Women with too much time on their hands?

February 17th, 2008 by everett

Why does this group featured in the New York Times sound like a tedious lot, the likes of which we’re all better off without?

SAN RAFAEL, Calif. - The women gathered in the airy living room, wine poured and pleasantries exchanged. In no time, the conversation turned lively - not about the literary merits of Geraldine Brooks or Cormac McCarthy but the pitfalls of antibacterial hand sanitizers and how to retool the laundry using only cold water and biodegradable detergent during non-prime-time energy hours (after 7 p.m.).

Move over, Tupperware. The EcoMom party has arrived, with its ever-expanding “to do” list that includes preparing waste-free school lunches; lobbying for green building codes; transforming oneself into a “locovore,” eating locally grown food; and remembering not to idle the car when picking up children from school (if one must drive). Here, the small talk is about the volatile compounds emitted by dry-erase markers at school.

Volatile compounds given off by dry erase markers? Bloody hell, teachers have more to worry about in the classroom than supposedly volatile compounds in dry erase markers. These women should be more focused on their childrens’ educations, not the markers. (When was the last time you heard of Death by Dry Erase compounds?) It’s not long before we see hints of the true motivation behind these EcoMoms:

“It’s like eating too many brownies one day and then jogging extra the next,” said Kimberly Danek Pinkson, 38, the founder of the EcoMom Alliance, speaking to the group of efforts to curb eco-guilt through carbon offsets for air travel.

A-ha! Guilt! Not only plain, ordinary guilt, but the insidious eco-guilt. Man, that’s gotta suck. There’s no cure for that, you know. Only treatments. Take five carbon credits and phone me in the morning. These women are screwed. Next thing you know, they’ll be holding sessions in church basements and talking about 12-step programs.

At an EcoMom circle in Palo Alto, executive mothers whipped out spreadsheets to tally their goals, inspired by a 10-step program that urges using only nontoxic products for cleaning, bathing and make-up, as well as cutting down garbage by 10 percent.

“I used to feel anxiety,” said Kathy Miller, 49, an alliance member, recalling life before she started investigating weather-sensitive irrigation controls for her garden with nine growing zones. “Now I feel I’m doing something.”

The notion of “ecoanxiety” has crept into the culture here. It was the subject of a recent cover story in San Francisco magazine that quotes a Berkeley mother so stressed out about the extravagance of her nightly baths that she started to reuse her daughter’s bath water. Where there is ecoanxiety, of course, there are ecotherapists.

Oh, snap! A 10-step program? Spreadsheets to “tally their goals?” Talk about over-engineering your guilt. Kathy Miller takes it to an extreme. She’s gardening with guilt. “Weather-sensitive irrigation controls for her garden with nine growing zones?” I can’t read that without hearing Tim Allen’s voice, followed by his man-grunts.

And then there’s the whole “eco stress” tripe. A mother from Berkeley (well, duh!) can’t enjoy a bath? She takes an “extravagant” nightly bath. Well, first off, I have to wonder about her daily routine if she can afford the time to draw and take a bath every night. We’re talking about an hour or so an evening. She’s a mother, so there’s at least one kid. Presumably dad’s around to watch the daughter while mom’s self-absorbed for that time. If mom works, then she’s gone from say 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day. Leaves four to five hours a night with the daughter and family and she’s enjoying a nightly bath. She’s potentially taking up 20 to 25% of her family time so she can enjoy the tranquility and solitude of a nightly bath.

I’m making assumptions in that last graph, I know. Maybe she’s working from home. Maybe she’s not working at all. Maybe her total bath time (drawing, time in tub, getting dried and primped afterwards) is less than an hour. Maybe so. My hunch is still that the eco-guilt is a mask for something else. Something less trendy and hip than a supposed guilt over the environment.

Ladies, don’t go nuts. I’m seeing the housewives from Edward Scissorhands mixed in with bio-degradable trashbags and tofu sandwiches for Skip and Dot’s lunches. It’s a little too Stepford.

Environmental Blathering Bad for Environment

December 18th, 2007 by everett

“When those who tell me the environment’s a crisis start acting like it, I’ll listen.” –Glenn Reynolds

Another example of those true words was the recent ClimateStock ‘07 in Bali. Jetloads of concerned environmentalists descended on the Pacific playground and began wringing their hands over how bad things are for Mother Earth. Now why should I care about what these people are saying we should do? Simple. I don’t believe they have a clue what’s wrong, if anything, with the environment.

*holds up hand* Wait a sec; I’m not saying we should all go out, buy the dirtiest, least-efficient monster truck for our daily commute. I believe each person does his or her share to keep their environment clean. “Leave only footprints,” as the motto goes. I do not believe the earth is spiraling towards an eco-disaster an that Man (chiefly Americans) are to blame.

My disbelief is only bolstered when I hear the supposed enlightened of us on this matter are jetsetting to a place like Bali to talk about it. When they’re here:
Hotel in Bali

or here:
Aston Bali Resort

or here:
Another Resort in Bali

trying to tell me how to live my life, when they could have all met over WebX, conference call, etc., then I don’t believe they take the supposed threat that seriously. So why should I?

Add in the story on how much it took to air-condition the rooms in Bali, and I really think these people have a case of “let them eat cake.”

Prove it to me with a good scientific analysis, void of hyperbole, emotion, supposition and politics. I’ll listen more, then. Till then, I’m doing my part, chiefly out of economic concerns, and I’ll expect the jetsetters to do theirs. Oh, and to just shut the hell up for a while. That ought to save on CO2 emissions.

Lead by example when it comes to environmentalism

November 8th, 2007 by everett

Mark Steyn writes in the Corner:

“Humanity is the greatest challenge,” says Colorado environmental activist John Feeney in “The Green Room” at BBC News. It’s not enough to reduce emissions, we have to reduce the folks doing the emitting:

And a quick look over at the Beeb’s “Green Room” shows us Mr. Feeney-mo-meaney’s views on humanity:

We must end world population growth, then reduce population size. That means lowering population numbers in industrialised as well as developing nations.

End population growth. Fine. Mr. Feeney can do two things. First, go on a speaking tour in any of the countries with the highest birth rates:

  1. Democratic Republic of the Congo
  2. Guinea-Bissau
  3. Liberia
  4. Niger
  5. Afghanistan
  6. Mali
  7. Angola
  8. Burundi
  9. Uganda
  10. Sierra Leone

and tell them to stop breeding. See how well that goes over. Second, he can lead in his quest to reduce the world’s populations by example. I believe the colloquialism goes something like, “S**t or get off the pot.” If that’s too abrasive, Glenn Reynolds’ saying is, “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who say it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.

Environmental cause and effect?

November 6th, 2007 by everett

This is suspicious and certainly cause for greater attention to man’s activities:

First this:

The executive producers and cast of NBC’s Emmy-nominated hit drama HEROES announced today that it will join The Conservation Fund to help fight climate change, restore wildlife habitat, and enhance recreation areas by planting trees.

And then this:

Rosie O’Donnell in Talks to Join MSNBC

Perhaps NBC is working on offsetting the certain increase in CO2 emissions from a Rosie O’Donnell MSNBC show?