Saturday, March 28, 2009

My Husband: The Activist

So, it's Earth Hour. In case you don't know, apparently, everyone across the planet is supposed to turn off all lights and otherwise conserve energy for one hour at the same time. I don't know much about it, mainly because I don't really care all that much. I have enough to worry about.

But not Andy.

Nope, he cares.

A lot.

So much so, that he has gone around and flipped on EVERY. SINGLE. light in the house.

And I mean EVERY light.

Lights in bedrooms, in closets, the hallway, above the shower, in the pantry...lights that frankly, I didn't even know we HAD.

And so I sit here in a bath of artificial light. I won't pretend to know or understand his reasons, other than just to be difficult in general and his general aversion to the "green movement". Ironic considering that his wife feeds him organic food every chance she gets and makes all her own cleaning supplies.

But whatever. I think it's funny.

(For the record, I seriously waffled on whether or not to even post this, because I know it's just an invitation for him to hop on my otherwise relatively non-controversial blog and "flame away".)


Jonathan said...

Nicely done, Gib...nicely done.

Brianna Heldt said...

i'm laughing.out.loud. that is hilarious. go andy!

man this really makes me miss you guys!

Mary Kay said...

I love Andy, obviously, but you need to think of the legacy that you are leaving your children. Green is not bad!

Joanie said...

Oh my, that is so funny.

Michelle said...

Wow, i guess i really don't understand the point of that. What is wrong about "being green" exactly? I agree with Mary Kay...your children will be inhabiting this earth long after you have left it.

Mommy Laity said...

Ya, I thought the power had gone out. I got home from work last night and my husband was reading by candle light. =)
Good to know we weren't the only ones.

jenny said...

Ha! That's what Rush Limbaugh did too...

We totally forgot about it. But we joked about doing that.

andy gibson said...

Ok. Here.we.go.

I'm going to teach my children to think for themselves and understand the consequences of their actions and the things they participate in. What kind of legacy does "being green" leave for children? Do you know why we should be green? Is global warming real? What is being green? If we choose a "green" lifestyle, what are the CONSEQUENCES? Where does 80% of the U.S. electricity come from? How do you produce Hydrogen for a Hydrogen environment, a hydrogen clean burning car?

Problem is, alot of those that are on the green bandwagon can't answer those questions in whole. Why? (And I apologize for the blanket statements, but I'm not writing a dissertation here) Possibly because they haven't thought it through from start to finish. I'd be happy to give my side.....and I try to, but generally nobody is willing to listen because they are on said bandwagon and everything around them says to "be green". A perfect example is the report from a year ago comparing the full life cycle, dust to dust analysis of the costs and environmental impact of a Hummer vs. a Prius. The prius lost and the report was dismissed as biased and irresponsible? I looked through the report, and a friend of mine read almost the whole thing. It was far from and definitely gave some additional factors to consider in buying or owning both vehicles. If you buy a prius to save gas money...sweet for you. If you drive it because somebody has blown smoke up your butt that you're saving the environment? Think again.

What I am for is personal responsibility, and there are some common items in that with being "green". Sure. But I am not for bandwagons, which being "green" is...along with "global warming" that all of the sudden became "climate change" because IMOP there is no such thing as caused by humans, but people need to think they are doing something good...when they're really not.

So all of my lights were on in protest of the ignorance that I perceive around the marketing of "being green". All of my lights were on to represent personal responsibility and understanding consequences.

Brianna Heldt said...

thanks for sharing andy. the "green" movement is good in some ways but i think there are problems with some of the rhetoric.

some "green" things i DO wish were more prevalent: more solar/passive solar homes, stopping the use of pesticides, and not building so many energy DEficient homes just b/c they're cheaper to build.

i want to pass a good planet on to my kids, and we try to conserve and not be wasteful, but i have a hard time aligning myself w/ the movement as a whole.

Kristen said...

as much as i try to be green in all the simple and reasonable ways, i found this hilarious. :)

Jeannett Gibson said...

Just a quick note about building energy DEficient California at least...the building codes are such that regardless of the cost, they are some of the most energy EFFICIENT homes in the nation. They obviously could still go further, with things like solar power (although the cost vs. savings can take upwards of 20 years to recoup your initial cost), etc.

I think that lots of things are becoming "green" in general, and that is a good thing. The thing that worries me about the "movement" is that is so often seems to smack of worshiping the creation, rather than the Creator. But of course, we are to be stewards of the land, so there is certainly a balance. I think Andy just gets annoyed in general when they are duped into thinking they are doing good, when it's really just slick advertising.

Mommy Laity said...

Well, I feel like a total dork. Apparently I didn't read your post very clearly. Sorry. =(

I guess it's no surprise that my organic farmer husband was on opposite sides of this debate from Andy. =) (But no we don't own a prius...)

andy gibson said...

Don't get me wrong. Like I said, there are good things in being green. Organic farming is a great way to be green, and IMOP it is probably one of personal responsibility for your health and your families health moreso than being labeled green.

Most of my complaints and perceived ignorance comes from the energy side of things, where a lot of people don't understand the consequences and compromises involved.

Jonathan said...

Time for my 2 cents (as I picture Jeannett cringing). Warning: potential rant below...

I think Jeannett brought up an excellent point when she mentioned focusing on the creation vs. The Creator. What we have going on in this day in age is a case of "grotesque megalomania", or rather people believing that we are omnipotent and can affect what happens to the planet on a macroscopic scale. God designed this planet to operate in perfect harmony, and macroscopically, there isn't a thing we can do to change that. One major volcanic eruption, which is just one example of the earth's necessary operations, releases more CO2 than we have created (more or less) since the start of the industrial revolution. Thinking we can alter the planet's cycles by forcing its inhabitants to "filter this" or "cut back on that" is simply ludicrous.

Does this mean we should throw our hands up and simply do nothing? Absolutely not. I obviously don't want to breathe in smog everyday nor see green water coming out of my faucet at home. But we absolutely need to keep things in perspective; in fact, I think we're morally obligated to. Think about this: since February 16th, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world roughly $600 billion dollars to save the temperature of the earth from rising ~0.0065 degrees Celcius by 2050. This is all for something that MAY be affected by man (which I don't believe is), but can you imagine what $600 billion would have done towards fighting hunger in the actual, visible ailment? I think it's morally reprehensible what we're deciding to do to combat a "maybe" while staring a plethora of "are so"s right in the face. Keeping the science in perspective can help us make better choices instead of letting Madison Ave. and the nation's marketers tell us how to live our lives.

I'll leave everyone with this question: If we are to blame for global warming and we are approaching/in dangerous temperature levels, when will we have we succeeded in bringing the temp back to "the safe zone" i.e. what temperature should we lower the current temperature by to reach the intended temperature for this planet? Without this answer, how can we know that what we're doing is scientifically and morally responsible?