[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
grow

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 1381)
Message
File  []
close
bear.jpg
138113811381
>> No. 1381 Anonymous
26th September 2010
Sunday 8:15 am
1381 Glamping
How does /eco/ feel about this latest horrid craze? Me personally it winds me up no end, it's almost as bad as Bear Grylls. http://goglamping.net/ for more information...

Picture not related.
Expand all images.
>> No. 1382 Anonymous
26th September 2010
Sunday 11:42 am
1382 spacer
>>1381 My first response was like yours, but if you think about it, it's all positive. The rich middle class taking an interest in the great outdoors is good and not staying in carbon burning, landscape ruining hotels is also good. We who enjoy actual camping can still have our slice.
>> No. 1383 Anonymous
26th September 2010
Sunday 7:41 pm
1383 spacer
This is the kind of thing that would make me vote Gay Racists, so to speak.
>> No. 1384 Anonymous
27th September 2010
Monday 9:45 pm
1384 spacer
>>1381
How unpleasant.
>> No. 1385 Anonymous
27th September 2010
Monday 11:49 pm
1385 spacer

t102488_Eyebrows.gif
138513851385
>luxury camping
>> No. 1395 Anonymous
2nd October 2010
Saturday 8:18 pm
1395 spacer
>>1382
Are you able to offer reasonable estimates of the CO2 emitted in the manufacture, distribution and sale of all this camping furniture and equipment that'll most likely sit unused for 48+ weeks of the year vs. the upkeep of a hotel or are you basing your perceptions of what's "green" on vacuous crap?
>> No. 1396 Anonymous
3rd October 2010
Sunday 1:59 am
1396 spacer
>>1395

Well put.
>> No. 1397 Anonymous
3rd October 2010
Sunday 10:02 am
1397 spacer
>>1395 Hotels are also full of furniture which also has to be distributed. A modern hotel, made of concrete and steel and full of fixtures and finishings, would have to use much more energy both during construction and while running. Even digging the foundations for the thing would probably outdo the tent. A hotel is a permanent scar on the natural landscape and interferes with things like groundwater and runoff. Tents aren't. I don't watch or read 'vacuous crap' so none of this is based on it.

I'm intrigued as to why you had such a strong reaction to my post. Was it the word 'carbon'? Can you give some examples of the 'vacuous crap' you are referring to?
>> No. 1398 Anonymous
3rd October 2010
Sunday 12:58 pm
1398 spacer
>>1397
>>I'm intrigued as to why you had such a strong reaction to my post. Was it the word 'carbon'? Can you give some examples of the 'vacuous crap' you are referring to?

Not him, but I suspect he is just someone who isn't used to our unique /eco/ culture. He suspect he is also the chap who was unpleasant in the whale thread.
>> No. 1400 Anonymous
3rd October 2010
Sunday 2:16 pm
1400 spacer

Galapagos Safari.jpg
140014001400
Now don't get me wrong, I'm a seasoned campist. I've slept in bivouacs and those orange sacks I forget the name of and under a sheet of canvas dangling off a tree, but look at this, it looks wonderful, far better than a hotel.
>> No. 1401 Anonymous
3rd October 2010
Sunday 6:20 pm
1401 spacer
>>1398
It was my first post in the thread. I thought a lot of /eco/'s inhabitants cared about our planet. Is goodwill more important than informed opinion? Do good intentions trump misguided counter-productiveness?

>>1397
I'll take that as a "no", then. I daresay a hotel does emit significantly more CO2 during its lifetime, but that's totally besides the point because what's important are the emissions per person. If everyone who stayed at the hotel instead bought all this gear and rarely used it, would we be better off? I very much doubt it, but then I'm not the one promoting products based on their carbon credentials.
>> No. 1402 Anonymous
3rd October 2010
Sunday 7:04 pm
1402 spacer
>>1401

Seconded.
>> No. 1404 Anonymous
4th October 2010
Monday 8:00 pm
1404 spacer
>>1401 So you are saying that because people share the furniture and building it's more efficient? That's a good point and you should have made it at the beginning, rather than the post you actually made.

I disagree with it but I'm not going to start ranting about how you don't have any figures and then accuse you of basically being an idiot who believes everything he reads. I'll just point out that all the camping equipment in OP's link is owned by the resort and used by paying guests, just like a hotel.

>I'm not the one promoting products based on their carbon credentials.

What's wrong with this? This is /eco/. How would you suggest we promote products?
>> No. 1450 Anonymous
20th November 2010
Saturday 3:12 pm
1450 spacer
>>1401

>goodwill more important than informed opinion?

Strange I'm of the opinion 90% enviromentalists are full of good will, but poorly informed.
>> No. 1451 Anonymous
21st November 2010
Sunday 5:40 pm
1451 spacer
>>1450 I'd say 90% of the general population is badly informed about everything. Most people on /eco/ are better informed than the average Joe. The poster who accused others on this board of parroting media sound-bites(this seems to be what he was suggesting) was being very unfair.
>> No. 1452 Anonymous
22nd November 2010
Monday 11:27 am
1452 spacer
>>1451

The level of detailed knowledge on /eco/ has pleasantly surprised me on many occasions, but it makes sense as I vaguely recall threads in /b/ and other places where there was at least one tree-surgeon and some other gardening professional, as well as a couple of military types who had survival skills.

Not sure why the same level of insight and knowledge isn't spread on other boards?
>> No. 1455 Anonymous
25th November 2010
Thursday 10:56 pm
1455 spacer
>>1404

>I'll just point out that all the camping equipment in OP's link is owned by the resort and used by paying guests, just like a hotel.

But it's not a big concrete monstrosity like a hotel!
>> No. 1456 Anonymous
26th November 2010
Friday 2:07 pm
1456 spacer
>>1455 That's the point. The structure is greener and the furniture use is no worse than a hotel. I think you missed the point.
>> No. 1457 Anonymous
29th November 2010
Monday 9:26 pm
1457 spacer
>>1456

I'm not sure if I'm arguing against the correct person here, to be honest. The thread is twisting my mind.

What I want to argue is that this is better than a hotel because it is greener, looks better and is not going to destroy the ecosystem. Whoever I'm agreeing with, I love you, whoever I'm disagreeing with, oh well, I hope you'll see my point soon.

But yeah I didn't post in the thread before 1455. I thought 1404 was saying that these are just as bad as hotels because the resort owns the materials.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password