by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Is the very concept of being 'Green' class thing, one for the middle classes and those higher up only?
This is, in my opinion, a very valid question. Is the concept of being “green” and “environmentally conscious” a middle class thing? “Green is the new black” scream some headlines. Yes, it definitely is trendy to be “green” and it is generating lots of interest.
Many of the tabloid newspapers for definite try to make being “green” out to be a middle class thing, but personally I doubt it to be just a middle class thing. Then again, how do you define the “middle class”?
Yes, it is true that many of the environmentally friendly goods and gadgets cost lots of money and you would need some spending power to be able to buy all those white goods that are A rated for less energy consumption to replace your old energy guzzlers with. It also would appear that, for some unknown reason, all those energy efficient white goods are the most expensive ones to buy. To be perfectly honest, and I believe I have mentioned this peeve of mine already elsewhere, the so-called environmentally friendly goods and all that are often so much more expensive than others and making it a more than a little out of the reach of the lower classes to do their bit on that level.
As far as the above mentioned white goods are concerned my question would be as to whether it is really better to replace the older washing machine or fridge or freezer with new A rated ones for less energy consumption or whether the replacement and the then required removal and safe disposal of the old goods does not have a much greater impact on the environment than me continuing to use it until such a time that it will, eventually, need replacing because it has, finally worn out and come to the end of the day.
Too many people do that with their computers because of the Microsoft Windows inbuilt obsolescence. Most older PCs do not need replacing; all they need is to be given a new lease of life with Linux.
You can spend a fortune on solar powered heating, lighting, double glazing, energy efficient light bulbs (oh, BTW, you cannot, or soon will no longer be able to, buy incandescent light bulbs any more) and assorted gizmo's; the list goes on, but not everybody can afford the cost of such items. Does that, therefore, mean that you can only care for the environment if you have the money to do so?
Not at all!
In spite of all the misconception that living sustainably requires independent wealth, and lots of it preferably, there are plenty of things anyone can do to make a real difference that will cost next to nothing.
Small changes are important. Recycling, composting, line drying, using cloth nappies switching off appliances when not in use, showering rather than bathing, car sharing are to name but a few. All these options can actually help to save you money as well.
Then there is a good old “make do” that also helps you to do you bit for the environment and at the same time saves you dough.
Regardless of the danger of repeating myself I shall say again that before you even think about the trip to the recycling bin with this or that item think as to whether there is not a way that you, or someone else you know (or even someone you do not, as yet know), can make use of that item, whether a box, a tin, a glass jar, or whatever, or you or someone else may be able to re-work and re-craft the item into something else useful.
Think “REUSE” before recycle.
This once upon a time was the way of being frugal. Bottles, in those day, you did not have to think about recycling; they were reused. All you had to do was getting them back to the store and get money for it while you were at it. Many a street urchin and countryside munchkin made his pocket money by collecting discarded bottles and bringing them back to the store for the deposit money. Why is no one talking about getting this system back in use. Glass is infinitely reusable and, when it finally breaks, well, then you can recycle it into a new bottle or glass jar.
Some years ago Neal's Yard in London was a company where you could go to get you peanut butter, your tea, your beans, your rice, etc. loose. You brought your own jar for the peanut butter and they filled it for you. The same with the other goods. You brought your own container and it was filled there.
When I was a child every grocery store did just that. There was no such thing as blister packs and today very often it is a blister pack within a blister pack, as with, for instance, with replacement toothbrushes for those electric one such as the Braun ones. Two individually and hygienically packaged brushes in another big blister pack. Why precisely?
Marks and Spencer have had a highly publicized campaign not so long ago about recycling plastic bags and will now charge 5p for their bags in future.
A new study by the Local Government Association, however, has cast much doubt on those green credentials.
The report has found that a typical shopping trip generated an average of 714g of packaging – and M&S was second from the bottom of the pile just ahead of Lidl, with 807g, and a lower percentage of it recyclable than any other retailer. Plastic bags seem rather beside the point when their packaging seems to be a much greater problem or at least one as great as plastic bags.
There was the suggestion ones, and I believe it is legal, basically, to do so on the Continent, such as in Germany, to actually remove all unnecessary packaging and leave same at the checkout.
My generation and the one immediately after me and definitely the ones before me seem to have been raised with the with the belief that the bounty of the Earth was inexhaustible, but it is not. Our children and children's children have had to learn this and that it needs to be guarded with care.
I have to say that the ethnic background of mine has taught me different from childhood and we never saw the resources of Mother Earth as infinite. To the Romani the Earth always was sacred and he only took as much as was sustainable to take, whether it was hazel rods for the making of pegs, or osiers for baskets, or what-have-you.
Mother Earth will recover from whatever we choose to do to it, of that I am certain. We only need to look at what She has survived the past. She has survived the Ice age, earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami, and whatever else. Mother Earth will survive and recover. Humankind, on the other hand, cannot survive if we continue to use up and squander our resources at the rate we have been and that we are still doing.
We need to reduce our use of the resources. We need to rediscover the simpler pleasures, so to speak. We also need to learn how to cook from scratch again instead of “ping” meals and such. There are so many things that we must do and living a more sustainable life is what, in the end, we must do.
It is small steps that, in the end, will lead us all to a new way of living, to a sustainable way of living, a way of living in harmony rather than enmity with Mother Nature. This is the only way for the humans to survive and thrive on this planet of ours. We only, folks, have one earth. This is, as far as we know, the only inhabitable planet suitable for human life and living. Let's not destroy it.
We have done enough damage to it already. However, we may be able to reduce and reverse it, to some extent. I do not, however, believe that we can reverse so-called “global warming” aka “climate change”. First of all the “warming” has stopped, according to research from Australia and the temperatures have plateaued out and have not risen, not even by fractions, for the last 4-5 years; a fact that the head of the IPCC had to admit to when challenged by the Australian scientists. However, “climate change”, I am certain, will continue, simply because, as it would appear to me, from the research that I have conducted, a cyclic phenomenon through which the earth goes every so many centuries. We will have to prepare and get used to the fact. This does not mean, however, that we should abandon the “green” agenda. Far from it. We must do more and more recycling, reusing, and re-crafting. The earth's resources are but finite.
If, as I believe, “climate change” is here to stay and it will get worse before it will drop down into a cold to very cold period – if this follows the standard pattern this cycle of the earth has always run – then we must do all those things and we must prepare for severe changes in our lives.
We also must get off our dependency on oil. How this can be done is another question and, probably, not one that we will answer in this essay here.
Being “green” is not and must not be a class things and something that people believe only those in the upper areas, from middle/upper-middle class upwards can do. Being “green” is not about spending money on green gadgets and gizmos but it is about a mindset, a way of life, a sustainable way of living.
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Is the very concept of being 'Green' class thing, one for the middle classes and those higher up only?
This is, in my opinion, a very valid question. Is the concept of being “green” and “environmentally conscious” a middle class thing? “Green is the new black” scream some headlines. Yes, it definitely is trendy to be “green” and it is generating lots of interest.
Many of the tabloid newspapers for definite try to make being “green” out to be a middle class thing, but personally I doubt it to be just a middle class thing. Then again, how do you define the “middle class”?
Yes, it is true that many of the environmentally friendly goods and gadgets cost lots of money and you would need some spending power to be able to buy all those white goods that are A rated for less energy consumption to replace your old energy guzzlers with. It also would appear that, for some unknown reason, all those energy efficient white goods are the most expensive ones to buy. To be perfectly honest, and I believe I have mentioned this peeve of mine already elsewhere, the so-called environmentally friendly goods and all that are often so much more expensive than others and making it a more than a little out of the reach of the lower classes to do their bit on that level.
As far as the above mentioned white goods are concerned my question would be as to whether it is really better to replace the older washing machine or fridge or freezer with new A rated ones for less energy consumption or whether the replacement and the then required removal and safe disposal of the old goods does not have a much greater impact on the environment than me continuing to use it until such a time that it will, eventually, need replacing because it has, finally worn out and come to the end of the day.
Too many people do that with their computers because of the Microsoft Windows inbuilt obsolescence. Most older PCs do not need replacing; all they need is to be given a new lease of life with Linux.
You can spend a fortune on solar powered heating, lighting, double glazing, energy efficient light bulbs (oh, BTW, you cannot, or soon will no longer be able to, buy incandescent light bulbs any more) and assorted gizmo's; the list goes on, but not everybody can afford the cost of such items. Does that, therefore, mean that you can only care for the environment if you have the money to do so?
Not at all!
In spite of all the misconception that living sustainably requires independent wealth, and lots of it preferably, there are plenty of things anyone can do to make a real difference that will cost next to nothing.
Small changes are important. Recycling, composting, line drying, using cloth nappies switching off appliances when not in use, showering rather than bathing, car sharing are to name but a few. All these options can actually help to save you money as well.
Then there is a good old “make do” that also helps you to do you bit for the environment and at the same time saves you dough.
Regardless of the danger of repeating myself I shall say again that before you even think about the trip to the recycling bin with this or that item think as to whether there is not a way that you, or someone else you know (or even someone you do not, as yet know), can make use of that item, whether a box, a tin, a glass jar, or whatever, or you or someone else may be able to re-work and re-craft the item into something else useful.
Think “REUSE” before recycle.
This once upon a time was the way of being frugal. Bottles, in those day, you did not have to think about recycling; they were reused. All you had to do was getting them back to the store and get money for it while you were at it. Many a street urchin and countryside munchkin made his pocket money by collecting discarded bottles and bringing them back to the store for the deposit money. Why is no one talking about getting this system back in use. Glass is infinitely reusable and, when it finally breaks, well, then you can recycle it into a new bottle or glass jar.
Some years ago Neal's Yard in London was a company where you could go to get you peanut butter, your tea, your beans, your rice, etc. loose. You brought your own jar for the peanut butter and they filled it for you. The same with the other goods. You brought your own container and it was filled there.
When I was a child every grocery store did just that. There was no such thing as blister packs and today very often it is a blister pack within a blister pack, as with, for instance, with replacement toothbrushes for those electric one such as the Braun ones. Two individually and hygienically packaged brushes in another big blister pack. Why precisely?
Marks and Spencer have had a highly publicized campaign not so long ago about recycling plastic bags and will now charge 5p for their bags in future.
A new study by the Local Government Association, however, has cast much doubt on those green credentials.
The report has found that a typical shopping trip generated an average of 714g of packaging – and M&S was second from the bottom of the pile just ahead of Lidl, with 807g, and a lower percentage of it recyclable than any other retailer. Plastic bags seem rather beside the point when their packaging seems to be a much greater problem or at least one as great as plastic bags.
There was the suggestion ones, and I believe it is legal, basically, to do so on the Continent, such as in Germany, to actually remove all unnecessary packaging and leave same at the checkout.
My generation and the one immediately after me and definitely the ones before me seem to have been raised with the with the belief that the bounty of the Earth was inexhaustible, but it is not. Our children and children's children have had to learn this and that it needs to be guarded with care.
I have to say that the ethnic background of mine has taught me different from childhood and we never saw the resources of Mother Earth as infinite. To the Romani the Earth always was sacred and he only took as much as was sustainable to take, whether it was hazel rods for the making of pegs, or osiers for baskets, or what-have-you.
Mother Earth will recover from whatever we choose to do to it, of that I am certain. We only need to look at what She has survived the past. She has survived the Ice age, earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami, and whatever else. Mother Earth will survive and recover. Humankind, on the other hand, cannot survive if we continue to use up and squander our resources at the rate we have been and that we are still doing.
We need to reduce our use of the resources. We need to rediscover the simpler pleasures, so to speak. We also need to learn how to cook from scratch again instead of “ping” meals and such. There are so many things that we must do and living a more sustainable life is what, in the end, we must do.
It is small steps that, in the end, will lead us all to a new way of living, to a sustainable way of living, a way of living in harmony rather than enmity with Mother Nature. This is the only way for the humans to survive and thrive on this planet of ours. We only, folks, have one earth. This is, as far as we know, the only inhabitable planet suitable for human life and living. Let's not destroy it.
We have done enough damage to it already. However, we may be able to reduce and reverse it, to some extent. I do not, however, believe that we can reverse so-called “global warming” aka “climate change”. First of all the “warming” has stopped, according to research from Australia and the temperatures have plateaued out and have not risen, not even by fractions, for the last 4-5 years; a fact that the head of the IPCC had to admit to when challenged by the Australian scientists. However, “climate change”, I am certain, will continue, simply because, as it would appear to me, from the research that I have conducted, a cyclic phenomenon through which the earth goes every so many centuries. We will have to prepare and get used to the fact. This does not mean, however, that we should abandon the “green” agenda. Far from it. We must do more and more recycling, reusing, and re-crafting. The earth's resources are but finite.
If, as I believe, “climate change” is here to stay and it will get worse before it will drop down into a cold to very cold period – if this follows the standard pattern this cycle of the earth has always run – then we must do all those things and we must prepare for severe changes in our lives.
We also must get off our dependency on oil. How this can be done is another question and, probably, not one that we will answer in this essay here.
Being “green” is not and must not be a class things and something that people believe only those in the upper areas, from middle/upper-middle class upwards can do. Being “green” is not about spending money on green gadgets and gizmos but it is about a mindset, a way of life, a sustainable way of living.
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Post Title
→Is the very concept of being 'Green' class thing?
Post URL
→https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-very-concept-of-being-class-thing.html
Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
