Do you feel that your consumption habits hurt the environment?

[CBC News]

Canadians scored dismally in a 14-country survey on enviromentally friendly consumption patterns, in part owing to a widespread car culture and a penchant for big homes.
The survey, which was released Wednesday, was conducted by the polling firm GlobeScan for the National Geographic Society. Canada finished ahead of the United States but behind Brazil, India, China, Mexico, Hungary, Russia, Great Britain, Germany, Australia, Spain, Japan and France.
One thousand consumers from each of the 14 countries completed the online survey about their consumption patterns between Jan. 11 and Feb. 13. Participants answered questions about housing, transportation, food and their purchasing habits and were given a score out of 100. Government action and industry were not assessed.
The researchers acknowledged that financial and cultural circumstances may have influenced the rankings, with developing countries scoring well. But, they argued consumers everywhere can choose to be more environmentally friendly in their consumption habits.
Full story
Do you feel that your consumption habits hurt the environment?


More...

 

[#juan]

My home is very well insulated right down to the double-glazed, thermally broken, window units. Living in Canada we have to use the heating system occasionally. We do what we can to limit our energy consumption.

Canada would suffer regardless on this type of poll because of where we live and the countries competing against us. How much heat do they use in Spain? or Mexico? Or Brazil?

 

[karrie]

We recycle.

We just renovated the entire exterior of the house with Krona house wrap, new siding, new triple glazed windows.

We live in a small house... no unnecessary heating of unnecessary space.

In the winter we bring paints and glues in from the garage rather than heating it just to keep a vehicle and some paint cans warm.

We own only one vehicle, and I don't work so I don't drive much.

We try to buy bulk and avoid excess packaging.

We don't eat junk food or drink soda constantly, so the mass amounts of packaging are a non-issue here.

I think in comparison to other Canadians our consumption habits are very low.

 

[Walter]

Polls schmolls; they didn't ask me so I could care less what the polls say, especially when they are designed to make me feel guilty and not as aware of things than other people.

 

[Sal]

Do you feel that your consumption habits hurt the environment?

Of course some of mine do. I drive an SUV as that is what I feel safest driving. Others on the road are safer because I am then a calmer less stressed driver. That may hurt the environment.....oh well.....

My abode is environmentally friendly as it is an apartment condo......less heat waste, less space used etc.

I have no kids so did not add polluters to the environment...lol.

I do add a lot of plastic. I think my footprint is smaller than most, but could be even smaller. I have absolutely no inclination to make it so.

Sue me.

 

[Zzarchov]

Perhaps, but as a non-breeder I have two thoughts:

1.) I pretty much automatically have a smaller footprint on this earth than most of those countries because my consumption doesn't exponentially expand into new generations.

2.) As Canadians we have a low enough population density to get away with consuming more.


The earth doesn't "care" about how many people your country contains, just the status of the land within in. Density counts, numbers don't.

 

[MikeyDB]

Zzarchov

Do you really belive that one's "national-affiliation" influences the condition of a planet?

 

[Zzarchov]

No, I don't.

I believe the population of the whole planet (ie, its density) matters.

Since this article is cutting people in nations and comparing consumption between them, I say you must also compare density.

While if everyone lived like Canadians do, they may use 10 or even 20 times as much resources..

But when we compare India to Canada , we see India has 336 people per KM2 and Canada has only 3.2 people per KM2

So if the world TRULY lived like Canada, it would be fine. Because India would have about 1% of the population, and thus plenty of resources to live like Canadians (hell they could have 100 times the consumption they do now and come out net equal).


So while national boundries don't matter to the earth, they do when you compare lifestyles. Because its not about how many resources is used VS how many people, its about how many resources are used VS how many resources are available for use.

 

[MikeyDB]

Zzarchov

OK I'm confused.... There have been more automobiles running in North America than anywhere else in the world for a very long time. The air quality of San Diego is at times quite similar to the air quality over Bejing ..... So now I'm to believe that we all (all nations and all people) don't share the same envelope of nitrogen oxygen and so on...?

 

[darkbeaver]

The CBC is bad for the environment.

 

[Unforgiven]

Check up yer ass for my footprint! heh heh

If this was supposed to be any other way we wouldn't live, support and embellish consumerism at all. I can open a seemingly sterile box of Kleenex, blow the snot out of my beck and toss it in a landfill. No fuss no muss. If anyone really didn't want me to drive around in a gas guzzler, they would quit making so much profit off of it. Make no mistake, a lot of people died for that oil, and all the products that come from it.

Every time nature figures out a way to limit our footprint on the earth, we find a way around it. I say the best thing we can do for this planet is go wild, use it all and let the chips fall where they may. With luck, we will wipe our own numbers out to the extent we won't be able to create another culture of greed based society and again live within the means of our resources.

 

[Zzarchov]

Zzarchov

OK I'm confused.... There have been more automobiles running in North America than anywhere else in the world for a very long time. The air quality of San Diego is at times quite similar to the air quality over Bejing ..... So now I'm to believe that we all (all nations and all people) don't share the same envelope of nitrogen oxygen and so on...?

What leads you to believe that?

I've very clearly said the same amount of air is available regardless of how many people are on the planet. Ergo, seperating who gets how much based on people is a faulty way to do things, as that simply encourages one to indulge in the habit of producing more and more children and letting other people handle the problem you create.


Seeing as we live in nations which are split not by people, but by percentages of the earths land, air and sea (aka, borders) it would seem to me that regardless of how much a nation consumers per person, all that matters is do they consume more than their region has to offer.

If you are polluting more than the airspace above your nation can handle, regardless of how many people that represents, then you are taking a larger share of the pie then you are entitled to.

Its not nearly as complicated as you are trying to make it seem. We can have more automobiles and still use less resources, because we have less people.

Fewer people, means fewer resources going to the neccessities means more resources for luxury.

 

[Stretch]

Do you feel that your consumption habits hurt the environment?

No I dont. I drive an old '79 ford pickup....it doesnt need an over paid "tecknition" with a 'putor that runs on 'lectricity to tell me I need new sparkplugs, etc. I can tell that myself just by removing them and looking at them. That alone saves me money and the 'viroment, because the mint, which uses 'lectricity to print money doesnt need to print the 70 bucks the tek wanted to tell me that. I dont eat mcdonalds, I dont drink timmies or any other crap that comes in a package that seems to end up on the side of the road.
I saw an arsehole toss kfc crap out of his car window the other day, If I could've got past the timmies transport that was belching out black diesel fumes in front of me I would've rear-ened the prick..........but thats just me

 

[karrie]

Do you feel that your consumption habits hurt the environment?

No I dont. I drive an old '79 ford pickup....it doesnt need an over paid "tecknition" with a 'putor that runs on 'lectricity to tell me I need new sparkplugs, etc. I can tell that myself just by removing them and looking at them. That alone saves me money and the 'viroment, because the mint, which uses 'lectricity to print money doesnt need to print the 70 bucks the tek wanted to tell me that. I dont eat mcdonalds, I dont drink timmies or any other crap that comes in a package that seems to end up on the side of the road.
I saw an arsehole toss kfc crap out of his car window the other day, If I could've got past the timmies transport that was belching out black diesel fumes in front of me I would've rear-ened the prick..........but thats just me

driving a 79 in and of itself means you're having a bad impact.

 

[Stretch]

in what way?

 

[Stretch]

how much "energy" was consumed to produce todays F150 compared to my ol' '79 .... and while you're wonding about that....wonder how much "energy" is consumed to dispose of todays F150 as apposed to my '79 ....mine will still be going when todays F150 has been recycled into a prius

 

[karrie]

how much "energy" was consumed to produce todays F150 compared to my ol' '79 .... and while you're wonding about that....wonder how much "energy" is consumed to dispose of todays F150 as apposed to my '79 ....mine will still be going when todays F150 has been recycled into a prius

Okay, you have a point there, but how does it compare to the higher fuel consumption and worse emissions?

 

[Stretch]

if our "elected" officials had the guts to tell the oil companies to clean up their fuel, then we wouldnt have the need for "emissions" crap on our vehicles....but then there would be no taxes for our "elected" officials via gst/pst etc on everything from "resetting" that damn pesky "check engine" light to a catalytic convertor....not to mention our over paid "teknitions" with their 'lectric 'putors.........

 

[Tonington]

I don't even think you can separate it by resources consumed in one nation by it's citizens. Manufacturing centers like Southeast Asia are consuming more resources than they can sustainably use, not just because of their population density and their own consumption of resources, but also to meet the demands of people living out of their borders. That's what you get when you complete a poll that fails to recognize both government action and industry. A corporation's footprint is equally as important, and goes beyond the borders of the country where the headquarters, or even distribution centers are found. It extends to it's world-wide base of customers.

How do you divvy up the weight when we can offshore our behaviour? Buying a pair of sneakers made in China from the local Wal-mart or athletic store, with rubber produced in Indonesia, and cotton coming from Pakistan is adding to that nations footprint. But it isn't the behaviour of Chinese, Indonesian, or Pakistani citizens who are consuming that resource. It's our consumption patterns, and various government trade agreements that contribute to the resource usage that isn't properly accounted for, which really underscores the complexity of a global market, and the failures of simple analysis.

This is an equally good parallel to the world grain fiasco, and how consumption patterns elsewhere end up hitting those with the least amount of responsibility in the most punitive fashion.

 

[gerryh]

if our "elected" officials had the guts to tell the oil companies to clean up their fuel, then we wouldnt have the need for "emissions" crap on our vehicles....but then there would be no taxes for our "elected" officials via gst/pst etc on everything from "resetting" that damn pesky "check engine" light to a catalytic convertor....not to mention our over paid "teknitions" with their 'lectric 'putors.........

over paid technicians? How do you figure that?