Money and the environment

[Bruce Wayne]

What do you guys think of the relationship between saving money and saving the environment?

In some cases you can clearly do both, such as riding a bike rather than driving a car, whilst in others by buying cheaper products you do more harm than good.

What do you think?

[PrincessPerky]

Re: Money and the environment

Stuff costs money, stuf is in general bad for the environment. I noticed an odd thing when I started slashing my grocery bills, less garbage, that is prolly a good thing.

I also notice less desire to get, weird stuff, cause I don't want to declutter it next week!

I can't think of any area that has cost the environment by me trying to save.

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Money and the environment

I'd forgotten the recycling/reuse angle, and of course less consumption in the first place means much less pressure on the landfill/recycling system.

[rob62521]

Re: Money and the environment

I am working on the less consumption/less clutter aspect in my life, but it isn't easy. Media certainly gives it a hard sell. I do think, if you can afford it, buying quality things and using them for a long time helps the environment because you aren't replacing stuff as much.

[PrincessPerky]

Re: Money and the environment

Ditch the media! Allmost all media is bad for the environment, and bad for the saver.

I watch the occasional flick on TV, my pregnancy cravings when I do tend to be for things not in the house, and not to cheap either, come to think of it generally not to healthy.

When I read a mag, I skip the ads trained my brain to ignore them, but I do read the articles, so an article for a cool new game ahs me wanting one, or at the least wanting a similar game, at 30 -50 $ per game that is quite a splurge right now.

Even books, if they are the wrong ones, can make life difficult, I read an article once about a woman who was gungho on savings but constantly found herself up against wants, she wanted what she saw, pretty natural, but if we avoid staring and more importantly Glamorizing the 'stuff' we can avoid most of the wants, less wants =less stuff=cheaper house. And the less stuff is better for the environment .

Course I still want some shelving in my livingroom and bedroom

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Money and the environment

You could always buy your goods second hand to save on money, and of course helping the environment too. Ebay, Amazon, Freecycle etc. all offer very good second hand goods for sale.

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Money and the environment

British homeowners are more concerned about saving money on their energy bills than saving the environment, new research shows.

However, more than nine out of ten Britons would be interested in environmentally friendly technologies if they became more affordable, research from Linden Homes reveals.

But environmental concerns play second fiddle to bank accounts, with 86 per cent of UK residents saying saving money on their bills is a higher priority.

Full story

I'm not really suprised that people value money more than the environment.

[Fern]

Re: Money and the environment

If there's one thing i've learned in my (almost) 46 years, it's that unfortunately, saving the environment does not become a priority until there is some sort of crisis. We don't clean up our rivers until the salmon fishermen notice there aren't any more fish. We keep polluting the oceans until....again....we notice there arent many fish left Coal plant smog from OH drfiting over to the northeast aint an issue til we see asthma and lung cancer rates spike. I could go on.

Contributing to this malaise, i think, is that children today are so disconnected from the natural world right outside their window. When i grew up, recreation meant playing catch, walking into town, riding our bikes around the block, all outdoor stuff. These days, kids would rather play video games or hang out at the mall. So it's not surprising they have little actual experience, let alone knowledge, about the plight of the environment today.

Sorry, i guess it sounds like i'm on a soapbox. Thx. for reading.

[PrincessPerky]

Re: Money and the environment

Contributing to this malaise, i think, is that children today are so disconnected from the natural world right outside their window. When i grew up, recreation meant playing catch, walking into town, riding our bikes around the block, all outdoor stuff. These days, kids would rather play video games or hang out at the mall. So it's not surprising they have little actual experience, let alone knowledge, about the plight of the environment today.

Sorry, i guess it sounds like i'm on a soapbox. Thx. for reading.

My soapbox: kids are shlepped off to indoor schools instead of learning from the world, of course they are disconected. When you spend all day being fed information and forced to practice the 'sit down raise your hand, walk in straight lines ect.' rules at such an early age you have no excitement left for the world to learn from it! Not to mention the artificialness of PE and recess takes their precious small amounts of 'free time' and makes it hard to enjoy the natural fun of the world.

I love going for a walk with my two and listening to them talk/ask questions about EVERYTHING! I love noticing how interesting they find little bugs, or weeds, or manmade stuff like firehydrants. Everything in the world is worthy of inspection, and if I stuffed them in a room for 6 hours a day they would lose that time to 'dwaddle' and most likly lose that love of learning. And miss out on the wonderful opportunity to notice, missing fish or lack of geese now, instead of later when some fancy report comes and brings it to class.

[Bruce Wayne]

Re: Money and the environment

I quite agree Princess. Very well said.

[rob62521]

Re: Money and the environment

You have brought up some valid points on stuffing children into a classroom and not giving them all kinds of experiences. You are their first teacher.

However, unless you want to pay a lot more for public education, there are few other ways to teach large groups of students. Public Schools have to educate those they are given and that means the smart, the slow learner, the children with major learning disabilities, the disabled, the poor, the wealthy, etc. Many districts have cut out field trips of most sorts because of the expense -- that including liability insurance. Most classrooms have difficulty finding parents to volunteer to go on these trips, if there are parents who volunteer, they are usually the ones who provide wonderful experiences for their children to begin with.

[Fern]

Re: Money and the environment

Princess, you sound like a great mom. And you managed to describe probably the one thing I miss about not having children....being able to open their eyes and mind to the (natural) world arond them.

Yeah, I have a feeling that the kind of "obedience" kids are taught in school, or at least were, in my day, does not serve them well in the real world. Better to question authority than to do as you're told. Better to carve your own path than join the bandwagon. Ok, those are my trite expressions for the day.

[PrincessPerky]

Re: Money and the environment

However, unless you want to pay a lot more for public education, there are few other ways to teach large groups of students.

Exactly so we should stop trying! I am certainly not the only parent able to teach, and there are many many people more than willing to share knowledge in their feild of interest, but todays world, kids are shclepped off, so no one has a chance to learn the 'old fashioned way' unless the parents are willing to accept major ridicule, pain, cash output (though I believe it will save us in the long run), extra time, effort, and PIA fighting the system. Home Educating is slowly gaining acceptance, we no longer have to fight the local schools with guns to keep our kids home, but it hasn't come that far either. George Washington's Education: No formal education, was far superior to what we are trying to accomplish in Public schools.

Even if you feel there must be schools for people who will not teach (though I would argue that number grows due to the current system), why must we give a standard of care that waits till age 5 to teach, and at age 5 assumes a child should be able to behave for 6 hours away from any parent? Instead why can't we take about half the current money sent to a PS school and use it for any age education, a willing learner takes much less time (and money) to teach than a classroom full of captives.

Mass, Age based, education is a waste of time, money and rescources.

[PrincessPerky]

Re: Money and the environment

Princess, you sound like a great mom. And you managed to describe probably the one thing I miss about not having children....being able to open their eyes and mind to the (natural) world arond them.

thanks!

And you don't have to miss out on all of it, find a kid, you prolly have to search around for one that is not locked up all day, but find one and help them. I have to go find people to help me teach, I know nothing about plants or gardening, so I find a few friends of mine to share their knowledge (I learn and DCs learn)

There are lots of subjects I have to have help with, find a parent who Home Educates cultivate a friendship and share the knowledge, Please! (you don't by any chance live in Charlotte NC?)

[rob62521]

Re: Money and the environment

Exactly so we should stop trying! I am certainly not the only parent able to teach, and there are many many people more than willing to share knowledge in their feild of interest, but todays world, kids are shclepped off, so no one has a chance to learn the 'old fashioned way' unless the parents are willing to accept major ridicule, pain, cash output (though I believe it will save us in the long run), extra time, effort, and PIA fighting the system. Home Educating is slowly gaining acceptance, we no longer have to fight the local schools with guns to keep our kids home, but it hasn't come that far either. George Washington's Education: No formal education, was far superior to what we are trying to accomplish in Public schools.

Even if you feel there must be schools for people who will not teach (though I would argue that number grows due to the current system), why must we give a standard of care that waits till age 5 to teach, and at age 5 assumes a child should be able to behave for 6 hours away from any parent? Instead why can't we take about half the current money sent to a PS school and use it for any age education, a willing learner takes much less time (and money) to teach than a classroom full of captives.

Mass, Age based, education is a waste of time, money and rescources.

Unfortunately there are parents who feel their only responsibility is to bring a child into the world. They don't teach, they don't even talk to the child so by the time that child enters the doors of a school, they are so far behind. I don't think the system is totally to blame because you aren't doing that. You know better and I would say it sounds like you are doing a fine job. Unfortunately we need to have people who don't do or know what to do to attend parenting classes, but the ones who usually sign up for them are the ones who are truly interested in being parent and not the ones who really "need" them. I work in an inner city school and seeing these kids come to school hungry and without proper clothing for the season is heartbreaking. We as educators can only do so much and most of us are constantly buying supplies, snacks, and even clothing or bringing in our kids' clothing to help out. These kids never really catch up because they have not been spoken to or taught anything except to stay out of the parent's way. Sad state of affairs, but true.