Depends on your area. Don't see a lot of hybrids over here in the low income part of town. Don't see any, actually. Do see lots of pick up trucks though.
Well, see, that's where "stats and more stats" come in. That way you don't have to rely entirely on what you happen to see around your neighborhood. It's a big country, Del. Lots of different kinds of neighborhoods.
Mexico is local to you? From my location it's over 500 miles away. I don't consider that local.
Hmm. Let's review. You said
since we're so close to Mexico...fresh produce you can't buy local in winter here is available from there. [shrug]
So I said
If you're close to Mexico, then the produce isn't being shipped very far to get there, right? Mission accomplished
Eating in a way designed to save energy is partly about eating what's geographically closest -- it's not about what country it's from. If certain produce is out of season in Texas, but available in Mexico, it's more local to eat that stuff than what's shipped from Chile. (It actually gets more complicated than that, but I'm not going to go into the complications for fear they will steer us even further off topic than this Mexico/local thing already has.)
No, I'm merely pointing out that stopping the usage of oil as a protest against human rights violaters would be more meaningful than not buying a trinket because oil is much more of a necessity.
Fine. No argument here. But again, the two are not mutually exclusive. What you're saying is like, volunteering to teach in a low-income school would be more meaningful than writing a check at a school fundraiser. So therefore, don't write a check at the fundraiser.
You can start filling in the Grand Canyon with a child's shovel and generations will pass before any good comes of it. Not very practical. I'd suggest remedies that are more timely and effective.
Fine. If, to you, having everyone in the United States suddenly stop all use of oil seems not only "timely and effective" but practical and possible, go for it. I'm not trying to prevent you, god knows.
I didn't name this thread.
You're participating in it. And to scornfully say that I "went on about diamonds" on a thread titled "On Diamonds" seems a little out of line.
Bingo. You just made my point. People don't buy diamonds very often. And then only those who can afford it do. So again, it's not much of a sacrifice toward the human rights issue to sacrifice by not buying them.
Whoever claimed it was "much of a sacrifice"? We're talking about it as something people may consider doing if they support the issue. Not about whether to elevate those who do it to sainthood.
IMO, it's like some Catholic person giving up buying diamonds for Lent.
OK. So?
Then it's not much of a sacrifice, is it?
Please show me where I or anyone claimed it is some giant sacrifice.
Do you really think many people will remember the movie Blood Diamond, a mediocre, fomulaic movie years from now?
Yes, people may forget plot points but I do think most viewers will retain its main point: that some -- not all -- diamonds are obtained in a way that adds to human misery.
Who makes more of an impact in the non-purchase of blood diamonds? Joe Citizen and his fiance Jane buying a solitaire or the COO of De Beers?
We've now gone over and over how production and sales businesses work, and if you're still not getting it I guess I'm running out of things to say. Consumers like Joe and Jane have an impact because De Beers depends on their business. One couple's actions have, realistically, no impact. But if all the Joes and Janes in the world -- or a significant enough portion of them, plus or minus hip-hop artists -- stop buying diamonds, De Beers will displease stockholders and go out of business. If all these Joe and Janes make clear that their decisions are based on concern about blood diamonds, then De Beers may be careful that its stock doesn't include blood diamonds (which it already says is the case, BTW), or at least to make the public -- plus any government investigators, journalists, etc. -- believe that it doesn't.
Del, I think what you may be trying to say is NOT that the consumer habits of Joe and Jane Citizen aren't at all important compared to the companies they buy from, but that not enough of them are getting involved in this issue to make a difference to De Beers. That may or may not be true, but I can assure you that De Beers is very aware of this controversy and has a PR position on it, because it doesn't want to lose even a few customers, let alone a lot.
Hey, why didn't I think to check Wikipedia before? This is in the "De Beers" entry, and it gives much more detail about De Beers' position on this issue. "Conflict diamonds," of course, are another term for "blood diamonds."
Conflict Diamonds and the Kimberley Process
Main articles: Blood diamond and Kimberley Process Certification Scheme
De Beers policy in the 1990s, which applied to all of Africa, was only to buy those diamonds that were legitimately traded and that it believed were not used to fund rebel groups, although as a leader in the industry they came under scrutiny and were widely believed to be a prominent dealer of conflict diamonds. In 1999, in line with a zero-tolerance policy, De Beers stopped all outside buying of diamonds in order to guarantee categorically the conflict-free status of De Beers diamonds.[39][40]
In December 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a landmark UN resolution[41] supporting the creation of an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. By November 2002, negotiations between governments, the international diamond industry and civil society organisations resulted in the creation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), which sets out the requirements for controlling rough diamond production and trade and became effective in 2003.
De Beers states that 100% of the diamonds it now sells are conflict-free and that all De Beers diamonds are purchased in compliance with national law, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme[42] and its own Diamond Best Practice Principles.[29] The Kimberley process has helped restore the reputation of the industry, as well as eliminating sources of excess supply.[18]