Why bother lying?

I think that many people in the world do actually care about the "sustainability" but on the scale of the whole planet it's a small minority. I also think that there are many people who fear what is going to happen to the Earth and, let's not lie, their personal lives in particular if all of the warnings would have happened. The thing is it's got nothing to do with what people do to help prevent it. Not many people actually use bus because of sustainability of the nature but rather because of sustainability of their wallets.

Would I rather drive in the future a Ford/Renault or Audi/Mercedes/BMW? The latter, of course. Those are better cars, just look at their price/social status/reviews. Is it not a sustainable answer? I guess, judging by the main principle - what's good for you is bad for the planet. In case someone doesn't believe me - try to imagine for a minute Earth without any people ever being there. A much greener picture?

Would I live in a small flat in the city centre or in a big house in the country? I'd live in a big flat in the city centre, let's put it this way. We all want to live our private lives in our own houses but as a non-British person I think I lack that ever-demanding "my house is my fortress" attitude I have witnessed on these wonderful shores. Besides, in our time and age many more people can afford to have two houses: working flat and summer house would sound perfect to me. Sustainable? Perhaps no, but I don't see how having too many houses can really be a problem. If a person has enough money to spend on electricity and bills then he can use as much of it a possible as long as those are not public money.

Holiday choice between local but boring (Norfolk/ Wales) and far away but interesting (California/Thailand/S. Africa/Greece)? I'd say as far as I'm not really local to these shores the answer is obvious - the latter one. And it's not really about the interest in something new (although Norfolk and Wales are exactly like Northampton - why bother going there? better go to the backyard) but rather about my own perception of the holiday: warm, beautiful, relaxed. I know some people can say those words about British destinations but generally I hope people will understand me - well, you can't seriously compare Thailand to the Norfolk, can you? Greener way would be benefiting nature? Well, less people would be benefiting nature, and less human activity would do much better to the environment. it won't benefit airlines, their employees and families of those employees.

Smart phone or a dumb phone? I'd go for the latter one because I: a) never had a smart phone, b) never wanted a smart phone - it's expensive and I'm not addicted to texting and poor quality video games.

Would I give up shopping for clothes for a year? Believe me I have even longer periods of time without having to go shopping. I survived. Shopping as leisure is not for me and it's not sustainable for my wallet.

Would I stop eating bananas, oranges and out of season fruits? Sounds as if I'm eating them that often. I'd definitely spend on them more if I could afford it but generally looking at the question - buying healthy food or not buying healthy food? I'd say I would buy it, I could give up on this planet but I'm not going to give up on myself.

Generally, I think, we used to spend less (if spending is the problem here) when all those necessities of today were luxuries. People were flying less, driving less and shopping less because they could not afford it. Modern time gives us a choice if many things. I do not support buying many things and excessive shopping but at the same time I believe everyone has a right to spend as much of his own money as possible.

Am I so naive that I think alternative energy sources can possibly supply our needs in the future? No. Alternative energy sources are like world without poverty - sounds good but not in this time and age. Of course, we can invest much more money into unprofitable, not too worthy and very expensive wind farms and solar energy but at the end of the day you see that without good old oil and nuclear we cannot sustain our economy level.

Are we that lazy/ignorant/selfish that we can't change? I guess no, we can change but we're just not going to. The problem is each and every person, with the exception of fanatics, is selfish and cares about himself/herself first. That is our nature and without it we would not survive. We can always say that the future of this planet is in our hands and if all the ordinary people would change then we all will live in piece with the environment and sustain this wonderful planet for the future generations. It is not going to happen - ask Christians, they tried to teach us kindness and love for 2000 years and yet not much changed. I think that future is in the hands of the elitist group that is called Government and only they can implement changes to this society. Our role is demanding an action from our politicians.

Judging by the previous human experience I can find only three possible ways to engage ordinary people to make changes in their own lives and behavior:
- Government teaches us that by making our little bit of impact we all can take part in saving the planet (it is called a culture or a tradition. Brits have this tradition of recycling and many people separate their rubbish into different bins without even being too concerned about the actual cause)
- Government scares us and tells us that if we're not going to do our little bit then we're going to have to pay (in a soft way - penalty is a worse environment and possible future climate change, in a strict way - penalty is a money fee they charge us for not doing enough "green" things for the planet)
-Government motivates people by offering them "greener" things that cost less for the wallet and has more advantages than disadvantages (that would be the perfect variant but unfortunately at the moment there is no cheaper equivalent to the oil or local tourist equivalent to Greece)

In a conclusion I'd like to say that we all care about our own lives and the only changes people are going to do are the ones that would cost less for them. If the cost of the "greener" environment is slow economy, slow cars, lack of technologies, numerous restrictions and penalties then that's not worth it. I believe people will be able to adapt and invent some "green" cars, "green" factories, better water supplies.
I understand that most of my answers were unsustainable. I do think that until we get convenient AND sustainable things , rather than bad but good for environment we've got now, I am not going to consider "right" way of things. Although I personally don't see a need in buying an expensive smart phone or to go shopping for clothes every day I don't see anything bad in them either. Surely you can't blame people for having extra money. So I believe we all can become "sustainable" one day , we just need to see what we are going to get from it.

An Inconvenient Truth

I have watched only that piece of film that I've seen on the lecture so my entire impression was based on that part. From the personal point of view the film was made well, very good production, camera work, right passages, according to b est traditions of the Hollywood movie-making. Now from the point of view of a geographer:
-message seems to be made very clear, with no chance for the other side ("critics") to reply and no second opinion from many other scientists that claim the climate change threat is not THAT immense (and there are a lot of them)
-do I feel it is a right approach? Well, for the sake of making a propagandist film, yes! Pretty sure that scientific material could be more objective, but if you really want to make an impression then that's the way to go.
-So more information could be included, and at the same time some of his personal issues could be excluded from the film. For example, his political career info is alright for the film, but reminding people that he's lost the election in a wrong manner and to a wrong man - that's all very subjective. The part with his ill kid was added to give the movie a "personal" dimension and make some people cry. It was very irrelevant and a bit of a cheap trick.
-The film was not at all technical, boring or confusing but editing made it hard for me to follow the his thoughts properly. The structure of the film was very dynamic, where he jumps from technical info to his political fiasco, and then back to the planet saving, and then to his son.
-Speaking about the simplicity of the content is unnecessary because everyone knows that that kind of films could not be too simple. It's a political film with a particular issue aimed at specific audience with political views plus at those who knows nothing about the climate change.
-The film was overall interesting if you watch it after news report, but not too exciting to watch it in cinema or buy a DVD.
-The irrelevance is not the biggest problem of the film - they made about $48,000,000 of the profit worldwide, Mr. Gore's back into politics and got his followers, "Climate Change" companies got their piece of the pie in numerous grants and sponsorships, and don't forget the Nobel Peace Prize given to Gore for his efforts.