The Green Thing

Image via Wikipedia

I received the following as an email from a friend and, instead of gumming up the works by sending it to all my friends by email, I thought I'd spread it via the blog.


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: Don't make old People mad!

We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.


I find my sympathies lie with both camps. As a Greenpeace supporter since the 1970s, I've long had a 'green' awareness. And, as a child of the post war years, I used to attend the local cinema 'free' simply for the price of 9 jam jars to be recycled. So I understand all of the above. The young, on the other hand, are not responsible for developing all the labour-saving devices that have evolved from our love affair with consumerism and technology. These have all come along at the hands of our generation or that of our children. The continued exploitation of the Earth's resources continues with the current generation who merely follow the example we have set. So, whilst it might be true that we did many things to re-use items and resources in our younger days, it is equally true that we did nothing to prevent the decline of such recycling and we did a great deal to ensure the success of the modern throw-away economy.
Lets's not blame one another for the state of the modern world. Instead, let's actually do something about it, by ensuring we avoid the worst excesses of consumerism and embrace the best practices of the ecologically sound.

Is Population a Primary Cause of Global Climate Change?

Image via Wikipedia

Does anyone else feel, as I do, that the rising human population is probably the greatest threat to our security on the planet? Currently, according to the World Population Clock as I write, there are 6,855,542,801 (click the link and frighten yourself to death as you watch it increase before your eyes). The same counter estimates a world population of 8,730,121,285 by November 2050.

These numbers are too large to properly comprehend, of course. But the overall upward trend terrifies me. We have already reached a stage where millions are starving, millions if not billions have no access to safe water supplies, energy reserves are too scarce to go round, and many mineral resources are rapidly declining.

As the underdeveloped nations climb the ladder toward a Western level of consumerism, the calls on almost every resource will become unsustainable. If we can’t avoid starvation in the world now, how are we going to do so with a 20% increase in mouths to feed? Many experts predict that the next wars will be over drinking water; that seems to me like stating the bleeding obvious.

The increased consumption of materials and fuel and the resultant output of pollutants and carbon dioxide will inevitably accelerate the rate of climate change, which in turn, will add damaging stress to the ecosystems producing crops.

It is likely that war is inevitable under such circumstances. As a species, and as separate social groups, we have always shown a remarkably blinkered attitude to inevitable changes. Many of the civilisations that preceded ours vanished or declined rapidly as a result of ecological disasters. Are we to go the same way?

We do have a choice. We can do something to prevent catastrophe. It won’t affect me, other than at the very end of my likely lifespan. But it will affect my child and any individual currently under the age of about 40.

A fundamental change has to be the way we view our reproduction as a species. We have long had the means to limit our growth, to reduce the many children born to some couples. Of course, there are authorities in the world who see such intervention as sinful and against the will of their God. Perhaps these authorities should look at the poverty, misery and distress that their insistence on such dogma cause. The perceived need to continually increase the membership of any club (for which, read religious grouping) is hardly a reason to threaten the stability of life on Earth, is it?

They will no doubt use the defence that we must not behave as if we were God. But we do that daily by our intervention in the health and welfare of the population at large. If we can intervene to save life, why can’t we intervene to prevent its development?

I’ve had my say – or some of it – and now invite you to say your piece. Please, let me and the world know what you think about this.