Fuck, I missed the bus to Malmö tonight. Sure you can always take the train, but Säfflebussen is 40DKK, which is almost like a Falafel bought in Strøget. I'm back at Andy's place - although he's at a French-fries party with a Belgian girl whose main mission seems to be to remind the whole world that fries are Belgian not French. There were 100.000 people today at the 'Change the System - not the Climate' demonstration, and when we finally got to the Bella Center, I needed to go back to the centre, but I wasn't alone. Although the metro was running every 2 minutes, it took ages before I could get on a train, and when I did, it took half an hour to go pass 3 stations...So, this time your favourite blogger decided to make a Q&A's post - using some interesting material I found on The Guardian (by far the only newspaper I can think of reading). There was a recent article about the link between meat and diary consumption and environment, and lots of people felt like leaving interesting, sometimes really funny, comments. Tonight I feel like commenting on them. There you go.1. Have no fun, stay in your village, don't keep any warmer than required to survive, no lights on - your on a losing wicket here need to be a lot more creative in your approach.Easy one. Here you see how our idea of a) fun and b) quality of life are so extremely consumption-based. For many people there is no way back. Either endless consumption as the only means to achieve happiness - or leading a life like in a retirement home. It is also implied that you can't keep yourself warm (and healthy) without burning fossil fuels, which is wrong. Why are the few who can claim to be self-sufficient apparently happy? Maybe even happier then others?2. "SUBMIT SLAVE!!"We are to be made to live like peasants eating raw vegetables around a carbon neutral camp fire while the scammers fly around in Lear Jets."Have we saved the world yet, Master?""No, it's getting worse, maybe in another ten years when enough of you are dead".This is the class argument, one of my favourites. Unlike the previous one, it is not only about quality of life, but here there is a political problem being addressed: it's always only the poor working class that has to make sacrifices, this time even to save the planet. I think this pov is especially interesting because it clashes with the new high-class trend of being 'green'. Right now, who can really make choices that influence the market (e.g. buying organic, vegan, etc.) are mostly those who have the money for it. The working class has to go to the discount and eat pesticides (?). I think that as long as commercials instruct people about housekeeping, many will never learn how they can be at the same time satisfied, cheap, healthy and ethical. But that's a long story. The real challenge is making sustainability less of a luxury and make sure that it's accessible to everyone.3. The ruling class intend to return us all to a state of medieval serfdom - half-starved, diseased and freezing. Next some 'sustainability committee' will tell the government that our life expectancies are all far too long and something should be done about it to 'save the planet'.Can you see why the greens are far worse than the communists?Similar thing. Here we're even back in the Cold War. These people can't see that they are already slaves. Like everyone, you're slave of the system, as long as you go to the store and buy the usual stuff you see on tv, blabla. Thinking that eating more (local & organic) vegetables makes you starve is childish. I'm not sure when exactly the diseases joined the party, but keep on going to the store to buy industrial meat, and we'll talk about it in a few years. And again, there's nothing wrong about being many on this planet and living a long life (although I believe life expectancy hasn't really become so long as they want us to believe); it's like 4 people living in a room for one person, if they are all responsible and nice to each other, they're gonna survive, but as soon as someone starts using more space and resources, the equilibrium is broken. A bit like Big Brother.4. Note the emphasis on consumers changing their ways, not on producers or retailers.If supermarkets are selling unsustainable fish, why are they allowed to? If the vast majority of breakfast cereals could properly be re-classified as confectionary, why are they sold with using fake healthy imagery? Why is it tolerated to strip the seas in order to feed to farmed salmon?The whole food production system encourages over-production and waste, and the problem needs to be tackled at root, rather than leaving it up to individual conscience.People buy and large eat what's there. Want to save the Cod? Stop putting it on the shelves.Very interesting point. Very true, too. I don't trust people too much either. But I trust much less people who force things on other people, although for a good cause. If the problem are the supermarkets, for instance, you might find it hard to use the law to either change their policies, or even shut them down (especially if they are big chains/corporations). Let's face it, democracy doesn't work. Then you might just give your support to a dictator or some totalitarian regime, and you'll have it done faster (seems to be working). No thanks, I don't like that, I don't need more prohibitions. I need people to understand, think with their own brains without being manipulated, and decide by themselves whether going to the store or to the local market and/or starting growing something in their garden, balcony, indoors even. Can you see now why the greens are far worse than the communists?
See original: 
