"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

[The Great Zaganza]

Pedaling really hard will get you to 200 watts. And I mean bordering on elite athlete hard. Not 200 watt hours, unless you did so for an hour. You'd need something like 10 elite cyclists to power your home. And just the cost to feed them would far exceed any power source.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/12/08/504790589/could-you-power-your-home-with-a-bike

In the case of a Zombie Apocalypse, I only need to power my phone, a bit of light, and a radio.
Doing 1 hours of cardio a day would be enough for that.

 

[Myriad]

In the case of a Zombie Apocalypse, I only need to power my phone, a bit of light, and a radio.
Doing 1 hours of cardio a day would be enough for that.

You might be joking, but it's worth noting that small amounts of electricity can be very valuable in the right circumstances.

Paying USD $300 or more per kilowatt-hour? Many people do. Just buy some brand name AA batteries from a supermarket.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, for emergency power, a pedaled generator is fine, and you may even save on heating, all provided food supply is not a problem, but otherwise, as stated, the amount of energy will be very small.

That is sort of the reason various power sources were invented in the first place.

Hans

 

[dann]

Damn, Hans!
I was just about to start a rumor that chains like PureGym build dynamos into their gym equipment to suck out the energy of naïve exercisers and sell it to the highest bidders on the grid!

 

[dann]

Well, I'd like to not get involved with some cat-fight like exchanges here, but IMO what individuals do is important. What I personally save in energy is a drop in the ocean, but ...
1) It still benefits me, economically. ... At least mostly.
2) Any ocean is made of drops.

That sounds like the homeopathic version of global-warming theory. The English idiom for, 'Det batter ikke noget', would be 'it is a drop in the bucket', but let's go with in the ocean instead.

It may be some small, rich elite that drives much of the action, but they're only the rich elite as long as enough individual citizens buy their goods. If we all strive to use green energy, save energy, but ... well, green stuff (fruit and grocery not flown half-way around the globe, fuel-guzzling cars ... etc), the elite will be forced to maintain their riches and power selling more sensible things. And we'll be all saving money.

If 'we all' strive to save energy, the elite will be forced to do absolutely nothing since 'we all' aren't the big consumers of energy. The industries are. This the reason why the amount of energy ordinary consumers are able tot save doesn't matter much. I

I have been waiting for one of the advocates of the 'individual-energy-consumption-matters' advocates to come up with some numbers to put me in my place: 'See?! It totally matters!' But for some reason, it hasn't happened, which has confirmed my impression that this is all about feeling-good fiction. It's much like when you tell users of alternative medicine that their favorite drugs don't work. They almost always get all defensive because they not only want to, they need to believe that they are at least doing something.
And the media is ready to confirm their beliefs.

The United Nations report on climate change released this week contains some dire news for humanity: It says we have less than two decades and plenty of hard work ahead to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid catastrophic consequences to the planet. In response to the report, some outlets have made lists of what individuals can do to personally combat climate change, from limiting their meat consumption to carpooling or taking public transportation. Others, however, have argued that individual consumption changes are futile since 70 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions can be traced back to 100 companies, according to a 2017 “Carbon Majors” report by the Climate Accountability Institute.
Both arguments make sense. Individual consumers can’t be blamed for our rising global temperatures — but people want to feel like they’re doing something, no matter how small, to prevent the worst-case climate catastrophe scenario from unfolding.
Can consumer choices ward off the worst effects of climate change? An expert explains. (Vox, Oct 12, 2018)

I looked at the most interesting of the linked articles in this context, CNN's about what individuals can do to personally combat climate change, but even that article was only referred to specific numbers at one point:

Diets: Again, the models aren’t comprehensive, but in general, the IPCC’s narrative suggests that people consume about 30% less animal products. Eating less meat is one of a number of mitigation strategies suggested by the IPCC to overhaul agricultural and land-use practices, including the protection of forests. The livestock sector is estimated to account for 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, more than direct emissions from the transport sector.

It made me wonder: Didn't pigs and cows fart before mankind and the industrial revolution arrived on the scene?
So I looked at the new link provided in that article to a short summary of findings in a FAO report, and I found this:

Efficient practices key to reducing emissions
There is a direct link between GHG emission intensities and the efficiency with which producers use natural resources, i.e. the amount of natural resources engaged in animal production, per unit of edible or non-edible output. For livestock production systems, nitrous oxide, methane and carbon dioxide emissions are losses of nitrogen, energy and organic matter that undermine efficiency and productivity. Possible interventions to reduce emissions are therefore to a large extent based on technologies and practices that improve production efficiency at animal and herd levels.

Somehow, it always turns out to be a question of changing the production, infrastructure etc., i.e. things that consumers don't control, and yet we are always told that that austerity and sacrifices are the way to go, but it isn't true. 'If only we would all become ascetic monks, there would be no CO₂ emissions', which, of course, is the reason why people develop a bad conscience and resort to inefficient austerity measures or donations to convince themselves that they are at least doing something.
See also these two recent posts about infrastructure: 532 and 533.

About voting: Of course it works, but not miraculously. Vote for people who have an environmental agenda, but don't expect miracles. Don't try to tell me that it doesn't matter if you vote for ... uhm, say, Trump or Biden, for the sake of the environment.

A personal anecdote about voting:
In the mid-2000s, I was talking to a group of Cubans. When they heard that I was from Denmark, one of them asked me about Denmark's participation in Bush Jr's Coalition of the Willing, i.e. the USA-led invasion of Iraq. I was surprised that he knew about that, but many Cubans are well informed about international affairs. On the other hand, he appeared to be even more surprised by my answer to his question, "Why did you guys vote for the war in Iraq?" Since he appeared to be asking about Danes in general and not me in particular, I didn't tell him that I don't vote. Instead, I told him the truth about elections and wars: Denmark didn't have a referendum about the invasion of Iraq, and there had been no election of candidates that had declared that they were either for or against Denmark's participation in that war.
In other words, I had to explain to him the concept of representative democracy, i.e. that ordinary Danes had no real influence on the decision. They had elected representatives, who were thus allowed to make the decision without consulting the voters.

The irony is that this guy appeared to have bought into some of the Western propaganda he had heard from tourists, i.e that representative democracy is all about the people being empowered to make decisions, when the truth is the opposite: People hand over the power to decide to the people they elect, thus empowering those politicians to make decisions on their behalf without having to consult the voters on what they would want the politicians to decide.

In subsequent elections, the Iraq War was never an important issue. Neither was global warming, and it doesn't seem to be something that is high on the lists of voters when they make up their minds about which politician and/or political party to vote for. Almost all parties (I have already mentioned Liberal Alliance as the exception; I don't know if any of the new conservative parties are also pro-CO₂ emission) tend to mention that 'green is good' or something.

We've been pretty lucky in that respect, and since there was never any serious opposition to going for wind and solar instead of fossil fuels and nuclear (at least not since Denmark stopped being an oil-producing country!), we are more or less in the clear. We don't have the car manufacturers or fossil-fuel industry to put obstacles in the way of making more bicycle lanes, build more wind-turbine 'parks' etc.

i assume that you can see where I'm going: I don't think voting has had much to do with it. If Denmark had had a powerful lobby of car manufacturers and fossil-fuel industrialists, we would have been as screwed as the Americans - which we also are, of course, since their CO₂ is a gift to all of us. What happens in Vegas, doesn't stay in Vegas.

 

[dann]

It would be the same as a generator powered by water, steam, or wind. Tie it into the grid or charge a battery.

Fifteen Million Merits (Wikipedia)

 

[bruto]

Pedaling really hard will get you to 200 watts. And I mean bordering on elite athlete hard. Not 200 watt hours, unless you did so for an hour. You'd need something like 10 elite cyclists to power your home. And just the cost to feed them would far exceed any power source.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/12/08/504790589/could-you-power-your-home-with-a-bike

Yes, Turkey's Ghost was speaking of pedaling for an hour after he got home from work, so I generously credited him with 200 watt hours.

 

[varwoche]

@dann You objected to me calling out your posts as derisive of personal actions. Yet here you are, persisting with the same counter-productive, counter-factual nonsense. As if drops don't add up.

That sounds like the homeopathic version of global-warming theory.

And you also took issue (or ducked, if you prefer) my read of your opaque presentation as a none-too-subtle promotion of communism. And you persist with that too...

A personal anecdote about voting:
In the mid-2000s, I was talking to a group of Cubans. When they heard that I was from Denmark, one of them asked me about Denmark's participation in Bush Jr's Coalition of the Willing, i.e. the USA-led invasion of Iraq. I was surprised that he knew about that, but many Cubans are well informed about international affairs. On the other hand, he appeared to be even more surprised by my answer to his question, "Why did you guys vote for the war in Iraq?" Since he appeared to be asking about Danes in general and not me in particular, I didn't tell him that I don't vote. Instead, I told him the truth about elections and wars: Denmark didn't have a referendum about the invasion of Iraq, and there had been no election of candidates that had declared that they were either for or against Denmark's participation in that war.
In other words, I had to explain to him the concept of representative democracy, i.e. that ordinary Danes had no real influence on the decision. They had elected representatives, who were thus allowed to make the decision without consulting the voters.

The irony is that this guy appeared to have bought into some of the Western propaganda he had heard from tourists, i.e that representative democracy is all about the people being empowered to make decisions, when the truth is the opposite: People hand over the power to decide to the people they elect, thus empowering those politicians to make decisions on their behalf without having to consult the voters on what they would want the politicians to decide.

Own it for a change.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes, Turkey's Ghost was speaking of pedaling for an hour after he got home from work, so I generously credited him with 200 watt hours.

Thanks! No idea how many watts I'm generating, I generally just target heart rate of 150 bpm and adjust resistance and pace to meet that. It's not a particularly high intensity pace, so your generosity is appreciated!

It's probably not going to be much of a power generator, since I tend to set up a pedestal fan to keep me cool (no natural airflow like a real bike) and also often space out to some movie on my tablet, so I doubt I'd even pedal enough to cover the power consumption of my indoor setup.

 

[Myriad]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Selling large cars and plane tickets is how they got rich and get even richer.

I'm sorry about your confusion. I've been trying my best to overcome it but it might be invincible.

Does anybody expect them to do that?!

("That" referring to supporting changes in governance that will force them to make changes such as smaller cars and shorter vacation trips.)

You've posted what you expect:

My point here is: The USA has made driving comfortable and the alternatives uncomfortable. You should turn that around. There are many ways of doing this as an individual and even more as an organization. Enforce sacrifices on the rich. It's high time, both for your own sake and for the rest of the planet.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted: wouldn't these "many ways" of making driving uncomfortable require wide public support? Can they instead be imposed on everyone, in the face of opposition by the government, corporations, and a majority of the public (aka useful-idiot consumers), by just certain individuals and/or organizations?

I have difficulty believing that, but perhaps you can add credibility. What are some of those many ways? Who are the puissant philosophers who can impose their enlightened will by accomplishing them?

 

[dann]

@dann You objected to me calling out your posts as derisive of personal actions. Yet here you are, persisting with the same counter-productive, counter-factual nonsense. As if drops don't add up.

Drops don't add up when you are trying to extinguish a fire with a pipette. All it gets you is something to keep you occupied while you are watching your house burn down.

And you also took issue (or ducked, if you prefer) my read of your opaque presentation as a none-too-subtle promotion of communism. And you persist with that too...
Own it for a change.

I kind of expected varwoche to be triggered by my post about my discussion of representative democracy (Danish version) with a group of Cubans, but it nevertheless amazes me that yet another post that doesn't mention communism at all and a quotation from that post that is all about representative democracy are seen by him as promotion of communism. Is it possible that any criticism of any aspect of Western societies looks like "a none-too-subtle promotion of communism" to him?!
Well, I don't expect him to own it.

Congratulations to varwoche.
He is the thirteenth ISF poster to reveal to the world that the guy with Karl Marx and Bertolt Brecht in his sig line is an actual communist. The prize goes to varwoche for sparing readers from having to figure out what I'm going on about. Any and all of my arguments about climate change and other issues can be ignored from now on thanks to varwoche's amazing powers in the field of ad hominem!

 

[dann]

I'm sorry about your confusion. I've been trying my best to overcome it but it might be invincible.
("That" referring to supporting changes in governance that will force them to make changes such as smaller cars and shorter vacation trips.)

You've posted what you expect:

My point here is: The USA has made driving comfortable and the alternatives uncomfortable. You should turn that around. There are many ways of doing this as an individual and even more as an organization. Enforce sacrifices on the rich. It's high time, both for your own sake and for the rest of the planet.

Perhaps I've misinterpreted: wouldn't these "many ways" of making driving uncomfortable require wide public support? Can they instead be imposed on everyone, in the face of opposition by the government, corporations, and a majority of the public (aka useful-idiot consumers), by just certain individuals and/or organizations?

I have difficulty believing that, but perhaps you can add credibility. What are some of those many ways? Who are the puissant philosophers who can impose their enlightened will by accomplishing them?

I have described the "many ways" again and again in post after post, but Myriad latches on to it because he thinks it's a gotcha moment, which is why he doesn't understand what I am saying. He doesn't seem to get what I mean when I write: "The USA has made driving comfortable and the alternatives uncomfortable. You should turn that around."

My many examples of turning it around has been about making bicycling a convenient alternative to cars, which is what Denmark has done and is still doing. In the process of doing so, people traveling in cars have to some extent been inconvenienced, for instance when car lanes have been reduced from two-lane streets to on-lane streets to make room for bike lanes and lanes reserved for busses, i.e. public transport. I don't think the intention was to make life more inconvenient for people in cars, and the effect was ameliorated by the alternatives that were established at the same time: They could now switch from their fossil-fuels cars to riding bikes or, if that didn't appeal to them, take the Metro. Many car owners did, which helped de-constipate car lanes. (But as I have mentioned again and again: In Copenhagen, I usually get around faster on my bicycle or with the Metro than car owners do. In other words: It is more convenient. I know from my experience when occasionally riding my motorcycle instead. And this is in spite of motorcycles being faster than cars in the city.)

Myriad will probably still "have difficulty believing" this, and he probably also won't believe that the change wasn't accomplished by "puissant philosophers" imposing "their enlightened will," but by ordinary city planners and politicians listening to the advice from those city planners.The calculations behind the change were based on research, not on philosophy.

And again: This process wasn't corrupted by lobbyists for the fossil-fuel and auto industries. Those guys are few and far between around here: Corruption Rank by Country (TradingEconomics).

(Oh boy, if I'm not careful, I'll turn into a nationalist! )

 

[tyr_13]

Ok, if I may, does this argument mostly boil down to the difference between nominally 'voluntary' choices being the source of change against nominally 'forced' changes of overall systems to induce the needed changes?

Or put another way, is this akin to the arguments for taxes and regulations being used for social safety ends (welfare, healthcare, etc.) or for free market forces being the better solution (charity and private insurance etc.)?

One idea seems to be that if consumers are choosing to consume in unsustainable ways of getting unneeded large cars, driving cars everywhere, buying the cheapest product that pollutes the most, and things like that, then if you can't get consumers to change those choices individually nothing else would be possible anyway.

The other idea seems to be that if consumers are in an environment that incentivizes those choices that are destructive, you have to change that environment and incentives to change the choices they're making. If you're in a system that requires a car, you're going to be choosing cars (and big ones for safety and other reasons). If you're in a system that makes it hard to bike or walk, you're not going to choose to walk.

Leaving aside the specifics of how one accomplishes either, are those the general positions?

EDIT: Ah, having read the thread more it appears the disagreement is mainly how to do, well either, but mostly how does one change the environment/incentives if it isn't by the ways we control our governments, and it isn't ecoterrorism. I'm correct in saying that people here mostly recognize that while changing individual's minds to get them to change some of their individual choices is all well and good, but that changing the incentives is the really necessary part?

 

[Myriad]

I have described the "many ways" again and again in post after post, but Myriad latches on to it because he thinks it's a gotcha moment, which is why he doesn't understand what I am saying. He doesn't seem to get what I mean when I write: "The USA has made driving comfortable and the alternatives uncomfortable. You should turn that around."

My many examples of turning it around has been about making bicycling a convenient alternative to cars, which is what Denmark has done and is still doing. In the process of doing so, people traveling in cars have to some extent been inconvenienced, for instance when car lanes have been reduced from two-lane streets to on-lane streets to make room for bike lanes and lanes reserved for busses, i.e. public transport. I don't think the intention was to make life more inconvenient for people in cars, and the effect was ameliorated by the alternatives that were established at the same time: They could now switch from their fossil-fuels cars to riding bikes or, if that didn't appeal to them, take the Metro. Many car owners did, which helped de-constipate car lanes. (But as I have mentioned again and again: In Copenhagen, I usually get around faster on my bicycle or with the Metro than car owners do. In other words: It is more convenient. I know from my experience when occasionally riding my motorcycle instead. And this is in spite of motorcycles being faster than cars in the city.)

Myriad will probably still "have difficulty believing" this, and he probably also won't believe that the change wasn't accomplished by "puissant philosophers" imposing "their enlightened will," but by ordinary city planners and politicians listening to the advice from those city planners.The calculations behind the change were based on research, not on philosophy.

And again: This process wasn't corrupted by lobbyists for the fossil-fuel and auto industries. Those guys are few and far between around here: Corruption Rank by Country (TradingEconomics).

(Oh boy, if I'm not careful, I'll turn into a nationalist! )

"Change the environment!"

How should I do that? Should I vote for politicians who promise such changes?"

"Useless! Blah blah Democrat administration track record!"

Okay, maybe put more pressure on by joining pro-environment activists to protest and lobby?

"Useless! Blah blah car companies blah representative democracy!"

Well, then, should I go out with spray paint at night and add bike lane markings myself?

"Now you're just being ridiculous!"

Fine, tell me what you think I should actually be doing!

"I've told you! Change the environment! Denmark!"

 

[dann]

Ok, if I may, does this argument mostly boil down to the difference between nominally 'voluntary' choices being the source of change against nominally 'forced' changes of overall systems to induce the needed changes?

Or put another way, is this akin to the arguments for taxes and regulations being used for social safety ends (welfare, healthcare, etc.) or for free market forces being the better solution (charity and private insurance etc.)?

One idea seems to be that if consumers are choosing to consume in unsustainable ways of getting unneeded large cars, driving cars everywhere, buying the cheapest product that pollutes the most, and things like that, then if you can't get consumers to change those choices individually nothing else would be possible anyway.

No, that's not what they are saying. It's more like: This is all we can do on an individual basis while we are waiting, campaigning and voting for the politician who claims to want to do something about the real problem.

The other idea seems to be that if consumers are in an environment that incentivizes those choices that are destructive, you have to change that environment and incentives to change the choices they're making. If you're in a system that requires a car, you're going to be choosing cars (and big ones for safety and other reasons). If you're in a system that makes it hard to bike or walk, you're not going to choose to walk.

Leaving aside the specifics of how one accomplishes either, are those the general positions?

Yes, the latter sums up what I am saying.

EDIT: Ah, having read the thread more it appears the disagreement is mainly how to do, well either, but mostly how does one change the environment/incentives if it isn't by the ways we control our governments, and it isn't ecoterrorism. I'm correct in saying that people here mostly recognize that while changing individual's minds to get them to change some of their individual choices is all well and good, but that changing the incentives is the really necessary part?

Well, that is approximately what I am saying, except that I don't think that changing one's individual choices as a consumer (or as a voter) has any real effect on global warming, and it often results in virtue-signaling complacency: 'Well, I've done my part! Now it's up to all the other consumers (always the consumers!) to do their bit!'

In other words, this ideology removes the focus from the fossil-fuel industry, the corrupt system and the societal environment and ends up being about sorting one's garbage and recycling bottles while scowling at the neighbor who had his sprinkler on too long yesterday.

 

[bruto]

Thanks! No idea how many watts I'm generating, I generally just target heart rate of 150 bpm and adjust resistance and pace to meet that. It's not a particularly high intensity pace, so your generosity is appreciated!

It's probably not going to be much of a power generator, since I tend to set up a pedestal fan to keep me cool (no natural airflow like a real bike) and also often space out to some movie on my tablet, so I doubt I'd even pedal enough to cover the power consumption of my indoor setup.

With a little creativity you could likely generate enough power to run the tablet and the fan, since neither uses much power. But the power they consume is likely so small that if you have any incandescent bulbs left in the house, you can offset it more easily by putting in a couple of LED bulbs.

 

[dann]

"Change the environment!"
How should I do that? Should I vote for politicians who promise such changes?"
"Useless! Blah blah Democrat administration track record!"
Okay, maybe put more pressure on by joining pro-environment activists to protest and lobby?
"Useless! Blah blah car companies blah representative democracy!"
Well, then, should I go out with spray paint at night and add bike lane markings myself?
"Now you're just being ridiculous!"
Fine, tell me what you think I should actually be doing!
"I've told you! Change the environment! Denmark!"

If in doubt, resort to fiction.

But I'll use the opportunity to add something to post 552: I made it sound too easy as if it were just a question of city planners researching and advising and politicians listening and complying:

With 29 percent of all trips made by bicycle, Copenhagen is considered a model of green transport. This book considers the underlying political conditions that enabled cycling to appeal to such a wide range of citizens in Copenhagen and asks how this can be replicated elsewhere.

Despite Copenhagen’s global reputation, its success has been a result of a long political struggle and is far from completely secure. Car use in Denmark is increasing, including in Copenhagen's suburbs, and new developments in Copenhagen include more parking for cars. There is a political tension in Copenhagen over the spaces for cycling, the car, and public transit. In considering examples of backlashes and conflicts over street space in Copenhagen, this book argues that the kinds of debates happening in Copenhagen are very similar to the debates regularly occurring in cities throughout the world. This makes Copenhagen more, not less, comparable to many cities around the world, including cities in the United States.

This book will appeal to upper-level undergraduates and graduates in urban geography, city planning, transportation, environmental studies, as well as transportation advocates, urban policy-makers, and anyone concerned about climate change and looking to identify paths forward in their own cities and localities.
Street Fights in Copenhagen - Bicycle and Car Politics in a Green Mobility City (2019)

(Unfortunately, the Kindle price is insane!)

 

[dann]

With a little creativity you could likely generate enough power to run the tablet and the fan, since neither uses much power. But the power they consume is likely so small that if you have any incandescent bulbs left in the house, you can offset it more easily by putting in a couple of LED bulbs.

In a brutal communist dictatorship the Party would already have infringed upon his human rights as an individual consumer and trespassed upon his property to deprive him of those shiny incandescent symbols of freedom!

 

[Hercules56]

I dont see how we can maintain global GDP and also seriously reduce GHG emissions.

Until we have viable cheap nuclear fusion energy and massive expansion of renewable energy, I think we have to seriously reduce global production of stuff n things, or not fight climate change. I don't see how to do both.

 

[dann]

DeSantis' Minitrue is marching on

I assume that this one will be spared when GOP-controlled states get around to censoring books about global warming:
Mike Huckabee’s “Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change” Shows the Changing Landscape of Climate Denial (InsideClimateNews, July 31, 2023)
Mike Huckabee Is Now Peddling Climate Misinformation to Children (Mother Jones, Aug 3, 2023)

Huckabee's book won't be the only one left in Florida:

Wind and solar power pollute the Earth and make life miserable. Recent global and local heat records reflect natural temperature cycles. And people who champion those beliefs are fighting oppression.
These are some of the themes of children’s videos produced by an influential conservative advocacy group. Now, the videos could soon be used in Florida’s classrooms.
Florida’s Department of Education has approved the classroom use of material from the Prager University Foundation, which produces videos education experts say distort science, history, gender and other topics. And those researchers fear that the nation’s third-largest state has opened a door that will help spread the videos to classrooms in other states.
Florida is the first state to allow PragerU materials in public schools, where teachers will have the option of showing the five- to 10-minute videos in their classrooms.
PragerU CEO Marissa Streit says the videos will rebalance schools that have been “hijacked by the left.”
Florida schools ‘hijacked by the left’ turn to anti-climate cartoons (Politico, Aug 9, 2023)

And it's not as if they're shy about admitting what they're doing:

PragerU co-founder Dennis Prager, a nationally syndicated conservative radio host, has proclaimed that his PragerU materials are specifically designed for “our indoctrination.”
“It’s true we bring doctrines to children,” Prager told the conservative group Moms for Liberty at a conference in Philadelphia in July. “But what is bad about our indoctrination?”

See examples of their climate indoctrination in the article.