While I haven't watched the documentary in question, I can tell you that most serious environmentalists are fully aware that the only way to combat climate change and resource depletion is a worldwide, systemic change in how humans live and do business. This includes renewable energy, reduction of consumption, massive increases in recycling and repairable goods, smarter use of existing freshwater supplies and farming practices that are less dependent on irrigation and nitrogen fertilizers.
@ministashy , thanks for the link to the post comparing IFR and TWR. That was interesting.
Environmentalists claim to be aware, in theory at least, of a need to reduce consumption but, in reality, almost no one I know is willing to make any meaningful, personal lifestyle changes. Friends who claim to be environmentalists insist on driving everywhere - even very short distances of <1 mile, over flat terrain, in beautiful weather, when they're not carrying anything besides their cellphones.
At the risk of falling into the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, I have to question whether the folks you are talking to are truly environmentalists, or just think they are because they throw their recyclables into the pretty blue bin with the triangle on it? On the one hand, we all have our sins--no one is going to be perfect, especially in a high-carbon-footprint country like the U.S., where you could be homeless and still do more damage to the environment than someone living elsewhere--but if someone claims to be an environmentalist, but then refuses to change their lifestyle in any material way to address the looming spectre of climate change and environmental degradation, I'd give them the same side-eye as I would someone claiming to be Mustachian who consistently outspends their income and claims it's 'impossible to save'.
There's a lot of folks who want the warm fuzzy feeling of 'doing something for the planet', but have never actually looked into what the real issues are or arranged their lives around mitigating that harm as much as is reasonably possible, given their circumstances. I wouldn't condemn these folks--it's against human nature to go against what you see everyone else around you doing, and modern first world nations are insanely wasteful, the U.S. especially so--but at the same time, I'm not going to give them a gold star, either. I just try to get them to consider other options when and where I can, and do what I can to make environmentally friendly (or less damaging) decisions within my circle of control.
Agreed, shaming people who don't live up to an arbitrary definition of "environmentalist" is not a very productive use of time. I try to do the best I can, while keeping in mind that others are, hopefully, doing the same. I always tell people "It's fine to do
anything you want, just not
everything." For example, it's okay to drive a Hummer if that's what makes you happy. Just don't drive it very much. It's fine to live in a big house if you want. Just make sure the big house is close to your work, so you can walk and leave your Hummer parked in the driveway. I have a friend who lives in Seattle who, every winter, flies to Switzerland to go skiing for a long weekend. Some people get on his case about that, since he also claims to be an "environmentalist," but I think it's pointless to attack individuals for doing things that they love that make them happy.
If, as a society, we decided that we really wanted to make a difference, we would institute something like a carbon tax that would make it much, much more expensive for Americans to continue consuming as much as we do now. That way, people who wanted to drive their Hummer 1/2 mile to the grocery store, or who liked to fly to Switzerland for the weekend, would have to pay real money to do that, and others, who made more moderate choices in their lives would be the net benefactors of those choices, because they would get a check in the mail, every month or whatever, and the people who were emitting more carbon would end up paying for closer to the real cost of their lifestyle choices.
Even a pretty mild carbon tax like they've been trying out in Canada seems to get a lot of push back, though. Making goods and services more expensive means people consume less of them, which is what we should want, but it's also seen as being "bad for the economy." It just seems to me like no matter what we do as individuals, it's not really going to make much of a difference. If a small group of people who think of themselves as environmentalists start consuming less of something, say fuel, the price will drop a little bit, and other people will take that as a signal that they should buy bigger SUVs and start driving them more.
