I Probably Need to be Kicked Out of the Group

[Alex321]

"reducing one's environmental impact is important for the future of humanity"

People always say "reducing," but what does that even mean? Can I drive a Hummer for a year, and if I shift down to an MDX, I can cite that as a huge reduction and call it good?

Reducing impact from what, to what?

Truly the worst argument for doing nothing to change.

Do you refuse to cut your spending because no one tells you what your current spending level is and what it should be?

I don't need to cut my spending, but if I did, then there would be actual numbers to calculate like, in order to spend X annually by Y date I'll need to save Z per month.

It certainly wouldn't do to just say "reduce!"

[Digital Dogma]

IMO, its good to be aware of the impact you're having on other people when you make certain decisions. Most people have no concept of how much waste they produce, whether that comes from wasted energy consumption in their home, or wasted energy consumption due to inefficient transportation. They consider that their obligation goes as far as paying the bill to consume, not taking into consideration the waste stream they're generating in our atmosphere.

If you dislike the constant reminders of the environmental impact your transportation creates then consider a solution to the problem instead. It used to be socially acceptable to dump your used motor oil into a storm drain, because you never had to see the impact you were having on the environment, now we are more conscious and that act wouldn't cross our minds.

IMO its somewhat irritating to hear the same reminders of wasteful living go unheard, or peoples excuses in response. I believe its beyond time for a carbon tax, to remind people every single time they make a purchase that their waste has to be accounted for in the end. People don't like to consider how their emissions will be accounted for, they tend to think its free, IMO (and according to many very smart people who study this situation from an unbiased standpoint) we will have an extremely large bill to pay due to carbon emissions. We better start saving up for this shit now.

I am aware that by choosing to drive to work instead of bike to work, that I'm causing a costly problem to become worse. I'm aware that I will likely live long enough to see the consequences of these actions, but many older folks will not. I'd appreciate if everyone currently contributing to this problem is also contributing the $$$ to fix it in the future even if they won't be around to see the results/consequences.

[iris lily]

Meh, MMM uses a boatload of rationalization to justify his lifestyle, whether in working full time and calling himself retired or in writing off one international vacation after another as business expenses or in jetting around the globe and paying "carbon taxes" or in deciding that 1 kid (but not 2...or zero!) is the ideal number while decrying dog ownership or in urging everyone to avoid driving while owning multiple vehicles or living in a megahouse while preaching about resource consumption or other nonsense (there are too many examples to bother writing about).

Take the stuff that works for you and ignore the stuff that doesn't. There isn't a single person on this site who couldn't drastically reduce his or her impact, whether financially or environmentally; the entire approach is a spendypants one compared to, say, ERE. Find a balance that works for you and try to make the world a better place for the less fortunate.

Wait. What??? We are not supposed to own dogs?
Oh hell no, I am out of here.


Hahaha. As IF I will allow some mustached youngun who was not even born yet when I was honing my non-consumerist lifestyle to dictate to me my values.

We all have one life to live. Figuring out what you truly value and adjusting your life to that is what it is about. Most self actualized folks will recognize that service to  community or the earth or both in some way enriches their life. We don't need to be lectured about it.

[Shane]

It's not a religion. You don't have to believe in all the tenets of Mustachianism in order to remain part of the flock. If you think some of MMM's posts about saving the planet are over the top, you're welcome to disagree or just ignore them.

Only associating with people who share all of the same beliefs about life and the world would be pretty limiting, IMO. Isn't it more interesting to read a forum where you sometimes disagree completely with posts made by other members than to always agree with everything everyone else says?

[Alex321]

So I think I can stay, but I'll just consider myself a bad mustachian.

Thanks for the interesting replies.

[Shane]

A carbon tax might help.

That way people who choose to commute 45 miles each way to work in a big truck would pay their fair share of the costs associated with that behavior. I'm pretty sure driving to the grocery store in a Hummer or pulling a tube around a lake with a motor boat would become less enjoyable activities for most people if they had to pay the real costs.

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

[iris lily]

You think your carbon footprint is bad.

A couple of times a year I drive a few hours just to stay in a hotel and then the next two days drive around in a round about circular pattern over and over again burning through 5 tanks of gas and never actually get anywhere. Then I pack up my stuff and drive home.

I have no interest in stopping.

Dude, you re awesome!

Car freak here. I don't have cool cars only because I've chosen to save the money instead, but Lord do I love car shows.I like to look at them. Gee, as I think about it, I could easily be in MMM's good graces because in my perfect world I'd have a fleet or cars but would seldom drive them, I'd just pull them out of he garage and look at them.

[Alex321]

You think your carbon footprint is bad.

A couple of times a year I drive a few hours just to stay in a hotel and then the next two days drive around in a round about circular pattern over and over again burning through 5 tanks of gas and never actually get anywhere. Then I pack up my stuff and drive home.

I have no interest in stopping.

Dude, you re awesome!

Car freak here. I don't have cool cars only because I've chosen to save the money instead, but Lord do I love car shows.I like to look at them. Gee, as I think about it, I could easily be in MMM's good graces because in my perfect world I'd have a fleet or cars but would seldom drive them, I'd just pull them out of he garage and look at them.

I'm with you. I used to go to the car show every year, just to look. But I seem to have lost interest in them. Now I like boat shows.

[golden1]

I take it you don't shop at grocery stores because you don't buy every item in the shelf?

Seriously.  If you are looking for a forum or a blog that you agree with 100% of the time you have an option.  Write ti yourself.  If you are interested in other people's point of view, and maybe, just maybe opening your mind a little, stick around.  Sure, some people might judge you for not fitting the "mold" but I bet that is not the majority of this community. 

[acroy]

Hahaha this is an entertaining thread.
It's free learning. Agree or not, we can learn from it.
Personally I disagree with the chicken-little fear-monger evironMentalists (they have a 100% record of being incorrect for 100+yrs... but fear sells) and I'm doing my part to get all that trapped plant-food C02 back into the air where it belongs.
But I appreciate much of MMM's take on life: do the right thing, for the right reason, don't be a slave to luxury/stuff, have a plan, etc.

[TRBeck]

chicken-little fear-monger evironMentalists (they have a 100% record of being incorrect for 100+yrs... but fear sells)

Are you specifically referring to the issue of climate change here, or are you okay with all pollution?

[Midwest]

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

Shane - why are boating and trucks the whipping boys to some members here?  I use 35-45 gallons a month for my boat during the summer.  5 month season, maybe 200 gallons a year.  I use the boat a lot.  Most people with boats use them substantially less.

Commercial air travel gets 60-80 gallons per mile per passenger.  3 people 1300 mile round trip flight at 70 mpg (I saw averages ranging from 60-80 mpg on full flights) is 111 gallons.  If a 3 person family flies 2x a year, they use more gas than my boating habit.

We all  make decisions and have an impact.

[bacchi]

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

Shane - why are boating and trucks the whipping boys to some members here?  I use 35-45 gallons a month for my boat during the summer.  5 month season, maybe 200 gallons a year. 

Commercial air travel gets 60-80 gallons per mile per passenger.  3 people 1300 mile round trip flight at 70 mpg (I saw averages ranging from 60-80 mpg on full flights) is 111 gallons.  If a 3 person family flies 2x a year, they use more gas than my boating habit.

We all  make decisions and have an impact.

Shhh. Travel gets a free pass on this forum, especially if it's to an "exotic" location that has "boast" potential.

Shane's right, though. If we had a fair carbon tax, we could all put our money when our mouths are. I suspect he mentioned only boating and trucks because that's what much of this thread is about.

[Midwest]

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

Shane - why are boating and trucks the whipping boys to some members here?  I use 35-45 gallons a month for my boat during the summer.  5 month season, maybe 200 gallons a year. 

Commercial air travel gets 60-80 gallons per mile per passenger.  3 people 1300 mile round trip flight at 70 mpg (I saw averages ranging from 60-80 mpg on full flights) is 111 gallons.  If a 3 person family flies 2x a year, they use more gas than my boating habit.

We all  make decisions and have an impact.

Shhh. Travel gets a free pass on this forum, especially if it's to an "exotic" location that has "boast" potential.

Shane's right, though. If we had a fair carbon tax, we could all put our money when our mouths are. I suspect he mentioned only boating and trucks because that's what much of this thread is about.

Full disclosure, I'm not enamored with a carbon tax. 

Commercial air travel is a sacred cow to many posters.  Many posters continually deride (pun intended) boats and trucks while they take an Uber to the airport.

One of posters on here said, get an electric car to reduce footprint.  Seriously.  Manufacture of autos causes resource use.  Producing electricity causes resource use. My newest car is 8 years old.  Electric cars were in their infancy 8 years ago so whose taking better care of the planet?  I'll drive my old car less.

We all use resources.  Stop being holier than thou.  As I said previously, he's not clubbing baby seals.

I like my boat and plan to keep using it to waterski.  We have reduced full throttle runs down the lake and cruising.  Boat is located 200' from the lake which is 5 minutes from my office.  For an inefficient hobby, I'm pretty efficient in my use. 

Add one thing - I think MMM riding a bike around for most of his travels is awesome.  His lifehacks are fascinating.   Really an enjoyable and interesting read. 

I enjoy the other viewpoints on here for the most part as well.

[BookWorm22]

I am glad there are no official criteria for being kicked out of the group.  If so I would probably be booted too.  This place and MMM's blog are to me just vehicles to provoke thought.  Reading the blog and lurking on the boards have caused me to carefully consider each expense.  I still have expenses that are not necessary and could be cut, but I have consciously  made the decision to have them which is to me what the journey is all about.  Many people in this world are on auto pilot with spending because they always have and everyone around them does the same thing.  While I may not agree with MMM on everything I am certainly in a better financial position from his ideas.  The whole thing is a journey and what may sound outlandish to me now may make perfect sense a year from now.

[MMMarbleheader]

I live in New England and have family all over the region that we like to see regularly because it add a lot to our quality of life.

With that statement I

1) Even though I take public transport to work, use 20 x the gas MMM does
2) Pay at least double the taxes
3) More for electricity
4) More for heat
5) Eat out when visiting people.

But... there are still so much I can learn and have implemented already that will make me more financially successful. I actually thought about moving 50 miles away from a job because the COL was lower, I was going to get a company truck, and the time commuting was the same as public transport. Would MMM do that? Probably not. But for my family who is slightly less environmentally conscious it would have made our FI much closer.

[iris lily]

chicken-little fear-monger evironMentalists (they have a 100% record of being incorrect for 100+yrs... but fear sells)

Are you specifically referring to the issue of climate change here, or are you okay with all pollution?

dont answer, its a trap. 

:)

[Alex321]

chicken-little fear-monger evironMentalists (they have a 100% record of being incorrect for 100+yrs... but fear sells)

Are you specifically referring to the issue of climate change here, or are you okay with all pollution?

dont answer, its a trap. 

:)

LOL!

[kite]

A more like minded forum?  What about Money.cnn.com?
Sorry for the snark, but if you're into a financial website that encourages and endorses consumerism, there are plenty.  Alternatively, you could create your own echo chamber.
The question becomes, do you want a trophy for showing up, or do you want to be challenged to stretch yourself?  I don't agree with everything MMM preaches, but the stuff is thought provoking.  He is neither my spouse nor my priest, and I don't feel compelled to embrace everything he says.  Nor, do I feel compelled to point out where he's wrong or missing the big picture. 

It's a buffet with all the delicious food of Hawaii.  You'll still have a good time even if you never develop a taste for poi. 

[davisgang90]

I've always enjoyed reading MMM, and I agree with many of the Mustachian principles about extra saving and heavy investment early in life in order to kick start returns, but with his recent pivot toward low-carbon living, I'm thinking I really don't belong here any more.

Sure, we have our house paid off, and we save a little over half our income, but I drive about 45 miles to work, some of it over winding back roads, and I have no interest in moving. What's worse, we enjoy boating with waterskiing and tubing, and that burns a lot of gasoline. I like biking, too, but for me that's mountain biking which means I transport the bikes by car to whatever trails we want to ride.

I know MMM's response is to put a different address at the top of the browser. Before I show myself the door, I was wondering if people had recommendations for blogs that might be a better fit, and also, I wanted to say farewell.

Stick around.  Plenty of good here even if you don't quite buy in to everything MMM has to say.  I wasn't too thrilled with his recent articles either.  I read them and moved on.  If I had to pass a test to stay here based on my percent of income saved, cars owned etc., I'd be booted in a minute.

[somebody8198]

If you can't read something and get some value out of it without agreeing with every point that the author makes, I suspect you won't enjoy any online communities. I don't think there's a person on this planet that I agree with 100%. But MMM and the general "philosophy" of low-consumption still makes sense to me. I have found that life is easier when I focus on what I DO agree with others about rather than try to nitpick every ideological or philosophical position to death.

[Chris22]

If you can't read something and get some value out of it without agreeing with every point that the author makes, I suspect you won't enjoy any online communities. I don't think there's a person on this planet that I agree with 100%. But MMM and the general "philosophy" of low-consumption still makes sense to me. I have found that life is easier when I focus on what I DO agree with others about rather than try to nitpick every ideological or philosophical position to death.

But I think there's a difference, in that if the whole point is environmentalism, I'm not interested in reading an environmentalist blog.  I am interested in personal finance.  It's not a matter of disagreeing on a few points here or there, it's do I agree with the whole point of the blog or not?  Based on the last two blog posts, I'm leaning towards "or not."

[Ricky]

Eh...to each there own. I strictly save and invest because I enjoy it more than spending. I did it way before and will way after MMM. I personally don't care about the environment stuff yet I still am fairly low-waste. I save and work hard so that I can do whatever I want. I don't live by some stupid principle of only spending my money in certain ways or areas.

I think this is a strange thing to post, OP. It's not all or nothing. MMM isn't really a shining example of his own words either. I think his latest two posts are out of place, personally. He's putting off a very "do as I say, not as I do" mentality which is a bit off-putting in my opinion. Google "No Impact Man" and follow his story from the start till now. Reminds me a lot of MMM. You can say what you want, but every one of these "gurus" start out with the intention of making money from the beginning. Welcome to capitalism.

[SeanMC]

I like the forums better than the blog for many reasons - writing style, for starters.

As for the forum (which I lurked, then joined & still lurked and then finally started to post) - Pete (the person, not the MMM persona) has created this "meeting space" that is free for me to "visit" and get all sorts of ideas, learn more, share what I know, and support (or give support) to other people who may share some common values or goals with me in reducing consumerism, saving money, or just plain making things BETTER for themselves, however they define it. There are lots of ways to be, and I get good ideas and confidence from seeing that there is no "one way" to be frugal or enjoy life or reduce consumption or earn income or whatever.

I appreciate what I get out of the forums, even if Pete has monetized his site such that I'm more like a bar patron or tv viewer than a living room guest. If I go to Cheers because I like hanging out with Norm and being insulted by Carla, that doesn't mean I agree with everything Sam thinks, especially if no one expects me to buy a drink!

[Shwaa]

I am glad to see some of the replies here...showing not everyone is super "hardcore" with this MMM philosophy.  I was surprised  how much flack I got for driving a Tacoma (as my only car), but then again lots of other ppl chimed in saying there is nothing wrong with it.

The fact you save as much $$ as you do Alex, all the while still doing those other "things", is pretty cool in my book. 

[tobitonic]

Meh, MMM uses a boatload of rationalization to justify his lifestyle, whether in working full time and calling himself retired or in writing off one international vacation after another as business expenses or in jetting around the globe and paying "carbon taxes" or in deciding that 1 kid (but not 2...or zero!) is the ideal number while decrying dog ownership or in urging everyone to avoid driving while owning multiple vehicles or living in a megahouse while preaching about resource consumption or other nonsense (there are too many examples to bother writing about).

Take the stuff that works for you and ignore the stuff that doesn't. There isn't a single person on this site who couldn't drastically reduce his or her impact, whether financially or environmentally; the entire approach is a spendypants one compared to, say, ERE. Find a balance that works for you and try to make the world a better place for the less fortunate.

Wait. What??? We are not supposed to own dogs?
Oh hell no, I am out of here.


Hahaha. As IF I will allow some mustached youngun who was not even born yet when I was honing my non-consumerist lifestyle to dictate to me my values.

We all have one life to live. Figuring out what you truly value and adjusting your life to that is what it is about. Most self actualized folks will recognize that service to  community or the earth or both in some way enriches their life. We don't need to be lectured about it.

No! Dogs are a waste of resources!

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/09/07/great-news-dog-ownership-is-optional/

But yeah, what you said; figure out what you value and go for it, and along the way, you'll likely end up helping others, the planet, or both.

[retiringearly]

A) MMM is a persona that is played up.  It's a caricature.

B) I always take anybody, including MMM, with a grain... no rock of salt.  You should too.  Way too many people think they are the Keeper of the Ultimate Truth.

C) Just because you don't like everything that comes out, doesn't mean there's not a lot of good material.  Ignore what you think is BS, and move on to the other stuff.

D) The true UNDERLYING POINT I see of the blog is that a lot of the things that you think make you happy don't.  Just try going without those things you are completely against giving up for a trial period.  If you still miss them, go back to them, no big deal.  There's a good chance, though, you'll be surprised that you don't miss it. 

E) The math still works fine even if you're much less extreme than MMM.  You just have to be willing to work a little longer.

Agreed 100%

[GorgeousSteak]

I think he's just trying to get people to consider applying the MMM concepts to preserving the environment as well.  For me, theres kind of a higher unifying concept, which is to continually optimize everything important to you (not just money).  For me, the environment is important, I love being outside and in nature and I want my progeny to also be able to enjoy it also, so it doesn't take much to convince me to work a little harder at not polluting it.

I do agree that his attempt at justifying ecuador trips and whatnot is a little unsatisfying to me.  It seems kind of obvious to me that they should be doing these things in the US as it would cost less, pollute less, and require less travel time, a win win win as he would say.  As to the purchasing of carbon credits to offset it, that feels like a pretty hollow gesture, and feels like a way to allow people to justify their ridiculous pollution.

[CheapScholar]

I think very few people agree with MMM on everything - we all have our own views and philosophies.  I'm not sure MMM really changed me at all, I've always cared about the environment and struggled with the negative impact I have on the environment.  Everyone of us will be a net negative for the environment.  Searching the web and posting these replies uses energy, as the severs spin.  It took energy to produce these phones, computers and tablets.

I think the point is we should all strive to make some good decisions when it comes to our planet.  I'm really into composting to reduce my landfill waste.  I make sure we waste very little food.  Honestly. I'm not 100% sold that climate change is as catastrophic as some people say.  However, I do acknowledge that all the gasoline and jet fuel we use does have severe environmental costs.

Lesson is, try to make a few changes and see how you feel.  I feel good reducing my waste and trying to be part of the solution when I can.  But, I also live my life and travel for great life experiences.  I still fly on planes sometimes.  I'm even going on a cruise next week (by most measures horrible for the environment). 

[MilesTeg]

I think he's just trying to get people to consider applying the MMM concepts to preserving the environment as well.  For me, theres kind of a higher unifying concept, which is to continually optimize everything important to you (not just money).  For me, the environment is important, I love being outside and in nature and I want my progeny to also be able to enjoy it also, so it doesn't take much to convince me to work a little harder at not polluting it.

I do agree that his attempt at justifying ecuador trips and whatnot is a little unsatisfying to me.  It seems kind of obvious to me that they should be doing these things in the US as it would cost less, pollute less, and require less travel time, a win win win as he would say.  As to the purchasing of carbon credits to offset it, that feels like a pretty hollow gesture, and feels like a way to allow people to justify their ridiculous pollution.

Yep, MMM is not immune to hypocrisy -- just like every other person on the planet. Do as I say, not as I do ;)

[thepokercab]

I've been on the forum for three years and its been interesting to see if change over time. 

This is totally anecdotal, but.. back when I first got on the forum, gas was like $4.00 a gallon, so the 'clown-car' message was very strong here, with a lot of people agreeing and looking to cut transportation costs. It wasn't so much an environmental message as it was economical- driving every day was a serious blow to the wallet, so looking to cut back was all the rage.

Threads back then were more likely to talk about bicycling to work, 1 car families, etc.. Now that gas is like $2.00 a gallon, it seems that more people are cool driving their trucks and cars and boats and what not, and now that MMM has pivoted to an environmental message around driving, some people are pushing back.  I'd imagine once gas hits $4.50 again we'll see a lot fewer of 'why i love my car/boat/truck' threads and more 'how do I get rid of car' threads again.  The circle of life..   

[Shane]

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

Shane - why are boating and trucks the whipping boys to some members here?  I use 35-45 gallons a month for my boat during the summer.  5 month season, maybe 200 gallons a year.  I use the boat a lot.  Most people with boats use them substantially less.

Commercial air travel gets 60-80 gallons per mile per passenger.  3 people 1300 mile round trip flight at 70 mpg (I saw averages ranging from 60-80 mpg on full flights) is 111 gallons.  If a 3 person family flies 2x a year, they use more gas than my boating habit.

We all  make decisions and have an impact.

@MW, I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy your boat or that you shouldn't drive a big truck. What I'm saying is that if we raised taxes on fuel, you might choose, on your own, without anyone having to argue with you about it, to do those activities a little less. I'm not saying you should NEVER take your boat out or that you should NEVER commute to work in an F-350. I'm all for personal freedom. I believe that very, very few things should be illegal.

I believe that we the people should, through our elected representatives, give gentle incentives to act in ways that are in the best interests of all of us and provide disincentives to engage in activities that are detrimental to the group as a whole. If raising carbon taxes meant that gas cost two or three times as much as it does now, you might not quit boating entirely, but you might choose to only burn 100 gallons of gas per year instead of 200. That would be an improvement. Or, on the other hand, if you REALLY LOVE boating, you might not be as sensitive to changes in gas price, and you might continue burning 200 gallons of fuel per season, but you would pay a much higher tax which the rest of us could then use to, hopefully, offset some of the negative effects of your actions.

[I'm a red panda]

I'm with you.  I'm a car enthusiast first and foremost, and it is absurd how MMM tortures the numbers related to cars to try and make his narrative work.  It's actually a little bit better now that he's "come out" in some respects, because I can stop being put off by his goofy-ass math and instead just ignore that particular argument or chalk it up to his tree-hugging frenzy.  I also find the "one true happiness" thing a bit silly.  Witness the recent "can I own a boat" thread and how many people insisted, no, you'll be happier with a kayak.  Well how the fuck can you know that?  It's like saying "what's a good Italian restaurant" "you don't want Italian, you'd be happier with Mexican."  Say what?

A kayak is a boat. So anyone in that thread suggesting a kayak is supporting boat ownership.

If it's not a boat, could you please tell the state to stop requiring me to register it as one each year. I'd like my money back.

[Chris22]

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

Shane - why are boating and trucks the whipping boys to some members here?  I use 35-45 gallons a month for my boat during the summer.  5 month season, maybe 200 gallons a year.  I use the boat a lot.  Most people with boats use them substantially less.

Commercial air travel gets 60-80 gallons per mile per passenger.  3 people 1300 mile round trip flight at 70 mpg (I saw averages ranging from 60-80 mpg on full flights) is 111 gallons.  If a 3 person family flies 2x a year, they use more gas than my boating habit.

We all  make decisions and have an impact.

@MW, I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy your boat or that you shouldn't drive a big truck. What I'm saying is that if we raised taxes on fuel, you might choose, on your own, without anyone having to argue with you about it, to do those activities a little less. I'm not saying you should NEVER take your boat out or that you should NEVER commute to work in an F-350. I'm all for personal freedom. I believe that very, very few things should be illegal.

I believe that we the people should, through our elected representatives, give gentle incentives to act in ways that are in the best interests of all of us and provide disincentives to engage in activities that are detrimental to the group as a whole. If raising carbon taxes meant that gas cost two or three times as much as it does now, you might not quit boating entirely, but you might choose to only burn 100 gallons of gas per year instead of 200. That would be an improvement. Or, on the other hand, if you REALLY LOVE boating, you might not be as sensitive to changes in gas price, and you might continue burning 200 gallons of fuel per season, but you would pay a much higher tax which the rest of us could then use to, hopefully, offset some of the negative effects of your actions.

Says you. Some of us (violently) disagree.

[ptgearguy]

I've always enjoyed reading MMM, and I agree with many of the Mustachian principles about extra saving and heavy investment early in life in order to kick start returns, but with his recent pivot toward low-carbon living, I'm thinking I really don't belong here any more.

Sure, we have our house paid off, and we save a little over half our income, but I drive about 45 miles to work, some of it over winding back roads, and I have no interest in moving. What's worse, we enjoy boating with waterskiing and tubing, and that burns a lot of gasoline. I like biking, too, but for me that's mountain biking which means I transport the bikes by car to whatever trails we want to ride.

I know MMM's response is to put a different address at the top of the browser. Before I show myself the door, I was wondering if people had recommendations for blogs that might be a better fit, and also, I wanted to say farewell.

Why not just use the principles you like and appreciate the awareness that you are doing some damage to the earth. At least you actually realize that you find it worth the 45 mile drive and know the costs economically. Like anything, if it doesnt float your boat why bother, there is enough fish in the sea for everyone (for now).

[Chris22]

I'm with you.  I'm a car enthusiast first and foremost, and it is absurd how MMM tortures the numbers related to cars to try and make his narrative work.  It's actually a little bit better now that he's "come out" in some respects, because I can stop being put off by his goofy-ass math and instead just ignore that particular argument or chalk it up to his tree-hugging frenzy.  I also find the "one true happiness" thing a bit silly.  Witness the recent "can I own a boat" thread and how many people insisted, no, you'll be happier with a kayak.  Well how the fuck can you know that?  It's like saying "what's a good Italian restaurant" "you don't want Italian, you'd be happier with Mexican."  Say what?

A kayak is a boat. So anyone in that thread suggesting a kayak is supporting boat ownership.

If it's not a boat, could you please tell the state to stop requiring me to register it as one each year. I'd like my money back.

Telling someone who wants a boat to get a kayak is like telling someone who wants a house to buy a shed. Sure, they kinda do the same thing, but...

[Shane]

Says you. Some of us (violently) disagree.

Why do you have to get all violent about it? It's fine to just disagree without the violence. :)

[Chris22]

Says you. Some of us (violently) disagree.

Why do you have to get all violent about it? It's fine to just disagree without the violence. :)

If people mount an assault on others' lifestyles, expect it to not go over quietly.

[DINK]

@MW, I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy your boat or that you shouldn't drive a big truck. What I'm saying is that if we raised taxes on fuel, you might choose, on your own, without anyone having to argue with you about it, to do those activities a little less. I'm not saying you should NEVER take your boat out or that you should NEVER commute to work in an F-350. I'm all for personal freedom. I believe that very, very few things should be illegal.

I believe that we the people should, through our elected representatives, give gentle incentives to act in ways that are in the best interests of all of us and provide disincentives to engage in activities that are detrimental to the group as a whole. If raising carbon taxes meant that gas cost two or three times as much as it does now, you might not quit boating entirely, but you might choose to only burn 100 gallons of gas per year instead of 200. That would be an improvement. Or, on the other hand, if you REALLY LOVE boating, you might not be as sensitive to changes in gas price, and you might continue burning 200 gallons of fuel per season, but you would pay a much higher tax which the rest of us could then use to, hopefully, offset some of the negative effects of your actions.

Will I get a huge carbon tax credit if I don't have children? Because honestly I could set a barrel of oil on fire every day and it wouldn't come close to the exponential carbon emissions of having children.

[iris lily]

I like the forums better than the blog for many reasons - writing style, for starters.

As for the forum (which I lurked, then joined & still lurked and then finally started to post) - Pete (the person, not the MMM persona) has created this "meeting space" that is free for me to "visit" and get all sorts of ideas, learn more, share what I know, and support (or give support) to other people who may share some common values or goals with me in reducing consumerism, saving money, or just plain making things BETTER for themselves, however they define it. There are lots of ways to be, and I get good ideas and confidence from seeing that there is no "one way" to be frugal or enjoy life or reduce consumption or earn income or whatever.

I appreciate what I get out of the forums, even if Pete has monetized his site such that I'm more like a bar patron or tv viewer than a living room guest. If I go to Cheers because I like hanging out with Norm and being insulted by Carla, that doesn't mean I agree with everything Sam thinks, especially if no one expects me to buy a drink!

The Cheers analogy is good!

I never read the blog. Maybe I've read a sum total of 3 complete blog posts in all this time, although I didn't start coming to this site until a couple of years ago.The forums are where it's at.

[Tom Bri]

I eat dandelions, and recycle just about everything. This summer I am planning to take my solar cooker (homemade) and use it to recycle plastic. Lots of cool things you can make from old milk jugs. I grow a lot of my own food.

But, I am not a 'Green' because I don't buy the hysteria they peddle. I just like my lifestyle. I find MMMs environmental posts one-sided, to the point of being ignorant.

So what? His political views and environmental views are not relevant to my use of the information available here. He DOES know quite a lot about some very interesting things. And the forum is full of people who know lots of cool stuff too. I can jump into the political posts and argue to my heart's content if I choose. Or not.

[Midwest]

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

Shane - why are boating and trucks the whipping boys to some members here?  I use 35-45 gallons a month for my boat during the summer.  5 month season, maybe 200 gallons a year.  I use the boat a lot.  Most people with boats use them substantially less.

Commercial air travel gets 60-80 gallons per mile per passenger.  3 people 1300 mile round trip flight at 70 mpg (I saw averages ranging from 60-80 mpg on full flights) is 111 gallons.  If a 3 person family flies 2x a year, they use more gas than my boating habit.

We all  make decisions and have an impact.

@MW, I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy your boat or that you shouldn't drive a big truck. What I'm saying is that if we raised taxes on fuel, you might choose, on your own, without anyone having to argue with you about it, to do those activities a little less. I'm not saying you should NEVER take your boat out or that you should NEVER commute to work in an F-350. I'm all for personal freedom. I believe that very, very few things should be illegal.

I believe that we the people should, through our elected representatives, give gentle incentives to act in ways that are in the best interests of all of us and provide disincentives to engage in activities that are detrimental to the group as a whole. If raising carbon taxes meant that gas cost two or three times as much as it does now, you might not quit boating entirely, but you might choose to only burn 100 gallons of gas per year instead of 200. That would be an improvement. Or, on the other hand, if you REALLY LOVE boating, you might not be as sensitive to changes in gas price, and you might continue burning 200 gallons of fuel per season, but you would pay a much higher tax which the rest of us could then use to, hopefully, offset some of the negative effects of your actions.

Shane - I'm not going to get into an argument about climate change or the environment in this thread.  Conscious use of resources is good (despite my aversion to a carbon tax).  Transportation makes up 22% of carbon generated.  That leaves 78% unaccounted for even if no transportation existed.  Despite that there are endless negative connotations about what people drive and/or do (unless they are flying someplace cool or driving to mountain bike, climb or kayak)  For the record, I like those things too not just boating.

My only point of the comment related to some of the narrow minded posters references to trucks and boats in a ridiculously negative light while air travel and other hobbies are perfectly fine (hypocrites, cough, cough).  At least MMM admits his hobbies have an impact in the same tongue and cheek style of the rests of his posts.

FYI, I don't have an F350 or even a truck. 

Since you brought up elected representatives, maybe they could reduce their unneeded travel first.

[Shane]

Says you. Some of us (violently) disagree.

Why do you have to get all violent about it? It's fine to just disagree without the violence. :)

If people mount an assault on others' lifestyles, expect it to not go over quietly.

Exactly. Your choice to burn fuel for fun to drive around in your race cars or big truck or boat or whatever, is an assault on everyone else's lives who don't choose to do those things. That's why we're speaking up and letting you know that you should pay your fair share. :)

[Shane]

@MW, I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy your boat or that you shouldn't drive a big truck. What I'm saying is that if we raised taxes on fuel, you might choose, on your own, without anyone having to argue with you about it, to do those activities a little less. I'm not saying you should NEVER take your boat out or that you should NEVER commute to work in an F-350. I'm all for personal freedom. I believe that very, very few things should be illegal.

I believe that we the people should, through our elected representatives, give gentle incentives to act in ways that are in the best interests of all of us and provide disincentives to engage in activities that are detrimental to the group as a whole. If raising carbon taxes meant that gas cost two or three times as much as it does now, you might not quit boating entirely, but you might choose to only burn 100 gallons of gas per year instead of 200. That would be an improvement. Or, on the other hand, if you REALLY LOVE boating, you might not be as sensitive to changes in gas price, and you might continue burning 200 gallons of fuel per season, but you would pay a much higher tax which the rest of us could then use to, hopefully, offset some of the negative effects of your actions.

Will I get a huge carbon tax credit if I don't have children? Because honestly I could set a barrel of oil on fire every day and it wouldn't come close to the exponential carbon emissions of having children.

I'd be okay with your getting a tax credit for having no kids. Makes sense to me. Those of us who choose to have kids should be willing to shoulder the burden they place on our limited resources. I'm okay with that.

[MrFrugalChicago]

I'm kind of falling off the wagon too. turns out i dont want to retire early. I love to work, but just to work for myself.

Savings rate is down to 15%. Putting money into starting my own business. If I screw up I will be working till 70 and I'm OK with that.

People that really really hate their jobs? I understand. But I love coding.

[Yaeger]

Says you. Some of us (violently) disagree.

Why do you have to get all violent about it? It's fine to just disagree without the violence. :)

If people mount an assault on others' lifestyles, expect it to not go over quietly.

Exactly. Your choice to burn fuel for fun to drive around in your race cars or big truck or boat or whatever, is an assault on everyone else's lives who don't choose to do those things. That's why we're speaking up and letting you know that you should pay your fair share. :)

What you're proposing will probably cause the exact opposite effect. Companies will likely spend money on fighting this action politically rather than innovate and improve their products. You'll end up with economic stagnation, lower quality of life, and more poverty. I'm a huge fan of nuclear power as a source of cheap, green energy. We need to loosen the reins on companies and let them innovate efficient technology and compete against one another, not tax them (and ultimately the consumer) into the dark ages. Positive enforcement, a market based system, has historically achieved superior results than penalizing our citizens.

If you want less pollution, YOU pay more and enact a cultural shift by example. Convince people as to the merits of your lifestyle, don't force people into it. Just thinking about that makes we want to dump paint down a storm drain.

[Shane]

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

Shane - why are boating and trucks the whipping boys to some members here?  I use 35-45 gallons a month for my boat during the summer.  5 month season, maybe 200 gallons a year.  I use the boat a lot.  Most people with boats use them substantially less.

Commercial air travel gets 60-80 gallons per mile per passenger.  3 people 1300 mile round trip flight at 70 mpg (I saw averages ranging from 60-80 mpg on full flights) is 111 gallons.  If a 3 person family flies 2x a year, they use more gas than my boating habit.

We all  make decisions and have an impact.

@MW, I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy your boat or that you shouldn't drive a big truck. What I'm saying is that if we raised taxes on fuel, you might choose, on your own, without anyone having to argue with you about it, to do those activities a little less. I'm not saying you should NEVER take your boat out or that you should NEVER commute to work in an F-350. I'm all for personal freedom. I believe that very, very few things should be illegal.

I believe that we the people should, through our elected representatives, give gentle incentives to act in ways that are in the best interests of all of us and provide disincentives to engage in activities that are detrimental to the group as a whole. If raising carbon taxes meant that gas cost two or three times as much as it does now, you might not quit boating entirely, but you might choose to only burn 100 gallons of gas per year instead of 200. That would be an improvement. Or, on the other hand, if you REALLY LOVE boating, you might not be as sensitive to changes in gas price, and you might continue burning 200 gallons of fuel per season, but you would pay a much higher tax which the rest of us could then use to, hopefully, offset some of the negative effects of your actions.

Shane - I'm not going to get into an argument about climate change or the environment in this thread.  Conscious use of resources is good (despite my aversion to a carbon tax).  Transportation makes up 22% of carbon generated.  That leaves 78% unaccounted for even if no transportation existed.  Despite that there are endless negative connotations about what people drive and/or do (unless they are flying someplace cool or driving to mountain bike, climb or kayak)  For the record, I like those things too not just boating.

My only point of the comment related to some of the narrow minded posters references to trucks and boats in a ridiculously negative light while air travel and other hobbies are perfectly fine (hypocrites, cough, cough).  At least MMM admits his hobbies have an impact in the same tongue and cheek style of the rests of his posts.

FYI, I don't have an F350 or even a truck. 

Since you brought up elected representatives, maybe they could reduce their unneeded travel first.

It's unnecessary for you to accept that human caused climate change is real in order to admit that burning fossil fuels has a negative impact on the air we all breathe, the water we drink, etc.

Ever been to a big city in China? Last time I was there I don't think we saw blue skies, even once, in around 3 weeks. It was all haze, every day.

Obviously, emission standards in NA and Europe are stricter, so we don't get as much smog as big 3rd World cities, but it's still there, and it has effects on all of us. That's why people who choose to burn more fossil fuels should pay higher taxes. That way, those of us who choose to burn less fuels pay less taxes and can instead save and invest our money to reach FI earlier. Guys who want to drive their boats every weekend should have to pay more taxes to compensate for their disproportionate use of community resources.

[Midwest]

Since money is a great motivator, if we slowly adjust our tax system so that it discourages things like water skiing and driving big trucks back and forth to 7-11 to pick up a gallon of milk and encourages things like working and making money, people will adjust their behavior on their own.

Shane - why are boating and trucks the whipping boys to some members here?  I use 35-45 gallons a month for my boat during the summer.  5 month season, maybe 200 gallons a year.  I use the boat a lot.  Most people with boats use them substantially less.

Commercial air travel gets 60-80 gallons per mile per passenger.  3 people 1300 mile round trip flight at 70 mpg (I saw averages ranging from 60-80 mpg on full flights) is 111 gallons.  If a 3 person family flies 2x a year, they use more gas than my boating habit.

We all  make decisions and have an impact.

@MW, I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy your boat or that you shouldn't drive a big truck. What I'm saying is that if we raised taxes on fuel, you might choose, on your own, without anyone having to argue with you about it, to do those activities a little less. I'm not saying you should NEVER take your boat out or that you should NEVER commute to work in an F-350. I'm all for personal freedom. I believe that very, very few things should be illegal.

I believe that we the people should, through our elected representatives, give gentle incentives to act in ways that are in the best interests of all of us and provide disincentives to engage in activities that are detrimental to the group as a whole. If raising carbon taxes meant that gas cost two or three times as much as it does now, you might not quit boating entirely, but you might choose to only burn 100 gallons of gas per year instead of 200. That would be an improvement. Or, on the other hand, if you REALLY LOVE boating, you might not be as sensitive to changes in gas price, and you might continue burning 200 gallons of fuel per season, but you would pay a much higher tax which the rest of us could then use to, hopefully, offset some of the negative effects of your actions.

Shane - I'm not going to get into an argument about climate change or the environment in this thread.  Conscious use of resources is good (despite my aversion to a carbon tax).  Transportation makes up 22% of carbon generated.  That leaves 78% unaccounted for even if no transportation existed.  Despite that there are endless negative connotations about what people drive and/or do (unless they are flying someplace cool or driving to mountain bike, climb or kayak)  For the record, I like those things too not just boating.

My only point of the comment related to some of the narrow minded posters references to trucks and boats in a ridiculously negative light while air travel and other hobbies are perfectly fine (hypocrites, cough, cough).  At least MMM admits his hobbies have an impact in the same tongue and cheek style of the rests of his posts.

FYI, I don't have an F350 or even a truck. 

Since you brought up elected representatives, maybe they could reduce their unneeded travel first.

It's unnecessary for you to accept that human caused climate change is real in order to admit that burning fossil fuels has a negative impact on the air we all breathe, the water we drink, etc.

Ever been to a big city in China? Last time I was there I don't think we saw blue skies, even once, in around 3 weeks. It was all haze, every day.

Obviously, emission standards in NA and Europe are stricter, so we don't get as much smog as big 3rd World cities, but it's still there, and it has effects on all of us. That's why people who choose to burn more fossil fuels should pay higher taxes. That way, those of us who choose to burn less fuels pay less taxes and can instead save and invest our money to reach FI earlier. Guys who want to drive their boats every weekend should have to pay more taxes to compensate for their disproportionate use of community resources.

Shane - Transportation in the US is a only part of the picture.  China's air is shit because they have almost no emissions standards as compared to the US.  Another reason for their poor air quality would be the amount of manufacturing done. 

Combine those things with a huge population and you get massive pollution.  How do you combat that on a personal level? Buy less useless stuff.

I'm not arguing that pollution is good or we shouldn't care, my beef is with the hyperfocus on US transportation among some in the environmental community and those on this board.

Why don't we focus on third world emissions standards and population growth?  Nope, let's focus on a boats and trucks.

[manonfire1007]

I honestly think the happiness thing is stupid, too, but for a different reason. Just because it makes you happy doesn't mean it's okay, no matter what the blog says.
Being an asshole to other people or the planet is not okay, even if it makes you happy. Since it's not hard to avoid being destructive of the planet and its resources, I don't understand why people choose to do so, but many do, including many of my friends and family. I still associate with them. I still participate in the forum, too.

Stay or don't. But starting a thread to broadcast the fact that you get off on torching the planet might indicate that you're not getting much out of being here.

I see this differently. There is so much of value here that one hesitates to go. That is a positive. All that said, there is a lot of "my way is right" that gets old. We all have different ways in which we simplify our lives and different levels of consumption that we will be happy on. Life is short. Be happy your way. Diversity can be a strength if we aren't a-holes to each other about it.

[NorCal]

I'm with you.  I find preachy environmentalists to be absolutely insufferable.

Heck, my carbon footprint is certainly smaller than the average Tesla driver, but that's besides the point.  Judgemental environmentalism is just obnoxious.

But there's an easy solution.  Take something from the posts that mean something to you and ignore the rest.  If you're only willing to deal with those you agree with 100%, you'll just spend a lot of time talking to yourself.