Is modern Environmentalism essentially against self-sufficiency?

Daegerty

This is the impression I keep getting. 20 years ago and earlier it was all about ditching the oil and living in the woods, self reliance, community and all that good stuff. Now things are quite the opposite

First of all people who live any bit remote are given a doing for not living in a city apartment because that is seen as a more efficient way of living and for ruining the landscape for city day-trippers, and also for having a car. A terribly short sighted view because cars running on renewable energy aren't quite there yet, houses aren't necessarily ugly or unsustainable and apartments aren't exactly eco friendly to build.

But thats not the main problem I see, its how the Governments are trying to tie in the whole sustainable energy thing to increased oversight and dependence, and promoting a very 'hands off: you're not qualified' attitude and actually putting in place barriers to entry in the hope of artificially creating a green jobs economy

You have all these subsidy schemes but they all make you dependent on registered installers, inspectors, commissioners, all this bureaucratic guff. Since all these people want a cut of the action many of these schemes (solar heating, insulation, grid tie) are hardly worth the trouble,

Then you have the whole cart before the horse approach that is the Smart Grid. Hoping to encourage people to use less electricity when it's not windy or high demand as well as monitoring their behaviour.

The only people benefitting are those closely following the Government's carrot and (mostly) stick approach like a lost puppy. And benefits are only short term anyway - Its only a matter of time before people's feed in tariffs run out and the crowd who bought new efficient cars on the scrappage scheme are paying 500 and 600 a year in motor tax again.

People thinking for themselves and not bothering with Governement schemes and living largely self sufficient now will soon be given a hefty property tax and maybe an increased motor tax in the hope of whipping them into compliance. You also have the impending septic tank tax and possible annual water quality testing fee for people with their own well essientially serving as a stick to beat people with for living off the grid. Maybe its not so much about being against self sufficiency as it is a case of Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

SeanW

Not to mention that Irish apartments are generally built to rubbish standards and anyone unlucky enough to buy one can expect to have a lousy quality of life, between hearing neighbors noises (and vice versa) and other build quality problems.

Is it any wonder few sane people want to settle down in an Irish apartment?

Still a lot of this has little to do with environmentalism and a lot to do with governments need for more money (or corruption) and the desire of a few to drown the rest of us in bureaucracy.

Pete_Cavan

Daegerty wrote: »

This is the impression I keep getting. 20 years ago and earlier it was all about ditching the oil and living in the woods, self reliance, community and all that good stuff. Now things are quite the opposite

First of all people who live any bit remote are given a doing for not living in a city apartment because that is seen as a more efficient way of living and for ruining the landscape for city day-trippers, and also for having a car. A terribly short sighted view because cars running on renewable energy aren't quite there yet, houses aren't necessarily ugly or unsustainable and apartments aren't exactly eco friendly to build.

Higher density settlements (although not necessarily living in apartments) is a more efficient way of living in terms of providing services.

But thats not the main problem I see, its how the Governments are trying to tie in the whole sustainable energy thing to increased oversight and dependence, and promoting a very 'hands off: you're not qualified' attitude and actually putting in place barriers to entry in the hope of artificially creating a green jobs economy

You have all these subsidy schemes but they all make you dependent on registered installers, inspectors, commissioners, all this bureaucratic guff. Since all these people want a cut of the action many of these schemes (solar heating, insulation, grid tie) are hardly worth the trouble,

What is wrong with the state ensuring you are using a qualified, competent installer who is fully tax compliant before handing over taxpayers money so you can get solar panels? No doubt you think it would be better to get people to do it as a nixer on the cheap and then try and screw the state for as much money as you can get but thats not such a good deal for the rest of us.

Then you have the whole cart before the horse approach that is the Smart Grid. Hoping to encourage people to use less electricity when it's not windy or high demand as well as monitoring their behaviour.

How is it putting the cart before the horse? For years electricity companies wanted people to use more electricity so they could get money out of them. Now, with growing demand for electricity and increasing cost of producing it, it is becoming so expensive that they are now trying to reduce the amount of electricity required. Makes sense.

The only people benefitting are those closely following the Government's carrot and (mostly) stick approach like a lost puppy. And benefits are only short term anyway - Its only a matter of time before people's feed in tariffs run out and the crowd who bought new efficient cars on the scrappage scheme are paying 500 and 600 a year in motor tax again.

People thinking for themselves and not bothering with Governement schemes and living largely self sufficient now will soon be given a hefty property tax and maybe an increased motor tax in the hope of whipping them into compliance. You also have the impending septic tank tax and possible annual water quality testing fee for people with their own well essientially serving as a stick to beat people with for living off the grid. Maybe its not so much about being against self sufficiency as it is a case of Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

By "living off the grid" and "living largely self sufficient" what you really mean is using loads of public services (roads, post offices, schools, hospitals, etc.) but not wanting to pay the full cost of providing the services for you.

Worst OP ever.

Daegerty

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Higher density settlements (although not necessarily living in apartments) is a more efficient way of living in terms of providing services.
What is wrong with the state ensuring you are using a qualified, competent installer who is fully tax compliant before handing over taxpayers money so you can get solar panels? No doubt you think it would be better to get people to do it as a nixer on the cheap and then try and screw the state for as much money as you can get but thats not such a good deal for the rest of us.
How is it putting the cart before the horse? For years electricity companies wanted people to use more electricity so they could get money out of them. Now, with growing demand for electricity and increasing cost of producing it, it is becoming so expensive that they are now trying to reduce the amount of electricity required. Makes sense.
By "living off the grid" and "living largely self sufficient" what you really mean is using loads of public services (roads, post offices, schools, hospitals, etc.) but not wanting to pay the full cost of providing the services for you.

Worst OP ever.

I'm sure you will find a worse OP somewhere, if you care to look in the few billion posts on boards.

By self sufficiency I mean self sufficiency. Don't forget that these people are less reliant on the dole when the economy goes downhill so the government should be encouraging it. You know, help people help themselves rather than having them all in high density housing and more dependent on 'services'.

Smart grid is just going to gouge everyone while they cook their dinner and offer them cheap electricity when they don't need it. Business need electricity during business hours. Many of them can't decide when they'll use electricity so they're just going to get gouged

What if I want to install the solar panels myself? If I do a decent job I dont see why not and if I fack it up I don't get the grant, but thats not how it works. The installer who himself has been gouged in order to keep several Quangos like FAS and the SEAI alive is a mandatory requirement and he tends to take 100% of the grant so he can give it back to the government, so actually the grant hardly exists at all. yet the carbon tax and what have you are very real and are ripping off a lot of people.

Overheal

By "living off the grid" and "living largely self sufficient" what you really mean is using loads of public services (roads, post offices, schools, hospitals, etc.) but not wanting to pay the full cost of providing the services for you.

Well hang on there, Groundskeeper Willy here is talking about Wells. Something which I am in perfect agreement with that they should be 'off the grid'. The idea that you would have to pay annually for water quality testing is essentially a way to get money off you somehow, because they won't be able to do it through metering.

Higher density settlements (although not necessarily living in apartments) is a more efficient way of living in terms of providing services.

Sure if you take it to it's logical conclusion but Calcutta isn't for everybody. High population density has it's own problems and there have been initiatives for years to encourage decentralization out of Dublin.

What is wrong with the state ensuring you are using a qualified, competent installer who is fully tax compliant before handing over taxpayers money so you can get solar panels? No doubt you think it would be better to get people to do it as a nixer on the cheap and then try and screw the state for as much money as you can get but thats not such a good deal for the rest of us.

Theres two sides to that story and one of them happens to be that - especially in US Politics - a Lobbyist will get the law written so that their company or interest profits. For example a medical company could lobby congress to pass a law that requires all children to be immunized for XYZ before attending public school. And guess whom so happens to be the primary or even sole provider of that vaccination? Said medical company. The renewable rebate essentially guarantees that contractors and inspectors get a cut of every privately run solar panel that ever gets installed in the country. Not to mention all the public ones.

recedite

People living in apartments require purified water to be delivered to them. They can't process sewage on site and return the nutrients to the land. They can't grow their own vegetables. They can't even compost the veggy peels, unless a big diesel lorry comes to take those away.

A subsidy could have been put on the price of solar panels, instead of a grant for having them professionally installed.

A Primal Nut

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

How is it putting the cart before the horse? For years electricity companies wanted people to use more electricity so they could get money out of them. Now, with growing demand for electricity and increasing cost of producing it, it is becoming so expensive that they are now trying to reduce the amount of electricity required. Makes sense.

I think its wrong to blame capitalists for everything. People who use electricity - whether it be for cooking, running hospitals, heating, do so because its a necessary or because it adds something to their lives. Not because some evil corporation told them to do so. The ESB aren't even a corporation - they are a state provider of electricity - what incentive would they have to increase electricity use? People are individuals and if they decide to consume electricity, that's their decision; its not just because some evil corporation brainwashed them like you are suggesting.

There is this idea that electricity usage is a luxury, and therefore its easy to cut down and live off solar panels or wind turbines. The reality is electrical power is not a luxury - its absolutely essential to keep us warm in cold climates; cold in warm climates, keep our hospitals running, keep manufacturing ongoing, allow us to communicate with the outside world, allow us to see at night. We can cut down a little bit, but ultimately nuclear or fossil fuels will always be required, like it or not. So choose which is the lesser of two evils and run with that; and stop believing in the pipe dream of renewable energy.

Not having a reliable, continuous access to electrical power and heating; will be much more catostrophic to the human race than any nuclear radioactivity or climate change. But especially radioactivity.

There are some people who seem to have very little interest in the environmental issues and spend more time criticising capitalism. Their critique to everything that might involve progress is always something along the lines of "people who support that solution have an agenda to make money." Rather than actually discussing the issue - pros and cons - itself.

Macha

<mod>OK, let's not tar all environmentalists with the same brush, especially in a forum on environmental issues.<mod>

Pete_Cavan

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I think its wrong to blame capitalists for everything. People who use electricity - whether it be for cooking, running hospitals, heating, do so because its a necessary or because it adds something to their lives. Not because some evil corporation told them to do so. The ESB aren't even a corporation - they are a state provider of electricity - what incentive would they have to increase electricity use? People are individuals and if they decide to consume electricity, that's their decision; its not just because some evil corporation brainwashed them like you are suggesting.

There is this idea that electricity usage is a luxury, and therefore its easy to cut down and live off solar panels or wind turbines. The reality is electrical power is not a luxury - its absolutely essential to keep us warm in cold climates; cold in warm climates, keep our hospitals running, keep manufacturing ongoing, allow us to communicate with the outside world, allow us to see at night. We can cut down a little bit, but ultimately nuclear or fossil fuels will always be required, like it or not. So choose which is the lesser of two evils and run with that; and stop believing in the pipe dream of renewable energy.

Not having a reliable, continuous access to electrical power and heating; will be much more catostrophic to the human race than any nuclear radioactivity or climate change. But especially radioactivity.

There are some people who seem to have very little interest in the environmental issues and spend more time criticising capitalism. Their critique to everything that might involve progress is always something along the lines of "people who support that solution have an agenda to make money." Rather than actually discussing the issue - pros and cons - itself.

Where the hell did that come from and what does it have to do with what you quoted?

I was pointing out that investing in SmartGrid to smooth the peaks and troughs in energy demand is not putting the cart before the horse, it is the sensible thing to do. SmartGrid does not assume that energy is a luxury that can be easily cut down on, it aims to improve the efficiency of the system by allowing people to control their electricity use in response to
prices or other parameters. I dont know why you are banging on about capitalism.

And for the record, I have argued many times on boards against price supports for wind energy and I have also stated numerous times that I believe Ireland should invest in nuclear energy.

Also, if you think ESB arent evil, you obviously havent had much dealings with them.

easychair

recedite wrote: »

People living in apartments require purified water to be delivered to them. They can't process sewage on site and return the nutrients to the land. They can't grow their own vegetables. They can't even compost the veggy peels, unless a big diesel lorry comes to take those away.

A subsidy could have been put on the price of solar panels, instead of a grant for having them professionally installed.

I wonder how "people" not living in apartments get their purified water? I wonder how "people" not living in apartments currently process their own sewage, particuarly bearing in mind that so much ground water seems to be contaminated with fecal matter and bacteria more usually found in the gut?

I wonder how "people" not living in apartments get fuel for their oil and gas central heating, and if much of that is delivered an a big diesel lorry?

I wonder do "people" not living in apartments have to take their "big" diesel or petrol cars when they go to the shops for their milk?

It's not a competition between apartment living and other forms of living!

recedite

easychair wrote: »

It's not a competition between apartment living and other forms of living!

Quite right. I was responding to quotes such as; "By "living off the grid" and "living largely self sufficient" what you really mean is using loads of public services (roads, post offices, schools, hospitals, etc.) but not wanting to pay the full cost of providing the services for you."
So if you live in the backwoods as the OP put it, with a well for water, septic tank, compost heap, and a wood stove, you import less of the "services", while still paying the same as anyone else in taxes.
However, if you are a consumer of said imported services, then the higher the density of housing, the more efficient the provision/delivery.

easychair

I've been thinking about this topic, and the first thing I wondered is how "modern" environmentalists differ from the other sort of environmentalists.

Of course there are all sorts of environmentalists, and even many who consider that more self sufficiency is more environmentally friendly than less.

I'd argue that virtually everyone I come across considers themselves an environmentalist of some sort, and the awareness of the topic is widespread, with most people trying to do their bit.

If we are to solve some of the big problems, such as finding a replacement for oil, gas and coal, then that requires an honesty of approach.

There are real problems with many alternative energy sources, and its a constant amazement to me not only how blind some are to those problems, but also how unwilling some are to look at the evidence, so blinkered they have become.

Wind power, for example, is very seductive, as it appears to create power cleanly from the wind, and the wind doesn't seem to be a diminishing resource. So far so good.

But, there are problems. Its neither reliable nor does it save fossil fuels. The latter part of this may have some scratching their heads, but if one examines how it actually works on the ground, then that becomes apparent.

The job of the electricity companies is to provide a reliable and constant supply to our homes and workplaces. If they didn't provide a reliable and constant supply, then we'd have regular power outages and power fluctuations.

How a wind turbine works is that, when the wind reaches optimal speed, the rotors rotate and power is produced. Likewise, when the wind drops below the optimal speed, the rotors stop turning and no power is produced. it all happens in seconds.

A conventional power station works is a very different way. Oil, for example, is fired up and water is heated until it turns to steam. This steam is then channelled to fins attached to a turbine, which turn and produce electricity. All this takes time, and usually quite a lot of time.

There are those who think that there is a man somewhere who is monitoring all this, and then when the power drops from a number of wind turbines, the is ready to throw a switch and fire up a conventional power station to take up the slack. If that were true, then there would be a period of time when there would be a drop in the available supply, between the time the wind died down and a conventional power station could be fired up.

We don't get a drop in supply, because in reality the conventional power stations run alongside the wind turbines, because it would be intolerable to have a situation where the power was regularly, or even irregularly, fluctuating or cutting.

So why do so many think wind turbines are a good thing, even thought they are expensive, cost us all a lot of money in subsidies, and don't save the fossil fuels we al want to save?

If a wind farm were, for example, used to pump water for pump storage, then we could use the pumped storage when needed, and it would be reliable and controllable and predictable, which would be a great use of wind turbines.

Environmentalism has to be practical, and has to be sensible and has to achieve some goals. On that I am sure we can all agree, but environmentalism as window dressing we should all expose and not be taken in by.

BryanF

easychair wrote: »

........

Wind power, for example, is very seductive, as it appears to create power cleanly from the wind, and the wind doesn't seem to be a diminishing resource. So far so good.

But, there are problems. Its neither reliable nor does it save fossil fuels. The latter part of this may have some scratching their heads, but if one examines how it actually works on the ground, then that becomes apparent.

The job of the electricity companies is to provide a reliable and constant supply to our homes and workplaces. If they didn't provide a reliable and constant supply, then we'd have regular power outages and power fluctuations.

How a wind turbine works is that, when the wind reaches optimal speed, the rotors rotate and power is produced. Likewise, when the wind drops below the optimal speed, the rotors stop turning and no power is produced. it all happens in seconds.

......

So why do so many think wind turbines are a good thing, even thought they are expensive, cost us all a lot of money in subsidies, and don't save the fossil fuels we al want to save?

If a wind farm were, for example, used to pump water for pump storage, then we could use the pumped storage when needed, and it would be reliable and controllable and predictable, which would be a great use of wind turbines.

so the usual rant happening at the beginning, including slipping in the whopper highlighted, then towards the end, a solution.. far play, its one of many options! but first there's another unsubstantiated whopper...

yes wind turbines are expensive, but no more expensive than a conventional power station especially considering the fossil fuel cost to run it (& the EROEI for wind is far better).. and yes i take the point re storage, that's why we are developing the interconnectors, pumped storage (i appreciate eirgrid are slow but projects are through planning!) and in the future we'll probably look at MCkays car battery suggestion among others...

so, may i ask about the subtext 'slipped in' that I've highlighted: how can you suggest that wind turbines do not save fossil fuel energy? ???

I don't except that although our conventional power plants are on-line, that wind turbines are not saving co2/ fossil fuels! can you back up your claims please???

Macha

<mod>This thread is not about renewables. Please try to keep on the topic of the OP as much as is reasonably possible. </mod>

BryanF

ok Macha:) well said.
on the OPs question
yes I think modern environmentalism is some times a misguided movement but we must now look past 'running to the hills' self-sufficiency. simply put, we cannot all do this http://ciracar.com/build-a-house-for-less-than-5000
the generally migratory pattern around the world is to urban areas, and so we must address these as the biggest wasters/ consumers.

I don't accept people

Daegerty wrote: »

who live any bit remote are given a doing for not living in a city apartment because that is seen as a more efficient way of living

. Imho its not that a person is living in a rural location is the problem, but that they then drive to an urban area for work, the shops, practically everything they do. If we look at Scotland for instance, they have kept there landscape free from individual houses and ribbon developments and favour community clusters and villages. If we did this it would be easier to provide services, treat waste, provide schools, shops etc all within walking distance and even link up public transport effectively, imagine that!

Daegerty wrote: »

But thats not the main problem I see, its how the Governments are trying to tie in the whole sustainable energy thing to increased oversight and dependence, and promoting a very 'hands off: you're not qualified' attitude and actually putting in place barriers to entry in the hope of artificially creating a green jobs economy

and that would be fine if we were all prefect and didn't take the piss... its like the current Septic tank saga, the issue Is that many of the 400,000 waste units are not being looked after properly.. how else to you deal with this without forced regulation?

the rest of the OP argument is irrelevant, but i do not agree with Pete-Cavan saying its the "Worst OP ever", its an interesting question. i disagree with the OP's suggestion that Irish sustainability is a governmental means of creating oversight and dependency.. imho government are not doing enough on energy and the environment, and that's due to the majority of voters. and should not be confused with regulatory systems required to keep the cowboys in check.

jinghong

OP, I think your instincts are somewhat correct. I'm not sure if its modern versus oldschool though: you have a lot of cliques within the green movement, such as the transition towners who seem to be of the opinion that its selfish to go off grid, and on the opposing side, the self sufficient types who prefer to muddle along with self succifiency and continuously try to find their own solutions. My sympathies would be with the latter, as there is no way to predict what will work best, and therefore it's better to have 1000 people trying variations on a theme, rather than everyone waiting for consensus.

There is no doubt that our representitive democratic ways of thinking are getting in the way of proper responses to the very large challenges that face us in the next 20 years, and its pitiful to think that our elective representitives are as clueless as the ordinary man on some very important issues.