"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"
- Thread starter shemp
- Start date
Is there a valid moral dimension here? We have dann expressing moral outrage, not only at private-jet-owning celebrities but at me for daring to discuss realistic options for individuals apart from ranting about said celebrities. But he condemns any call for him or myself or anyone in our general socioeconomic class to make any sacrifices or practice any energy austerity. Meanwhile, the average jet-owning celebrity would say, "but my jet is small and fuel-efficient, I need it to make it to all the appearances my sponsors (i.e. bosses) schedule me for, and it's insignificant compared with the wasteful things governments do." And all the while, I don't see any reason half the humans on the planet shouldn't resent the carbon emissions generated by my heat and hot running water, my private motor vehicle travel, the building of my fully framed dwelling* (which was 50 years ago, but the CO2 is still there). All of which are amenities they don't have. (75% of human dwellings are makeshift/temporary/illegal. I don't know if that percentage is by individuals or by dwellings, but it sucks either way.) While their position makes them far more vulnerable than me to the consequences of all that CO2. I would not expect them to accept "blame the builders who used the wrong flavor of energy in the 1970s" as sufficiently justifying that I have the house and they have the floods.
So how much is actually too much? Who's using more power than their equitable share?
Here's a number: 2.5 kilowatts. 23 amps at 110V. Sixty kilowatt-hours per day.
That sounds like a lot. You probably don't draw that much current at home, unless you use an electric clothes dryer or a central air conditioner, and it's running. But I'm not talking about just your electric bill. That's your equitable share of all the energy you use. Including your portion of all the energy used on your (presumed) behalf by all levels of government. Everything from trash collection to street lights to road repairs to national defense. As a rough estimate, given that government spending at all levels in the U.S. totals about 35% of all spending, we can say that leaves your discretionary fair daily energy allotment at 39 kWh/day if you're in the U.S. (Other countries will vary.)
That amount also has to include the energy used to produce everything you buy or use. For new purchases of non-durable goods (like food), this is straightforward (in concept at least; actually determining the amounts is quite difficult). For existing and/or capital goods, some kind of amortization is needed, which gets tricky. But the basic idea is that there should be no "already got mine" loophole on the energy cost of personal property, for the reasons I pointed out above regarding my house. It takes (or took) more energy to build a big house than a small one and more to build a small one than an apartment unit, so that should account for different amortization costs attached to your daily allotment, whether the building is old or new.
Ride a public bus, and some or all of the associated energy costs are already accounted for in the public-spending overhead. Ride a private bus, and the energy used for the miles you ride, divided by the total number of passengers, comes out of your thirty-nine. As does the energy used to manufacture the bus, divided by the total number of fellow passengers and the ratio of total miles for the bus's lifetime to the miles you rode. That will be a very small amount, but it shows the principle.
Drive a small SUV using 50 horsepower (about a fourth of its rated horsepower on average) for an hour, and you've used up most of your fair allotment for the day just on that alone. That's why I wish I could get a road legal max 20 hp car (typical 10 hp cruising at 40 mph) for local use. That, I could budget for.
By the way, it doesn't matter for this purpose if the energy that powers the car comes from solar panels, gasoline, a coal-fired power plant, or burning giant panda fat in a boiler. We're talking about the portion of the total mix of energy previously used and currently available to humanity from all sources. Discussion of changing that mix will come later.
Another likely energy share buster is heating and cooling. In a temperate climate, in winter, you can heat a small room on winter days with about 20 kWh per day. That's going to be a big part of your power budget, but it's manageable. You might do somewhat better with a heat pump, on days when it goes above freezing for part of the day and you're well insulated for the cold nights. Don't expect 22°C as the norm. There's a reason some rooms in large houses in past eras were considered "seasonal." There's a reason people wore many layers of clothing including night caps. Sacrifices and austerity, aka how everyone lived up until a century or so ago.
It's important in analyses like this to avoid double counting. So we don't, for instance, count the energy used in people's productive employment against their personal energy budgets. If they operate factory machinery, for example, that energy cost counts toward the energy cost of the products they produce, not the amount the employee "used." The bus driver isn't assessed any share of the energy cost of driving the bus. If you write a book and it gets published in print, the energy cost of printing the books isn't on you, but on the books' purchasers. Even if you print the copies yourself (as long as you manage to sell them or give them away).
The point is, 60 (taxed down to 39) kWh/day looks pretty extremely austere once you figure everything in. Even the energy production cost of your food is significant, and can be significantly shifted by preferentially buying local products in season (where the financial cost difference might not be as noticeable, especially for people who buy most of their meals pre-prepared as many do).
There's some good news, though. Those figures are all per capita. If you share your dwelling with others, you (collectively) can own more shared property, and also pool on energy costs like heating, without going over your equitable energy shares. Imagine the economies possible in an extended family household.
All of that describes a flattened version of the environmental status quo. You'd have to meet that strict-sounding energy budget to not be contributing more than your current share to the problem. Solving the problem is harder.
The way to solve the problem, as others have enthusiastically pointed out, is to build more sustainable energy equipment and infrastructure. That requires energy, which means one of these two things:
A. Increasing the total energy available for use, by using more fossil fuels, so that the surplus can be used to build sustainable energy equipment and infrastructure. That way, everyone can continue using, on average, their same daily fair energy share.
B. Using some portion of the existing energy supply to build sustainable energy equipment and infrastructure, without increasing total energy usage. That would require reducing everyone's daily fair share, by at least a little.
(Why can't you just "use more sustainable energy" instead? Because you have to build it before you can use it.)
Okay, so you do one or the other (or a little of both) of those things. And now you have some new sustainable energy coming online. What do you do with it?
1. Replace the most-carbon-producing energy sources with the new renewable sources. That reduces carbon emissions the soonest. But you still have to continue doing A and/or B in order to continue building more sustainable sources.
2. Use the new renewable sources to increase the general total energy supply. In other words, build on A. Everyone's fair energy allotment increases a little (as long as the production rate of new renewable sources exceeds the rate of population increase), meeting the important goal of increased standard of living. Over time, this will also gradually decrease the proportion of renewable energy in the available energy mix. But that doesn't reduce CO2 emissions, and it also doesn't accelerate the renewables build-out.
3. Add the new renewable sources to the energy allocated to building even more renewable sources instead of for other uses. In other words, build on B. This doesn't reduce CO2 emissions in the short term, and it doesn't improve anyone's standard of living in the short term. But in the long term, it's the fastest way to make a real transition, at least for the necessary next stages.
This breakdown is going to piss people off. "We want to do all of those things! Replace dirty plants AND reduce CO2 emissions AND raise everyone's standard of living! They're ALL top priority!" So we try a little of each. That's the status quo. And it's not working. New coal plants are still being built. CO2 emissions are still going up. Only the wealthiests' standards of living are improving, and even they seem less happy, judging from their increasing obsessions with doomsday bunkers and various other forms of escapist fantasy. (I should acknowledge that the standard of living of many of the poorest have been improving in many ways, such as literacy and food availability, while deteriorating in other ways, such as crowding, pollution, and vulnerability.)
The best plan is B followed up by 3, but that's the one that actually requires the most short-to-medium-term reductions. Sacrifices. Which we expect the rich people to make, while hiding from the fact that we are the rich people. No wonder anyone actually doing anything makes others uncomfortable.
So how much is actually too much? Who's using more power than their equitable share?
Here's a number: 2.5 kilowatts. 23 amps at 110V. Sixty kilowatt-hours per day.
That sounds like a lot. You probably don't draw that much current at home, unless you use an electric clothes dryer or a central air conditioner, and it's running. But I'm not talking about just your electric bill. That's your equitable share of all the energy you use. Including your portion of all the energy used on your (presumed) behalf by all levels of government. Everything from trash collection to street lights to road repairs to national defense. As a rough estimate, given that government spending at all levels in the U.S. totals about 35% of all spending, we can say that leaves your discretionary fair daily energy allotment at 39 kWh/day if you're in the U.S. (Other countries will vary.)
That amount also has to include the energy used to produce everything you buy or use. For new purchases of non-durable goods (like food), this is straightforward (in concept at least; actually determining the amounts is quite difficult). For existing and/or capital goods, some kind of amortization is needed, which gets tricky. But the basic idea is that there should be no "already got mine" loophole on the energy cost of personal property, for the reasons I pointed out above regarding my house. It takes (or took) more energy to build a big house than a small one and more to build a small one than an apartment unit, so that should account for different amortization costs attached to your daily allotment, whether the building is old or new.
Ride a public bus, and some or all of the associated energy costs are already accounted for in the public-spending overhead. Ride a private bus, and the energy used for the miles you ride, divided by the total number of passengers, comes out of your thirty-nine. As does the energy used to manufacture the bus, divided by the total number of fellow passengers and the ratio of total miles for the bus's lifetime to the miles you rode. That will be a very small amount, but it shows the principle.
Drive a small SUV using 50 horsepower (about a fourth of its rated horsepower on average) for an hour, and you've used up most of your fair allotment for the day just on that alone. That's why I wish I could get a road legal max 20 hp car (typical 10 hp cruising at 40 mph) for local use. That, I could budget for.
By the way, it doesn't matter for this purpose if the energy that powers the car comes from solar panels, gasoline, a coal-fired power plant, or burning giant panda fat in a boiler. We're talking about the portion of the total mix of energy previously used and currently available to humanity from all sources. Discussion of changing that mix will come later.
Another likely energy share buster is heating and cooling. In a temperate climate, in winter, you can heat a small room on winter days with about 20 kWh per day. That's going to be a big part of your power budget, but it's manageable. You might do somewhat better with a heat pump, on days when it goes above freezing for part of the day and you're well insulated for the cold nights. Don't expect 22°C as the norm. There's a reason some rooms in large houses in past eras were considered "seasonal." There's a reason people wore many layers of clothing including night caps. Sacrifices and austerity, aka how everyone lived up until a century or so ago.
It's important in analyses like this to avoid double counting. So we don't, for instance, count the energy used in people's productive employment against their personal energy budgets. If they operate factory machinery, for example, that energy cost counts toward the energy cost of the products they produce, not the amount the employee "used." The bus driver isn't assessed any share of the energy cost of driving the bus. If you write a book and it gets published in print, the energy cost of printing the books isn't on you, but on the books' purchasers. Even if you print the copies yourself (as long as you manage to sell them or give them away).
The point is, 60 (taxed down to 39) kWh/day looks pretty extremely austere once you figure everything in. Even the energy production cost of your food is significant, and can be significantly shifted by preferentially buying local products in season (where the financial cost difference might not be as noticeable, especially for people who buy most of their meals pre-prepared as many do).
There's some good news, though. Those figures are all per capita. If you share your dwelling with others, you (collectively) can own more shared property, and also pool on energy costs like heating, without going over your equitable energy shares. Imagine the economies possible in an extended family household.
All of that describes a flattened version of the environmental status quo. You'd have to meet that strict-sounding energy budget to not be contributing more than your current share to the problem. Solving the problem is harder.
The way to solve the problem, as others have enthusiastically pointed out, is to build more sustainable energy equipment and infrastructure. That requires energy, which means one of these two things:
A. Increasing the total energy available for use, by using more fossil fuels, so that the surplus can be used to build sustainable energy equipment and infrastructure. That way, everyone can continue using, on average, their same daily fair energy share.
B. Using some portion of the existing energy supply to build sustainable energy equipment and infrastructure, without increasing total energy usage. That would require reducing everyone's daily fair share, by at least a little.
(Why can't you just "use more sustainable energy" instead? Because you have to build it before you can use it.)
Okay, so you do one or the other (or a little of both) of those things. And now you have some new sustainable energy coming online. What do you do with it?
1. Replace the most-carbon-producing energy sources with the new renewable sources. That reduces carbon emissions the soonest. But you still have to continue doing A and/or B in order to continue building more sustainable sources.
2. Use the new renewable sources to increase the general total energy supply. In other words, build on A. Everyone's fair energy allotment increases a little (as long as the production rate of new renewable sources exceeds the rate of population increase), meeting the important goal of increased standard of living. Over time, this will also gradually decrease the proportion of renewable energy in the available energy mix. But that doesn't reduce CO2 emissions, and it also doesn't accelerate the renewables build-out.
3. Add the new renewable sources to the energy allocated to building even more renewable sources instead of for other uses. In other words, build on B. This doesn't reduce CO2 emissions in the short term, and it doesn't improve anyone's standard of living in the short term. But in the long term, it's the fastest way to make a real transition, at least for the necessary next stages.
This breakdown is going to piss people off. "We want to do all of those things! Replace dirty plants AND reduce CO2 emissions AND raise everyone's standard of living! They're ALL top priority!" So we try a little of each. That's the status quo. And it's not working. New coal plants are still being built. CO2 emissions are still going up. Only the wealthiests' standards of living are improving, and even they seem less happy, judging from their increasing obsessions with doomsday bunkers and various other forms of escapist fantasy. (I should acknowledge that the standard of living of many of the poorest have been improving in many ways, such as literacy and food availability, while deteriorating in other ways, such as crowding, pollution, and vulnerability.)
The best plan is B followed up by 3, but that's the one that actually requires the most short-to-medium-term reductions. Sacrifices. Which we expect the rich people to make, while hiding from the fact that we are the rich people. No wonder anyone actually doing anything makes others uncomfortable.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
While I agree on your overall points, I can't relate to the numbers. I live alone in a 100m2 dwelling, and I use, on average, less than 5kwh of electricity per day. I drive (when I don't walk) a small SUV that uses much less than 50hp on a normal drive (all it has is 82hp).
And, being in Denmark, I try to run the washing machine and dishwasher whenever the electricity price is low, meaning that renewable energy is abundant. On good days we produce more renewable energy than the country can use.
Hans
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
Given that the largest polluters are companies, who massively outproduce all individuals combined, how will 'sacrifices' make any difference when it's only individuals who have to make them?
No, sorry, but it's not "a childish suggestion." Notice what I said about the allegedly childish suggestion, and notice the childish idea I argued against:
Starving to death most of humanity as the alternative to any and all tecnologically vialbe solutions to CO2 emission is the childish suggestion, but a very obvious one because it's the one that Big Agriculture would confront you with: 'But, but, but, I just can't compete if I am not allowed to continue farming with the humongous machines currently at my disposal. And humanity will starve!' (As if modern agriculture is all about feeding humanity, but it feels so great to pretend that it is, doesn't it?!)
Of course, technology is a limitation. I particular, when that technology should should have been made 30 years ago and wasn't. And as long as it isn't there, it remains an arguments against any and all attempts to accomplish the necessary change.
Notice the facts that people in this thread are immune to. The denial is apparent:
1) Fracking Biden! Nobody has commented on it, and yet nobody has drawn the obvious conclusion that voting for somebody who promises to fight global warming accomplishes nothing. Instead of learning the lesson, they cling to the childish hope that the next guy who makes the same promise may keep it even though the previous ones obviously didn't.
2) From post 591: "[Judge] Seeley said the state’s attorneys failed to give a compelling reason for why they were not evaluating greenhouse gas impacts. She rejected the notion that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are insignificant and noted that renewable power is “technically feasible and economically beneficial,” citing testimony from the trial indicating Montana could replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030."
From the other thread: "The judge found the state knew about the dangers of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels for at least 30 years."
Global warming is obviously a question of class and capitalism: There are people for whom renewable power is definitely not economically beneficial: stockholders and CEOs in the fossil-fuel industry and their lackeys, private or public!)
The reason why Myriad refuses to acknowledge this is just as obvious: That there are technically feasible and economically beneficial solutions to emitting greenhouse gases would ruin his moral outrage against Average Joe and his lavish consumption, which is why solar and wind can't be allowed to exist, not even in his meticulously crafted fairy tales about global warming.
The irony is that his ideal actually comes close to the bourgeois nightmare scenario of the early Soviet Union in Doctor Zhivago, which Myriad considers to be good news:
This is the reason why he refuses to acknowledge the easy solution, the already existing solution, i.e. the “technically feasible and economically beneficial” solar and wind power: It would ruin his dream of universal sacrifice and austerity. ('Universal' for everybody but the guys with private jets; to include those ********, that would be "moral outrage.")
Solar and wind would ruin the kind of meaningful life that Myriad dreams of:
So you can kiss your living "alone in a 100m2 dwelling." That doesn't fit into Myriad's plans, which come close to how MAGA Republicans describe their idea of what climactivists demand from them. In his case, they are actually right. He wants them to take cold showers, take their bikes to work (without the proper infrastructure), and "share your dwelling with others, you (collectively) can own more shared property, and also pool on energy costs like heating, without going over your equitable energy shares."
(Billionaires are exempt from this public service announcement!)
Making a difference in CO2 emission is not the point of the austerity gospel. If it were, we would already have been presented with numbers showing that the sacrifices suggested for individual consumers and the sacrifices already being made by the austerity preachers would be and already are actually effective and have postponed global warming a certain number of weeks.
The 'carbon footprint' of companies is irrelevant in this context and should not be referenced. The sacrifice itself is the point. You ruin the pleasure of sacrificing by pointing out that it does nothing to prevent or postpone global warming.
So let's do it again:
Renewable power is “technically feasible and economically beneficial.”
"Montana could replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030."
"The state [of Montana] knew about the dangers of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels for at least 30 years."
The nightmare scenario revisited: "starving to death most of humanity."
I am not sure that anybody actually believes the 'but-what-would-happen-if scenario, but just in case somebody does, I can recommend an American documentary: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (Wikipedia).
People who don't remember or never heard of the concept peak oil, need to know that it was the idea back in the 1970s that Earth was approaching a situation where there would be no more oil to extract. The oil wells were about to run dry, an idea that Myriad has tried to revive, which doesn't make it any more true.
Cuba faced a similar situation when the country 'ran out of' its oil supply from the Comecon countries, primarily Russia - and more than that: "The nation lost half of its oil imports, and 85 percent (!!!) of its international trade economy."
Cuba managed to survive - barely:
So please spare us for more of those exaggerated scenarios about what will happen if Big Farming is no longer allowed to continue as if global warming didn't exist.
And fortunately, there is now an actual alternative to 'peak oil': Solar and wind-power technology. Cuba didn't have that solution, which I think is what made him Castro interested in discussing wind turbines with Danish politician Svend Auken when he visited Cuba. (Danish conservatives never forgave Auken for that.)
More here:
Cuba's Green Revolution (Stand.ie, July 8, 2021)
I am not sure that anybody actually believes the 'but-what-would-happen-if scenario, but just in case somebody does, I can recommend an American documentary: The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil (Wikipedia).
People who don't remember or never heard of the concept peak oil, need to know that it was the idea back in the 1970s that Earth was approaching a situation where there would be no more oil to extract. The oil wells were about to run dry, an idea that Myriad has tried to revive, which doesn't make it any more true.
Cuba faced a similar situation when the country 'ran out of' its oil supply from the Comecon countries, primarily Russia - and more than that: "The nation lost half of its oil imports, and 85 percent (!!!) of its international trade economy."
Cuba managed to survive - barely:
So please spare us for more of those exaggerated scenarios about what will happen if Big Farming is no longer allowed to continue as if global warming didn't exist.
And fortunately, there is now an actual alternative to 'peak oil': Solar and wind-power technology. Cuba didn't have that solution, which I think is what made him Castro interested in discussing wind turbines with Danish politician Svend Auken when he visited Cuba. (Danish conservatives never forgave Auken for that.)
More here:
Cuba's Green Revolution (Stand.ie, July 8, 2021)
The idea is to add up all the energy you use, including to make the products you use and provide the services you use.
5kWh per day in electricity is a good start. Does that include heat for your dwelling? If so, that's excellent, and if the dwelling is an apartment it's plausible. 100 m^2 is a reasonable size though of course more than the majority of the world's population who live in favela shacks or less. (My wife and I share about 90m^2, but it's a standalone house, so takes more energy to heat.) Energy amortization for construction and use of homes is such a tricky business I won't even try to estimate.
How much do you drive a day? Let's say you're driving locally averaging 20 hp. If you average 20 minutes a day that's another 5 kWh per day. (You could make a better estimate based on your fuel purchases, of course.)
Let's consider food. (To quote a million clickbait headlines: this may shock you!) Do you eat about 2000 Kcals (food "calories") a day? Most studies of the energy used in food production worldwide say it's about 8-10 times the caloric energy of the food. (And no, that's not sneakily counting the free solar energy that grows the plants.) Let's say your diet happens to be mostly lower-energy-input food products, so it's only 5x. That's 11.6 kWh per day to produce your food.
(By the way, in all cases I'm using kWh as a unit for energy, for easy comparison to familiar quantities, not to imply that the energy used is necessarily in the form of electricity.)
Now, manufactured products you use. A smart phone, according to researchers, takes an average of about 280 kWh of energy to manufacture. If you use it for three years, that's 1/4 of a kWh per day. (Much more than the energy it takes to keep it charged.) Of course, that's less per day if you get longer use out of it, but accidents happen. Extend that to all your electronics (it's the chip fabrication that accounts for most of the energy use) and you're probably looking at a couple of kWh/day there—again, not to power those devices but to have them manufactured for you.
And what are those electronics connected to? If you're like me, you're paying at least as much for "telecom" services (internet, cell, content subscriptions) as for electricity. Some part of that is paying for your share of the energy used to run cell towers, server farms, maintenance vehicles. Figure in the energy amortization of all that equipment as well, and it's clear the figure is significant, though there's insufficient information available to specify it.
Clothes, cleaning products, hobby materials... whatever else you spend money on, it took energy to make it and get it into your hands.
Your government takes good care of its citizens, providing a lot of services. So things like medical care, road maintenance, public recreation (parks, museums), public safety, and schools are part of the government's share of energy spending. Which as before I'll estimate as about the same ratio as government spending relative to GNP. Which is about half. So your starting discretionary "equitable share" energy budget for all the things listed above is about 30 kWh/day. We've certainly reached that, even if we haven't been able to specify some of the figures exactly.
Nothing wrong with that. Unless there's some major energy expense I've overlooked (like, you fly to tropical islands every year for vacation), compared to the average American, you're an energy saint. Or in other words, your personal past and present contribution to climate change is that of the average world citizen. What does that mean, in terms of your moral responsibility to act any farther? That's for you to decide.
Total production equals total consumption.
Sacrifices means less consumption.
Scenario 1: you, the consumer, delay the purchase of a new smart phone for a few years. (So, your old one is a little slow, and the battery only lasts a day and a half by now. You make do.) That's a sacrifice by you, the individual. Because you didn't buy a new one this year, the producers, when they replace their sold inventory, need to produce one less smart phone, saving a gigajoule. Since they had unsold inventory, they lower their prices slightly.
Scenario 2: the manufacturer produces one less smart phone, saving a gigajoule. That's a sacrifice by the producer. Knowing they're producing fewer phones than the expected demand, they raise the price of their smart phones very slightly to compensate for the loss of profit. The price increase means that one person who would have bought a new smart phone can't afford it.
In both scenarios, there's one less smart phone manufactured, a gigajoule is saved, and one person doesn't get a new smart phone. In the first, the price goes down slightly, while in the second it goes up. But the biggest difference is, in the second scenario, that person who could use a new smart phone but doesn't get one probably isn't you, while in the first, it definitely is.
Gee, I wonder why so many people prefer the manufacturers to decide the sacrifices? This is the anatomy of "I wish manufacturers would use cleaner processes. I don't care if the price goes up a little." (Then going out and shopping for the lowest price anyhow, because as dann pointed out, who even keeps track?)
These scenarios are obviously highly simplified and idealized, but the fundamental economic causality doesn't change if you scale it up or add more detail.
Please stop lying about what I'm saying and please stop personalizing your sociopolitical arguments in this way.
I don't have any "plans" for anyone else. My only plan is to try to remain as resilient as possible in case social and economic conditions for the working class in the U.S. continue to get worse. I sometimes describe some of the ways I'm doing so. In case I wasn't clear, my words don't compel anyone to do any of it.
I don't want anyone to take cold showers. I mentioned the benefits to be expected from doing so. My wife doesn't take cold showers. We've had zero arguments caused by trying to convince her to. No relative of mine takes cold showers. A cold shower can kill you. (So can a hot one, of course.) For most people cold showers are torture. I mean literally, it's one of the most common ways torturers in torture prisons torture people. (Of course, there are millions if not billions who don't have any other way to bathe, but they mostly live in warm climates and they're probably used to it by now, amirite?)
If you share your dwelling space with others, it's more economical. What a radical and apparently dangerous claim that is, to inspire such denouncement!
"If you think you're using less energy or causing less greenhouse emissions than the average person, here's how to determine if that's really true." Another dangerous idea! Don't look at the figures! Don't do the math! Go punch a billionaire!
Do not go punch a billionaire. It's illegal, and they'll probably have you killed, which is also illegal, but a billionaire can probably get away with it.
Unlike Myriad's, "Gee, I wish the consumers would stop consuming and care so much about rising prices. Those greedy little guys can always get a fourth job."
And once again - nobody is surprised by now - Myriad pretends that there is no
Scenario 3: The grid switches to wind and solar!
However there is the obvious downside to the grid going wind and solar: Myriad no longer has a reason to complain about consumers and pretend that their purchase of a smartphone is what causes global warming.
And once again - nobody is surprised by now - Myriad pretends that there is no
Scenario 3: The grid switches to wind and solar!
However there is the obvious downside to the grid going wind and solar: Myriad no longer has a reason to complain about consumers and pretend that their purchase of a smartphone is what causes global warming.
The underlying premise of your crusade against personal mitigation is that people are incapable of chewing gum while walking. Which is ludicrous of course.
All or nothing at all. Binary thinking.
Let's just pretend that somebody in this thread ever suggested punching billionaires, right?!
While pretending that other people lie ...
Some people like to spend idle hours pondering the inane question if they're using more or less energy "than the average person". It makes them feel good, I guess, while doing absolutely nothing to put a stop to global warming, but then again, putting a stop to global warming is not what this pastime is about.
The really dangerous idea for Myriad is to point out that all the attempts a making consumers feel bad about their 'carbon footprint' will make no sense at all as soon as the switch to green energy, i.e. wind and solar, has been accomplished. No need to look at the figures. No need to do any math. Not even any need to punch a billionaire.
And for what it's worth, if you really want to hurt a billionaire, hit them in their wallet. That's what you need to do if you want to hear them squeal.
One more time:
Renewable power is “technically feasible and economically beneficial.”
"Montana could replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030."
"The state [of Montana] knew about the dangers of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels for at least 30 years."
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Yes, that is what makes sense.
It is actually a terraced house. I don't include heat as it comes from ground heating driven by solar cells. Of course there is some selling energy in summer and buying it in winter, so there is a heating cost, but the system is designed to balance, so there ought to be minimal carbon footprint.
Well, I did the gasoline to kwh conversion and I'd say I use 2-3kwh/day on average (I don't drive every day). Certainly room for some improvement there.
Sounds sensible.
Yes, well, and that makes locally produced food better, still ...
Well, I get more mileage from my devices and some are bought second-hand or scavenged at the recycling station (that is allowed where I live), and repaired. I'm an electronic engineer.
I think your figures apply well to the average person. I use less because I have simple, cheap packages.
Sounds like a sober estimate. I have some comfort in the heavy build-up for "green" energy where I am, but I suppose we could use a couple of nuclear power plants (no chance of that for politico-emotional reasons
).Don't fly much (as in, currently zero) these days, but when I was still working, I did a lot of business travelling, raking up well over a thousand flight-hours. No doubt industry can do something about that.
Hans
Last edited:
Not at all. varwoche gets it entirely wrong.
I am well-aware that it's possible, at least in principle, to do two things at once:
1) Build a grid based on solar and wind to put a stop to CO2 emissions,
and at the same time,
2) complain about consumers and their excessive consumption.
The two things are not mutually exclusive, and yet the second option doesn't seem to go well with option 1), which is probably the reason why Myriad leaves it out in post after post.
It does indeed seem as if complaining about consumption makes people incapable of considering how to do something effective about carbon emissions.
I guess they are too busy calculating their personal 'carbon footprint', looking at the figures, doing the math, to ever wonder if there's a way to actually put a stop to global warming.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I don't believe anyone has made that claim here! If a tractor company comes up with a workable electrified system, and farmers are enticed to used it because its economical, GREAT! Thats wonderful. I (and I think dann)are claiming that forcing all farmers to make a sudden shift to all electric would be catastrophic. Its also not, IMO, the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. It also does nothing to solve most of the greenhouse gasses emitted by the agriculture industry. A tiny percentage actually.
Last edited:
Less consumption (demand) lowers prices. If that didn't stand out in Scenario 2, it's also literally on the first page of Chapter 1 of most economics textbooks.
Tell me more about Scenario 3. Does "the grid" turn sentient and then conjure up wind turbines and photovoltaic arrays out of the ground, or do those things have to be manufactured by producers using energy and raw materials that must also be financed by available capital? If the latter, would that energy and those materials and that capital appear spontaneously out of nowhere, or would they all have to come from existing sources those things? Might the necessary massive use of those materials and energy and capital for that purpose raise their prices (horrors) or necessarily result in curtailed production of other goods and services aka sacrifices? And what about all the production that isn't powered by "the grid"(such as, for instance, fabricating and erecting wind turbines)?
Some numbers would be nice. How many wind turbines, how many acres of solar, on what time schedule? Does the existing production capacity allow for that schedule, or are increases in production capacity (energy-intensive investment in additional mines, factories, and mobile equipment) also required? Does that schedule exceed the pace of ongoing increases in total energy demand, or should we keep building new coal plants too (to make sure no sacrifices are required)?
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
Also, of course, the consumers can chose goods from manufacturers who make an effort to use less non-renewable ressources (not just energy). This can be difficult to find out, and some will be making false claims, but something can be done. For example, prefer food that has been transported as little as possible (except some things, like tomatoes
).Another important thing for those of us who live in democracies is to vote for politicians who are willing to make (realistic) improvements. Such as standards for manufacturers.
We can't make it happen as fast as would be desirable, but we can begin to move.
Hans
Yes, that is what makes sense.
It is actually a terraced house. I don't include heat as it comes from ground heating driven by solar cells. Of course there is some selling energy in summer and buying it in winter, so there is a heating cost, but the system is designed to balance, so there ought to be minimal carbon footprint.
Well, I did the gasoline to kwh conversion and I'd say I use 2-3kwh/day on average (I don't drive every day). Certainly room for some improvement there.
Sounds sensible.
Yes, well, and that makes locally produced food better, still ...
Well, I get more mileage from my devices and some are bought second-hand or scavenged at the recycling station (that is allowed where I live), and repaired. I'm an electronic engineer.
I think your figures apply well to the average person. I use less because I have simple, cheap packages.
Sounds like a sober estimate. I have some comfort in the heavy build-up for "green" energy where I am, but I suppose we could use a couple of nuclear power plants (no chance of that for politico-emotional reasons
Don't fly much (as in, currently zero) these days, but when I was still working, I did a lot of business travelling, raking up well over a thousand flight-hours. No doubt industry can do something about that.
Hans
Thanks for the additional info! You've made great arrangements in an already favorable setting. Based on that, I can't confidently conclude you're at or above the world average. You might be below it. It doesn't make any difference to my points or yours, but it's interesting.
Most people I know are either way above, or think they're below (e.g. living off-grid-except-for-Internet) but have invested so much in equipment that they might not be unless you disregard all past property purchases. Unfortunately I don't presently know anyone living in favelas, as far as I'm aware. My intuitive idea of what's normal and reasonable is as skewed as anyone's, unless I pay careful attention to the actual relevant world statistics.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
I use about 6 kWh per day including heating and charging the car.
But energy usage itself isn't the main issue. My electricity is 82% renewable, so its impact on the climate is minimal. The same energy produced in fossil fueled power plants is much worse, and in gas cars even worse again. If most of the energy we used was renewable we wouldn't have this problem.
I make 'sacrifices' all the time, because I don't like spending money or throwing away things that are still serviceable.
My car is 11 years old - it paid for the excess carbon cost over a gas car many years ago. My house is 40 years old, and has barely had any maintenance done on it in that time. I have several second-hand computers - the two I use the most are 10 and 30 years old. I recently had to replace my fridge (a small bench-height model) because the thermostat gave out. It was 45 years old. My TV is 18 years old, and my digital camera is 23 years old (still have my film cameras too). My 'new' cell phone (required for Covid tracking) is only 2 years old, but I hope it will last 10 years like the last one.
I also buy second-hand furniture, clothes and other stuff when I need it. I repair old electronic devices for friends, and they give me 'junk' which gets used for spare parts or fixed up and passed onto others. Recycling in this manner isn't a sacrifice, it's fun! I hate to see good stuff being thrown away when somebody could get enjoyment out of it.
So that leaves food. Well we all have to eat, but some foods are are a lot worse for the environment than others (and maybe worse for you too). Where I live the biggest contributor to global warming is dairy farming. I don't drink milk, and have cut way back on other dairy products - and beef too. Obesity is a serious problem in western countries. Most people overeat bad foods. Changing your diet and eating less is not a 'sacrifice', it's good for you!