NFR "The Hypocrite" TGR film about advocacy/fossil fuels/Outdoor State

[adamcu280]

Yeah, we're all hypocrites, so let's get past that cop-out and look at some of the issues we're facing and how we, as "outdoorsy" folks, can work together instead of tearing each other down.

I'm proud of my friends for putting themselves out there in this movie. The imagery is mostly snowsports-based, but the message is the same for fly fishers, climbers, hunters, mountain bikers, surfers, or anyone that recreates outdoors.

 

[Peyton00]

Well rounded video.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Salmo_g]

My impression from the film is that they are saying we can have our cake and eat it too. All I have to do is convert my F-350 diesel belchmobile, which tows my 35' "camping trailer" and 250 HP 25' jet sled - all of which are necessary to pursue 12" trout so that I can harass them by sticking hooks in them - to solar power, and then I'll be good to go, as in sustainable?

I'm interested in the concept of uniting 50 million American outdoor users and enthusiasts, but at the practical scale here in WA we have failed miserably in uniting even 10,000 anglers to advocate conservation measures.

 

[Matt Paluch]

Great video!

 

[Matt Paluch]

My impression from the film is that they are saying we can have our cake and eat it too. All I have to do is convert my F-350 diesel belchmobile, which tows my 35' "camping trailer" and 250 HP 25' jet sled - all of which are necessary to pursue 12" trout so that I can harass them by sticking hooks in them - to solar power, and then I'll be good to go, as in sustainable?

I'm interested in the concept of uniting 50 million American outdoor users and enthusiasts, but at the practical scale here in WA we have failed miserably in uniting even 10,000 anglers to advocate conservation measures.

That's not what they said at all. They said the real change needs to be structural, systematic change.

 

[Salmo_g]

That's not what they said at all. They said the real change needs to be structural, systematic change.

Color me as slow on the uptake. I think I understand what structural and systemic or systematic change could look like. What I don't understand is how such change exists alongside our carbon based and carbon dependent energy intensive outdoor pursuits. I understand wanting to ski, which requires getting to the mountain top. To me, structural or systematic change means going old school and hiking up the mountain on snowshoes or skis with skins and foregoing the snowmobile, which means fewer turns per day, which works against more practice for a professional skier. Lern me different and bring me up to speed please.

 

[TicTokCroc]

Hydrocarbon fuels are a renewable resource and much less polluting then extracting the rare earth's in scale needed for batteries and solar. Wind energy doesn't pencil out, the windmills fail and age out before they pay for themselves, kill birds of prey, and whales in the ocean. Then they go to graveyards in the desert, unable to be recycled.

 

[Zak]

Hydrocarbon fuels are a renewable resource and much less polluting then extracting the rare earth's in scale needed for batteries and solar. Wind energy doesn't pencil out, the windmills fail and age out before they pay for themselves, kill birds of prey, and whales in the ocean. Then they go to graveyards in the desert, unable to be recycled.

Duty Calls

xkcd.com

 

[TicTokCroc]

Confirmed my suspicions, you guys are all insufferable. Adios.

 

[adamcu280]

My impression from the film is that they are saying we can have our cake and eat it too. All I have to do is convert my F-350 diesel belchmobile, which tows my 35' "camping trailer" and 250 HP 25' jet sled - all of which are necessary to pursue 12" trout so that I can harass them by sticking hooks in them - to solar power, and then I'll be good to go, as in sustainable?

I'm interested in the concept of uniting 50 million American outdoor users and enthusiasts, but at the practical scale here in WA we have failed miserably in uniting even 10,000 anglers to advocate conservation measures.

That's not what they said at all. They said the real change needs to be structural, systematic change.

What @Matt Paluch said.

Color me as slow on the uptake. I think I understand what structural and systemic or systematic change could look like. What I don't understand is how such change exists alongside our carbon based and carbon dependent energy intensive outdoor pursuits. I understand wanting to ski, which requires getting to the mountain top. To me, structural or systematic change means going old school and hiking up the mountain on snowshoes or skis with skins and foregoing the snowmobile, which means fewer turns per day, which works against more practice for a professional skier. Lern me different and bring me up to speed please.

And yes, foot-powered exploits closer to home are definitely something that a lot of professional snow sports people are trying to do more of instead of flying around the world to jump in helis. But that's still a more individual change (Chris Rubens in the movie is a perfect example) vs. a systematic change, which would be more along the lines of Mervin Mfg. (based in Sequim) using locally-sourced environmentally friendly construction in their skis/snowboards/surfboards https://www.mervinmade.com/#map vs. the other big brands making their equipment overseas, with little thought to anything aside from the bottom line.

Go back to the 20 minute mark where the graphic shows Amie's carbon footprint (individual impact) vs. the much larger impacts of ANWR petroleum leases and the Inflation Reduction Act (systemic impacts). Lowering our individual impacts is definitely needed, but much larger results come with big systematic changes. Also, at the 21 minute mark the example of changing your light bulbs is individual. Changing the grid is systemic. Hopefully that helps.

Edit: I agree that uniting 50 million outdoor users is a wild dream when we can't even unite the handful of people that have responded to this thread already, let alone all 10000 fishers in WA. But I'm not sure I'm willing to give up yet.

 

[Salmo_g]

Adam, I think I get the individual changes that reduce one's carbon footprint. If Mervin Mfg skis, snowboards, and surfboards represent a systematic change, you're losing me. Yes, it's environmentally better than big brands made overseas, but the increment is so small that I guess I didn't see it as "systematic." Yes, I have mostly LED lightbulbs, but maybe I don't know enough about the "grid." I'm most familiar with the west coast energy grid as developed by Bonnville Power Administration. There are three, maybe now four, regional interties that fairly efficiently shuffles electric energy between western MT, ID, WA, OR, and CA, and connects hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and coal. Unlike Texas, which is isolated and ended up killing people in the cold snap there about 4 years ago. I'm trying to see what a systematic change looks like. Is it persuading or forcing Texas to connect to a regional grid utilizing more diverse energy sources?

I'm still having a hard time seeing how multiple "large" systematic changes are going to make a significant impact on climate. I'm not arguing against such changes. I'm being my analytical self. For instance, I read not long ago that if the entire planet converts from ICE vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs), that would contribute only 3% of the effect necessary to bring global climate temperatures to the desired or necessary 1.5*C to curb global warming. Hence why I'm trying to get my mind around what these proffered "large systematic changes" look like. My back of the envelope style calculations are that it's gonna' take even more than completely banning heli and snowmobile skiing - along with similar restrictions of every other modern outdoor pursuit and most commercial pursuits - to make it to that 1.5*C finish line threshold. I guess my question is a "can we get there from here?" sort of question. And if so, how?

 

[Dustin Chromers]

Anybody actually connected to where their food and energy come from knows full well that life demands destruction and death on some level to feed said life. Forgive me for not seeing the ground breaking revelation all of a sudden that travel to top tier recreation locations is not climate friendly, necessary, or hypocritical. The preaching and feel good fees of carbon taxes to continue destroying are the part that make me gag. Just shut up and use what you need and reuse what you can and maybe try to live a little closer to nature in general connected to your world. Most of the people preaching are the biggest of the hypocrites. I'm not. I understand what my impacts are and where the excess is and what the costs are. I would say one percent of Americans can honestly say that. So if you're not in the one percent, shut up.

 

[Griswald]

This is an interesting documentary/pitch...I need to ruminate before giving a strong opinion. I do agree that our situation is one of systemic structures and will be difficult to think/work through. I left the PNW last year to Central KY- where I grew up and left for Seattle in 1992-been reading me some Wendell Berry, he takes alot of this way farther, and has been for about 60 odd years. A lot to think about with our (my) habits and trying to do our part to make this world a bit better than it was in our time here.

 

[Rob Allen]

That's not what they said at all. They said the real change needs to be structural, systematic change.

It also has to be voluntary. Without fees and taxes that punish people for not changing. Most of the worst things done in human history were structural and systematic.

I fully advocate the use of fossil fuels because without them billions of people die.

 

[Rob Allen]

Adam, I think I get the individual changes that reduce one's carbon footprint. If Mervin Mfg skis, snowboards, and surfboards represent a systematic change, you're losing me. Yes, it's environmentally better than big brands made overseas, but the increment is so small that I guess I didn't see it as "systematic." Yes, I have mostly LED lightbulbs, but maybe I don't know enough about the "grid." I'm most familiar with the west coast energy grid as developed by Bonnville Power Administration. There are three, maybe now four, regional interties that fairly efficiently shuffles electric energy between western MT, ID, WA, OR, and CA, and connects hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and coal. Unlike Texas, which is isolated and ended up killing people in the cold snap there about 4 years ago. I'm trying to see what a systematic change looks like. Is it persuading or forcing Texas to connect to a regional grid utilizing more diverse energy sources?

I'm still having a hard time seeing how multiple "large" systematic changes are going to make a significant impact on climate. I'm not arguing against such changes. I'm being my analytical self. For instance, I read not long ago that if the entire planet converts from ICE vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs), that would contribute only 3% of the effect necessary to bring global climate temperatures to the desired or necessary 1.5*C to curb global warming. Hence why I'm trying to get my mind around what these proffered "large systematic changes" look like. My back of the envelope style calculations are that it's gonna' take even more than completely banning heli and snowmobile skiing - along with similar restrictions of every other modern outdoor pursuit and most commercial pursuits - to make it to that 1.5*C finish line threshold. I guess my question is a "can we get there from here?" sort of question. And if so, how?

No more windmills is rural areas for urban power generation is a systematic change I'd like to see.. windmills are ugly and destructive.

 

[Josh]

A reminder/pre-warning/etc from the admins...

This is outdoors/fishing adjacent and, like WDFW/ODFW, wolves, steelhead lawsuits, etc, it sort of slips into a loophole in our "keep political bickering and culture wars off the site" rules. And because of that, we try to let them stick around in the hopes that we can all learn a thing of two from the minds in this community.

That said, it doesn't mean that it's a free for all. That's what Twitter or Facebook or Reddit are for. Be chill, share your perspective and how it relates to YOU without shitting on others. If you can't say what you want to say without insulting other people who don't agree, you shouldn't say anything. Especially not here.

Nobody's mind was ever changed because of an argument on the internet.

 

[adamcu280]

Adam, I think I get the individual changes that reduce one's carbon footprint. If Mervin Mfg skis, snowboards, and surfboards represent a systematic change, you're losing me. Yes, it's environmentally better than big brands made overseas, but the increment is so small that I guess I didn't see it as "systematic." Yes, I have mostly LED lightbulbs, but maybe I don't know enough about the "grid." I'm most familiar with the west coast energy grid as developed by Bonnville Power Administration. There are three, maybe now four, regional interties that fairly efficiently shuffles electric energy between western MT, ID, WA, OR, and CA, and connects hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and coal. Unlike Texas, which is isolated and ended up killing people in the cold snap there about 4 years ago. I'm trying to see what a systematic change looks like. Is it persuading or forcing Texas to connect to a regional grid utilizing more diverse energy sources?

I'm still having a hard time seeing how multiple "large" systematic changes are going to make a significant impact on climate. I'm not arguing against such changes. I'm being my analytical self. For instance, I read not long ago that if the entire planet converts from ICE vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs), that would contribute only 3% of the effect necessary to bring global climate temperatures to the desired or necessary 1.5*C to curb global warming. Hence why I'm trying to get my mind around what these proffered "large systematic changes" look like. My back of the envelope style calculations are that it's gonna' take even more than completely banning heli and snowmobile skiing - along with similar restrictions of every other modern outdoor pursuit and most commercial pursuits - to make it to that 1.5*C finish line threshold. I guess my question is a "can we get there from here?" sort of question. And if so, how?

Mervin manufacturing locally with environmentally friendly techniques vs. other large brands manufacturing overseas with no regard to the environment is "systemic" in a smaller scale, specifically relating to manufacturing in outdoor industry, and also local to WA so geographically relevant to those of us in the PNW.

I don't have the answers either. I don't really think anyone does. But discounting any effort because we don't think it's going to work or make enough of a difference makes it seem like you've already answered the "can we get there from here" with a "no" and given up on even trying. If that's true then you definitely wouldn't be alone. And to be honest, I'm not sure how far away I am from that conclusion myself.

One of the things that this piece doesn't address is the resource suck that is overpopulation. I don't have kids but I'd be lying if I didn't worry about my friends kids.

 

[DimeBrite]

Zero new 4th Gen nuclear power plants have been built in the USA since climate doom became a governmental priority. Why not? If it is truly an existential threat, the federal government would have streamlined regulatory permitting for their construction years ago.

 

[adamcu280]

Zero new 4th Gen nuclear power plants have been built in the USA since climate doom became a governmental priority. Why not? If it is truly an existential threat, the federal government would have streamlined regulatory permitting for their construction years ago.

Since you brought up the Federal gov't: Remember that there is a significant portion of the Federal government that doesn't believe anthropogenic climate change is a threat, a significant portion of the Federal government that's in bed with the fossil fuel companies, and a significant overlap between those portions.

Change this system and there could be some significant effects. Status Quo = the uphill, nearly futile battle that Salmo is referring to.

 

[mcswny]

I’m sure you all know this, but it was news to me. The whole idea of “carbon footprint” really took off via a marketing campaign from BP. The whole idea was to take the spotlight off them and make “us” feel guilty. Like I said, probably old news but it blew my mind.