The duty of wealth and 'green consumerism'

[Andy Hunt]

I have been thinking, if you accept some basic premises, namely:

a) that all remaining fossil fuels will be extracted and used in some way by humanity

and

b) that consumer capitalism will remain the global system of allocation of resources until it collapses and is replaced with local economies

then that gives everyone who has any money a responsibility to decide what happens to the remaining resources in the way they spend their money.

It's the 'green consumerism' vs the 'consume less' debate. If we just consume less, all that means is that the remaining fossil fuel resources are more likely to be allocated to making crap, burned in vehicles etc etc.

But instead of consuming less, if we make sure that all the spare cash we have is spent on things like solar panels, insulation, greenhouses etc etc, then we are ensuring that some of the remaining fossil fuel resources are being allocated to things which will have some long-term use after they run out.

So in a way, we all have a duty to spend as much as we can practically afford on these things, and keep as little in the bank as possible. Which might turn out to be a wise move anyway in view of the way banks and money are going just at the minute.

What do people think? Does this make sense?

[stumuz]

Andy, you make some very salient points.

Using money to make a point is far more omnipotent than most people realise, in fact I would think it has more political participation value than voting or getting involved in politics.
The reason for this is the fact that of the 100 largest economies in the world 51 are corporations only 49 are countries.
IBM is bigger than Venezuela, Sony is bigger than Pakistan, and Chrysler is bigger than Poland.
If the life bloods of these corporations have to change their business model they will do it. Pretty damn quick.

[bobthebaker]

Indeed it does make sense but we live in a nonsensical society

[SunnyJim]

I have been thinking, if you accept some basic premises, namely:

a) that all remaining fossil fuels will be extracted and used in some way by humanity

and

b) that consumer capitalism will remain the global system of allocation of resources until it collapses and is replaced with local economies

then that gives everyone who has any money a responsibility to decide what happens to the remaining resources in the way they spend their money.

It's the 'green consumerism' vs the 'consume less' debate. If we just consume less, all that means is that the remaining fossil fuel resources are more likely to be allocated to making crap, burned in vehicles etc etc.

But instead of consuming less, if we make sure that all the spare cash we have is spent on things like solar panels, insulation, greenhouses etc etc, then we are ensuring that some of the remaining fossil fuel resources are being allocated to things which will have some long-term use after they run out.

So in a way, we all have a duty to spend as much as we can practically afford on these things, and keep as little in the bank as possible. Which might turn out to be a wise move anyway in view of the way banks and money are going just at the minute.

What do people think? Does this make sense?

These are good points. I've been thinking about this since you posted. The conclusion that I've come to is that the greenest thing I can do is to borrow as much as possible (re-mortgage etc etc) and spend the money on greenhouses, boreholes, solar panels, wooden hand tools, hand carts etc etc. These things will then be in existance even after my debt has been written off..... of course I would risk loosing the house, but ethically I'd be on solid ground.

Something in me just can't do it though.... got to get the debt paid back.... it eats away at you doesn't it?

I am however planning to spend money on renewables. Vaccuated solar tube, thermal store, plumbing to connect a rayburn (second hand I'm afraid), more insulation etc etc. After that, I think rather than try to spend on green stuff, I will try to earn less, and generate less money in the economy. Doing this will make all the resources last longer. The faster we deplete them then the worse it's going to be when they dry up?

[cake]

all makes perfect sense to me if you have any money to spare.

if however you have debt i guess aiming to get that as small as possible makes more sense, if only from the point of view that having a roof over your head would be pretty important...?