Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

RE: [Icehouse] OFF TOPIC - Environmental Issues

  • From"Jeremy Lewis (home)" <paxdraxus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateTue, 31 Jan 2006 08:05:28 -0600
Again, not the place for this.

-----Original Message-----
From: icehouse-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:icehouse-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Derek Hohls
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 1:47 AM
To: icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Icehouse] OFF TOPIC - Environmental Issues

This is a completely OFF TOPIC sidebar. It is NOT intended as a
criticism of any person here, but more an observation on an issue.  I
see someone else requested a poster not to make "politic" remarks.  I
would hope that this does not constitute such... if so, the
administrator is welcome to consign it to the dustbin :-).   In any
event, I do not want to start a whole debate around "rights" and
'wrongs"... simply offer some food for thought to a group that,
collectively, are among some of the brightest people I have "met"
I see there has been much debate on the list about where to produce
IceHouse.  On one hand, I can understand that the makers want to be
patriotic and have it made in USA - nothing wrong with that at all (we
all have pride in our respective countries). I also support the notion
that it should not be made cheaper because of the use of child labour.
What I do find difficult to accept are all the statements along the
lines that this must be done because USA is an "environmentally
friendly" or "ecologically sound" place.  While USA may have strict laws
helping to protect the local US environment; from an external point of
view, we need to be aware that, as a major country in the global
environment, Americans (as a group, NOT as individuals) are perceived as
massive over-consumers with a high negative impact on the environment -
especially in the are of gloabl warming.
A few choice quotes (you can find others)...

>From Resolution 1292 (World Summit on Sustainable Development):
5. Particularly disappointing is the fact that President George Bush
announced that the United States of America now no longer intends to
comply with the Kyoto Protocol...
6. Such an about-face by the USA and its withdrawal from the Kyoto
mechanisms continue to cause legitimate concern amongst the
international community, which believes the protocol to be the first
worldwide practical measure to combat global warming.

Or this from a journalist:
>From local -
"Dorchester, MA (population 86,000) weekly discards about six times more
trash into landfills than the entire city of Oslo, Norway (population
To global - 
"In 1992 at Rio, all the participating countries committed to drafting a
game plan that would bring consumption within levels that could be
sustained indefinitely. They also pledged to start reducing
carbon-dioxide emissions - the primary cause of human-induced global
warming - to 1990 levels. At the time, the United States had 5 percent
of the world's population but was consuming about 25 percent of the
world's energy and 30 percent of its raw materials, according to UN
statistics.  Since Rio, US consumption of energy has jumped 21 percent,
material consumption is up 10 percent, and greenhouse gas emissions are
up 13 percent. Those emissions are expected to exceed 1990 levels by
more than 46 percent by 2020.. "

or this:
If we assume that everyone on Earth is entitled to an equal,
climatically acceptable level of carbon emissions, then in 1998 each
person would be allowed about 2.4 tonnes (14 billion tonnes of carbon
divided by 5.9 billion people); in 2010, with an estimated 7 billion
people, this would drop to only 2 tonnes. Yet today in Germany, for
example, per capita emissions stand at about 10.2 tonnes per year, while
in the United States the figure is about 20.5 tonnes per year. In
contrast, the inhabitants of Africa and of India currently emit only
about 1 tonne per capita per year, and the Chinese, about 2.7 tonnes.

This last article provides much food for thought on what it means, at an
individual level to promote sustainability.  I believe that LL are
sincere in their desire to support this cause, and have no doubt that
they personally strive for many of the ideals espoused in this article
(as do other concerned individuals in the US). I just think we need to
be aware, when making sweeping statements about the virtues of our
countries (whichever ones they may be), that they do not necessarily
live up to our personal standards.
Back "on topic", I too hope that IceHouse continues to thrive and
prosper and be affordable!
Elegance rules!

This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright, terms and conditions
e-mail legal notice. Views expressed herein do not necessarily represent
views of the CSIR.
CSIR E-mail Legal Notice
CSIR Copyright, Terms and Conditions
For electronic copies of the CSIR Copyright, Terms and Conditions and
the CSIR
Legal Notice send a blank message with REQUEST LEGAL in the subject line

This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
and is believed to be clean.

Icehouse mailing list

Current Thread