Climate Change (Blog)

[zen]

Hi Steve,

If he’s so inclined, I will personally help him transition to a vegan or mostly vegan diet. He can stay at my house for a while, and I’ll bring in some experienced vegan chefs and educators to prepare food for him and teach him how to live as a vegan, at my expense. I’ll pay for all the food too.

Why not do something similar for your readers ?
I mean not house them , but organize like 1 week full transition course. They will stay in the same place, eat vegan food and learn how to prepare it.

By the way could you publish what you eat every day for 1 week and what physical activities you do ?

I have tried to give up meat, but I seem not have any energy and I become very lethargic.

Cheers,
Second-hand Books

[spongesuesquareskirt]

Grass fed, free range, local, and birth control.

[spongesuesquareskirt]

oh, and permaculture.

[Fyr]

I've got to say this was an interesting post to find on Steve's blog. I understand the idea that taking care of the planet ties in with personal development because of the principle of oneness.. the all is one, the one is all... so I don't see any problem with Steve having written a post about it.

I have a lot of questions about the global warming issue. I can't really call it a debate because, well, if you question the official story then generally you are either ignored or called a heretic or stupid.

I haven't researched all of the sources of information from Steve's post. It seems sensible that a change to a vegetarian or vegan diet might reduce co2 emissions. I myself am a vegetarian (moving toward being vegan), but I chose it for health reasons - not because i had become convinced that it was best for the environment.

I think that the planet needs to be cared for - that reducing pollution is a generally good thing, that we are killing our marine life left and right, deforestation is a bad thing, mountaintop removal is bad, etc... but i am very suspicious of the hype surrounding global warming or climate change, (whichever is the politically correct term to use).

History demonstrates many many times that small groups of people with a particular agenda can convince the populous to believe a specific thing and radically alter the way that they interact with one another. Religion and nationalism, etc... people are easy to control - easy to convince that a bad idea is a good idea.

I once accepted the global warming story (because scientists said it was true). However, I recognized that it was building a lot of hype, and that dissenters were widely discriminated, demonized, or ignored. Anytime that discourse on a subject is closed or censored, red flags go up for me.

I watched a video similar to The Great Global Warming Swindle a while back, and it did bring up a lot of serious questions. The fact that co2 levels follow temperature levels was the most starling, as it is the basis (as far as I understand it) for the entire theory of anthropogenic climate change.

I'm very interested in what Steve has to say about co2 following temperature change according to ice core samples.

also:

Originally Posted by ClareDragonfly

I knew when I read this post that there would be plenty of angry doubters showing up to clutter the thread. I see a few already. Primo antagonists, Steve

I'm not angry, but I am skeptical. I don't know how i feel about the suggestion that skepticism is clutter.

[ballhit2]

Don't worry everyone, Peak Oil's arrival will signal the end of factory farming.

Or the factories will produce meat which grows on its own, without body. One generation is all it took for kids to go from Walkmans to iPods.

As a vegan, I actually look forward to trying the frankenmeat in my 70s.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by Fyr

I recognized that it was building a lot of hype, and that dissenters were widely discriminated, demonized, or ignored. Anytime that discourse on a subject is closed or censored, red flags go up for me.

Agreed.

Just look at this article from the Wall Street Journal:
Strassel: The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic - WSJ.com

After claiming that transparency is paramount in government, the Obama administration has proceeded to censor global warming dissenters by ridiculing and ignoring their arguments.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Gabo

After claiming that transparency is paramount in government, the Obama administration has proceeded to censor global warming dissenters by ridiculing and ignoring their arguments.

I think that when you get a bunch of people ridiculing and ignoring your arguments that that is a sign that it's time to reassess your arguements and either examine their truth or find new ways to present it in a manner that people will be more willing to accept.

[jamesbiz]

I sure do hope that steve responds to my post even if he doesn't agree with me, I'd still like to talk to him.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by James81

I think that when you get a bunch of people ridiculing and ignoring your arguments that that is a sign that it's time to reassess your arguements and either examine their truth or find new ways to present it in a manner that people will be more willing to accept.

I think the proper way to conduct a scientific investigation is to report the facts as observed through conducting studies, rather than rewording truth to serve a political agenda. Having your arguments ignored and getting ridiculed is more often a sign that you are right than that you are wrong. If an argument is truly wrong, it can be refuted with reasoned arguments contradicting its assertions. However, if you can't find anything wrong with an argument, then you must resort to ignoring it or attacking it.

[jamesbiz]

Originally Posted by Gabo

I think the proper way to conduct a scientific investigation is to report the facts as observed through conducting studies, rather than rewording truth to serve a political agenda. Having your arguments ignored and getting ridiculed is more often a sign that you are right than that you are wrong. If an argument is truly wrong, it can be refuted with reasoned arguments contradicting its assertions. However, if you can't find anything wrong with an argument, then you must resort to ignoring it or attacking it.

There are plenty of scientific investigations to show that man made global warming is false. The idea of global warming is the only thing that's man made about it. Plenty of studies with no political or monetary agendas. You know, like the fact that a large amount of money being spent these days is in some way or another caused by the global warming scare. Car manufactures getting pushed by the government because of it and causing millions of people to starve because of plants closing down. More people are suffering today because of the HYPE over global warming, then what they claim global warming is actually doing to us. All these stupid stupid commercials, with little kids crying, trying to make everyone guilty. That commercial that has a tree hugging an efficient house and them calling it a "house hugger" as if they are forgetting that trees actually like green house gases. There is WAY to much money being made because of global warming to just turn a blind eye to the rest of the evidence clearly pointing against it.


Nothing we do to the planet will destroy it. The planet isn't hurting. It's gone through so much worse then anything we can possibly every do to it. We are just destroying what WE like about the planet. If the planet was alive, it wouldn't care. It will shake us off one day like peeling after a bad sunburn, and start nice and fresh like we never existed.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by jamesbiz

Nothing we do to the planet will destroy it. The planet isn't hurting. It's gone through so much worse then anything we can possibly every do to it. We are just destroying what WE like about the planet. If the planet was alive, it wouldn't care. It will shake us off one day like peeling after a bad sunburn, and start nice and fresh like we never existed.

People forget that we are the earth; we are not a separate entity. The earth consciousness has both conscious and unconscious parts of itself, manifesting in various physical ways. Human beings currently bare the brunt of her unconsciousness and choice for change.

Change comes from within. Earth is a mirror of us all. Don't like something? Change yourself. Trying to change the mirror is futile. It won't work.

[Nex]

There are plenty of scientific investigations to show that man made global warming is false.

No, there aren't. I mean, really. As of now all of these investigations fall in pseudo-science, if you disagree with me, that's ok, but post links to these "investigations", cause all of the attempts so far made to disprove man-made global warming have only made it a stronger theory...

I just don't get why most articles in SteverPavlina.com have to inevitable end into vegan/vegetarian propaganda. Well, I remain quite skeptical about the true ecological effects of eating meat. It is most likely that we consume a lot more meat than it is sustainable. This over consumption is unlikely to change just if we stop eating meat. It is very hard to quantify the real impact the vegetarian life if everybody went vegetarian. There are studies out there that show that still eating meat but in a more balanced way with vegetables could actually be better in regards to carbon production than going 100% vegetables.

It is always the same tale, that going vegetarian will fix the problem magically. Now, imagine if everybody went vegetarian, we would need a much larger production of crops. Even in places where human-nutritive crops don't grow up right now (ie grass places in which we use cows to allow them to become into crops). Question is, what exactly happens to the animals that were supposed to be living in our crops.

Everybody needs to understand, that eating meat happens to be part of our biology. Nobody goes out criticizing lions for eating antilopes... The real ecological problem, is and has always been over consumption and the industrizalitation. If you want the harm to the environment to reduce. Just not eating meat or animal-related products is not going to change squat. I am so tired of people thinking that just an 'organic' tag in their food bags actually makes a change.

Want to fix this thing? Have your own crops in your garden. The real problem with meat is not the carbon generated by the cows in farms (the carbon ourselves generate would be a bigger problem if that was the case...) It is the ecological cost in transporting the food. If you don't have your own crops, even your vegetables are contributing to the problem, sorry.

And due to space efficiency and seasonal issues. Keeping a couple of chickens for eggs could do wonders. But how about insects? I think there should be plenty of things we could do with insects if we ate them and they should probably be VERY space-efficient!

Some people mantain double standards, factory slaughter houses are terrible for the environment while the ecological impact of factory crops is completely disregarded. Eating dead animals is bad, while eating dead plants isn't. Etc, etc.

Does this whole tale of having your own farm sound too crazy? It is not more far-fetched than Steve's tip of you going to hunt animals yourself.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by Nex

I just don't get why most articles in SteverPavlina.com have to inevitable end into vegan/vegetarian propaganda. Well, I remain quite skeptical about the true ecological effects of eating meat. It is most likely that we consume a lot more meat than it is sustainable. This over consumption is unlikely to change just if we stop eating meat. It is very hard to quantify the real impact the vegetarian life if everybody went vegetarian. There are studies out there that show that still eating meat but in a more balanced way with vegetables could actually be better in regards to carbon production than going 100% vegetables.

Steve supports vegan/vegetarian because it is the single biggest impact on our environment as individuals. I recommend re-reading the "What can you do to help mitigate the effects of climate change?" subheading on Steve's Climate Change article, because it points out very clearly why eating meat is much worse for the environment than eating vegetarian/vegan.

The simple facts of the matter are:
1) Producing meat consumes FAR more resources than producing crops.
2) Producing meat creates FAR more waste than producing crops.
3) Producing meat takes up FAR more space than producing crops.

If you want specific statistics, check out Steve's post, or read Save The Environment: How What You Eat Changes The World.

It is always the same tale, that going vegetarian will fix the problem magically. Now, imagine if everybody went vegetarian, we would need a much larger production of crops.

We would need a much LOWER production of crops if everyone went vegetarian, because we would free up the 80% of our crops that livestock currently consume.

Even in places where human-nutritive crops don't grow up right now (ie grass places in which we use cows to allow them to become into crops). Question is, what exactly happens to the animals that were supposed to be living in our crops.

No real situation would turn the entire population vegetarian overnight. As more and more people turn vegetarian, less and less animals would be raised. Eventually, demand for animals would approach zero, and the last of them would be eaten. As far as places that cows currently graze on, they could be turned into orchards or simply left as grass fields.

Everybody needs to understand, that eating meat happens to be part of our biology. Nobody goes out criticizing lions for eating antilopes...

Lion are carnivores, and must feed off of meat. If you look at other omnivores, most of them don't have the luxury of choosing what food they eat. They will eat what is available. We certainly are capable of eating meat, but we are also capable of eating fruits and vegetables. Given our personal ease of eating either, we have a choice about what we eat. No biological rules force us to eat meat.

The real ecological problem, is and has always been over consumption and the industrizalitation. If you want the harm to the environment to reduce. Just not eating meat or animal-related products is not going to change squat. I am so tired of people thinking that just an 'organic' tag in their food bags actually makes a change.

Eating organic and eating vegetarian are two different things.

The primary reason to eat organic foods is that they aren't grown using pesticides that remain on the product and are detrimental to one's health.

Eating vegetarian, on the other hand, has a huge impact on the environment. If we all ate vegetarian, we would free up 80% extra cropland to use as food, eliminate huge amounts of waste that pollutes our air and water, and save tons of water wasted on raising livestock.

Want to fix this thing? Have your own crops in your garden. The real problem with meat is not the carbon generated by the cows in farms (the carbon ourselves generate would be a bigger problem if that was the case...) It is the ecological cost in transporting the food. If you don't have your own crops, even your vegetables are contributing to the problem, sorry.

Transportation costs are a factor whether you eat animal products or not, as you have pointed out yourself. It certainly is better for the environment to eat locally grown food, but that is irrelevant to the argument about eating vegetarian.

If you eat meat that's grown 1,000 miles away, you are polluting much more than if you eat veggies grown 1,000 miles away.
If you eat meat that's grown in a local farm, you are polluting much more than if you eat veggies grown in a local farm.

Given constant transportation costs on either diet, vegetarian is still better.

Some people mantain double standards, factory slaughter houses are terrible for the environment while the ecological impact of factory crops is completely disregarded. Eating dead animals is bad, while eating dead plants isn't. Etc, etc.

Some people certainly do maintain double standards, like calling for the end to industrial water pollution while ignoring the biggest water polluter on earth: livestock. The bottom line is that eating dead plants is much better than eating dead animals.

Many people do realize that factory crops are bad as well. Ultimately, the best diet for the environment is a raw food diet, which can actually have a net benefit to the environment. Orchards provide the highest yield of any food, and also help regenerate topsoil and provide an ecosystem for life.

Does this whole tale of having your own farm sound too crazy? It is not more far-fetched than Steve's tip of you going to hunt animals yourself.

Having your own farm would certainly be good for the environment, but it is an option not possible for many people that live in cities. An option that everyone has, however, is what they choose to consume for their diet. The closer to a raw vegan diet you have, the better for the environment. Granted, nobody is perfect. But when you start calling for government action to make other people decrease their environmental impact, please think about your own impact first.

[Fyr]

Originally Posted by Nex

Everybody needs to understand, that eating meat happens to be part of our biology. Nobody goes out criticizing lions for eating antilopes...

There's actually quite a bit of proof out there that our bodies handle meat very poorly compared to lions. Just for example, our intestines are much longer than carnivores on a relative scale, because we evolved eating things that didn't have a lot of acidity like fruits and vegetables and grains. Lions have to have relatively short intestines because the longer the meat is in it, the more the acid will damage it's intestines.

Humans can handle eating meat, no question of that - but it's kind of like an emergency feature, not really designed as a long-term nutritional plan.

Originally Posted by Nex

As of now all of these investigations fall in pseudo-science, if you disagree with me, that's ok, but post links to these "investigations", cause all of the attempts so far made to disprove man-made global warming have only made it a stronger theory...

Evidence for Strengthening of the Tropical General Circulation in the 1990s

Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget
- From Science magazine. You can register for a free account to view the full article.

Also, if you've got 30 minutes to spare, here's a TEDtalks video of Chemist Kary Mullis on science and global warming that you may enjoy watching. He references the two papers linked above. I was very entertained by the presentation. Kary Mullis on what scientists do

On the website for The Great Global Warming Swindle, there are lists of articles and papers ostensibly supporting their assertions, but i have not read them so cannot vouch for their validity or relevance.

This is by no means an exhaustive list of sources, just a couple i thought I'd toss in.

Originally Posted by Nex

Does this whole tale of having your own farm sound too crazy?

What is the balance between high technology/efficiency involved in establishing and maintaining crops versus transportation/distribution costs in terms of energy expenditure? If you go from large kind of centralized farms toward smaller and more widespread/localized farms/gardens, what is the balance between the cost of maintenance (wherein larger farms can maintain relatively scaled higher yields through technological means) versus the cost of distribution (wherein more numerous localized farms/gardens can distribute with relatively scaled less energy expenditure)?

I ask this in terms of energy efficiency, not co2 emissions. I'm still not convinced that co2 causes global warming. Not saying it doesn't, just that i haven't yet seen proof.

[jamesbiz]

Was just looking through some of my favorite sites and ran across this and thought you guys would enjoy it

[Nex]

Steve supports vegan/vegetarian because it is the single biggest impact on our environment as individuals

Sounds like you mean that he thinks it is the biggest impact on our environment as individuals. Unfortunately for the vegetarian stance, the studies supporting this theory are not too complete, or actually conclude that a more balanced diet unbiased in vegetables or meat is even better than 100% vegetarians.

It is also unquantifiable, unfortunately. It is hard to estimate the true impact everybody going vegetarian would have or not have towards our relationship with the environment. Just now the meat industry is sure bad. However, who's to estimate that the vegetables one wouldn't become an even bigger problem if we tripled it due to our efforts to stop meat under the "help the environment" flag.

As of now, doing that change simply makes no difference whatsoever. Anyway. No meat factory is going to stop just because you stop eating meat. A good question is what happens if everybody stops doing so, but it is really hard to truly estimate, and it is also meaningless, it is not more than a prisoner's paradox.

There's actually quite a bit of proof out there that our bodies handle meat very poorly compared to lions.

you mean we aren't as meat-specialized as lions? But who cares? It is still in our biology to eat meat.

The simple facts of the matter are:
1) Producing meat consumes FAR more resources than producing crops.
2) Producing meat creates FAR more waste than producing crops.
3) Producing meat takes up FAR more space than producing crops.

You probably mean "slightly", instead of FAR. Or you should probably just remove your PoV and just use the plain 'more' word. Of course, there are studies considering that you can raise animals on land of less quality than the ones used for crops show that a more balanced diet different to the vegan and the average meat diet that plagues the occidental culture would actually be better than the environment than a fully vegan diet...

IMHO crops just use less resources because we don't need to fill everything with crops thanks to meat based products, and don't forget fish. There are country's that live completely on sea food, where are they going to place their crops?

We would need a much LOWER production of crops if everyone went vegetarian, because we would free up the 80% of our crops that livestock currently consume.

You mean the low quality land that can currently only grow nutritionless grass? How exciting.

The land quality for an average working vegetarian diet needs something better than the thing in which grass grows...

The closer to a raw vegan diet you have, the better for the environment

Humans aren't herbivores. We are omnivores, our body is made to get nutrition from many places. Perhaps the lions example was bad. I don't think much people complains about bears eating fish and small rodents. Chimps eat insects and small mammals as well, I don't think we have many people lecturing them about how they should eat only fruit.

Everybody changing their diet is not gonna do squat. Sorry . Real solutions involve dealing with over population. The human diet was not causing global warming back in 1800, and vegans weren't that popular then.

Just let me more of a cynical, there is little proof that reducing the emissions NOW could actually reverse the problem. There is a lot of work into finding ways to reduce the CO2 emissions, but there is really not an actual plan to stop global warming. Just reducing the CO2 emissions may not be that helpful. There are only studies of the imagined improvement in CO2 emissions following unrealistic assumptions like "what if people stopped eating meat completely". But we have no plan at all on how to really handle the problem. People thinking that they could just stop eating meat or some other silly change will do squat are part of the problem, not the solution.

By the time a significant amount of humans switchto a raw food diet, it would be so late that I hope global warming gets solved before by a more effective solution ( like decreasing the world population by 75% (I think a disease or war would be helpful there) if global warming is not stopped before then I guess there wouldn't be much hope left.

Anyway, I got to go, I am gonna have dinner, meatballs and rice. I know I should be feeling guilty for that, but hey, you own a computer, I wonder if you feel guilty for using a computer on trivial things such as arguing in the internet considering all the incredibly bad environmental and social cost of a personal computer .


PS: A lot of the current studies deal with the effect of cows mainly. I think that the problem may not be with the meat eating thing but with the animal we chose. A lot of humans feed on rats right now (unknowingly though) I think maybe we just need to change the animal being eaten and the way / amounts of which we eat it. Fish don't cause as much CO2 related issues as cows (not to mention they are very healthy). How about insects?

[Gabo]

A pound of meat requires 2,000+ gallons of water to produce.
A pound of potatoes requires 64 gallons of water to produce.

Is 2,000 not FAR more than 64?

An acre of corn fed to cows produces 3,661 pounds of beef in a year.
An acre of corn produces 9,520 pounds of corn in a year.
An acre of avocado trees produces 19,675 pounds of avocado in a year.

To produce the same yield as an acre of corn, you need 2.6 acres of corn to feed the livestock, without even considering the grazing space.

Is 2.6 times not FAR more?

Livestock produce thousands of pounds of excrement per second.
Crops produce zero excrement - ever.

Is thousands of pounds per second not FAR more than zero?

The only problem you have suggested with eating vegetarian is that the land currently used for grazing is unsuitable for growing crops. However, to achieve the same food output we would not need any of the land used for grazing. In fact, since converting grain to beef produces less food than it consumes, we would require less cropland to produce the same output of food we currently have.

You are correct that we couldn't grow many crops on the current grazing land. However, we do not need to do so in order to feed ourselves. That land could be put to whatever use we want since it would be freed up.

Humans aren't herbivores. We are omnivores, our body is made to get nutrition from many places.

A knife is made to cut many things. It can cut food in a kitchen, or it can cut your elderly neighbor to pieces. Would you say that the knife maker has made their knife to stab people with? I don't think so. What we choose to do with the tools we have is our own decision, not whoever made the tool.

We can eat meat, and we can eat veggies. It is our decision what we'll eat. I'm not saying nobody can eat meat or nobody should eat meat. I know for a fact that the majority of the population will keep eating meat.

What I'm trying to explain is that refraining from meat consumption is healthy for the environment. That is the only argument I am trying to make.

Anyway, I got to go, I am gonna have dinner, meatballs and rice. I know I should be feeling guilty for that, but hey, you own a computer, I wonder if you feel guilty for using a computer on trivial things such as arguing in the internet considering all the incredibly bad environmental and social cost of a personal computer .

You shouldn't feel guilty for eating meat. I certainly don't feel guilty for using my computer. I acknowledge that using a computer consumes power, power that is partially generated using fossil fuels. However, just because I use a computer doesn't mean I'm going to deny that it consumes power, or deny that using a smaller computer or none at all would be better for the environment. It certainly would be.

Diet can be an emotional issue for many people because what we eat is a part of who we are. I implore you to take a step back from the issue and look at the simple facts. All levels of processing use up energy that is wasted and lost. Whether that processing involves transportation of a product, conversion resources to electricity, making grain into meat, or anything else, it uses up energy.

Eating foods that have been processed less, just like buying products that have been processed less, is better for the environment because less energy has been wasted.

[gerber]

Has anyone of you seen the documentary Meat the Truth or the cartoons in the Meatrix series? I've posted links to these in my own blog post on this subject:

Meat the Truth and the Meatrix | Everyday Improvement

This is a very controversial subject. At this moment I'm just taking in information and act on what feels good to me. Haven't watched the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle yet, but I'm certainly going to watch it soon.

[jamesbiz]

can we all possibly agree that when money and politics become involved, you can throw "science" right out the window? To think that any scientific studies which have SO MUCH money and politics involved will actually be unbiased is astounding. It baffles the mind to think Steve would fall for it, let alone post up about something he does not have enough knowledge about, which he freely admits.

[isufreak24]

Now, what about living in cities that are completely unsustainable save for burning fossil fuels (Pretty much the whole desert Southwest)? I wonder if this is troublesome at all to those conscious folk who live in these areas?

In these areas, human life is more dependent upon fossil fuels than more temperate climates. There is no chance of growing locally grown food (unless you irrigate), but the water supply too is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels (not to mention that Lake Mead is in danger of drying up).

[aelle]

Originally Posted by isufreak24

Now, what about living in cities that are completely unsustainable save for burning fossil fuels (Pretty much the whole desert Southwest)? I wonder if this is troublesome at all to those conscious folk who live in these areas?

In these areas, human life is more dependent upon fossil fuels than more temperate climates. There is no chance of growing locally grown food (unless you irrigate), but the water supply too is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels (not to mention that Lake Mead is in danger of drying up).

Are they actually dependent on fossil fuels, or on energy?
An if they are dependent on anunsustainable ressource, they need to get their heads out of the sand and start doing something. I am more familiar with another country that will be dramatically affected by the consequences of global warming, the Netherlands. Well, they are taking (expensive, unpopular, but very necessary) action to both reduce possible damage and prevent further warming. Change is hard, yeah. But in their case it's change or drown.

[jamesbiz]

Originally Posted by isufreak24

Now, what about living in cities that are completely unsustainable save for burning fossil fuels (Pretty much the whole desert Southwest)? I wonder if this is troublesome at all to those conscious folk who live in these areas?

In these areas, human life is more dependent upon fossil fuels than more temperate climates. There is no chance of growing locally grown food (unless you irrigate), but the water supply too is heavily dependent upon fossil fuels (not to mention that Lake Mead is in danger of drying up).

shhh don't tell Steve lol. He lives in one of the worst places possible when it comes to your example. It takes so much energy to keep that place alive, it's not even funny. I wonder if he plans on moving while he's telling all of us that we are ruining the planet for eating meat?

[ZeeZoy]

Haha! This article was awesome. Talk about pushing an agenda and then attempting to get you to believe there is no agenda.

Maybe instead of having a big push for vegetarianism it would be much more simple, while also being practical, to explain why people should just consume less of everything. Let's face it, fantasizing about how if everyone were only vegetable eaters isn't really solving the problem. The problem is that Americans (and the rest of the world is attempting to follow suit) are the largest consumers of everything this world has to offer.

The simplest and most effective way to reduce global warming is the next time you are shopping, simply ask yourself, "do I really need this?" whether it is meat, vegetables, consumer goods, electronics, etc.

Let's not have an agenda. Let's just do our part.