<-- Buy nothing Day
- Started
- Last post
- 73 Responses
- rasko40
thats true tfs, I've never been entirely convinced by adbusters..
and besides, I need some new jeans ;)
- ********0
yep you guys are right.
- vena0
if(adbusters){means=end;}
- brandelec0
shopping makes the world go round
- lowimpakt0
people place too much emphasis on the word anti. maybe think of it as conscientious consumerism. You want to drink coffee well them drink fair-trade, you want to invest in stocks well then invest in ethical stocks, you want vegtables well then buy from local producers etc. etc. etc.
Adbusters try to get a particular message across by subverting/replicating the current mode and methods of the systems they want to change. Its less about reverting or creating entirely new systems but more about shifting thought within the current system to bring about change within itself.
- lowimpakt0
yes, 'shopping makes the world go round' but it doesnt go full circle but it contentrates in small sections of the planet.
e.g. Developed nations make up only 20% of the worlds population but consume 86% of the worlds goods.
e.g. The uK's diet and fat-free food matket is worth around the same as Mali's total GDP ($9 billion)
e.g. World trade is estimated to be worth $10 million a minute - The world's 49 least developed countries account for only 0.4% of this.
is this a world going round for all??
- vena0
you ever stop to think that it makes perfect sense for wealthy nations to consume more goods?
i certainly don't feel bad about it. i understand i can't afford a ferrari, and i don't expect to be given one nor for people who can afford it to not have one.
- vena0
i mean, i'm just throwing this out here. what do i know? i don't even have patches on my backpack.
- lowimpakt0
Yea I think about it all the time and then I look at the impact these patterns of consumption have on the the majority of the world and on the environment and reckon something is wrong. If you look at even one direct result of these patterns of consumption and production i.e. global warming. When you look at the fact that there are already more refugees fleeing extreme weather, drought and desertification than there are fleeing political persecution - a direct impact of G.warming caused in the majority by rich nations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analys…And the US wouldnt sign up to Kyoto, whats up with that?????
- vena0
do you look at environmentalism as earth preservation or human preservation?
- canadian0
Imagine if the west stopped consuming? Global economic disaster. No? Wouldn't all overseas countries who depend on the wests import and export turn into 3rd world countries over night?
- lowimpakt0
anthropocentrism or biocentrism or even technocentrism.
I have to say I place greater importance on the preservation of humans but as a direct result of caring for the environment.
(p.s. I am a trained Industrial designer but I am studying for an Msc in Sustainable Development)
- paulrand0
western consumption as altruism?
- canadian0
The world financially depends on western consumption. You should prey we don't stop consuming unless you wish to find yourself on a breadline next Christmas.
- vena0
and about kyoto, you might want to ease off americans a bit with that. russia is refusing it, and japan's CO2 emitions have actually increased by 1.8% over the last year.
the decision of the US not to accept the kyoto protocol was born out of the byrd-hagel resolution. if you want to know WHY they didn't get involved, look to that. it states that the US won't get involved in any climate change agreement that would 1) harm the US economy or 2) not include meaningful participation from developing countries. kyoto doesn't hold up for either, but mainly #2 has left kyoto dead in the water. not only did it have the US and Russia going "well what about them?" it also means that kyoto wouldn't have been effective. if we're agreeing that humans are causing climate change, then why is a large group of humans being ignored in kyoto? china, india, south korea, and indonesia - all fast growing, all pumping out those greenhouse gasses, are exempt from kyoto emissions cuts. the international energy agency chalks up 85% of projected CO2 emissions increase will come from those exempt from kyoto.
it's not always good to have a buzzword for these types of things because it tends to obscure a bigger picture.
- lowimpakt0
Canadian, thats a poor understanding of economics if I ever say one.
How do you answer the fact that average OECD tariffs on manufactured goods from developing countries is more than four times those on manufactured goods from other OECD countries. Thats effectively locking out developing countries from the trade bonanza. In fact, the UN estimates that poor countries are denied $700 billion because of unfair trade rules.
now tell me again who depends on who?
- vena0
oh, also add ireland, austria, and the EU in general to japan with their surging greenhouse gas emissions in the face of a ratified kyoto.
- lowimpakt0
Vena, your totally right about Kyoto in fact Ireland has overshot its Kyoto obligations by something like 24% even though it was one of the few countries allowed produce a surplus CO2 quota. I asked about the US because i presumed you were American and I wanted to guage your thoughts on it.
Although now that we are signed up it has become a political and economic imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions which is a good platform to start from. Basically signing up is better than not because at least you begin to set targets and engage industry etc.
again Russia and the US wouldnt sign up over short term economic reasons not realising that in the long run those countries that abopt sustainability will benfit in the long run. One reason will be, in basic terms, a less dependancy on finite resources such as oil.
- vena0
sure, part of the reason the US and Russia backed out of it was for economic reasons, but another, much larger part is that Kyoto is little more than lip service. Kyoto is a straw man, which isn't even applicable now since it required 55% of rich country emissions to have ratified it. the protocol is dead, i'm not the only one saying so by a long shot, and some researchers feel we're better for it.
why? because Kyoto ignored the problem for politics. its impact, even at best insignificant, turned in its short life to be a farce as the accepted countries increased their emisions. even if every country it affected didn't fart in its general direction, the change is still insignificant. some might say it didn't go far enough because it's simply too late. in any case, Kyoto was a political manuver wherein the liberal guilt is satisfied and a complex problem is given a simple, socialist solition - the rich are to blame. well, as is often the case, they're not, it's just very convenient to say they are.
i don't like lip service political movements, and i don't see them as a "start," they exist to ease the conscience of the masses until it becomes fashionable to be informed again.
if you really want to point to the US and say "you're wrong" look to the anti-ballistic missile treate or the international criminal court.
now, for some reason, i get sick during hollidays, so i'm gonna go puke and take enough pills to sleep through the winter. g'night :)
- vena0
wow, i'm a little cranky, eh?
time for meds!