Is the american dream the bane of global warming?

oh... and here i thought the american dream was a 3-story house with at least 2 more bedrooms than people, a 4 car garage with as many cars, a boat for weekends all on a parcel of land on the outside of town.

at least, where i grew up that's what everyone seemed to aspire to because as soon as they could get the financing, up went the houses... just as i described.

some of the houses here are equally crazy.

 

Yes or no. It depends upon how the dream is pursued.

 

A really good documentary on this subject (although it discusses peak oil more than global warming) is "The End of Suburbia"- I highly recommend seeing it.

 

peak oil's a certainty without it and fairly soon it would seem. That's really what it all hinges on in many ways. If we were to have vast quantities of cheap oil, we'd be screwed. Thankfully, we don't.

 

I would postulate the inverse - that global warming hysteria could be the bane of the American dream.

I'm all for living in a sustainable fashion as much as possible and think that we as a country are in many respects living beyond our means and well beyond what is sustainable.

However, I believe much of the global warming fear mongering is a poorly disguised attempt to deny people a high quality standard of living. For folks like Gore and Oprah they can apparently assuage the guilt of wealth by buying carbon offsets yet still live at a standard most of us will never see. But the rest of us will be forced to change our ways via policies of questionable merit. See Global Warming's Dirty Little Secret.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Apr 16 2007, 10:41 AM) [snapback]424073[/snapback]</div>

Huh? Not sure I follow the logic Tony. I'm not suggesting co2 does not have a warming effect on the planet. I'm suggesting that many of the policies being promulgated by the politicians are feel good at best and income redistributing at worst. Do you deny this?

 

The so called "American dream" as described is unsustainable. It is a huge problem. The dream needs to change to something more meaningful such as the following: A quality environment, a quality community, and a quality job. We should strive to change what we percieve as the 'dream' from the current model of consumerism (house, lawn, cars) to one of a quality of life. The quality of life dream can be sustainable and will probably result a nation and world being happier. Other than the "american dream' being unsustainable, it is also expensive. The US subsidizes the "american dream" by having huge child credits, mortgage interest deductions, property tax deductions, mostly free highways (except for small gas tax), and manipulates the market in favor of the so called 'dream' in a uniform system of charging for utilities, and so on. If these subsidies ended, then those living the so called American dream would have to consider the costs of thier actions more directly instead of having several of the costs of their actions shared. But still those who consider the 'american dream' would not bear much of their costs; i.e. the additional pollution of their cars and oversized homes, the costs of securing their energy supplies, the costs of overpopulation because of their breeding wants, and so on.

 

Yes and no.

Yes, in its current form.

But, ultimately (I hope), no.

I'd like to think that the real roots of the American Dream are intertwined with ideas like safety and freedom of expression and unity and the delicate and oft-perverted idea that one can be pro-American without being anti-the rest of the world.

I finished a biography on Benjamin Franklin and was struck by how, when he went back to Europe, the people there commented on the plainness of his dress and the inclusive nature of his philosophies. They actually believed the American society to be one where hard work was valued for reasons intrinsic to itself...not as a means to an end (i.e., lots of toys).

I'm hoping that there is still something valid here that might one day lead to an American Renaissance. Until then, we're so intent on impressing each other --regardless of the cost to anyone or anything-- that all but the very richest of us will end up impressing each other all the way to the poorhouse.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Apr 16 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]424082[/snapback]</div>

I hear what you are saying about consumerism but challenge you to find many people who would agree with the premise that they would be somehow happier without a "house, lawn, car". I'm pretty happy with mine. Are you ready to give up yours?

 

Medium "Tryers" can achieve the dream. "Non-tryers" will not achieve the dream. Many folks don't try at all. Our neighborhood is chock full of over achieving maniacs, but that's not the norm. I'd guess only about 30% try sufficiently to achieve the dream. Thus, global warming will be brought forth from that 30%.

 

Do people really need an oversized bedroom with 9 foot ceilings and a huge bath with a 4 person shower that sprays out 9 gallons a minute? NO, its the ego look at what I have mentality that is going to screw us all up. Take a good look at homes these days, the wasted space with high vaulted ceilings, two story family rooms. The wasted materials for complex dormers, and eaves. The energy it takes to heat and cool those spaces.

That is the new american dream, look at me my house is bigger than yours, I live on a golf course, I drive a BMW, blah blah blah.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Apr 16 2007, 01:16 PM) [snapback]424092[/snapback]</div>

The premise that most people aspire to the "american dream" as is defined is not as true as you may believe. The 'american dream' was conceived by developers and the auto industry in the 1950s as a marketing scheme (as in that they told people what they want and people went along with it because on TV there was the happy perfect family in thier own home with a vehicle and kids, etc, and it was the image that people had to aspire to so that they can move up in the company, be seen as good daddies, live away from darkskinned people and so on). Nowadays, most of America lives in suburbs with the 'dream' not because they really want two cars, a house and so on, but because they want to take their kids to a good school (sometimes, its is just a white school), they want to live away from poverty (sometimes it is still a want to live away from darkskinned people), they want a perception of safety (noteerception), an affordable house (as in they can barely afford twice the house they need), and sometimes it is a psychological condition that they must have a house 'for entertainment' (as in to show off once a year to their kid's friend's parents). Sure, some people are perfectly happy living the 'american dream', but many people who live the american dream are not happy. They aren't happy that they commute two or more hours a day, they aren't happy that they live in traffic congestion, they aren't happy that they have to spend thier weekends tending to the lawn and maintaining large homes, they aren't happy that the american dream is costing them most of their paycheck, they aren't happy that they have to drive everywhere, they aren't happy that they don't have the freedom of living a simpler lifestyle where they can devote more time to their true hobbies and interests.

People need to stop looking at the 'american dream' as something that is de facto desirable, but they need to look at which kind of life will make them happy. I don't have a house or a lawn and I am happy, I rent an apartment in a highrise and have a gorgeous city view with a balcony full of plants, one block from a park, within walking distance of work, school, and entertainment. Unfortunately I need a car to get groceries, visit friends and family, and to get around town sometimes; I look forward to the day that I don't need a car. I will never own a detached house and a lawn. The dream of my wife and I is to own a decent two bedroom condo in the city near a park, maybe adopt one kid, have the weekends to enjoy the arts, have the freedom to travel without worrying about who is going to mow the lawn, and have the time and money to explore our interests. I am not alone, just in case you haven't noticed, there is still a good part of the country that lives in urban, unAmerican Dream-like lifestyles, and by choice. Real estate in New York City, San Francisco, downtown Chicago, and other urban areas aren't expensive because nobody wants to live there, they are expensive because people want to live there but construction costs and scarcity prevent the market from supplying enough homes (not houses). The exodus of the city is no more; more and more people are finding that if they want true community and quality of life, they must look past the glorified, consumer driven, 'American dream'. If only those american dreamers that make up too much of the population can stop one-upping each other and open their eyes to the freedom of not wanting. And once those who are living the American dream no longer recieve their government subsidies, they too will consider other choices.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Apr 16 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]424092[/snapback]</div>

Ah, but Tim, the question is "do you derive your happiness from material possessions?" If the answer is yes then you'll never really be happy and you will be a slave to all of the junk that you accumulate in the pursuit of happiness. It would seem that recently, many Americans have fallen into this trap.

Sure there are possessions that make life a helluva lot easier. A house is a good thing. But does one really need a 3700 sqft house and two huge SUVs to be happy? No.

Global warming hysteria could be bad, mostly in the short term. Hysteria of any kind is usually bad. However, there are huge opportunites associated with tackling climate change. Not just for the big players. Little guys can and will benefit too. Hell, not paying a electricity bill is a plus (via PV, small wind, and micro hydro, not by living in the dark). Not being a slave to wild fluxuations in the price of oil (or the inexorable climb upwards, forget fluxuations) is also a good thing.

Remember, a lot of our CO2 foot print is waste. Out and out waste. Encouraging people to cut out their waste would mean that they'd probably spend about the same amount of electricity, they just would throw quite so much of it away. It's really all about balance. To achieve balance though, policy is going to have to goad people at first.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Apr 16 2007, 09:58 AM) [snapback]424041[/snapback]</div>

You guys pretty much covered it all but I wanted to say i agree with this quote and wanted to add:

It becomes even more and more unsustainable with every child that is brought into the world without a balancing death to herald its arrival. Morbid I know but such is life according to the laws of nature.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Apr 16 2007, 10:13 PM) [snapback]424379[/snapback]</div>

You don't seem to get "social security". Without more folks comming in to the foundational level, those of us approaching the top of the pyramid scheme will never get ours (not that our family {thank God} need our particapatory dollars back). Similarly, most EVERY scheme works that way. Example? Why do we need to keep building more homes / business complexes? Because we are for ever expanding. Without expansion, those folks and most others, become useless.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Apr 16 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]424383[/snapback]</div>

I would argue you (the majority of the modern human race) don't seem to get ecological limits or population limits.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Apr 16 2007, 12:52 PM) [snapback]424178[/snapback]</div>

I don't disagree there is a lot of out and out waste, much of which are encouraged by inappropriate subsidies. But at the point where one can tell another how to live - it is a slippery slope. So a 3700 sq. ft. house is too big? OK, how about 2100? How about 1000? To the man in the 3rd world a one room hut might be an unnecessary luxury. Where does one draw the line?

I have 3 kids and as a result have a chosen to live in what many would consider a big house. Is it a necessary requirement to fulfill my happiness or even to meet the needs of my family? Certainly not. But it does make life a bit more comfortable. Are my 3 children too many? Some would say yes. Then what is the right number and how is that determined? And by whom?

MarkMN touts that he lives in a city (and thus presumably lives more sustainably). Yet he drives a car and likes to travel and wants to "explore his interests". That is great if that is his dream but one could easily argue that is far from sustainable - but I didn't hear him committing to giving that up despite the fact that he says he'd rather not have a car. And personally I don't want to live in a city and the fact that there are many like me probably keeps his city from looking like Hong Kong and helps keep his rent there affordable. I also see that Mark lives in MN. I wonder how much CO2 is pumped into the air annually to keep those Minnesotans warm through the long winter vs. me in my large California home that rarely requires any heating? I don't mean to pick on Mark at all - but if there is some sort of moral argument being made here I see it as deeply flawed.