Environmentalism’s Class Issue

The ‘green agenda’ is seemingly everywhere these days – from Extinction Rebellion to heat-pumps, veganism to electric cars; it does feel that it is finally gaining decent traction with the Big Public in the advanced nations, which normally means it gets translated into political action (as it finally becomes a ‘vote winner’). Yet, this is a bit of a false dawn, for one critical issue:

The working classes are generally not on board with it. In fact, at times they’re actively hostile towards it.

This is much larger than many of the ‘chattering classes’ suspect; partly due to the simple fact the above folks generally don’t enter their lives or feature in their media – social media itself is a very powerful tool of creating ideological bell-jars. Their scepticism, cynicism and outright denial towards the whole topic often leads to a sneering derision from the ‘climate conscious’, writing off the concerns and questions as stupidity, greed, laziness and/or manipulation by ‘Them’.

Now, there’s some element to truth to this; anti-intellectualism has been a fertile, seemingly inexhaustible resource for the right-wingers to mine electorally since… well, the day universal suffrage came along (particularly if it’s lovingly fed by tabloid news and populist hacks). But it also means that their concerns are rarely heard, and if they are they’re either dismissed or minimised.

The Inconvenient Truth

Is a simple one; ‘climate activism’ (of various stripes) has become not only fashionable but effectively obligatory for the liberal-leaning middle class Anglosphere – something ‘one has to do’ between taking the knee for BLM and proclaiming yourself to be a ‘straight ally’ for the LGBT ‘community’ (for LGBT are a monolithic bloc, just like all ethnic minorities are, which is why they were given BAME. Plus, I object to ‘allyship’ as a concept, but that’s another post). Result; the vast majority of green campaigns are crewed by middle-class liberals, who are mainly thinking in middle-class liberal ways and talking to other middle-class liberals.

Case in point; Extinction Rebellion – I (the personal ‘I’ here) can’t afford to take a day off work to protest, half the time I wouldn’t be able to afford to travel to protest and I certainly wouldn’t be able to afford any mandated fines for protesting. Similar was pointed out by minority groups; having legal entanglements as a campaign strategy was less viable when it came to folks who have always been shit on by said legal system and a criminal record – however minor – can fuck up your entire life.

Naturally, this is something which has been seized on by the forces of reaction; right-wing rent-a-hacks painting campaigners as nothing more than blinkered, naïve ‘metropolitan elites’ and stupid lazy students engaging in their hobby in a most ‘irresponsible’ manner. This looks a kinda stupid strategy when spelt out like this, but it’s powerful when wrapped up in the language and tactics of Us/Them and done in a manner which panders to the prejudices/preconceptions of the audience and plays on their emotions.

But the most powerful element to this strategy was the ‘psychological wall’ which has formed within the working class regarding climate activism – by portraying it as a middle-class hobby, it’s become something that ‘people like us’ don’t do. This mentality is all around us; social conformity is a bitch, even more so when you don’t even realise it’s the conformity kicking in and making the decision for you (one of the lessons I had from getting into fitness; how much BS I’d been spoon-fed on the subject).

Class Agency?

And a rather expensive hobby it is; as the recent discussions around the London Ultra-Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) showed. Hearing one of the proponents clearly richsplaining how we oiks should simply use public transport / muscle power, or get an electric car – which were ‘affordable’ now. Well, the first two options are clearly non-starters for folks who work in the trades, deliveries and so on – we can safely assume that any poor person driving in London does so because they must, as it’s so damn expensive to do so already and thus highly unlikely to be ‘an extra’ for them.

But the second bit – that of affordability – is something worth looking at in more detail.

I mean, citing the fact electrics were ‘so affordable’ from twenty grand means nothing to people who don’t buy new cars. For a minimum-wage worker – like say a carer – that’s their whole annual pay. Okay, you can go used – but a quick search on AutoTrader tells me they’re around three times the price of an equivalent conventional. Then there’s the issue of ‘battery leasing’, which might cut the sticker shock but saddles you with higher monthly costs to the point it could nullify all the savings in the fuel change (or even push you into the red).

Then there’s the issue with charging the thing. To put in a proper home charging station appears to cost around £750, but this assumes that you a) own your home and b) have a driveway. Many folks in rentals don’t have this ability either way – landlord won’t get it put in, and most places don’t have a place to put it either.

This issue is an excellent illustration of how class blinkers work. Our bourgeois greenie here may be personally 100% committed, well-meaning and honest, but not only are they living in a whole different world (which has their own problems, beliefs and norms) but they’re also ignorant (unwittingly or not) of the cardinal rule of wealth – the more you have, the more ‘agency’ (the freedom to made decisions) you possess.

Trick Of The Century?

In their defence, it’s not all the bourgeois greenie’s fault here – because they’ve been tricked. By masters of their craft. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether the folks at Ogilvy & Mather who coined and popularised the term ‘carbon footprint’ and then used it to shift the blame from the likes of BP to us still smirk and hug themselves on thinking about just how damn successful that campaign was.

Like most successful campaigns, this one did have have a bit of logical underpinning; after all, if nobody wanted BP’s planet-killing products – well, they’d not fuck up the planet getting them, would they? BP only does it because it’s demanded by consumers. Therefore, it’s up to us to take ‘personal responsibility’ (another term who’s knickers warm their ankles) and not use the product. In effect, BP is gaslighting us, spewing out their oil while bellowing ‘look what you made me do!’ – a line beloved by many an abuser.

Useful Idiots?

Part of me wonders whether if those ad people knew what would happen next – with the zeal of the convert, our bourgeois greenies would then go off to hector us plebs on our ‘carbon footprints’. I use the religious analogy for good reason; I see similarities between them and the culty Christians I used to live with for a bit as a kid. About the same level as buzzkill, too; the whole austere ‘for the planet’ personal denial of so many things. Flying. Meat. Exotic fruits. Consumer goods. New clothing. Everything, really save smugness.

Yet… poor people are already leading ‘greener’ lives in regards to carbon emissions; while stats are somewhat difficult to come by (for reasons worth a post by itself) it would appear that the carbon footprint for the ‘working poor’ (around £20k/year) is only a quarter of those earning £40k/year.

This makes perfect sense when you think it through. When your world is close to minimum wage, there’s not a lot of flying going on and it’s unlikely your home is either over-heated or full of new carbon-heavy consumer goods. Bitching about cheap ‘fast fashion’ is all well and good, but for many of these folks said clothes are the only ones they can afford and are worn until unusable. In this respect, ‘green’ has become a marketing niche, something for the well-heeled to enjoy, not ‘normal folk like us’.

This leads to a huge misfiring of many green campaigns; telling people to ‘fly less’ completely puts the back up of the family who fly once a year for a week’s holiday. A meat tax? Great, removal of the only cheap source of protein from my plate, while it merely means a bit more on the price of your steak.

All this feels completely hypocritical. The bourgeois, after enjoying the fruits of mass carbon production then reaches down to deny a cut-down version of said fruits to those below them. This is replaying on a global scale; where the rich nations hector the poor on how they cannot reach a level of consumption that we’ve enjoyed for eons because that would be bad for the planet.

Not like this is a new thing. For centuries, our ruling classes have held working-class ‘materialism’ and ‘greed’ against us, saying that that’s wrong. Y’know, wanting a little taste of the prosperity our masters had every day (and we produced!) and desiring to have a fair wage for fair conditions. Their agents in religion weighed in, preaching that poverty was somehow a virtue and put us on the fast-track to eternal bliss. Just don’t ask for any of that in this life, mate. The Wobblies put it well, in one of the parody hymns sung against the Salvation Army;

‘Pie in the sky… that’s a lie.’

Different Viewpoints?

Of course poor people reject this. Our bourgeois greenie doesn’t realise they’re basically telling us ‘ordinaries’ to be colder, have less stuff, travel less and to consume less foodstuffs – remembering these are folks who in national terms have the least to start off with. Their message comes in as ‘for the good of the planet, your life must get more shit’ and the message-maker wonders why they’re told to fuck off. That message is about as appealing as an outbreak of cholera and doesn’t even have the promise of eternal bliss the above one does.

What’s more, poverty warps your mindset. Why should I cut down on the few ‘nice things’ in my life for something in the undefined future? I don’t even know where I’ll be in a year’s time, let alone thirty. A brain, faced with constant juggling of deficient resources, chronic letdowns, routine deception and an insecure, chaotic life does the best it can; focuses on the immediate situation and doesn’t really think about anything further ahead. After all, what’s the point? You can’t do anything about it, you’ll cross that bridge when you get to it. If you get to it.

Déjà Vu?

It’s not like they’re unfamiliar with the experience of dealing with greenies; in fact, it’s been happening for over a century – that is, to be lectured, hectored and coerced by ‘middle-class do-gooders’. For as anyone who’s actually experienced poverty knows all to well; as your income drops you lose certain rights. Often, that of privacy; that when you’re poor, you’re expected to put up with intrusive questioning regarding your personal life way past the point a wealthier person would have to. Or having to justify everything all the time – the need for something, or a decision.

That in this respect, our greenie is merely another ‘do-gooder’ with their condescending tone and crap ‘advice’, often lying through their teeth and with corkscrew logic while trying to impose their constipated view of things on everyone else. The ‘Great Bourgeois Saviour’, striding fearlessly into sink estates with budget-plans and healthy eating charts, just like their ancestors did with Africa a century back, with their Bibles and sneers. The worst elements of the classic missionary, imposed on our own Lower Orders.

I overdraw, of course. But less than you’d think. As I write this, I can see in my mind’s eye the litany of such ‘encounters’ I’ve had with such people over a quarter-century, and I’ve now got the vague desire to spit. That on reflection some of their advice was the correct one, but delivered in such a cack-handed manner that the message itself was rejected. Playing the person and not the ball? Yes. But it takes a conscious effort to counteract your own biases which invariably means most folk don’t bother.

The Path Ahead?

The above are not unsolvable problems – in fact, some only require better salesmanship and different messengers. But there’s two critical problems which cripple any movement on this front, and that’s even before we rule out outright denialism and the wholesale manipulation by forces of the Status Quo, like the legions of lobbyists who attended the recent conference in Glasgow and when the fossil fuel industry alone outnumbered any nation’s delegates (and folks wonder why the agreement was barely worth the paper it was written on!)

The first is for an acceptance of their lack of agency. Or more correctly, their lack of willing agency, for the reasons given above. There’s the issue that for poorer people, the percentage of ‘discretionary carbon’ is pretty low, meaning that most of their footprint is out of their hands. Case in point; my annual three tons from domestic energy.

Now, I’ve done the modifications I have ‘agency’ to and I refuse to cut further because, say living without hot water is deemed ‘unacceptable’. This means it’s down to the energy companies to quit using natural gas for generation, my landlord to bring my heating into the 21^st Century and getting a cash incentive from the state so I can afford to replace my ancient, inefficient white goods quicker.

The second is to appreciate the lack of ‘reward’. The current system at the moment – outside a few exceptions, such as converting to electric vehicles – does not grant any tangible benefits to the actor. In fact, doing ‘the right thing’ in ecological terms usually costs more – in money, in time and/or effort, like going to the local tip vs simply dumping my crap in a handy drainage ditch. Or taking a £200 eight-hour train journey rather than a £50 two-hour flight.

Nor is there any compensation for any ‘cancelled consumption’. Okay, it may be good for the planet that I don’t get yet another pair of trainers or to go without that new sofa, but… why should I? There’s no tangible reward for me to not do it (at least not further than ‘retained cash’). In fact, often the ‘right’ option runs against my own personal, immediate interests.

Lastly, to embrace ‘enlightened self interest’. ‘Tis a dirty phrase; ‘what’s in it for me?’ (partly due to the ‘you’ll be rewarded in heaven’ shit peddled by the ruling classes) but one which poorer people generally follow more acutely (or at very least more openly). You cannot blame them for this; after all, you can’t pay bills with heaven-rewards, oddly enough. It’s a general problem in our society, noted back in the 19^th Century by John Stuart Mill; that while we have a system which punishes bad behaviour, we generally lack any similar mechanisms to reward good behaviour. A society of sticks but no carrots.

Some of the current large plans need better selling for this; to make them more attractive for other, non-ecological reasons. Example; heat-pumps. Why not push hard ahead with them, wrapping them up in the Union Jack – for they will help us ditch gas boilers, and with that cut off Putin’s hand which is currently around our balls heating-wise. Stress that they’ll be made domestically as much as possible, giving decent, well-paid jobs for Britons. Point out that they’ll cut down on our utility bills, and the state is putting in a load of funding to turbocharge development so they’ll be cheaper and better than now.

* * *

It’s rather clear that the planet is getting very close to the ‘tipping point’; the time where the damage has become irreversible and we – and our immediate descendants – will be forced to cope with an increasingly unstable dying world.

This requires drastic action now, but this requires action on a national, governmental level. This requires – for the democratic states at least – a level of public outcry to force real change on them, for only ‘vote winners’ are catered to. That means getting the Big Public to demand these changes, or at very least to stop opposing them. Which relies on two critical points first; one, for the ‘greenies’ to stop thinking they’re already perfect and two, to quit assuming all who oppose them do it for stupid / greedy / sociopathic reasons.

For the first is the worst example of the dogmatic ideologue, and the second is an obvious Bulverism. This combo is seen all the time, but when it comes to climate change we cannot afford to let this fuck up.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.

Right To Repair?

So, in a action which independent repair staff, greenies and frugalities will all celebrate, the European Union’s new ‘Right to Repair’ legislation will come into force; which the UK had agreed back in 2019 to copy (though it’s somewhat irrelevant even if the UK hadn’t, as we’re lumped under the ‘European bloc’ with supply chains).

Normally, I don’t cover news reports but this one I feel is both of sufficient interest and was lost within the noise of a rather busy news weekend to be worth talking about. Plus, what reports I saw weren’t that great in the first place.

So, What Is It?

These new regulations, in a nutshell stipulate that consumer products – such as TVs, washing machines, refrigerators etc – must…

– Not be made in a manner which can’t be disassembled using ‘normal tools’. Example; no more sealing product within a plastic case which can’t be removed without breaking it.

– Have repair manuals made freely accessible.

– Spare parts to be supplied for at least ten years.

Naturally, these are regulations which the appliance industry fought tooth and nail against – with good reason. And the ultimate reason is utterly predictable.

In It For The Money

Firstly, most companies have a vested interest in you buying more of their product, and to be frank well-made, durable items simply don’t carry the margins, like I noted with disposable razors last year.

The main problem is of reverse ‘false economies’; the person who pays £40 for a pair of cheap shoes that last a year isn’t usually going to spend £400 on a pair that lasts ten – let’s say they only spend £300. If the ‘profit margin’ for both shoes are equal (say 10%) this means the ‘cheap shoes’ generate £40 of profit in a decade, while the ‘expensive shoes’ generate £30.

Bad for the planet, bad for you – but good for business, no?

The other side is that of the very lucrative ‘aftermarket’. That when the company deigns to make the product repairable (which is a must for some big-ticket items, like say cars) it looks to ways to limit or completely eliminate the competition. Warring against the independent repairer, making stupid warranty claims, having private supply chains, making all the parts proprietary and so on. Meaning that you’re forced to trudge to the ‘authorised service’ people, who more often than not will leave you with a massive bill only marginally less than the original cost of purchase. Or to be told it’s ‘uneconomic to repair’ (as in; the company has made it so).

This is predictable, when you end up with a free market without the aspect of free competition.

A Limited Victory?

I’m not going to dump on this victory – for it finally enshrines a principle of the ‘right to repair’ in EU law – but it is very limited in scope.

There’s a myriad of products – most notably phones and laptops – not covered in the directive. It doesn’t say that the spare parts need to be of reasonable cost, or does it allow generic copies of said parts to compete on price or quality. Lastly, it doesn’t actually demand that the product’s designed life-span (ie before repairs are needed) must be increased.

Unintended Consequences?

One thing which nobody in the professional media noticed is the fact that this directive will make unit costs for said appliances higher at the bottom end of the market. Good products – like my £300 shoes above – are usually already made in a manner which facilitates repair and are usually long-supported by the manufacturer. However, it’s de facto made my £40 shoes illegal as they aren’t designed to be repaired.

Naturally, this will hurt people on low incomes disproportionately, similar to when the energy-efficient lightbulbs came along around twenty years ago and they found their ‘lighting costs’ going from around 50p a bulb to £4.00. This is an classist aspect of the coming ‘green revolution’ which has not been really addressed yet which I discuss in more detail here.

On the other hand, this directive may in fact rejuvenate the second-hand consumer goods market, something which has generally been dying for some thirty years – I mean, when was the last time you saw a TV repairman? The car market can be cited here; build quality has generally improved hugely in said decades, but even then not that many people buy new cars and run them all the way to the scrap-heap – in fact, the normal life-cycle is usually three or four owners before it’s in auto heaven.

A Changing Model?

This is the ultimate goal for the ‘circular economy’; in which items such as appliances are maintained, repaired and upgraded over their lifetime, which is measured in decades. A world of more hand-me-down appliances, used emporiums and the independent repair personnel.

The problem is that this is in direct contradiction of consumerist capitalism, and it cuts a lot of corners to make it ‘affordable’ for poorer consumers, such as sweatshops and planned obsolescence. Even something more ethically neutral as ‘economies of scale’ will be hurt in a world because it’s obvious that if you extended the standard lifespan of televisions from 5 to 10 years, the yearly demand for them will be half than before.

Yet, consumer mindsets need to change too. There’s so much stigma regarding second-hand items (generally) which means that, say a company trying to sell used white goods would have a rather tough job of it right now. And not all of this is due to consumerist propaganda stoking demand for ‘new stuff’ – but genuine scepticism of quality, remaining life-span and product support.

And while the European directive won’t sort all this out alone, it’s a start in the right direction.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions – save the paragraph regarding shoes, which is adapted from Terry Pratchett’s ‘Vimes Boots Theory‘. Part of my Frugality series.

Let’s Waste Money On: Shaving Cream?

A few months ago, I wrote how the average clean-shaven male can end up wasting perhaps eighty pounds-plus yearly on the implements to make sure he remained so; that is, on disposable razors. Yet I ignored the item on the other end – the shaving cream.

Just like how the disposable blades are a symbol of perhaps all that is wrong with the mass consumerism of the late 20^th Century, the can of shaving foam or bottle of gel is a suitably wasteful accompaniment. And just like the safety razor, the manufacturers decreed the older shaving soaps ‘obsolete’, and thus all but withdrew them from the market. To be replaced by one which offers higher profit margins and higher consumption levels.

Convenience & Mythos

I won’t lie; the modern method is convenient. A can or bottle can simply be decanted into the palm, then applied to face. Shave, rinse, the end. On the other side, the whole rigamarole involving the previous method became apparently increasingly arcane and confusing – particularly as ‘historical knowledge’ of it exited common memory. Something which Grandpa did. Or in an old-timey barbers. Which apparently takes ages to do, is expensive, has loads of strange accessories and requires much skill. I mean… it’s old. Modern method must be better, yes?

That’s the problem. It’s very difficult to make a prediction of how long/hard a task will be when said task is new to you. People also have a tendency to fall into habitual grooves, and shaving is one of them. There’s also a ‘sticker shock’ on the costs of buying the needed parts – which will be even higher if the only shop which stocks them only does the luxury end.

Pounds & Pence

The thing is, while the initial outlay is higher for the older ‘soap and brush’ method, it pays for itself from running costs.

First of all, we have the ‘normal’ cans of cream. If you’re efficient, you can get around fifty shaves out of a standard can. This means in a year you’ll spend approximately twenty pounds on cream; while gels are less per use, this is made up for by the higher price per unit.

On the other hand, a 100ml shave soap in a bowl will provide around six months worth of lather. Going with the only one commonly found in British shops, that’s around six pound a year. The cheap-but-functional synthetic brushes usually retail around five pounds and last around three years – so let’s say two pounds a year.

You don’t need to be a genius to notice that eight pounds a year is lower than twenty.

I’ll admit here that I am willing to pay for convenience – in which I’ll pay three quid for the soap in a bowl rather than buying the shave sticks which are half the price per 100g. If you’re willing to teach yourself how to use a ceramic shave bowl, your savings will be even higher!

Or… you can use your savings to buy from ‘a better shelf’ than you’d normally do. Hey, frugality doesn’t automatically mean ‘use cheap stuff’, more to ‘make your cash do as much work as possible’. I don’t object to nice stuff, if it’s worth paying for.

Sustainable Shaving

Just like reverting to safety razors, going back to the old lathering method saves waste. From before a year’s shaving would produce a carrier-bag full of old aerosol cans or plastic bottles; now all it will produce a bit of tin-foil and a couple of hard plastic tubs. There are some soap-makers who use wood or metal tubs, which are even easier to either re-purpose or recycle.

There’s also the fact that using soaps means you can have stronger input in what you apply to your face. You can go for soaps which are additive free, particular scents, no palm oil and so on. Hell, you can even make your own, if you’re so inclined. Oh, and I’ll mention that yes, there are companies out there who make nice ‘girly’ scented shaving soaps, too.

Downsides…

Naturally, there is a sting in all this good news. The main one being; you’ll have to learn new habits for shaving. Just like you need to open, clean and dry the safety blade after each shave, you’ll have to get into the habit of rinsing and drying your brush and/or bowl after each use. You’ll also need to remember that you’d need to leave it to dry before packing it away in say a travelling kit (which means it might be more viable to have a shave cream can for such events, if you travel frequently).

The way I deal with this is simple; I keep a series of small cloths, originally from an old microfibre running top on-hand. That I use one first on my face, then to get rid of the soap residue, then to clean the blade / bowl / brush, ending with me rinsing it out and leaving it to dry somewhere convenient.

You could use paper towels, but I found it wasteful. An old-school flannel would also do the trick, but I generally found it too heavy and sometimes wouldn’t dry out in time for the next use (esp in winter). A touch of lotion afterwards… and you’re set.

Conclusion

Using the above method, I find that now I’m scoring better results at around a quarter of the price that I used to with the ‘normal’ cans. Part of this is down to the use of safety razors, yes; but the change in soaps have helped too.

And the finish… is better than when I was paying four times the amount of money on it. For the companies told me I had to. And I was too stupid to question them.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my ‘Frugality’ series.

Let’s Waste Money On: Disposable Razors?

If I was to ever teach kids about economics, marketing and/or environmentalism, I’d devote a whole lesson on disposable razors. Perhaps ending with homework for each kid to find a similar product which was equally ecologically wasteful, massively overpriced, artificially hyped, riddled with “insider tricks” and with doubtful increased utility over the other options.

Some charge sheet, no?

#1: Ecologically wasteful. Made from plastics which are difficult to be recycled, using heads which can’t be at all. Coming in packets of more plastic on a frequent basis. Supporting this is the ancillary industries of the dye-makers and so on, so they can make said products all colourful and attractive. If you’re using “cartridge” razors (you simply replace the head, not the whole thing) it’s a little better, but still terrible for the planet.

#2: Massively Overpriced. The razor-makers are masters of the “extra value good”. They take an item which costs perhaps a few pence each to produce, then flog it for a pound plus. Even when you take into account R&D, capital costs of plant, shipping, a decent profit margin for all and so on – where is all that extra cash vanishing to?…

#3: Artificially Hyped. Answer: advertising, promotion and sponsorship. Those pro athletes, flashy sciency ads, the plum store displays and billboards ain’t cheap, y’know. The sign of just how much is shelled out is the fact that the razor-makers who don’t advertise – such as say the store own brands – can undercut the brands which do by fifty percent plus and still make a profit.

#4: Riddled With Tricks. Every razor system has a proprietary design; so they can sue any company which makes cheaper alternatives to the blade – which is called “lock-in”. They’re designed to be incredibly difficult to clean, so you’ll dispose of it even before it goes blunt – a feature which is known as “inbuilt obsolescence”. You give away the product dirt-cheap and then make the dough from selling the addons and consumables – it’s literally called the “razor and blades model”. Lastly, the products are marketed through the “confusopoly”; no objective comparisons with competitors are made or actual figures used – just a load of windy feel-good bollocks and made-up crap.

#5: Doubtful Increased Utility. All of these factors could be justified if the product was an obvious improvement over it’s direct predecessor – but they’re not. I’ve now been around long enough to say I’ve seen precious little improvement in razor technology since the ’90s… yet they’re still pricey as fuck – perhaps more so since then, what with the rise in oil (and thus, plastic and shipping) costs.

Yet… despite all this, we (on the whole) continue to use the suboptimal disposables. Which is weird; for the product it replaced – the double-edged safety razor – was in fact superior in almost every respect. No… it’s not weird, for the razor makers deliberately killed their older products off to get us all to shell out our hard-earned on their plastic drek instead.

Which is why I urge anybody who practices wet shaving – male or female – to try out the way our fathers (or grandfathers) did back in the day; with a double-edged safety razor.

Back To King Gillette?

Twenty years ago, this would have been almost impossible; the razor-makers had decreed the safeties were “obsolete”, and thus no longer stocked in the likes of supermarkets, chemists or similar. Even if by some chance you possessed a razor – perhaps one inherited from an older relative – getting new blades would be tricky. In 2020, I know of only two stockists in the UK – Sainsbury’s and Boots. And not every branch carries them, and frequently one or both of them are out of stock.

Naturally, this is not a problem with the wonders of the SuperWeb. In three minutes, I found both an austere but functional razor and a pack of ten blades (enough for around fifty shaves) for less than twenty quid. Let’s call that twenty-five, to include postage. What’s that, compared to the amount of cash you’ve been burning on packets of Mach3 refills at a pound-plus per blade all those years?

The other great thing is that there’s plenty of instructional videos out there explaining how you use said razor – I’ll be honest here, using it does require a bit more skill and change of tactics than your current disposables. But I seriously feel it’s worth it; for the following reasons;

#1: Ecologically better. I won’t claim it’s good, for the blades are still disposables and they do usually come in plastic packets. But the waste produced by them is much, much less. Plus; metal is recyclable.

#2: Reasonably priced. Double-edged blades have been generic for decades; meaning that the prices aren’t inflated by proprietary designs and lock-ins. Even when being bought in small quantities they work out at least half the price of the cartridges – and once you find a blade maker who you like, there’s nothing stopping you ordering them in larger quantities to take advantage of bulk discounts. Lastly, you’re not paying for the flashy ads or (generally) celebrity sponsorship.

#3: Easier to maintain. Everybody’s been in the position where a cartridge has got clogged up with gunk “before it’s time” and has to be junked. Not a problem for the double-edge blade – simply remove, wipe and replace.

#4: Superior shaving. I’ll say this about disposable razors; they’re easy to use and hard to fuck up with. But you pay for that with razor burn, irritation, ingrown hairs and poor / uneaven finish – particularly noticeable if you’ve got the dark hair / pale skin combo or you’re the type of guy who’s got a permanent five o’clock shadow.

Now, an old-school razor won’t solve all of these issues, but I’ve noticed after changing over is that the finish is better and the bumps and rashes are much less. The fact you can clean the blades better and afford to replace more frequently helps this too.

Taking the Plunge

Don’t be scared. A safety razor is not a straight razor, seen wielded by traditional barbers and gangsters for ear-cutting and Chelsea smiles. While the blade needs to be respected, it’s not awaiting to hack strips off your skin unless it’s broken or you’re using it really wrong (which the online videos are for). Nor is shaving with one a mythical art form; it took me perhaps two weeks to get back to the level of quality I was getting before with disposables, and a month after that to get results much superior.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my ‘Frugality’ series.

Extinction Rebellion are Extremists

So, it turns out the British counter-terrorism unit, in their guise of protecting society placed the environmentalist group “Extinction Rebellion” on their extremists list; thus placing them in the company of such lovely people as neo-Nazis and Islamic jihadists. This also meant that it fell under the government’s “Protect” programme; where people are strongly encouraged to inform the authorities of “suspect behaviour”.

Said document stated to look out for include people who speak in “strong or emotive terms about environmental issues like climate change, ecology, species extinction, fracking, airport expansion or pollution”. Actions to be flagged also include school strikes, going on demonstrations, circulating leaflets or “writing environmentally themed graffiti”. The fact it was put under “Protect” means the like of school teachers and youth workers are “obligated” to inform – and the obvious conclusion; some of these people may also be “extremists”, and so shouldn’t be in a position of authority over children to spread their “poisonous ideology”. And so on.

Now, the police now say it was “an error” and have “recalled the document”, but I don’t believe it for one fucking bit. Well, the first half of it at least.

We have to bear in mind, the police are the first line of the coercive arm of the state. They enforce the “laws of the land” – with violence, if needed – and said laws are made by our political class; people who are either allied, bought or part of the ruling capitalist elite. They are the main arbiters of the “Overton window”, which marks the limits of “acceptable opinion” within general society. Within this window your opinion is “acceptable”, when you’re outside you’re “an extremist”. It’s this point where the average person comes to realise that there is steel within that velvet glove, than behind all that that comfortable guff about ‘policing by consent’ stand hard men and women who will make you conform whether you like it or not.

Therefore, Extinction Rebellion are extremists, for their campaign implicitly runs afoul of the current model of neoliberal consumerist capitalism powered by cheap fossil fuels and resource exploitation. What’s more, they’re willing to break the law to push their point; the other aspect of the “Overton window” when it comes to define extremism.

What’s more, Extinction Rebellion did this consciously. They understood the window, that the police primarily exist to enforce the status quo of society, that firm, illegal (but non-violent) action was required to “shift” the window towards their viewpoint. They were knowledgeable about previous campaigns of this type; the Chartists, Suffragettes, Trade Unionism and animal rights. And like the previous, they firmly believe they’ve “got right on their side”. And hell, I don’t dispute this; the human race is in a direct collision-course with the wholesale destruction of our planet.

And like their other demonstrating forebears, they’d also must have expected to be officially labelled “extremists”; to be spied on, to be infiltrated and so on. The British state has a long, long history of this; from police informers infiltrating leftist and green groups – some officers leaving activists pregnant – to siccing Special Branch and MI5 to bug, burgle and tap organisations outside of the window.

Remember this; it was the British State which sent the dragoons in at Peterloo against the Chartists, that had Suffragettes force-fed in prison, that sent in the police to defend the capitalist’s ‘right’ to deny the rights of the workers to unionise, to later use baton charges and tear-gas against strikers in the ’80s and label Nelson Mandela as “a terrorist”.

But one thing needs to be remembered; while the state might have the will, it relies on the rank-and-file to be willing to do the deed. Which was part – I think – of the relatively mild police response to the protests last year; the fact that not only were a decent slice of the British population supportive of it (more than I thought, actually) but elements of the police were too. After all, they’re human beings too.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Why do Seniors Deny Climate Change?

While this is purely anecdotal, I’ve come to realise that generally speaking, there’s a pretty strong correlation between age and acceptance of climate change (and then, it being primarily caused by human action). Naturally, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t older people who do accept; but more often than not you’ll find the “denier” will be from the higher bands of the age pyramid. There’s other slithers of evidence; from the fact denialist conventions are often populated by those sporting white hair and false teeth to the fact in (at least) the Anglosphere, the political parties often favoured by the elderly (such as the Conservatives) are often the most “skeptical”. If you’re lucky, it’ll be about “what needs to be done”, if unlucky simple stonewalling of the fact itself.

And after some thought, I think I’ve found the reasons why. Apart from the blatant ones, that is.

#1: Poor scientific knowledge. Science progresses through the decades, meaning that the older the person is, the higher ratio of “obsoleteness” is going to be found. Scientific education has, generally also gotten better with time; and the science of education has often also improved too. Technology also isn’t to be discounted either; the schoolroom has changed so rapidly in the last twenty years that the room of the 1980s looks as archaic now as the old Victorian one-roomed affairs with the Dunce cap and slates did to them.

This means that not only will that Millennial have (on average) more accurate science lessons, but also more of them and taught in a more efficient manner than their Boomer parents. There’s also the fact that they’re more likely to remember more of them due to the less elapsed time…

#2: Factory Schooling. Thing is, even with the better teaching styles, technology and updated curriculum – our schools are fundamentally the same damn ones which developed over a century ago; one geared to producing waves of workers such as clerks and machine-operators in a uniform manner at the minimum of cost. This naturally means that unproductive “extras” were generally trimmed off; and independent thinking and the ability to learn were two of these.

A century ago, this didn’t matter much. The factory schools were better than the previous “blab” affairs. Business was crying out for a deep pool of affordable labour with intermediate skills. A lot of people had “jobs for life”, or at least within their general field. The idea that the clerk might need to retrain as a nurse was an alien concept, along with the idea that the machine-operator needs to have the creative ability to design a new machine. And lastly, the world of work was by our standards incredibly hierarchical and micromanaged.

This means that for far too many people, they never really re-think any of the lessons from ten, twenty, thirty years ago. They were never told the necessity of needing to, nor were they provided with the intellectual tools to do so. And this often leads to…

#3: Cognitive Dissonance. In a nutshell, it’s when someone holds a belief which is supported by “facts” which are either insufficient, contradictory or just plain wrong. While all the while insisting that it’s the impartial facts which led to the belief.

Problem is, our minds are pretty lazy; forever looking for the short-cuts or the path of least resistance. Trying to shoehorn new ideas onto old concepts is an example of the former; if I can think that X is “just like Y with a bit of Z” it means I can quit thinking about X – it’s categorised, “I get it now”, done. Cognitive dissonance is the latter; that all contradictory evidence is somehow “explained away” or failing that, flat-out ignored. Much easier on the old noggin than having to actually try do deal with the apparent mental contradiction(s).

A prime example of this can be the large wave of condescension, dismissiveness and frankly bile thrown at the likes of Greta Thunberg. She’s mentally ill. Unstable. Just a kid. Where’s her parents? Shouldn’t she be in school? Just teenage hormones. She’s just been coached. And so on. Belittle the messenger in the attempt to dismiss the message. Some of the comments were so strongly in the “there there don’t worry”, head-patting zone I’d want to punch that smug face saying it.

With global warming, the issue is a simple one; the day you accept it, the question “what the hell you going to do about it?” immediately rides in. And that’s a problem, as many people don’t like to change or give up anything.

#4: “Crisis fatigue”. People in their sixties now have seen a lot of scares, panics and emergencies in their lives. From the genocide in Rwanda and the disaster at Chernobyl to the worries about nuclear war, AIDS and the ozone layer. Then a myriad of smaller events; terrorist bombings, floods, epidemics and fires. All squirreled away for later comparison and thought.

Problem is, many will vaguely recall the “exaggerations” about previous events. With fair reason, they argue that if the news had been right every single time before, the world would have ended ages ago. Decades of media sensationalism has deadened the senses; a classic example of “Crying Wolf”. And climate change has not been immune to this, particularly in the earlier stages.

Nor is the fact several “upcoming crises” have proven to be false; normally by Science Marching On. A prime example of this was the old fear of an “oil-short world” born out of the memories of the 1970s; something which was superseded by the development of unconventional oils and increased efficiency in extraction rates in the last twenty years. This is often the line taken by the more thoughtful “no action is needed” group; that global warming will be “sorted” somehow by science and tech. No idea how, just will.

Blind faith… or a cynical bet, knowing full well if it doesn’t pay off you’ll be long dead?

Thing is, these four points can explain many of the “reactionary” views held by the older members of society. After all, if you’re unable to “update the mental furniture”, you’re stuck with what you bought in (say) 1980, and even if you were right on the cusp of then-progressive movements then, you’d still be right in the “conservative” end of the scale now.

What to do about it? No idea.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Let’s Ban: Bags for Life?

Another day, another finger-wagging hector to us ordinaries; this one being from Greenpeace about plastic bags. Seems that the “Bags for Life” are failing on the latter part of the definition, and they’d like to see the price to rise to at least 70p (a seven-fold increase) or banned entirely. And my reply is this; sit down, shut up and think what you’re saying before saying it.

Back in the golden days of “free disposable” bags, I used them all the time. Not only for my shopping, but for the transportation and storage of other items; muddy boots, some wires, gifts for others, tools – you name it, I’d put it in a bag sometime. Some ended up in landfill, yes; for I used them as bin bags – always making sure I picked the ones which had broken handles and were close to their end. And the ones which became unusable, went into the “bag of bags” which was destined to go to the recycling point when full.

Then, these bags were phased out. On the benefit of hindsight, this was perhaps a good thing; the fact it took the best part of two years to me to work through my stash of them suggesting far too many were in circulation. But this had a negative knock on effect for me; I had to start actually buying bin bags. So, not a complete win for the green forces of good here. But I’ll say this, the phase-out of the disposables has created a change of ethos; it’s much more “the norm” to have your own bag, which means I get almost no funny looks from the likes of checkout staff for my rucksack.

However, the Bags for Life still filled many of the roles which I’d previously used their predecessors for; in fact, with rather less of them as they lasted longer. Still, I continue to go through them at a fair clip; either given to others (containing items) or sent off to the bag recycling when beyond actual use.

That’s the thing; even if you’re “good”, there’s still a need for the bags. I may have forgotten mine, or it may be already full. Might have purchased something strong-smelling or crushable and I’d like them to be separate. And if I’m passing on something to another, I’m more likely to throw the bag in for free if it’s one of plastic than if it’s one of jute or cloth. This means that the plastic bag still has a role.

Other “green campaigns” can sometimes increase this need for bags; a couple of years ago I used to use the fresh produce boxes for any “overspill” shopping – and often they would then have a long, productive life holding and transporting until finally going to be recycled. I’m sure the number of “plastic bags not used” because of this is three, possibly even four digits. Yet, my usual supermarket has converted to using tough plastic trays instead; while I’ve not tried it yet, I suspect they might object if I tried to take one of these home. Ergo; I need more plastic bags!

Sure, there are some folk who do simply throw them in the bin after one use – but you will always have this proportion of the public. I have relatives and old childhood acquaintances who still tell me “recycling is all just a con” and wouldn’t bother at all if the council hadn’t got all snoopy and pawing through your bins (though they’re not doing it for honourable reasons; they’re simply looking for reasons to fine you).

Here we hear the classist bellow once again, which we’ve seen in the likes of “sugar taxes” and “minimum alcohol unit prices”. Where the well-heeled, middle-class progressives deign to teach us working stiffs the “right” way – and demanding the use of the Big Stick of the State for this purpose.

I predict this campaign will be mostly successful. Most progressive campaigns are when they don’t actually directly threaten either the ruling class, the order of society or our current capitalist model. It also allows virtue-signalling by making sure you’re not seen with one of the “bad bags”. It won’t be completely successful for I predict we’ll simply see more expensive bags in the bin; or different ones which are “free” due to a loophole.

Lastly, it doesn’t actually deal with the ~97% of the plastic which enters my home; the films, tubs, trays, bottles or blister packs. Worst thing must be the first one; for it appears to be damned impossible to recycle. After all, who’s ever heard of a recyclable crisp packet?

And it’s this which has led me to write this post. A campaign which focuses on a tiny segment of the problem, requires almost zero change from the actual producers, allows individuals to show how virtuous they are and to lecture others? Classic progressivism.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.