely on common greed. I favour an approach where the enviroment is given property rights and those rights given to the local population. So for example logging rights would be given to the local population who could then sell those rights, however they have an incentive to preserve the forest so that they can preserve future income as opposed to the situation at the moment where if you try and conserve forest by not logging it than ur competitor will just logg it and make extra profit.
On the topic of recycling it doesn't actually make economic sense to always recycle, there is a cost to recycling and often this outweighs the cost of the orignal product especially when the orignal product is abundent. So for example if there are lots of trees it's actually economically more cost effective to just use new trees instead of recycling paper, it's only when the trees run low that the cost of recycling paper becomes worth while. It's a bit simila to renewable energy in that way, it's only as oil becomes more expensive that renewable energy becomes more feasile. Incedently do you know that one barrel of oil would cost less than one barrel of coke.
It's very likely to be feasible for a number of reasons, some of which are a) it has grown enormously in recent decades amongst the whole spectrum of society b) climate change has been positivistaclly proven, so we're forced to act whether we like it or not (unless some of us somewhere are harbouring notions of living on Mars).
Yes, man has always been destructive and always will be, but what does that mean? That we all give up trying to rectify our destructiveness and embrace the chaos?
You raise an interesting point about motive, and I've addressed this before. The greens have always been a fringe movement in identity politics, and that will never change, just like the majority of Brits will always read The sun newspaper- people's sensiblities have always been such that the majority of people don't like to think (sorry if that sounds bigoted). But because the planet is under an immediate threat, a threat which will affect everyone living on the planet, it is ultimately in everyone's best interest to act. This will be realised as the environmental agenda continues to grow until it breaks into the mainstream, bringing the reality of climate change and environmental degradation to the doorstep of every tom dick and harry, so that regardless of what your motive is for saving the environment- everyone will have one.
Environmental law is as equally important as grassroots action, and both are being pushed alongside each other on the environmental agenda.
By recycling being economical, what I meant was that it was economical in the true sense of the word- that is ecological. If ecology was economic, everyone would be practising it by now, but most people go for the cheaper option. But just because something is cheaper, it doesn't mean it is ecological. Just because cardboard boxes are cheaper than willow baskets, it doesn't mean there is an abundance of trees and a shortage of willow. It is actually the opposite, willow is a self- perpetuating plant and grows very quickly and easily, while trees take hundreds of years to reach maturity. But cardboard boxes are used because they can be produced quickly and on mass, hence fulfilling the economic greed of their producers and giving everyone a nice cheap product. This is why mass production is not sustainable, despite being cheap and pocket-filling.
The day we wake up and realise that the earth is more important than a lamborghini is the day that is impossible for some, but not a far-off reality for others.
But because the planet is under an immediate threat, a threat which will affect everyone living on the planet, it is ultimately in everyone's best interest to act.
Ah but this is where I consist your point. It's not in my best interest to act, it's in my best interest to free ride and hope you act. One persons action is effectively meaningless, and knowing this it's in my incentive to have you all act and for me to carry on my lifestyle. Like I said...it'll develove into some massive tragedy of the commons less we legislate or impose property rights upon the enviroment.
Post a Comment