Latest comments posted about What is Cooler Living? on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1042-What-is-Cooler-Living- http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1042-What-is-Cooler-Living- There will be a slice of hope for the whole globe only when all the countries stop taking economic development as their main priority. However, what did ancient China ever do and will do to slow down, even to stop the development of national economy, is impossible for Western countries to accept. This contradicts Western countries basic values of espousing democracy and freedom. The basic values of the Western world are not flawless as it accepts and protects--even encourages-- the sense of greed. The horrible damage to China’s environment in recent years is the result of the evil consequences of taking Western values under the pressure from Western countries. You may ask, why couldn’t China just slow down its economic development for the sake of protecting the environment? Why did China keep following the trend of seeking greediness and benefits? In this way, isn’t China hypocritical as well? The fact remains, nevertheless, those Indians who used to be the original inhabitants of North America and held nature in awe were butchered to extinguishment. However, those temperate, kind, courteous, restrainable, and generous Chinese people suffered the brutal invasion of the Eight Power Allied Force; the era of Mao Zedong, which pollution hardly existed, was blamed for violating human rights. In other words, the whole world is driven by a damn logic that the people full of sense of responsibility will finally be discarded by the mainstream of modern society, and the countries being gentle and kind will finally be wiped off the map. Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:39:23 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-9696 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-9696 In order to improve people's living standards, according to the usual logical process for developing countries' economies, the media would need to help stimulate consumption, inciting mass desire to consume more. Leveraging on stars is one of the most effective promotion methods. We really need to have a counter-culture movement in order to solve the root of the environmental problems. This comment was translated by Lin Hui-Yi Fri, 01 Jan 2010 04:11:36 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-9695 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-9695 I think that this discussion relates to how we consider our future generations. As natural resource supplies deplete, whose benefits should be sacrificed? zeal5 Sichuan, China Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:54:28 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-8290 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-8290 Agree. Celebrities have no qualification to educate any one. Their shows of their environmental-friendly lifestyles are disgusting. This seems like slapping their own faces. Isn't the purpose of their doing so purely for publicity and earning more money? Aren't those sponsoring companies use environmental protection as an advertisement for selling more products. When customers are willing to pay, the companies won't refuse at all, even if consuming activities are not enviornmental-friendly! This comment was translated by Lei Xie Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:25:23 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-7834 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-7834 Are stars qualified to educate me? When they whizz around in their high-emissions SUV's, posing in their furs and scoffing shark fin soup, what right do they have to tell me how to lead a more environmetally friendly life? I think many things depend on raising one's own consciousness, including the environment! It's only when people are aware enough about the issue that they can properly gauge whether their lives are environmentally friendly. As a staunch environmentalist, my ideas come from Greenpeace, from the encouragement and support of countless ordinary people, from my employers, from the old woman in my community who rescues stray cats, but there is no star to tell me I need to live in an environmetally friendly way - and I don't need them to! In fact, no matter what lavish lives the stars lead, they have nothing to do with me! Because I know I am living in an environmetally friendly way and I have a clear conscience! Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:52:11 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3864 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3864 Everyday, I'm considering "what are the parts of my life that I don't need? How much is enough?" And I let it influence each one of my consumption decision. "Simple Ling Hing Thinking" is the attitude of my everyday life. However, my close friends say that this is ascetical and that giving up willful purchasing and consuming will render our modern life even more boring and meaningless. They said that the rules of commodity society is "to make both parties happy with their interests taken care of. No trade, no life." Meanwhile, the majority of people nowadays see "shopping" as an human instinct to fulfill their mental needs. According to the hierarchy of needs developed by psychologists, indeed it seems none of the levels of needs (psychological, security, belonging, esteem, self-acturalization) can live without material, or consumption... All in all, they employ whatever they know and feel trying to pursuade me that "going for sweetness instead of bitterness" is a human instinct. There is no socalled "over consumption". It is all about human instinct. (However) Isn't it also because of human instincts that the world becomes what it is today? How can this consumption be controlled? Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:05:15 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3853 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3853 Internationally, we differentiate between luxurous emission and survival emission. People who have been to North America, Western and Northern Europe might have noticed, that the indoor temperature has been kept so high because they are only willing to wear shirts, or even T-shirt! It is perfectly okay to wear warm sweaters, which are good-looking and can protect them from temperature differences that can get them a cold without posing any inconvenience on their daily activities. I can't understand why they waste energy like this. This is a typical example for luxurous emission. However, in regions south to Huaihe, where the winter is as long and as cold as that of western europe, there's no heating devices. People have to boil water and cook their meals. This type of CO2 emission is for survival purposes, emitting for survival. Follow the same logic, we should differentiate between luxurous consumption and survival consumption. How much social esteem and self-realization should be counted as part of survival needs? Above which level should they be called superficious unnecessities instead? Is consumption the only to get it? How much consumption of what do we need to feel content? These are determined by the value system of the whole society, and economical, environmental, and resource conditions as well. The latter can't be changed, while the former can be influenced and led by public education, governmental leading effects or celebrity effects. Thu, 14 Jun 2007 03:09:33 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3860 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3860 Climate change affect everyone's life and everyone's life also cause the change of climate. Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:04:07 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3852 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3852 the market economy is founded on creation of demand, the incessant practice of which is what got us here think about it -- when China was at its poorer state 30 years ago, we led more environmentally responsible(and healthier) lives -- we recycled, we reused, we reduced. We rode bikes, made compost, wrote on both sides of the paper before wiping bottoms with it. So is poverty the best way to be green? Thu, 07 Jun 2007 09:33:09 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3825 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3825 As a young man, I believe that a cooler living should start with small behavioral changes, particularly those closely related to our daily life: when buying dishes in a fast-food store, I will try to use my own container to avoid using disposable meal boxes and chopsticks; everyday try to reduce shower hour; while having a shower, collect extra water to flush toilet; while using washing machine, keep to a low water-level until reaching bleach washing stage; switch off the light whenever it’s not in use; try not to use plastic bag while shopping in the supermarket, instead, have your own bag ready; try to categorize different type of garbage and dispose them separately; collect used-up battery and give to recycle agency; avoid wasting paper if it can be re-used; books and clothes can be given out or sold to others rather than thrown away; in work or daily life, trash bags shall be re-used, if possible. As to some luxurious commodities, everyone can purchase them according to his own demands. Everybody has his rights to consumption. On the other hand, consumers also have relevant obligation. If your purchase might damage the environment somehow, you need to cautiously judge whether to buy or not. If you have to make this purchase, it’s your responsibility to choose the most environment-friendly version. Only everyone starts with small things, with oneself, to protect our environment and to reduce the pollution that can we have the real Cooler Living. Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:51:34 +0000 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3813 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1042#comment-3813