Scott and Carrie's 1989 Ford E250 and Forbidden Dreadnoughts

Yeah I was thinking about that too and I'm still not seeing it. They have 10ish k in bikes on the back and she is in a pair of $200 blundstones. I'm making assumptions again but I assume they have enough disposable income to factor environmental aspects into the decision making process. 

I'm probably reading too much into this..

Please log in to leave a comment.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook

> British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life – going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling – is largely responsible for heating the globe.

Please log in to leave a comment.

We have a similar "old White" camper, albeit much more fuel economical than a 7.3 diesel. Our 42-year-old 2.0L engine stinks when not tuned correctly (done with an allen key in the parking lot), drips oil when the valve cover gaskets slip (more often than you'd think), and never had a cat (except the two which jump around the inside with us).

The amount of driving we do in Fritz is infinitesimally small compared to the milage we would have to put on to justify the cost of a new Sprinter, the financial impact of a van that sits in the carport 90% of the time justifies it for us. One less vehicle in the scrapyard, one less being mined out of the earth.

I just wish he wasn't rusting away slowly.

Please log in to leave a comment.

Perhaps.

The government has a good overview of Canadian emissions summarized in various ways. I just glanced at the data and maybe someone with more expertise in this field can correct me, but if you look at per capita emissions for Canadians they are being reported as a portion of the aggregate industrial emissions of the whole economy. This includes both domestic use (like heating homes) and export. I suspect in a country with a geographically diffuse population in a cold climate and economically reliant on natural resources that consumer behavior is a drop in the bucket. Or, because we're talking about gasses, a fart in the greenhouse. Despite that, some of the recent talk in the bike industry about its environmental impact is encouraging. The thought of all those carbon bikes in the landfill when their axles and bottom brackets become obsolete pisses me off.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Please log in to leave a comment.

My point is that by thinking that you can participate in our society in any way whatsoever and make a difference to the trajectory that this planet is on WRT environmental collapse is actually burying your head in the sand.

Please log in to leave a comment.

@Tashi:

This assessment sounds a lot more realistic to me, and a bit fatalistic also. 

In geologic times human society will (most certainly) be a mere blink (which could mean a couple hundred thousand years or a couple hundred million years).  Like several organisms/systems of organisms which "dominated" earth for longer or shorter periods in the past 4.5 billion years, we humans affect our environment as a species. Like them we will be extinct at some point or changed so much that we probably wouldn't register our far descendants as humans. (maybe A.I. will be our heritage?) 

If we look at a human timescale rather than a geological one however, I'm sure there are some people in the world who'd argue for or even benefit, if we made sure that the planet won't be largely inhabitable for humans in the next 30-50 years. Every year, decade, century or millennium we postpone this state would be a win (especially for posterity and people who still want to live).  

Why isn't that an argument for living/milking the moment in the sense, why care, we are fucked anyway? 

Because we can greatly influence the rate at which we degrade our habitat and there are new ways, means and systems (not ONLY technological) which were never available before and might offer solutions or prolong the inevitable (remember, in geological timescales). 

I also believe that human consciousness and ability to reflect, morals, scientific and social progress should be a motivation to try and make things better. 

Imagine if everybody in the 18th century would have accepted slavery, hunger, disease, (religion ;-)) or the absence of human rights as inevitable and as a consequence would have given up. There'd be no bikes today, illegal trail builders would be hanged or quartered and for what it's worth, my life would have been a lot worse for that alone. 

We as consumers and individuals form society, economy and global populace and I therefore am of the decided opinion that we can influence or at least try to influence the direction we/it/this is going, however small that individual influence might or might not be. 

I am not trying to convert/brainwash anyone here, I DO enjoy the conversation and find it remarkable, that the tone stays polite even with this topic, which is a big compliment for the NSMB audience not many online communities warrant!

Please log in to leave a comment.