Can I be an environmentalist and also enjoy vehicle dependant travel?

[DaveInDenver]

The definition of environmentalist is pretty fundamental, eh? I would call Martyn a conservationist. It's just so hard to pigeon hole anyone, but I think anyone who is willing to compromise and meet in the middle isn't an environmentalist in my spectrum.

I would see an environmentalist as someone who isn't willing to concede that vehicles are acceptable and puts the environment without (much) compromise first. It's probably pretty clear that I think environmentalism is an unachievable view of perfection in our reality. But I will give the respectful benefit to people who try and pursue that goal reasonably (i.e., I hate eco-terrorists, that is pointless IMO, and irrational people, but that is not limited to one political side). It is a noble goal and beneficial to the existance of humans. We need people who believe in an absolute and are willing to help make the rest of us aware of it.

My point is that a true environmentalist would not even consider driving a combustion powered vehicle as realistic. You do not need to drive to enjoy things, it's a convenience. So my conclusion is he should not even consider it. Whether or not the ideal environmentalist philosophy would allow the use of a bicycle or even shoes I think could be debatable. But I do think given the idea that even a small car takes orders more resources to build and maintain over other almost equally viable modes means that the choice would be not to drive if your higher goal is absolutely minimal impact.

Anyway, I see conservation as the realistic goal. Reduce, minimize and be good stewards, but not at the expense of closing off land and having absolutely zero use. Logging, mining, recreation, fishing are all uses of the land and in the process that can involve driving. So with vehicle use as a given, how you can minimize your impact is the goal. To 'conserve' what's good and beautiful. It's all a matter of semantics in the end, I think the prevailing philosophy here is one of getting after it, seeing and doing things, but with the notion of keeping the impact as low as is possible.

 

[Martyn]

The definition of environmentalist is pretty fundamental, eh? I would call Martyn a conservationist. It's just so hard to pigeon hole anyone, but I think anyone who is willing to compromise and meet in the middle isn't an environmentalist in my spectrum.

I would see an environmentalist as someone who isn't willing to concede that vehicles are acceptable and puts the environment without (much) compromise first. It's probably pretty clear that I think environmentalism is an unachievable view of perfection in our reality. But I will give the respectful benefit to people who try and pursue that goal reasonably (i.e., I hate eco-terrorists, that is pointless IMO, and irrational people, but that is not limited to one political side). It is a noble goal and beneficial to the existance of humans. We need people who believe in an absolute and are willing to help make the rest of us aware of it.

My point is that a true environmentalist would not even consider driving a combustion powered vehicle as realistic. You do not need to drive to enjoy things, it's a convenience. So my conclusion is he should not even consider it. Whether or not the ideal environmentalist philosophy would allow the use of a bicycle or even shoes I think could be debatable. But I do think given the idea that even a small car takes orders more resources to build and maintain over other almost equally viable modes means that the choice would be not to drive if your higher goal is absolutely minimal impact.

Anyway, I see conservation as the realistic goal. Reduce, minimize and be good stewards, but not at the expense of closing off land and having absolutely zero use. Logging, mining, recreation, fishing are all uses of the land and in the process that can involve driving. So with vehicle use as a given, how you can minimize your impact is the goal. To 'conserve' what's good and beautiful. It's all a matter of semantics in the end, I think the prevailing philosophy here is one of getting after it, seeing and doing things, but with the notion of keeping the impact as low as is possible.

Dave
You put it extremely well, by your definition I'm a conservationist. But we are not here to debate symantecs, I think we are here to spur people on to think about possibilities that will lower there impact on the environment, and to realize they can become part of the solution without giving up overlanding.

 

[Ursidae69]

The definition of environmentalist is pretty fundamental, eh? I would call Martyn a conservationist. It's just so hard to pigeon hole anyone, but I think anyone who is willing to compromise and meet in the middle isn't an environmentalist in my spectrum.

I think you are splitting hairs, but what does it matter I guess. Whatever floats your boat.

Martyn wants vehicle dependent examples. In my case I drive an old beater Honda civic with 260k miles that I paid a thousand bucks for last year that gets 38-40mpg. It has more than paid for itself and allows me to leave the Tacoma parked much of the time. I have hopes to swap in a diesel in my Taco after I roll past 250k or whenever the engine goes.

 

[DaveInDenver]

I think you are splitting hairs, but what does it matter I guess. Whatever floats your boat.

There are people who put the environment absolutely first over all else and there are people who don't. Since no one here is truly willing to sacrifice his way of life to have the absolute minimum achievable impact on the earth, then none of us are really environmentalists. We are conscious of our impact and that's fine, but we still drive vehicles that require tons of extracted or grown resources to build and use. pwc asked what is an environmentalist and I just posted what I thought one is. These are all just terms, a language to help explain what we think. I want to have an earth that sustains itself, but not at the expense of feeling guilty for being alive and doing stuff. So, no, I just don't think it's possible to be a vehicle supported environmentalist. There is a choice to significantly reduce our impact on the earth by not having an internal combustion vehicle, but yet we still have 'em.

 

[Ursidae69]

It is more than "splitting hairs" like I first thought, thanks for the reply. Point taken.

 

[DaveInDenver]

It is more than "splitting hairs" like I first thought, thanks for the reply. Point taken.

Does sound kind of political or religious, doesn't it? You are one of the most well respected members of this group and thought responding to your comments would be useful, since I think our opinions are probably are closer to the same view than not even though I'm probably not articulating them well.

 

[teotwaki]

Interesting points, I don't think we can do this cold turkey, but we also can't stick our heads in the sand like Ostriches (enough animal metaphors).

However we can make plans for our selves that will lower our impact on the environment such as:
Learn to drive with fuel economy in mind
Perform regular services for a clean burning engine
Work out the feasibility of doing a diesel conversion on a vehicle
Planning a second vehicle? make it a fuel efficient, or hybrid type

Making the change of mind set from;
"Well I've spent a lot of money on the vehicle, it's already used up a lot of energy to produce it, so I'm stuck with it for the foreseeable future", which is where I am coming from.

And moving to;
"How can I make less impact on the environment, what options are available right now, and what options look like they will be available soon" is a much healthier approach in my mind.

Having been in the first mindset for some years it left me with a feeling of being trapped and unable to do anything about the situation. Moving to the second mindset has given me hope and options, plus the ability to move forward. I feel now that given the right circumstances I can do something and make a difference.

So far so good... I went from a full sized 1989 Ford Bronco 5.8L V8 with a best mileage of 13MPG traveling straight and level without a heavy load to a Toyota 4Runner v6 4.0 liter with almost 20 MPG . Quite an improvement in fuel economy and I can carry about as much junk as before.

I respect signage where old roads are declared closed and I don't blaze new ones without good cause (hasn't happened yet).

Both new and old vehicles get excellent maintenance and the Bronco is always extremely low on the emissions measurements when smog tested.

But, that cranky old mindset says: my son needs a vehicle for limited travel for high school and related events. He is driving the Bronco until we need to take another chunk of our Earth's finite resources to produce a brand new car for minimal decrease in fuel expenses for a high school kid.

Like I said, produce a calculated crossover point for fuel economy, resources impact for a new vehicle and retiring the old vehicle and we'll talk. That is how to accurately predict options for the forseeable future and not just talk about vague healthy approach options. Even ripping out a perfectly good gas engine is still subject to the same crossover point. Don't do it to feel good or healthy, do it when it will actually benefit the environment.

To me an "environmentalist" is someone who lectures me about the "right" thing to do that makes them feel good or "healthy" but ignores cold hard economic facts or has no practical plan for implementing their dream world. I do not feel trapped or in a rigid state and have already changed from a "V-8s forever!" mode to "What will get the job done" mindset.

PS: No, the local bus service for my son is not an option, it SUCKS and yes, my son carpools or walks whenever possible. And I am enjoying the discussion no matter how much we might think that we disagree.

 

[DaktariEd]

The definition of environmentalist is pretty fundamental, eh? I would call Martyn a conservationist. It's just so hard to pigeon hole anyone, but I think anyone who is willing to compromise and meet in the middle isn't an environmentalist in my spectrum.

I would see an environmentalist as someone who isn't willing to concede that vehicles are acceptable and puts the environment without (much) compromise first. It's probably pretty clear that I think environmentalism is an unachievable view of perfection in our reality. But I will give the respectful benefit to people who try and pursue that goal reasonably (i.e., I hate eco-terrorists, that is pointless IMO, and irrational people, but that is not limited to one political side). It is a noble goal and beneficial to the existance of humans. We need people who believe in an absolute and are willing to help make the rest of us aware of it.

My point is that a true environmentalist would not even consider driving a combustion powered vehicle as realistic. You do not need to drive to enjoy things, it's a convenience. So my conclusion is he should not even consider it. Whether or not the ideal environmentalist philosophy would allow the use of a bicycle or even shoes I think could be debatable. But I do think given the idea that even a small car takes orders more resources to build and maintain over other almost equally viable modes means that the choice would be not to drive if your higher goal is absolutely minimal impact.

Actually I disagree. You can be an environmentalist, not just a conservationist. They are different, and neither is mutually exclusive:

"Environmentalism is a concern for the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment, such as the conservation of natural resources, prevention of pollution, and certain land use actions. It often supports the struggles of indigenous peoples against the spread of globalisation to their way of life, which is seen as less harmful to the environment.

The term environmentalism is associated with other modern terms such as greening, environmental management, resource efficiency and waste minimization, and environmental responsibility, ethics and justice (Bhattacharya, 2004)."​

And...

"The conservation movement is a political and social movement that seeks to protect natural resources including plant and animal species as well as their habitat for the future.

The early conservation movement included fisheries and wildlife management, water, soil conservation and sustainable forestry. The contemporary conservation movement has broaden from the early movement's emphasis on use of sustainable yield of natual resources and preservation of wilderness areas to include preservation of biodiversity. The conservation movement is part of the broader and more far-reaching environmental movement."​

Both of these are from Wikipedia. And though not a definitive source, it is helpful to see the difference.

I see almost everyone I have met through ExPo as being an environmentalist, and I do include myself. An environmentalist is anyone who shows "concern for the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment." It does NOT imply extremism by any means.

Unfortunately, in our society, and perhaps in large part due to the mainstream media, we tend to see environmentalism as an extreme.

I would hope that we could change that bias and not only accept that we can be environmentalists, but perhaps CLAIM the right to called environmentalists!

I certainly shall....

:sombrero:
Ed

 

[teotwaki]

Ed had interesting points: one is to reclaim the meaning of "environmentalist", making it more inclusive and less the podium for the extreme whackos. I know that I definitely try to make "green" choices wherever I think that it makes sense.

For instance I have one synthetic fleece jacket that I finally had to replace after maybe 15 years. That kind of fleece comes from oil and is hard to recycle although Patagonia has started a program. I have tried the eco-fleeces from Patagonia, made from recycled plastic bottles but was disappointed.

 

[Ursidae69]

Does sound kind of political or religious, doesn't it? You are one of the most well respected members of this group and thought responding to your comments would be useful, since I think our opinions are probably are closer to the same view than not even though I'm probably not articulating them well.

Thanks Dave, appreciate that. I think it is sort of political now that you mention it due to the way certain words get connotations associated with them in our society. Ed made some really great points too. I really enjoy the way issues are thoughtfully debated here at ExPo.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Well, I don't disagree with Ed or any of this. I'm just wondering how we'd define 'conservationist' in that frame. I also want to make the point that my definition of environmentalist is mine, not a political one per say. And I'm not against having a very far left philosophy with respect to the environment. I guess that would be a 'greenie' in the current thread, but I think that term is much too politically loaded to even be useful. I don't think it's a bad thing to be an environmentalist, even if I don't strictly consider myself one in my broadly stroked generalizations. By that I mean I think someone who is above all concerned with the environment can't (again this is MY definition) think anything that isn't naturally powered could be acceptable. Just like someone to the presumed philosophical opposite couldn't imagine changing their life to live closer to work or the market so that they could walk to do their errands. So I prefer the term conservationist for myself. I don't have a problem with mining or power plants or the like, if the ends justify the means and it's all done within the context of reduce, reuse, recycle.

 

[Martyn]

Great responses from everyone, it's really though provoking. When you sit and think of these issues by yourself you don't get this amazing input.

These are complex issues and everyone has there own take on them. My concerns have revolved around my families need for 4X4 vehicles to get around in the snow during the winter, and of course how much can I afford to put my ideas into reality.

We do need to educate ourselves on the technology so we can make wise decisions that will effecting us and our children.

It's this technological knowledge that I'm seeking so I don't make a decision out of ignorance.

Thanks again for your input. When I posted on this issue I had the terrible feeling that people would read it and not reply.

 

[DesertRose]

Just throw a VW 1.9 TDi into Grendel. Efficient and cool all at once.

:sombrero: Actually, we've been discussing that!

 

[DesertRose]

Frankly folks, threads like these make me so happy Exedition Portal is out there - where else on the net can such thoughtful, intelligent discourse take place: agreement/disagreement and education, without rancor, tantrums, or lockerroom/barroom language? Bless you.

Although I want to get back to Martyn's original desire with this thread - to discuss the solutions to our obviously shared dilemmas - I would like to comment on the semantic debate (conservationist vs. environmentalist).

I think the debate stems from the fact that us First World humans are so far removed from the environment - the place where our resources for living come from, such as food, building and transportation materials, clothing - that we are now confused about our place in it. Hence the desire to explore it and protect it, for some of us - but for many people now, it's just a place to exploit.

Long ago in our human history, all people's survival was directly tied to the environment. Humans evolved from and lived within the "wildernesses" of this Earth. [Aside: don't confuse this with the modern palliative belief that any humans ever lived or live in "harmony" with Nature - didn't happen, 'cept on Disney - because since man stood up, he's been trying to dominate or even destroy the environment before it killed him; difference today is that we now have the technological means to kill it entirely.]

Instead of growing and killing our food, building our own transport conveyances, making our clothes, we now have other people do it for us. Early people had to know, understand, respect, and manage the environment to survive. Before population exploded and resource use became so lopsided, "protecting" the environment wasn't as important as protecting oneself. But modern life and pressures on wild places gave birth to words like Conservationist and Environmentalist.

Where the heck am I going with all this? Ack! Let me get another cup of caffeine . . .

Okay. I really believe we all have a genetic memory of Wilderness, and many of us feel an affinity for wild places and things. Our current lives divorce us from those things.

But it's just not possible or practical or worth even considering turning back any clocks or saying that to be an environmentalist today means shunning modern inventions.

So that brings us FINALLY (sorry) back to Martyn's excellent plea: HOW can we minimize our impact and still be what we are: Modern humans.

- I think, but haven't done the research to actually know, that I'm more resource-neutral if I don't buy a spankin new vehicle but replace my current one with a used one (ie - resources already exploited).

- But what about fuel economy? Aren't modern engines less polluting? My research so far is showing modern cars are less polluting but are back to using more fossil fuels - since when was 20mpg consider good rating!???)

- I want to support alternative fuels, but not things like Ethanol, which are made from food. Maybe I can find out more about supporting companies that are making Biodiesel (and stopping subsidies and trade restrictions that make it impossible for these companies to compete . . . okay, stop laughing now).

Are there any other things I can do? (I don't need to worry about commuting - I work at home, but on the other hand, my work twice or so a year takes me halfway around the world on a jumbo jet - but does sharing the jet with 150 other people let me count that as carpooling?:ylsmoke: )

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

It's probably easier to define the term "anti-environmentalist" than "environmentalist." And the antis have done a smashing job of PR by instilling in the public mind the vision of an "environmentalist" as either a dreadlocked, smelly anarchist smashing car windows at economic summit meetings, or a rich Harvard-educated liberal telling everyone else how to live their lives.

Personally (again we're talking individual definitions) I don't think you can call yourself a conservationist without being an environmentalist. You can "support" conservation all you like - even with cash donations - but if you don't make personal choices that support the goal, you're not walking the walk. Reference the recent thread about Ed Abbey.

I feel that I'm pretty generous in my definition of an environmentalist: It's anyone who truly thinks about his impact on the earth, and tries consciously to minimize it. That can be done in a thousand ways, and along a scale that has a broad grey area. Personally I would not say that someone with a 5,000-square-foot home and two heat pumps who installs a solar hot water heater can claim to be an environmentalist, but others might disagree. And what if that same person works from home and doesn't even own a car?

Likewise, what about an enthusiastic overlander with a Ford F350 with a V10 gas engine and a cab-over camper who does 10,000 backcountry miles per year? Not an environmentalist? What if that person lives in a 1,000-square-foot house built of recycled materials, totally solar powered, grows his own vegetables and hunts his own meat, and bicycles to work every day? As others have said, it's all about balance. And that's a good thing, as it gives us many choices and options to contribute meaningfully to the goal of preserving open space, wildlife, and clean air and water.

Despite my own definition of environmentalism, I wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim that I'm doing more good for the world by living in a solar-powered cottage than someone with a 10,000-square-foot mansion who writes a $100,000 check annually to grass-roots conservation groups. I'm strictly talking about what one's conscience tells one when you're lying in bed wondering if your life is an honorable life.

The whole issue of "carbon credits" has gone bonkers and silly, but it would be great if somone invented a simple calculator that would add up the joules or kilocalories or something of all the energy an individual uses in his or her daily activities.

One thing not yet discussed, unless I missed it, is global population. Paul Ehrlich wasn't wrong with The Population Bomb, his timing was just off by a few decades. We cannot continue to fill the earth with humans and have any hope of preserving open space; it's a mathematical impossibility. fortunately the growth curve is showing signs of tapering off sooner than many feared.

Incidentally, this is one of those threads that makes Expedition Portal stand head and shoulders above the average 4x4 website.