The Green Thing

I saw this on Facebook Today and I am not sure how to credit the original writer but it wasn't me but I do agree with a lot of what it says



Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana . In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.

Remember punks: Don't make us old People mad.

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to (*)(*)(*)(*) us off you disrespectful little vermin.

 

Dead on!!! Truth can be painful. I don't know what I would do with a fountain pen (I remember lots of ink, everywhere), but I miss the returnable bottles.

 

I could kiss you!

most of my "green" behaviour stems from what I learned when I was growing up... and being cost conscious .... a legacy of being brought up by parents who were young adults during the depression.

I am often amazed at young people who claim to care about the environment and the wastefulness they engage in .... but I also thing there's a lot of false logic around in relation to what is determined to be "green" behaviour.

 

I did not write it , was on facebook but it is true , and I could kiss you back lol!!!

 

Jesus Christ, these "back in my day" threads are so stupid.

It's not like there is just a gap from the baby boomers childhood to now, they did actually do things in between. Like put plastic bags in supermarkets. And bring up that brat behind the counter at the supermarket, spoiling him rotten.

I'm Gen Y and I grew up doing everything that is in that silly rant. Most of that is still standard.

This baby boomer did all those great "green" things, "back in the day" and yet she still hasn't clicked onto the "green bags" yet. And there is the problem.

 

Back in that day, They also dumped untreated toxic waste and sewage into the ocean and streams, lead based paint, asbestos tiles, rivers caught on fire, smoking was considered healthy, streets and parks were often unswepted (Disneyland changed that,) and people burned their trash instead of burying it like today. I still remember my grandparents burning their trash (i'm old), as every house had an incinerator. There was that ever present smell of burning garbage that now just exists in third world countrys.

Yea the good ole' environmentally friendly days

 

Old vs. New? A mixed bag.

I’m old enough to (vaguely) remember milk being delivered in glass bottles. That and the commercial difference between ‘pasteurized’ and ‘homogenized’ milk. ‘Pasteurized’ milk would separate. ‘Homogenized’ milk would not.

Reused glass containers vs. throwaway plastic milk bottles. Glass is heavy – increasing energy usage in delivery. A plastic milk jug takes less than an ounce of crude to make and its light weight greatly reduces energy required for delivery. Reusable glass milk bottles required not only energy for returning it to the dairy, but energy for cleaning and sterilization. Glass requires a lot of energy to make. It is fragile – requiring lots of energy to make replacements. On balance, plastic milk jugs are “greener.”

Lead based paint? Nothing in the world wrong with it if parents would keep their kids from eating it. Even with cathodic protection, ships painted with anything other than red lead simply rust. Terne metal – low-carbon sheet steel electrocoated with lead – roofs can last a century or more. Lead’s problems are more related to incompetent parenting than problems with the material.

Asbestos tiles? If one knew anything about crocodilite (the only variety of asbestos associated with mesothelioma) and how it gets breathed, one would know that asbestos in tiles in what people in the biz refer to as “fully encapsulated.”

If you bury carbonaceous materials, you expect landfill emissions of methane. If you believe the AGW fairy tale, (I don’t) that ain’t green. Incinerating solid waste allows easy recycling of worthwhile materials and reduces landfill volumes by 11:1. Now maybe central incinerators (Indianapolis has an excellent example) more completely oxidize the garbage than home units, but there is still the transportation penalty involved in central incineration.

As far back as the 17th century, smoking was known to be unhealthy.

Sewage and garbage dumped in the ocean is just fish food.

One would do well to get their environmental information from someplace else than the legacy MSM.

 

really?

how come this opinion is not shared by those researching this issue?

why don't you believe in the occurrence of AGW?


Are you not familiar with the science on this?

 

Crocodilite is the only variety of asbestos associated with mesothelioma. Only asbestos litigators and their accomplices claim otherwise.

I am completely familiar with the science and don’t buy a bit of the alleged science. Real science is confirmed or overturned by experimentation. The Warmers have not been able to do any experimentation that proves their theory.

Climate changes for natural reasons and people have nearly nothing to do with it. If climate were changing, it would be beyond mankind’s ability to stop it. Mankind would be much smarter to do what he does best – adapt.

 

OK.

I see that you are a conspiracy theorist, and that you are also ignorant of the science of climate change. no scientist has disputed that climate change occurs naturally, that is not in question at all.

 

Nobody claims that climate does not naturally change.

What is truly questionable is the claim that mankind has any significant effect one way or another.

Civility note:
If you insist on name-calling, be prepared to get some in return.

 

why is it truly questionable, in view of the evidence presented by science?

and if you talk like a conspiracy theorist, you shouldn't have a problem with being identified as such.

 

“Evidence” presented by questionable sources – in this case all the Warmers whose integrity was challenged by ClimateGate 1.0 and 2.0 – is not particularly credible.

 

see this is where I have a problem... you talk about the "evidence" being presented by questionable sources - which questionable sources?

and WRT climategate you seem to be unaware that there have been several enquiries which found no evidence of wrong doing.

that you don't understand what they were doing doesn't mean they did anything wrong. their major "crime" was not writing their emails to other scientists in a style that could be understood by non scientists.

 

I understand entirely what they were doing - - they were bending their "science" to fit their agenda. They loaded up the "peer review" board with nothing but other Warmers.

The "investigations" were done by other Warmers. Not credible.

Einstein insisted on his theories being tested by the skeptics of the day. The skeptics were won over by the quality of his work.

The same cannot be said of the Warmers.

 

There are no more questions allowed anymore. Al Gore said so, and he is a really smart scientificy and stuff kind of guy.

 

so you are a conspiracy theorist, then.

 

Al Gore is a bore.

the only people who are more boring than al bore are the people who utter his name constantly, as if they think he is the high priest of anyone who is concerned about the environment.

 

Not a conspiracy, just an expression of the conceits of a like-thinking elite.

 

sorry, all you are proving is that you interpreted the way the emails was written as a non scientist.

you are not familiar with scientific jargn, and the way words have particular meanings in a different context.

this is well understood.

only deniers don't understand because it suits THEIR agenda to remain ignorant.

the reason there is such a large body of evidence on AGW is BECAUSE the theory has been tested so much, through experiementation, empirical observation, collation of data, modelling, and then recalibtation of modelling in the light of new evidence and information.

.

 

so you are a onspiracy theorist, whose view of scientists corresponds to this:

 

I am hardly alone.

Why do you suppose support for AGW, Kyoto, and the IPCC is ebbing away?

And Durban just made it worse.

 

well ... it isn't really ... you need to think globally.