r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
What can individual people do about global warming?
- Thread starter Frozenwolf150
- Start date
-
- Tags
- agw global warming
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 12,637
In my personal opinion strictly "organic" isn't as essential as local and sustainably raised with consideration of minimizing one's local environmental disruption as much as minimizing your individual carbon footprint. The transportation refrigeration and distribution of food is not inconsequential, and the current reliance upon fossil fuels for energy and transportation is a consequence of previous decisions, not something that is an essential or irreplaceable element of energy or transportation. With processed foods the issue is often the degree of processing and the concentrations of additives that can create dietary problems when consumed in large quantities over long periods of time. eaten in moderation, nah they generally aren't any worse for you than the natural equivalents, and it takes longer to prepare for consumption, those are decisions that individuals have to make for themselves.
Indeed, if you have recycling, I don't know that this is terribly more wasteful than collecting all the garbage un-separated, either way, you are collecting the same volume. If there is money to be made on the recycled products you gain the value of the space saved within your waste disposal landfills and at least partially offset some of the costs of the overall collection and landfill operations costs, why not? The main thing again, is to make informed and well considered decisions that make sense in your life, neighborhood, and locality.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
The answer is it can be beneficial, depending on the context. Your question lacks this context, so there is no perfect answer.
It's like asking is fire good? Well fire in your living room climbing up your drapes isn't such a good thing, but fire in the Bar B Que outside might make a pretty good rack of ribs. So everything depends on context.
Organic most definitely can be much more environmentally friendly, if one of the goals of the farmer is to produce food in an environmentally friendly way, and if the farmer is knowledgeable in obtaining that goal. However, no label can assure either of those two criteria. That's where local comes into play. Local also can make a difference, if the local farmer has both the goal to be environmentally friendly and the capability to meet that goal. And you have a chance to actually meet the food being produced and discuss it with the farmer. Marry the two, both local and organic, and with those goals and abilities, and absolutely yes. There can be a profound difference. Oh and BTW Organic doesn't necessarily take more space to grow either. Actually more yields per acre are possible, but it almost always involves more hard work. Don't confuse yields with productivity. They are not the same thing.
You miss the point. I am looking at the long term here, and using the evidence at hand to show the principles. The economy is linked to the cost and availability of energy. If this wasn't the case, then the cost of energy would drop to some level that only prevented a few rich from purchasing all of it. That affluence is linked to energy use is reflected in the quote I gave.
I do not advocate a reversal of economic development, but a growing economy is not sustainable, as I will show.
Given that the economy is linked to energy, the more the economy grows, the more energy we will consume. In the long term, we need a steady state economy to prevent the planet from boiling, regardless of whether we move over to 100% renewables or not. Of course, continuing the use of fossil fuels will speed up that warming.
I have already pointed out the danger of energy efficiency (it often increases carbon emissions), but let’s assume that the efficiency is done in conjunction with carbon taxes.
You have a system that relies upon the improvement of technology over time, and of people doing the right thing. Now let’s takes some examples:
Light bulbs - We have seen some marvellous improvements from incandescents through to LEDs, but there is a physical limit as to how many lumens you can get from a light bulb (251 lm/W). The best we can get currently is about 135ln/W (sometimes higher). So when we get to the 251 number, light bulbs will not get any more efficient for the visible spectrum.
Then there are electric motors/ hydroelectric power/ battery chargers are all often found at about 90% efficient, so not much improvement to be had there.
There have been great gains in things like fridges/freezers, but how much improvement will we see in the future?
With a growing economy of about just under 3% per year globally (a typical number), I hope you can see how efficiency is playing a losing battle in the fight against a growing economy. Remember, energy is linked to the economy, and energy efficiency often averages at about 1% improvement per year
And when you reach the limit of a technology in terms of efficiency in a growing economy, the only way is up (and to get warmer).
Then there is there is the psychology of efficiency. I have seen many times the attitude of complacency when one has an improved technology. LED lighting at home? People leave lights on more, and/or have more lights. Better boiler and/or better insulation? home is kept warmer. Even people like Macdoc has demonstrated this tendency in another thread. Efficiency improves quality of life, and it only cuts carbon emissions when carefully managed on a large scale, and even then has a limited benefit. It is not a magic bullet…. Although it can often be free (such as turning devices off, and driving correctly), so can make financial sense.
But let’s get back to the core issue: When we consume more stuff, the impact can be subtle. We make a purchase, and it helps the economy, no matter what we purchase. I recently bought a new boiler (grrr), and cost us over £1000. This will save us some money (although probably won’t pay for its self), but in the end, it is putting money into the economy, and has a knock on effect (and has a carbon footprint at multiple levels). The money helps to stimulate the economy, and energy consumption increases. If we all started buying ethically, it would still stimulate the economy, and energy consumption would still increase.
Savings such as biking to work, stopping flying, switching off electrical appliances are all good, but will not make an growing economy sustainable, and they never will, as all of them have limited savings in the long term. Of course, that does not mean we shouldn't do them, as it may give a bit more time to develop a new economic model that isn't based upon growth.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/
As I have already said, energy efficiency is limited in its capabilities in the long term. But taking that graph as an example...
The largest energy expenditures are indeed travel and home energy. This does not mean that we can earn as much as we want. The more we earn, the larger our footprint. As I said, we tend to consume more (be it buy more stuff, or heat our homes more) the more disposable income we have. People who become wealthy tend to have larger homes (more heating, and fill it with more stuff), so many of those lines will grow, as the person becomes more wealthy.
Also, those two big energy uses (travel and heating) may not have much scope for improvement. Let me give you an example: Our house was built over 100 years ago, and takes a certain amount of heating. Even if we knocked it down and built a well insulated house, it would still be one of the biggest energy uses we have, as we still need to heat it, no matter how efficient a boiler gets.
Similarly, at work our boiler raises steam. We need X amount of steam for the application at hand, and there is only so much savings we will realise where we are, no matter how much insulation and fuel saving devices we fit.
Let me make a comparison:
Person A is affluent, and is concerned about AGW so they do not fly. They do however, have a nice big house, and has to heat/cool it as necessary. They have filled said house with some fabulous goods, which make their life so much easier, and art from local artists. They love eating out, doing work for the local community etc.
However, the carbon footprint is large owing to a large house, 2nd car, those goods and artwork they have bought, all have a carbon footprint that they would not otherwise have. And their local artist can now afford to spend more as well, upping his carbon footprint. And their bank account unknowingly helps to fund various carbon heavy activities that the bank loans to.
Person B lives around the corner and is not affluent. They have a modest house, which is enough for them. Their lack of disposable income means they cannot afford holidays abroad, so like person A, they do not fly. But they do not then have the spare cash to spend on other things that person A is spending their money on. And their bank cannot use their excess cash to help fund some carbon hungry activity, as they do not have much.
Person B has a much lower impact on the growing economy as a result. An economy that is built upon energy.
Therefore, person B is the more carbon friendly.
OK, so this is a bit loaded, but I hope you see that affluence has an impact. Even if person A invests in ethical purchases, they still have an impact usually greater than person B.
If person B spends his little spare cash on ethical food, and clothing, they are a very clear winner in this. In fact they probably do not have to buy ethical food to win hands down between the two of them. But it would be good if they did of course.
But there’s another problem: How many of us are going to say: “you’re going to pay me how much? No I couldn’t possibly, that’s way too much”. Just isn’t going to happen, as we want paying for the work we do. But if we worked a little less hard once we attain a certain level of comfort, we nip that issue in the bud, and maintain a quality of life.
We can take it even further, and assume both persons watch TV. Both are exposed to thousands of adverts every year, and their consumption goes up as a result. Guess who’s goes up the most? That’s right, person A, as they have the most spare cash to spend on those luxuries they didn’t realise they needed. Remember, adverts work in a surprising number of occasions.
You were using shaming language. Disagreement can be expressed in a number of ways. The above quote does not change how you worded your previous post. Personally, I tend to find such things rather amusing.
Hopefully we’re in agreement, but I’ll try to expand.
As stated further up, our economy is largely based upon energy. We reap the benefits of fossil fuels in so many ways, that the “free” ride has brought untold luxury. I would like us to continue this level of living for as long as possible and to a decent standard of living, and so the best way to achieve this is a steady state economy (and go onto nuclear/renewables sooner rather than later).
This links into the point that the growing economy (that we have had for hundreds of years) is not sustainable. At just below 3% growth each year, we will reach body temperature on Earth due to the energy we use in under 400 years. Think about that, even if we used just solar panels, the Earth will be unbearably hot in a few hundred years. In just over 200 years, we would really feel the effects, and under 1000 years, it will be as hot as the surface as the sun. Fun numbers that cannot actually happen of course, but that is where we are heading with our growing economy.
As you can see it is not sustainable. But where do we go from here? Well population looks set to level out, so that’s good news, especially as that will slow the economic growth. But that just buys us time, as does energy efficiency (EE). EE once maxed out, it will stop being a benefit, and the growing economy will increase energy use even further.
If we unplug from the economy to varying degrees (such as watching less adverts, earning less excess money), we consume less. This saves us more than just trying to buy ethically. By not buying at all, we save more than buying low energy devices, or locally produced items we don’t need. And by not earning that excess cash, we are less tempted to spend it on more rubbish, and/or the bank can’t use it to loan to someone else to spend on more energy consuming activities.
One cannot be expected to work out the carbon footprint of everything. Even Tescos abandoned their carbon footprinting program, as no one really took much notice, and they were the only ones doing it. Also, no carbon footprinting is totally accurate as there are so many variables. It’s much better to avoid spending in the first place. To find ways of enjoying life without spending.
Technological advancement is and always will be important, but economic growth….., well you know my opinion of that now. While there are many levels of poverty in the world, you’d be surprised how many nations are pulling themselves out of that situation. There is a limit where we must say “no more economic development”, but the system we have just isn’t set up for that. Developed nations have to show that we don’t needed more and more stuff, we have to lead by example, but it will only work with the right economic model.
And it won’t work with people continuing to accumulate unlimited wealth. I believe we have a right to pursue happy life, but there has to be a physical limit on the amount of wealth we accumulate in the long term, as we live on a finite planet.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/28/the-fallacy-of-locally-grown-produce/
http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/
Tomatoes grown in Spain used less energy according to its LCA than UK tomatoes (for UK customers):
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.a...ore&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15001
-Owing to less energy during production. The same can happen when buying apples, where locally grown will need storage when bought out of season, but if you import, you may get an apple with a lower LCA result.
There seems to be quite a few sites with this idea, but here is an interesting quote from one of them:
http://thisisyoke.com/is-economic-growth-sustainable
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Sorry WOBS, all this BS about not working and making less money on purpose sounds like an excuse for lazy SOBs. I am not buying it at all.
I believe the standard answer to posts such the this is: Evidence please.
"Not buying it"? Well support your answer. Show why I am wrong with more than "BS".
In the meatime, I should point out that I do not advocate laziness, but idleness. When you work the different, get back to us.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
Your assumption is that all work and consumables automatically must contribute to AGW. Well that assumption is wrong. If my work is regenerating the environment, and I am doing my work without increasing my carbon footprint, then the more work I do, the better, not worse, and I sure expect to be compensated for my hard work.
This idea that everything humans do is automatically bad is pure woo. It's not that everything we do is bad, it's that most the time historically, environmental issues were not high on the priority list, precisely because as a society they were UNDERCOMPENSATED.
Point to the bit where I:
a. Say that everything must contribute to AGW. In fact in an earlier post I said that those with excess wealth could invest in renewables. This is an example of a caveat.
b. I'm pretty sure I said people would still want to be paid for the work they did, so I'm puzzled why you would bring this up.
Can you honestly say that an economy based upon growth is sustainable? If so, you will have to show how.
Where did I say that everything we do is bad? I said our excess wealth has an impact, and our growing economy is not sustainable. Are you saying otherwise? If so, show how this is wrong, and examples that are the exception rather than the rule will not do, as we are talking about society as a whole.
We have seen the environmental agenda being brought forward for the past few decades, as we have seen the impact much more clearly. Bringing these impacts to their logical conclusion is all I'm doing. If you can prove me wrong on anything I've actually said, rather than moving the goalposts, feel free.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
That's easy. To have a sustainable economy based upon growth requires energy. There are few energy sources capable of supplying that, but solar is one that comes to mind. And I don't mean just solar panels. One of the best is photosynthesis. But any energy source that is renewable and doesn't deteriorate the environment will work.
At this point though, we are well beyond what "sustainable" can give. We need "regenerative" at this point due to the huge environmental damages already in place. So that means instead of sitting around with idle time, we need to actually work harder, as long as that work is in the context of regenerating the environment.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
That's how I planned and have lived my life so up yours, frankly. Retired at 50 on very limited but sufficient income I have my garden, friends, use of an excellent public library service, the interwebs, and many fond memories from time I didn't spend working.
Call it lazy if you like, I call it purposive.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
I have no problem with you or anyone's personal decision as when to retire. That's your own business. The issue is in the productive workers in an economy, not the non working children and/or retirees.
But going over to renewables (which of course I support), doesn't make a growing economy sustainable, as it still gives off heat. It simply puts us on a longer tragectory before we heat up the Earth (see above).
A growing economy results in a growing energy demand. Yes we have photosynthesis, but biomass only gives us a very finite amount of energy. And again, it produces heat, just like every other way we consume energy. I have already shown how long we have before we heat up the Earth due our continued growing economy (ie: growing energy demand).
The only sustainable economy is a steady state one, where energy demand levels off to a manageable level.
Red Baron Farms
Philosopher
No not always. It is possible to use the power of biodiversity to actually cool the planet by removing greenhouse gasses. If you were to put an economic value on that, then you have the possibility to grow an economy without growing AGW. Now you said "longer trajectory" and that is true to a point. You couldn't grow forever. The trick would be to get that longer trajectory extended till we become a legit spacefaring species and economy that can leave the closed system for an open system.
macdoc
Philosopher
wrong - I don't think you understand how the radiative balance works.
The scales of energy involved are far far beyond any human activity.
The planet is not heating due to our energy use.
The planet is heating because we released fossil CO2 which is outside the carbon cycle so traps the SUN'S HEAT.
Human energy sources are a rounding error.
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2012/01/how-much-extra-energy-are-we-adding-to-the-earth-system/
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The issue is whether working and consuming less, by choice, is laziness. In your value system it obviously is; in mine, it isn't. It leaves time for simply living, which is sometime hard work in itself.
macdoc
Philosopher
'e's a Yank eh....they don't take vacations....
Frozenwolf150
Formerly SilentKnight
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
To clarify, do you mean that we should literally work less? Or do you mean that we should switch over to activities that help the environment when we're not engaging in our main occupation?
2nd attempt at posting this.....
You misunderstand what I am saying.
I am not saying we are currently heating the planet through our direct energy use (that is currently immeasurably small), but that with a growing economy, we WILL heat the planet with our growing energy use.
An economy, that works this way will always demand more energy over the long term.
Even if we stop using fossil fuels all together, and go fully to renewables (and/or build a few fusion reactors for luck), we will still heat the Earth, and feel the effects in under 300years, assuming a 2.3% growth rate. In 400 years, we will boil the Earth.
Its fun maths, but it an important issue, as we cannot continue indefinitely to grow our economy. We generally see a growth rate of about 2.9%, but with a stabilising population, we should see that rate drop, but it will still be a growth, unless we change the economic model.
Edit: I should add that radiative power scales as the fourth power of temperature, which the above accounts for.
Last edited:
Not having a good day with posting, but here goes...
As I have already said, this all assumes we have stopped using fossil fuels, this is if we went for renewables 100%, or a mixture of that and fusion (or fission of course), so sucking up CO2 shouldn't be an issue. Its about the waste heat we emit when our economy has grown so much produce so much heat on Earth, that we heat it up.
The power of biodiveristy is another very limited resource in this scenario, as we will need to:
a. Feed the billions of people to a comfortable standard.
b. Install solar panels over much of our land mass.
So where do we plant all of this extra vegetation?
In the more immediate time frame, I'm all for reforestation of course, especially in areas where it will have an effect:
http://climateviewer.com/2013/10/09/terraforming-earth-geoengineering-megaplan-starts-now/
-See map.
As for space, are you seriously suggesting that we could have such a space faring society in under 300years? It would mean sending a not-insignificent number of people into space in that time, which brings us back to the issue of energy. Have you thought about how much energy that would take? How much it would cost? How safe it would be?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of space exploration, be it robotics, or even manned flight. Its hugely inspirational, and can be profitable etc. but I cannot see how we can overcome the difficulties of space flight so that we can expand it to such scales. And yes, I have heard of space elevators.
As I have already said, this all assumes we have stopped using fossil fuels, this is if we went for renewables 100%, or a mixture of that and fusion (or fission of course), so sucking up CO2 shouldn't be an issue. Its about the waste heat we emit when our economy has grown so much produce so much heat on Earth, that we heat it up.
The power of biodiveristy is another very limited resource in this scenario, as we will need to:
a. Feed the billions of people to a comfortable standard.
b. Install solar panels over much of our land mass.
So where do we plant all of this extra vegetation?
In the more immediate time frame, I'm all for reforestation of course, especially in areas where it will have an effect:
http://climateviewer.com/2013/10/09/terraforming-earth-geoengineering-megaplan-starts-now/
-See map.
As for space, are you seriously suggesting that we could have such a space faring society in under 300years? It would mean sending a not-insignificent number of people into space in that time, which brings us back to the issue of energy. Have you thought about how much energy that would take? How much it would cost? How safe it would be?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of space exploration, be it robotics, or even manned flight. Its hugely inspirational, and can be profitable etc. but I cannot see how we can overcome the difficulties of space flight so that we can expand it to such scales. And yes, I have heard of space elevators.