I admit that I did not read the article, but I have the following query: Who gives a flying rat's ass whether drinking frozen OJ is better for the environment? The question seems sufficiently far along that line whose logical extreme is concluding that best for the environment is an end to human existence.

The environment, after a certain point, can go fly a kite. I want my damn orange juice.

I might suggest reading the article, if not for the informative value, then for the sheer entertainment of watching enviro-nuts wring their hands over the miniscule benefit of regular carton orange juice versus frozen can orange juice.

In short, Sasha, I don't think I've ever agreed with a single Green Lantern article. They are always biased against free markets and industry towards global taxation and regulation. In this one, the author even comes close to admitting that this is a pointless question, but then goes on to examine every minute detail of orange squeezing. The biggest reason I read these things is so I know what the Chicken Littles are losing their minds about. This is good information to have when you have to defend yourself for being so environmentally destructive as to drive to work, turn on the heat/air conditioning in your house, eating a steak...whatever.

Both of you need to understand the premise of this board and its attached articles. The issue is what we can do to improve our management of the environment. That, in itself, is not a ridiculous exercise; in fact even the most ardent pro-business conservative should be able to agree that we should be sensible in the way we use our natural resources.

What I like about these articles is that they explore every possible nuance of environmental conservation. You can toss these off as silly and pointless, but this is how legitimate solutions to real problems are developed. You may not care whether or not somebody drinks fresh-squeezed or concentrated orange juice, but even the smallest minutiae of human behavior is worth scrutinizing, even if it never leads to any effect on policy decisions.

Another thing I like about these articles is that they at least attempt to consider the inherent contradictions that you inevitably face when dealing with these issues. For example, electric cars pollute less than internal combustion engines, but producing batteries for use in electric cars is an incredibly messy and potentially damaging enterprise for the environment. These kinds of conflicts are exactly why these articles are so interesting, and I think, necessary. Most people (I think, anyway) would agree that new technologies should be developed and new ways of doing things ought to be pondered, but where do you draw the line? At what point do you cross the line from being good stewards of the earth to incurring more damage than you intended?

I see The Green Lantern as one accessible way for average folks to think about every aspect of their lives. That's not pointless. Even if you balk at the seemingly ridiculous study of minute details, it's not pointless. You never know when those details might become incredibly important.

Just a few quick questions:

1) Did I ever make a claim in this post or any that you've seen from me, where I opposed good resource management or advocated waste and/or pollution?

2) Should broad scope public policy ever be based on "minutae"?

3) Why don't these articles ever explore (objectively) the counterarguments to global warming?

4) Do you really think we need the Green Lantern to teach us how to think?

5) At what point does it become pointless to overanalyze every millisecond of our lives?

FordTruck5Speed:

Just a few quick questions:

1) Did I ever make a claim in this post or any that you've seen from me, where I opposed good resource management or advocated waste and/or pollution?

2) Should broad scope public policy ever be based on "minutae"?

3) Why don't these articles ever explore (objectively) the counterarguments to global warming?

4) Do you really think we need the Green Lantern to teach us how to think?

5) At what point does it become pointless to overanalyze every millisecond of our lives?

1) No, I haven't, but I hoped to establish that point of agreement. I'm glad we have.

2) How do you know what details will matter and which ones won't?

3) The way I see it, this board is intended to address things based on the assumption that global warming is real. There are other forums where the truth of it is debated. I don't see it as entirely relevant, though. I don't need to believe in global warming to see the relevance of reducing pollution and increasing efficiency.

4) That's a stupid comment. We need forums to discuss things. You may as well not even visit the Fray at all for crissakes.

5) How do you know? It's important to somebody. Why would you willingly remain ignorant when there is knowledge to be gained?

"3) The way I see it, this board is intended to address things based on the assumption that global warming is real. There are other forums where the truth of it is debated. I don't see it as entirely relevant, though. I don't need to believe in global warming to see the relevance of reducing pollution and increasing efficiency."

Why is this not a forum where the truth of climate cycles can be objectively debated? If it is relevant to debate whether I use Cottonelle or Charmin to wipe my ass, it is certainly relevant to discuss meteorological evidence supporting and refuting this whole global warming fiasco. By the way, just to remind you, I never claimed that it was a bad thing to reduce pollution and increase efficiency. Are we clear on that?

"4) That's a stupid comment. We need forums to discuss things. You may as well not even visit the Fray at all for crissakes."

That wasn't even the question. The question was, "Do you really think we need the Green Lantern to teach us how to think?" In other words, I don't need some author to teach me the ways of self examination, which is what you appeared to say in your previous reply. If I am mistaken in that assumption, I'll happily stand corrected.

"5) How do you know? It's important to somebody. Why would you willingly remain ignorant when there is knowledge to be gained?"

I have been taking graduate courses for a number of years, part time, since I earned my first degree. I attend professional development training regularly. I read the papers. I listen to the radio. I watch the news. I even read the garbage from the Green Lantern. How do you gather that I have "remained ignorant" on anything? Hey, if someone really finds a massive need to do a study everytime someone sneezes or farts, they can have at it. Go nuts, and tell me if you find something. My point is that it's getting a bit ridiculous to lose our minds discussing the environmental impact of inhaling, for crying out loud. Hell, I ought to submit an environmental quandry to these guys. Is it better for the environment to use Vic Firth or Zildjian drum sticks? Nylon tip, or wood tip? I'm sure drummers everywhere are dying to know.

I do.

There is no need to debate the human influence on global warming, or as you say "cycles." Why? Because an objective view of the statistics shows it to be happening. But that's another topic. Let's stick to the main one:

The article really does make a point you should listen to -- your choices as a consumer have an effect on the planet. It might seem like an insignificant difference to you, but in the aggregate, they make a lot of difference. Just because you are blind to the world around you doesn't mean the rest of us are or want to remain that way. Read then critique. You'll be more persuasive that way. :)

Another topic that is open to debate because, as I pointed out, objective observations of all meteorological factors involved in climate cycles show that human activity has little if any effect on climate. Hence, why I said it is open for debate, and big enough to pay attention to.

Kris, I can tell you are a passionate environmentalist. So passionate, in fact, that you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. I make the point for open debate and you say that I'm "blind to the world around [me]." That is an illogical and unfounded conclusion, because as I pointed out before, I am very conscious of the world I live in and I make every effort to be informed.

You see, Kris, I did read then critique. Have you ever heard the term, "overkill"? Orange juice? Seriously. Insignificant differences are just that. Insignificant. I'm sorry, but farting in the ocean isn't going to cause a tsunami.

Ford, congratulations. You apparently know everything there is to know about environmental issues and the related technology. I happen to learn a lot of interesting stuff from these articles. But more to the point: why is the information you are getting more credible than the information you get here? Most of the posts you write are simply dismissive, and I think they ignore the basic point of The Green Lantern.

As for global warming, feel free to dispute it. I'm not entirely sure I accept it wholeheartedly myself. But pondering the environmental impact of various behaviors is a fascinating subject, the issue of global warming notwithstanding. Everything we do has an impact on the world around us. What's wrong with studying it to even the smallest detail?

You are dismissing The Green Lantern for reasons that seem petty and slightly ignorant to me. It's as if there are some subjects that you don't consider worthwhile. So why do you visit this board, anyway?

I almost stayed out of this. I don't even drink orange juice, I'm a grapefruit juice drinker. But Anse, Ford isn't dismissing the Green Lantern for reasons thater are petty and ignorant: He is dismissing the Green Lantern for being petty and ignorant -- whatever the decision, if you don't grow your own oranges whether you drink frozen or non-frozen is bound to have a neglible impact on the environment. The dispute of one over the other is as important as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

He also raised a question that is substantive, and goes to scientific method. All points of view should be aired so that discussion and testing and determine which, if any, are valid. Just 25 years ago, the climatological debate was over how we as a planet would respond to global cooling. Now the same debate wages over how we should respond to global warming, except that one side of the debate has largely been shouted down, even when it has provided substantive evidence.

What's wrong with studying it in the smallest detail? Well, the Archimedes problem: Archimedes was so focused on his geometry problem in the sand (long-term) that he ignored the Roman soldier who killed him (short term). Perspective matters.

Again, I think you guys are missing the point; much scientific research begins with "thought experiments," and that's the way I see The Green Lantern. I have never read this column as the final word on how we should live our lives. I see it more as a way to ponder every last aspect of human behavior and the world economy and how it has an impact on the world. There are many forums out there for folks to look at the big picture, but there is value in considering the details, too.

To me, The Green Lantern is similar to The Undercover Economist; both columns tend to dispense with the larger, abstract questions, and focus instead on the tiny details. If you spent all your time thinking about this stuff, you'd lose a great deal of perspective. But if you never bring your larger, abstract ideals down to ground level and see how they work in everyday life, why bother?

I think it just boils down to whether or not we as individuals believe that it is worth the time, effort and money to examine every millisecond of our lives with a microscope. I made the drum stick comment as a joke, but when I read the GL, the things I see are almost that petty and ridiculous. Tell me the following wouldn't sound like a GL article:

Dear Green Lantern,

I'm a drummer, and I worry that my nylon-tip drum sticks are harming the environment? I just played a global warming benefit concert, and I somehow feel icky. Help!

Well, Mr. Drummer, we need to examine the cost-benefit of nylon tips versus wood tips. One camp may suggest that using a synthetic material on the tip will help to save the trees by using 0.5% less wood in each stick. Effectively, this would mean your average hickory tree would yield 1 to 3 additional pairs of sticks versus a comparable stick with a wood tip. However, the emissions from producing the nylon tip and adhesive to affix it to the shoulder would negate any long-term carbon sucking from the use of fewer trees. This is assuming you use a 5A or smaller stick. The thickness of a SD-1 General or a 2B with wood tips would greatly diminish stick-producing capacity in each tree, thus negating any benefit to using wood tip sticks. Not to rag on marching bands and drum corps, but have you seen how monstrous those Vic Firth Corpsmasters are? If George W. Bush were a drummer, rest assured this would be his stick of choice. These sticks are clearly inefficient and a waste of precious CO2 eating plant life. The use of such a stick would be to play right into the hands (no pun intended) of "big drumming." Don't even get me started on kevlar or mylar drum heads...etc.

You see my point? Every little thing could be hashed out to what end? My problem with the GL isn't that it "examines issues," but it always contains a spin that anything we do in our normal, everyday lives is somehow harmful and ignorant. Believe me, I like an open forum to debate ideas. If it is ignorance, so be it, but I have trouble latching onto articles that seemingly demonize every aspect of our life. I haven't read one of these articles in the last year that didn't hammer on the most trivial of activities and bash commerce and production. Sprinkle in a little about global taxation and "carbon penalties," and the week is complete. I'm sorry, Anse, but I don't believe that the GL writers present an objective, unbiased point of view. It's one thing when you're talking politics, but when you're talking science, that simply doesn't fly.

My apologies, Truck, as it was Sasha who didn't read the article and not you. I missed that detail in my scrolling.

Yes, I'm a passionate environmentalist but I'm also a capitalist. Maybe not of the free-as-in-screw-everyone-over­- to-make-as-much-money-as-possi­ble, robber baron of the 1920s mentality free market capitalist, but I do believe in the capitalist system with proper regulations (and we can debate "proper" all decade long).

I don't, however, just see and hear want I want to hear. I've seen where the funding for the "anti-global climate change scientists" come from and choose not to listen. And when scientists get censored because they disagree with an ideological viewpoint, there's something wrong there, too.

Regarding this article, I do think it is flawed. It discusses the cost of shipping pounds of oranges versus heat treatment costs, but it doesn't actually discuss the carbon impact of trucking versus heat treatment. That's a big flaw if the article is suppose to be about the effect of orange juice types on the environment.

Every single article in this space might be about minutia, and that's fine, because not every Slate reader is going to see it -- so the repetition isn't necessarily a problem. Someone might be interested in OJ and click the link. For others, like yourself, you say "WTF? OJ, whatever." That's fine.

The point should be, however, to show that actions such as choosing frozen or reconstituted or 100% pure have an effect. You might consider it trivial, but on a societal level it isn't. And again, the goal should be to show how even trivial actions have an effect.

No Anse, this board does NOT examine and outline how we as humans affect our world. This forum concentrates on small details while largely ignoring the important issues.

That stupid article about CFLs was a perfect example. Discussing the importance of using them while completely ignoring the fact that better technology already exists to replace them - technology that will solve the concerns brought up by those opposed to them.

This topic on FCOJ is another shining example. It opens up the topic and displays the gory innards, but doesn't even attempt to answer the question. We don't need more rhetorical masturbation - we need implementation. I'll paraphrase Arnold Schwartzenegger from the Running Man "I've seen too much? All I see is a bunch of low foreheads who think they can change the world with talk and dreams. It's too late for that, if you aren't ready to act - give me a break and shut up." There's nothing more to discuss, implementation is all that is left now.

The last comment is about percentages. What is more effective, to reduce waste from a process that is 60% of a problem or from a process that is 2% of a problem? Where would our time be better spent? Are you prepared to believe that the issue of OJ consumption denotes 60% of the atmospheric changes we produce? In short this forum ignores the elephant in the room.

What is really tells me is that environmentalists like the Green Lantern editor is admitting his lack of power over the issue and so redirects our attentions to matters of inconsequence.

I think you've hit upon why we might be in trouble with the environment. We want what we want when we want it and the environment be hanged. The last time I heard a rant like that was from my two year old.