The Ultimate in ‘Downshifting’
Proving that you can make anything fashionable in the name of environmental awareness, the neo-socialist Australia Institute identifies the latest in inner-city environmental trends, ‘skip-dipping:’
IT IS supposed to be the domain of the destitute and desperate, but scavenging through other people’s rubbish is emerging as a favourite pastime of well-heeled city dwellers.
Research by the Australia Institute suggests the practice of searching through bins for unused food, clothing and household goods, known as “skip dipping”, is becoming popular among well-educated professionals sick of contributing to increasing landfill.
Interviews by the Australia Institute conducted between December and February revealed that people of all ages and from all walks of life, including computer programmers, designers, public servants and retirees, do their shopping in other people’s bins.
Scavenging through other people’s garbage is a logical extension of the ‘downshifting’ to a less affluent lifestyle favoured by the Australia Institute. Indeed, if the Institute were ever to get its way, many more people could look forward to living out of garbage bins, although more out of necessity than environmental awareness.
(via Catallaxy)
posted on 18 February 2006 by skirchner
in Economics
(6) Comments | Permalink | Main
|
Comments
Yes, its all very funny to poke fun at those crazy greenies isn’t it! Then again, if the predictions of mainstream climate scientists are only half right we will all be forced to ‘downshift’ our energy-hungry lifestyles in coming decades.
Question: If climate change is real (you probably dispute this) and fossil-fuel energy continues to be reasonably plentiful and inexpensive, how can a market economy stop us following this self-destructive path?
Another question (completely off topic):
If there’s a global over supply of steel and Chinese steel producers have their margins cut to the bone, why is the price of coking coal and iron ore continuing to rise?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/20 at 09:43 AM
It is interesting that many forms of recycling notionally make climate change worse: biodegradable plastics produce greenhouse gases; recycling can be very energy intensive. Landfill looks like an environmentally harmless option in comparison.
The main issue as I see it in relation to climate change is whether human activity really makes a significant difference relative to other factors, such as naturally occuring sources of C02. Attempts at reducing emissions might make no difference in the end. The costs of reducing emissions today are known with much greater certainty than the future benefits, which could be negligible, even if you think climate change is a reality.
Posted by skirchner on 02/20 at 01:02 PM
I agree that living out of garbage bins isn’t going to fix climate change, but if you accept the mainstream scientific view that global warming is real, and that humans burning fossil fuels is the primary cause, what can we do about it?
Lets suppose human-induced global warming is proven beyond doubt over the next decade. How can a market economy be engineered to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Saying its too expensive in the short term and might make no difference in the end is a non-answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/20 at 01:17 PM
There’s an interesting convergence of views from the left and the right on the need for alternative energy sources going on in America at the moment. Of course, Bush is motivated by “energy security” rather than global warming, nevertheless, the greenies and the neocons finally find themselves in agreement on something.
If Bush continues down this path, where will this leave the greenhouse skeptics like Australia?
President Discusses Advanced Energy Initiative In Milwaukee
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060220-1.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/21 at 11:07 PM
Australia is more accurately charaterised as a Kyoto skeptic rather than a greenhouse skeptic. The federal environment minister and government policy pretty much take GW as a given.
Posted by skirchner on 02/22 at 01:57 PM
Kyoto skeptic then. Outside of Ian Campbell (who seems to have had a conversion recently) I don’t think there’s anyone in the Howard government who actually believes that global warming is real and should be policy priority, not in the way (say) Tony Blair does.
I mean, they spent more advertising Work Choices than they committed at the recent Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development talkfest in Sydney. Clearly this government does not see climate change as the greatest challenge facing humanity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/22 at 02:28 PM