Slashdot Mirror
People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use
schwit1 (797399) writes with news that a UK study has found that folks concerned about climate change don't do much to conserve power at home. From the article: Those who say they are concerned about the prospect of climate change consume more energy than those who say it is "too far into the future to worry about," the study commissioned by the Department for Energy and climate change found. That is in part due to age, as people over 65 are more frugal with electricity but much less concerned about global warming. However, even when pensioners are discounted, there is only a "weak trend" to show that people who profess to care about climate change do much to cut their energy use. The findings were based on the Household Electricity Survey, which closely monitored the electricity use and views of 250 families over a year. The report (PDF), by experts from Loughborough University and Cambridge Architectural Research, was commissioned and published by DECC.
High power use doesn't have to be dirty: Replace coal, methane, and petroleum with nuclear, wind, solar, etc.
This is slashdot. If there's one thing we know, it's that hoping users will alter their behavior doesn't work. Better technology does.
az0
As long as it's cheap, I do not care how the power is generated - coal, gasoline, nuclear, enslaved environmentalists...
Oh, and unless there is an electric car with decent range that does not have software in it (actually, you can have a single ATMEGA MCU, but the source needs to be open), I'm keeping my gasoline powered car (that does not have software in it).
...it's just old fashioned human nature.
Those are low energy density devices. They will never supply enough energy, and in some cases consume much more than they supply. Innovative nuclear is the only way forward, and sadly I don't see much support for it.
People have a choice. Different cooking fuels, different hearing sources, not using A/C, Driving a smaller car (electric cars are not very piratical for a lot of people). This just goes to show that most people who bitch and complain aren't willing to to do without. They want to force the change at the top. Power companies/society. This will not work. They don't see how closing US coal plant just moves it overseas, put our people out of work and more. If anything you want it in the us where it is more tightly regulated! I say give them what they want close all US coal/natural gall plants tomorrow. Coal 39% Natural Gas 27%. With 66% less power, you won't be doing much of anything. and will shut the fuck up about climate change when you feel the real impact of it. Do what is right, conserve where you can and let the industry evolve naturally.
People need electricity to conduct the business of their lives. The issue is not that we use electricity, Electricity isn't a pollutant, burning coal is a Pollutant. Electricity use isn't going to go down. The stupidity of this, is that we don't have Thorium power plants, or Microwave Satellites. (I think the reason Solar Power is failing is because the Earth's atmosphere is creating problems for the sun's Energy to reach us, but I could be wrong.)
But we're not, we are still, burning, to our own stupid jackassery, coal. It's insane.
I'm concerned about the environment, but it is really a given that over time I'll use more electricity. Technology may get more energy efficient, but we will get more things that demand that energy. I'm under no illusion that I'll be able to meaningfully lower my emissions more then trying to fix the big things, like getting an electric car and upgrading my AC to a more energy efficient model. Everything else is just a drop in the bucket. Around here the pollution mainly comes from cars and trucks that are far out of repair and coal power plants. The only other thing we can do is get private solar power. ;)
So my part will be to get an electric car and solar panels, but those are still a couple years away for me for economic reasons. The sooner they are more affordable and have longer range, the sooner I'll be able to take advantage of those technologies. Or I need to get a raise
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
Is a possible interpretation of the data that "people who don't use much energy, don't feel the need to worry about climate change"?
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
I personally suspect that the people who might worry the most about it may already be convinced that it is too late... and any actions that we take now will at best only make a difference of a couple of generations, at most... leading them, perhaps ironically, to not really make any serious effort to take responsibility for what they may be able to do to slow it down.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
While I don't disagree with that, this report is the wrong one to trumpet about. The asked 250 people a question that is quite ambiguous, and then monitored them for a year. I read the article earlier today on some other site, and it sounded like rubbish for those reasons and others.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Do they drive electric cars, and use more electricity as a result. Electricity use is a rather misleading metric.
Global warming is a money/power grab, the ultimate in "Do as I say, not as I do" diplomacy.
Yeah, that's it.... How the bleeping blap do you get "money/power grab" from "people don't change behaviour until forced to" ?
1. AGW is real. Science resolved. Nothing even to discuss. Period.
2. What you do about it is *politics*.
Can you comprehend these things? If you want to argue about power grabs and money, that is #2. It has nothing to do with Global Warming but how we respond to it.
I guess when CFCs were banning treaty was signed 30 years ago, there was opposition too. "Power grab!" and the like. But if it wasn't done, today we would have no ozone and UV index would be 60+, not mere 10 (vs. 4-5 before depletion chemicals). Maybe if this happened today, not 30 years ago, there would be no treaty reached while the ozone layer whittled away, gone for at least 300 years. (That wound not be so good for the food supply and even walking outdoors, but .....)
I no longer have any patience, I'm old. When people tell me how important the environment is I ask them how many kids they have. It's amazing how few people see the connection between themselves and the world.
"Someone else will solve the problem, we have a career/life/car/house program to follow here, buster!"
Mostly random stuff.
Will it cost me time or money ?
YES: Global warming does not exist
NO: Yes I care about the environment
I've been deliberately conserving my energy use. Adding insulation. Only using room air conditioners (Any one with central air needs to get a clue). For over 2 decades.
Not perfect, but trying to strike a balance. The AC runs less than a few weeks a year.
I'm not sure what this study is about. Probably someone is trying to game the system.
They'd do something about planned obsolescence.
We literally build things to fall apart. The waste from that alone is staggering.
Imagine if practically everything where build to last, be easily repaired, easily upgraded, etc.
When your washing machine breaks did the whole thing break or did a 2 cent nut break? Exactly. But it isn't practical to repair it because its so difficult that its cheaper to just buy a new one.
This is by design. What is more, the parts are intentionally designed to all wear out. They use plastic for parts of machines that should be in metal... parts that experience heat that over time melt and deform. This causes big parts of the machine to fail.
Then you have parts that really must wear out like light bulbs but they aren't modular.
If we did this the amount of things we needed to get made on a regular basis would fall dramatically.
This would have a bigger influence on climate change then any other idea proposed... EVER.
But no one wants to do it because it would effect our industrial supply chain that change the whole way everything is made.
Well, until we do this... all climate change talk is a waste of time largely propagated my the incurious and the stupid.
I have no patience for those discussions... they're a waste of time.
We don't need carbon caps. All that does is give governments an excuse to raise taxes which is the only reason the politicians are even interested in this discussion.
What we need is to change our industrial model. And the sick thing is that if we do this we won't even suffer for it. We'll maintain our existing standard of living. All of it. The gains in efficiency will so outstrip everything that it won't matter. The amount of STUFF that has to be made on a yearly basis could fall to less then a tenth of what we currently produce. Which means the carbon debt of our industry without any effort to make it use less carbon per unit production would fall to a tenth.
This would also mean we wouldn't need to import all this shit from china because if you're buying a lot less you can afford to pay more. US manufacturing costs are at most 20 percent higher then china. If you're purchases fall to 10 percent then paying 20 percent more then 10 percent is easily justified.
This is the solution. It has always been the solution. Until this happens... nothing in the discussion of climate change is relevant. Its just hot air.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
People with brains don't cut back on energy use. What's easier? Every single person, as in millions of people, lives like a post-apocalyptic refugee and uses 50% less power while the population continues to increase by 50% quite quickly
or
That power plant down the street starts pulling power out of thin air with solar and wind and everyone keeps doing whatever they want. Gee, I wonder which solution is more durable. There is no level of power saving that will fix climate change. It HAS TO be fixed at the source.
It is a wonderful thing to tell everyone else how to behave, shame them when they deviate from your plan, and then do the opposite privately. It is what humans have aspired to for thousands of years.
See, when you start thinking your shit doesn't stink, this is what happens. You want more. You think that the law is a fine thing, but just for the little people to follow. Someone such as yourself shouldn't be held back by such trivial concerns. Morality? It's backwards, its only purpose is to hold you back from what you deserve in life. Hypocrisy becomes not something bad, but a stamp of approval for your lifestyle. You relax and let everything flow. Of course, in public, you strongly condemn others, and you will take action and spend money to maintain the mask of respectability.
Why do the powerful always become outraged when the little people successfully make a point? How dare those little shits speak to me like that? It's not something new, it's been around forever. This is the default of human behavior, when it doesn't happen, that is exceptional. Why is it noteworthy that the global warming brigade does the same thing? The fact that they hold themselves over the rest of us should be a flashing neon sign that things just ain't right.
-- The Magician's Nephew
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In any case there are probably more significant way that a person contributes to the carbon problem. Cars are a good example. Petrol is mostly carbon, and no matter how clean we make the exaust, and it is clean, there is still carbon that has to be expelled as CO and CO2. Asking someone how much petrol they consume a year is therefore a much better indicator, although in the UK the car ownership and use is probably not as great as in the US.
Then there is food. A kilowatt hour of electricity is like a kg of CO2, burning a gallon of gas is like 8kg, and eating a pound of beef is like 50 kg. Eating chicken, according to the OECD, cuts that in a quarter. So someone who uses too much electricity but each chicken instead of beef, or even tofu with cuts in a quarter again, is probably doing more good that some who has beef every day but is very frugal on the electricity.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
If they knew how much they (and the entire economy) had to cut back to do anything substantial about AGW they'd be climate change deniers.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
it does mean they haven't looked into more low power fridges, more low power computing and more low power tv's etc and have gone with increased lighting and ac.. ie that they're not really trying.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
People who're worried about climate change would likely be people who've already started cutting electricity usage. If you've already been doing things to cut down for several years already, how likely are you to be able to still make big gains? Not very. It's a lot easier to get those when you haven't cared and can still do the easy things like replacing burned-out incandescent bulbs with CFLs or LEDs, or replacing an old less-efficient refrigerator with a new one when remodeling the kitchen. It's not so easy when you did all those things, and replaced the windows with double-pane insulated ones and had the heating/cooling system upgraded to a modern unit, several years ago and now all that's left would be very-big-ticket items like a solar power system or infeasible stuff like completely rebuilding the house using modern materials and construction.
uhhh maybe people who are in favor of energy conservation correctly realize that an individual acting alone to conserve power is pointless and insignificant given the scale of the problem they are worried about, while political policies, protesting or speaking out might actually have a measurable positive effect.
i could go live a energy-neutral lifestyle as a hermit in the woods and it would do no good in the long run. maybe it's naive, but working for political policies that support energy conservation seems to have far more potential to address the problem than a thousand recluses.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Re-read my post please. I agree that the global warming crusade is a power grab and transfer of wealth. But this 'study' is still shit, with shitty methods and assumptions. Just because it vindicates your preconceived notions doesn't mean it's worthy of your endorsement.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
-Gandhi
Until they have to change their lifestyle. Then, they'll only do it if there is some reason. Otherwise like like to whine that Someone should Do Something! They'll wring their hands about the evil corporation/rich/whatever that are supposedly responsible, like shit on Facebook that says it is about change, and go back to living how they always have.
Reason is reducing energy use requires compromise in one form or another. You can either choose to stop doing/using some things, or you can invest more money in more efficient equipment (which of course means less to spend on fun stuff, at least in the short term).
Personally I'm a fan of option 2. You put more money in to efficiency and you reduce your energy usage and, in the long term, expenses. However it can cost a lot up front. My AC died a few years ago, cost of repair was way too high so it needed replacement. Well I had the option of getting a replacement for about $4800ish. However that was low efficiency, equivalent to the unit that my place came with. A high efficiency unit was $7000ish. Whole lot more money, I've not made it back, but it was worth it in my opinion.
Turns out you can affect a fairly substantial energy reduction if you work to buy efficient devices. Now that doesn't mean run out and replace everything (there's a lot of energy in building something too) but if when something needs replacement you get a high quality model that is more efficient and has a longer service life, you can do a good bit. You can then do even more with other changes to your life, like biking to work if feasible.
However I find most people don't agree. They go for what's cheapest now, long run be damned. That includes those that care about the environment, climate change, oil, etc. They "care" only to the extent of talking about it and suggesting others should do something. They are disinterested in making changes to their life.
The fact that he owns that large of a home for he and his wife is a bit telling. The fact that he owns more than one is a bit telling. Does he also shut them down entirely when he is not using them? No, then he is wasting electricity. Which hybrid limo is he being chauffered around in? How often does he travel commercial vs. private?
Ahem... Al Gore
Convenience trumps personal philosophy most of the time.
People who advocate giving money to "the poor" and "disadvantaged" do not give their own to the poor and disadvantged -- they just get other people to do it. Just like the people who are pushing the UACs all over the US. Are they inviting these children into THEIR gated communities? No. "It's the right thing [for other people] to do."
When will people just open their eyes? Radical socialist nations got that way under the leadership of and influence of famously rich and exploitative people who united people under the promise of equality and utopia and are somehow suprised when their government takes away their freedom and points guns at them all the time. How many nations ended up like this? And we want that here too? Really?
You know what makes people save energy? High energy bills. We don't have "high" energy bills in areas where the government supplements [corporate welfare] energy companies. All these "capitalists" are amazingly non-capitalist.
Look on either side. Nobody does or means what they say.
And I still can't believe that people still don't know what was really behind the Hobby Lobby issue. Maybe you heard it from me first, but it has been out there for quite some time. But it turns out that such exemptions already existed but previously just for non-profits. And in those cases, under Obamacare, those birth control benefits (keeping in mind that birth control means abortive measures, not prevention measures) are STILL covered but are required to be paid for by INSURANCE COMPANIES. This battle was never about whether or not for-profit conpanies can have moral objections to anything. It is about insurance companies not wanting to keep their end of the bargain they wrote for themselves. They are making windfall profits on this and they don't want to give any of it back.
Okay going a bit off-topic but I don't care. Things are getting increasingly stupid and the media is pushing out increasingly obvious and blatant lies. I just wonder at what point the common drones out there will begin to notice.
I mean seriously- why not save $450 a year by slowly replacing your light bulbs with LED and CFL bulbs? Or putting in a little insulation. Or having a higher SEER rated AC unit (in the north or temperate areas) or a higher EER rated AC unit (in areas that are really hot for several months). (Seer is measured with a lower temperature difference than EER).
As for climate change. Well, maybe I care a little but we are not going address the root cause (too many human beings on the planet) so it's going to happen. Heck- the "max" population keeps rising lately. I think the max projected is up to 11 billion now.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Yeah, it's because they don't see much real benefit from the suggested austerity. And the others do much, much more sensible steps, like encouraging birth control and not having 10 kids because they don't run farms that need cheap manual labor.
Funding sexual education that includes the facts about birth control is *much* more effective at reducing humanity's "carbon footprint". And educating women, especially, helps. Too bad too many poor countries, or countries with ridiculous disparities between the wealthy and the rest of the quite poor population, specialize in making them headscarf burdened, clitorectomized, uneducated, receptacles of much older men's seed to bear as many children as possible to promote their particular version of Yahoo-Wahoo. (The original Hebrew did not include vowels, so it might have been Yahoo-Wahoo!)
I blame monotheism. The idea that there is one god, and His Word Is Law(tm) with no other gods to turn to, is the source of so much social and personal evil, it's beyond Belief.
Let's see everything wrong with the survey, just 250 households. How where the people selected. How much of a cross section was there. Was it per capita energy usage or simply per household usage (per household), difference between a person living on their own and say a family of five. A far right wing government commissioned the survey how biased were they in the selection. Some were monitored for a full year some only for one month, no clarification on summer winter split. No clarification on meals, home cooked or takeaway or restaurant (hidden energy usage) Also clothes washing, how much done in house, how much an laundrette and how much professionally cleaned (hidden energy usage). Study included rented and owned properties but did not differentiate between the two. There was a large north south divide hence different climatic conditions.
So it's a whole lets come up with a bullshit report to slander climate change and make it seem acceptable to do nothing about it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Just because it is being used that way does not mean it is not also true. I think one of the problems getting people to accept the science of climate change (which lets face it pretty strongly says it is happening and in all likelihood anthropogenic) is that the left has been trying to use it as a cudgel to force in their stupid ideologies and politics.
already knows about the Jevons' paradox.
Live it up. Use it all liberally before some horde of misers ration it sparingly.
That's because their claims of enviro-superiority are like medieval "indulgences", permissions to sin without penalty. So Saint AlGore flies all over the world preaching the "Stop flying!" mantra, as if he'd never heard of Skype or Webex. As Instapundit Glenn Reynolds writes, "I'll believe that there's a crisis when the people who are telling me it's a crisis start ACTING like it's a crisis."
Are you saying the thousands of CO2 measurements collected globally for decades, and our thousands of ice core samples going back hundreds of thousands of years, and our scientist's best climate models of climate change... are all fabricated as part of a grand multi-decade long liberal conspiracy to set up a carbon trading market?
---
You are not what you own -- Fugazi, "Merchandise"
I am not sure this study captures the some of the bigger decisions made to conserve energy. For instance, here is what I have done: I live in a condo that has a high walk score, so I don't have to drive much. We are close to transit and we use it. I purchased a Prius, which gets 60mpg. Given that and the fact that we barely drive, our monthly gas bill is about $50. One tank per month. I don't eat much meat. This substantially reduces the carbon emissions from the production chain of my food. However, according to this study, I am being remiss if my electricity bill isn't lower than my neighbours' bills. The study is flawed. My overall carbon emissions are way lower than average but this study would overlook me.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
.
"Research" (and I use that term loosely) about the problems with the science of climate change apparently is quietly funded by the very energy companies that are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Energy companies which would have revenue issues if they were held accountable for the pollution they pump into our ecosystem.
.
The main question I have to ask is what the opinions reflected in the survey really reflect, a reaction to the misleading campaigns of the climate change deniers, or an actual understanding of what is happening to our planet.
Take a look at the issues in Miami due to increasing water levels...
Wish I had mod points to vote you up. Cheers for not blindly following dubious "science" and calling out those who do. Not only is it a shitty study with corresponding shitty methods and assumptions it vaguely admits as much (while keeping a sensational and contradicting talking point). The effect of people who are concerned more about global warming use more energy is "largely due to the effect of age, as older households were much more likely to agree with this statement, and also had lower energy consumption". When that effect was accounted for there was "only a weak trend" to show that people who care about the environment cut their energy usage... So when you account for the effect of "old people use less energy and don't give a shit about global warming" then you get the effect of ... people who care about global warming only do a little to reduce their energy usage.
This study is ridiculously pathetic and says more about its fake-spin-science-touting promoters than it does about anything.
Here's the thing: individual energy use is fairly insignificant. Turning off the light leads to a miniscule reduction of total energy use because: residential energy use is only 14% of humanity's total energy use [ Source: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/... ], you are just 1 person out of 1 billion people living in the developed world (i.e. people with high-energy consumption), and turning off a light or two leads to a small reduction in your individual use. In other words: a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.
If people are concerned about global warming and humanity's energy use, you can do totally ineffective things like turning off a light or two more often, or you can push for more effective means of curbing global emissions: change the source of our energy (for residential energy, industrial/commercial energy, and transportation), push for more energy-efficient devices (e.g. a lot of Western European countries use about half as much energy per-capita as the US), and throw taxes on carbon-based energy sources to influence consumers via their pocketbook and influence the market towards forms of energy without all those carbon-emission externalities.
I can see that the conservatives are out in droves on this Slashdot story, flaunting their ignorance and conspiracy theories. You guys should really be ashamed of yourselves because you're only making yourselves look like cavemen.
They want a meritocracy where they're in charge. Because of this, everything should be forced by the hand of the government, otherwise nothing will happen. That's also why rather often you'll find "progressives" look warmly to socialism and communism. They won't help others now, but it will all be solved if there were laws to enforce it.
Things that have been solved once there were laws to enforce it:
child labor
acid rain
40 hour work week
food safety
slavery
monopolistic behavior
worker safety
consumer protection
clean air and water
so on and so forth, ad nauseum
You do not seem to recognize that you're already living in world that has been fundamentally shaped by progressive and socialist/communist ideas.
While not everything should be forced by the hand of the government, a lot of things that are taken for granted had to be forced.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I have found many people who believe in catastrophic man-made global warming are incredibly ignorant of what the science actually says.
It is difficult to find a critical voice among the global warming supporters (nobody wants to risk being ostracized as a denier I guess), so if you want to read anything remotely critical of global warming beliefs, you have to turn to the skeptics. (Who objected when James Hansen told everyone that the oceans would boil? Any exaggeration it seems, no matter how blatant, is condoned by pro-warmers.)
But when you read what the IPCC actually has to say about the issue, you get a different picture. I always see the pro-warminst sites trying their best to make these 'official reports' sound as gloomy as possible. On the other hand, check out Matt Ridley's interpretation. Or on video if you like.
1) The reference to Al Gore is relevant. Al Gore is a primary shareholder in some of the companies that have been formed to trade carbon credits. Needless to say, it creates a conflict of interest which ought to cause people to think a little more carefully about what he has to say.
2) Al Gore after his movie and various environmental statements should be an example of good environmental behavior rather than the opposite -- especially if he truly believes it. Additionally, it is fair to assume he has seen data that most of us have not and would adjust his behavior accordingly.
3) It doesn't matter whether a conservative author said it or whether it was said by Pol Pot. It is true or it is not. Giving credit to the author of a statement is the right thing to do no matter who said it. Ad homonym attacks are just plain dumb.
>Fact is people in the South of England have already started growing grapes in order to produce wine.
Well they were doing that when I was a kid in the UK 40 years ago.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
There's no surprise here, folks. Most people care just enough to avoid catching the blame from their neighbors and co-workers. As individuals, people are predisposed to make their own individual situation better (or not worse), even if it harms the community at large. History is full of examples: racism, tobacco farmers, heroin smugglers, vain conquering rulers, religious figureheads, professors of arcane subjects, etc. etc....
Here's another news story for these outlets: people don't change without motivation.
Whee...
In other news, people who were most worried about the government misusing their taxes, tended to pay the most taxes.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
In the southern United States, the vast majority of energy is used for HVAC (heating and air conditioning).
What's the point of cutting down your own use? You won't make a difference. And your actions don't influence anyone else. If you're the only one who cuts down, and the other 6,999,999,999 people don't, then it won't matter, global warming won't be stopped. And if you don't cut down, but 6,999,999,999 do, then global warming will be stopped without you. What you do personally does not matter, because it does not determine what the other 6,999,999,999 people. Their decisions are not bound to yours. Cutting down can help if you can decide it for 7 billion people, not just for yourself.
TL;DR It doesn't make a difference, except as posturing.
Global warming is a money/power grab, the ultimate in "Do as I say, not as I do" diplomacy.
That's no surprise. the surprise is finding people with no skins in the game that actually believe, and finding out that they do not change attitude, consumption habits etc.
In my experience, one of the things I found out is that many of these people, while being mostly able in basic math/science/problem solving, are utterly unprepared in the "analyse" department. they seem unable to gather data, see which is relevant, build a logical thought model and then deciding: the process is inverted, they jump from conclusions to (agreeable) facts, not the other way around.
One day, one of these people was extolling the virtues of Solar energy, while saying that he hated nuclear. I live in a region of Italy, Piedmont, which is weaseling about that, since we get about a fourth of our electricity from French nuclear plants upwind from us, about 250 km away as the crow flies. When I told him and asked if he had already cut a fourth of his electricity needs, his jaw dropped. I then showed him some quick excel calculations about how big an area was needed to replace that with solar, and the attending costs after subsidies, and he went pale. then I added back the subsidies. Ooh, the joy of seeing ignorance squirm!
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
That's not what I can read from his statement. But it's good that you formulated it as a question and not a statement. Less things can go wrong if you simply as a question. Even if it sounds condescending you can claim that it was simply out of curiosity.
Big Business in general is hardly interested in reducing energy consumption, because in the short term that would lower profit, and you know, you can't lower profit! Another way would be to lay off some of the work force. Most politicians don't like that because "jobs" are always a solid vote getter, and lower profit means less money from taxes, another inconvenience. So most governments just play ball with Big Business, creating these stupid carbon credits, that mostly benefit Big Business.
Neither does this mean that all those CO2 measurements are fabricated, nor that AGW as a whole is a lie, but it means that AGW was hijacked by Big Business and introduced into politics to suit their own purposes. Beneficial changes would be merely secondary effects, which are nice to have, but hardly a requirement.
Stephen Hawking invented black holes?
The bastard!
Worst. Signature. Ever.
Lazy tautology is lazy.
"Well they were doing that when I was a kid in the UK 40 years ago."
Sure, but this is hardly the point. There is always someone somewhere brewing, distilling or fermenting something into a drink. It is however becoming a growing industry and people are getting excited about it.
You are sadly right on.
We may or may not agree on whether or not it is a major issue (my reading of the evidence, without regard for models, and undergraduate physics and thermodynamics knowledge tells me it has very real potential to be a very serious problem, especially when demographics and population migration is brought into play)
So that being said, what do we do without feeding the shit bags who have found a way to profit off of what I consider a very major necessity (drastically reducing CO2 emissions, or drastically increasing Earth's sinking capacity)?
That says a lot about what the GP knows about science.
And the right just chooses to ignore it. If they don't like the proposed solutions coming from the left they should propose some effective solutions of their own rather than simply denying that the problem exists. If you ignore reality it'll come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
I don't think they are after a meritocracy. I'd argue that in a meritocracy, people would try to be a proof of concept for their proposed lifestyle.
Instead, the problem is good old cognitive dissonance. Basically, since they believe in the evils of the tragedy of commons so deeply, even if they claim to want to eliminate it, they do still want it to be an immense barrier that can only be taken down by the will of all the peoples united under a hierarchy of wise men. To them, saving individually is irrelevant, as others won't do it until forced anyway. It's a drop in the ocean, so not worth it.
I know very few people who identify themselves as socialists, that will act individually towards a common good regardless of what others are doing. Most just want others to act first. Actually, not wanting to be the dupe is the main source of their socialistic outlook, and it is also the main weakness of this sort of ideology.
"The findings were based on the Household Electricity Survey, which closely monitored the electricity use and views of 250 families over a year. "
Over a year? So what? If its based on a mere year or two, nearly every family in the world would have increased or remained at parity when it comes to electrical usage simply because of increased computer/electronics/cell phone usage. That doesn't mean they don't worry about the climate change, it just means energy usage changes have offset our increased electrical in electronics.
.Do you think that next year they are going to give up their cell phones? Really?
So, what ? Al Gore is a self centered hypocrite who doesn't care about the climate, but just wants to use the climate story to live a life of luxury. Maybe, yes, but it doesn't change one iota about the validity of the AGW theory.
Well they were doing that when I was a kid in the UK 40 years ago.
However, it is only in the last ten years that they changed from German grapes that need less sun to French ones that need a lot more sun and that wouldn't have produced any wine when you were a kid.
Eh, I think Karl Schwarzschild is the name you're looking for... with due credit to Albert Einstein for deriving the field equations that Schwarzschild used to extrapolate the prediction of the existence of the astronomical object.
Hawking gets credit for helping reconcile the existence of bodies smaller than their Schwarzschild Radius with Quantum Mechanics, since it doesn't mesh well with the concept of mathematical spacetime singularities, and thermodynamics since General Relativity doesn't lend us much insight on how black holes don't violate the second law.
Meritocracies are much worse than aristocratic plutocracies... Agreed.
Yes, but that's exactly what TFA is about. It make no attempt to debunk AGW at all, it's argument is that people don't practice what they preach with regards to AGW.
@1 min 20 seconds
Shoot first, ask questions later, eh? Pretty shameless fear mongering if you ask me.
People do not cut consumption of energy only because of warm feeling of reducing their carbon footprint. They DO respond to economic incentives that encourage them to cut energy use and pollution.
Why wasn't this modded funny? That list clearly was ironic, right? Anyone actually believing that would be fucking creepy...
"A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
Al Gore is a primary shareholder in some of the companies that have been formed to trade carbon credits
So...you're saying it's a bad thing he puts his money where his mouth is, right?
conflict of interest
I'm not sure that phrase means what you think it does.
As for TFA, I am an old fashioned "greenie", I believe in science based policy, I've never understood why people think that means I should shiver in the dark waiting for a clean energy utopia arrives? I don't want more/less energy, I want clean energy to fulfill my wants/needs and was prepared to pay a premium to get it. I say was because now I expect it to be cleaner and cheaper and will be installing solar PV on the roof of my new home later this year. They will pay for themselves in ~2yrs, after that initial investment it's virtually free compared to coal.
I don't understand why people like you are against market solutions: Simply make polluting more expensive than not polluting and the problem will go away. There's no conspiracy to take away your SUV, just common fucking sense that polluter's should pay to clean up their own mess.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Perhaps a portion of that energy could be redirected to CAD systems dedicated to thermal modeling of buildings... :]
Ezekiel 23:20
The underlying assumption is that you have to live in a cave and eat tofu if you want to be green, to do otherwise is to betray your own principles. AGW is a systemic problem but fortunately the economic trend of renewables vs FF is becoming such that coal mines will be virtually worthless in the not too distant future.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
* Replacing five lightbulbs with fluorescent lights which cost more energy to produce and contain way more toxic materials will not save the world. Especially because many of them do not last longer for the simple reason that we switch on and off the lights way too often.
* If you reduce the power consumption of 10% of the users with 50%, you still only won 5%.
* Solve the real problem: The fact that I switch off one TV won't save the world. Samsung should make TVs with ultra-low stand-by power. They make millions.
Don't get me wrong, I am very worried about the future of our planet. I just don't think that environmentalists shouting at people that they should replace their lightbulbs get the whole picture. With 7 billion people, you will never be able to shout at everyone. Shout at the CEO of General Electric, Samsung, Philips, LG. THEY can make a difference.
To be fair, you could already tell that by the way he CAPITALIZED words for EMPHASIS...
Worst. Signature. Ever.
LED lightbulbs *are* amazing.
I have moved my entire home to them. They aren't even that much more expensive - you can get ones bright enough for reading with standard lamps for about $8-10 each. When you consider their benefits they are well-worth it. It's not even that they use even less energy than halogen, but how long they are rated to last (the brand I buy has the almost absurd rating of like 30 years under normal usage 4-6 hours a day), the quality of light and the speed of coming on (much better than those damn halogen pieces of junk), plus the little to no heat factor (I can place my palm directly on the brightest one I have, that's been going for hours, and just feel slightly warm; lower powered ones like I use in the bathroom are actually cool to the touch while in use), they are a no-brainer.
The sad part is, they aren't being sold very widely at general retail yet. The only place I have found really pushing them is Lowe's in the US - where I've bought all of mine. You can find a few here or there elsewhere, but they usually only carry a tiny selection of the more expensive types that are $25+. I really have to give it to Lowe's on this one - at least half of their light bulb selection now is LED and they support them with endcap displays and sales.
I really hope they catch on soon. I know many folks who switched to halogen years ago when they first became available, but since they have so many drawbacks (they just are a pool of suck), they've since switched back to incandescent because, you know, they actually turn on at full brightness, don't have that wispy strange lighting quality, and since they don't last any longer than incandescent just end up costing more. I've gotten many to switch to LED, and everyone raves about them - especially when the first electric bill comes in.
did you also included a calculation on the subsidies for nuclear ? http://laka.org/docu/boeken/pd...
Wow, someone with a reasonable view of how climate change happens - prepare to be down-modded by the "YOU MUST ASSUME THE WORST! ASSIMILATE!" crowd.
FWIW, I agree with the dryer thing - even though I still use one, I'm too lazy not to. Things like sweatshirts just get worse and worse with every washing, and I can't make a towel last more than a year before it starts to tear. My aunt swears by outdoor drying (you can actually do it in the winter, oddly enough - makes no sense but it does work if it's sunny out, finishing in the house). Her clothing lasts absurd amounts of time - I recently put a picture up on a social media site of myself at 5 years old in the early 80's with a picture of my aunt running after me in a brightly colored sweater. One of her friends commented on it and said "She wore that sweater last week!" and it's still in virtually the same condition. And she wears it regularly, she doesn't have a large wardrobe. The kicker? It was my mom's originally, a hand-me-down from the early 70's.
Why wasn't this modded funny? That list clearly was ironic, right?
"Solved" is a bit wildly optimistic.
"Improved beyond recognition where the laws exist and are enforced" I could go with.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
"just put a little button on them to activate the socket"
You mean like a switch?
Granted, some countries have unswitched outlets (I'm in Italy now and they generally have just sockets, no switches), but if you Googled for a second I bet you could find some for your country. In the UK, virtually every outlet is switched.
To be honest, it wouldn't make that much a difference to my life. Things allowed on standby are on standby for a reason - I'm lazy and don't want to wait for them to warm up every time I use them.
1. AGW is real. Science resolved. Nothing even to discuss. Period.
And you just hit that nail so squarely in the head you couldn't have been more accurate with a laser sight.
You know why there is a growing amount of folks saying "wait a minute?" Because no science is "resolved" on anything with such a short-term study with such absolution (and yes, few decades is a short time). It has this religious fervor around it that is really unsettling. That folks swear there isn't even a discussion to be had instantly makes someone who can think for themselves highly suspicious. It may very well be true, but stating with such bullishness it's not up for discussion "period" at once makes you sound defensive, childish, and suspicious.
It's something like the autism/vaccine question - if you aren't even willing to entertain an opposing thought, get out of the room because you understand nothing about science, which by it's very nature is about constant questioning. Period.
At this point, considering the inability of congress to get anything done, maybe all those people who believe the scientists about AGW have come to the conclusion that it's too late to do anything about it and have given up. Or maybe they realize that changing their personal lifestyle is nothing compared to the size of the problem.
I lived in Phoenix for a while. Golf courses everywhere. No water anywhere. Billboards reminding me to use less water everywhere. The message I got was that I should feel guilty about every drop of water I used so a bunch of rich a-holes who spend their winters in Phoenix could have more water to dump onto their golf courses. AGW is a lot like that.
The change has to start with the most visible and egregious offenders. Then people will see that there's something going on that they should be concerned about and will modify life style en masse. The only way to deal with the most visible and egregious offenders is via the law. Unfortunately, those offenders have money and use it to keep congress in a perpetual state of suspended animation, because it is through their offense that they make their money.
I don't think that's what he's saying, and the folks that think it's some vast conspiracy are rare, but those that refuse to even entertain the discussion on it are doing nothing for their cause and themselves creating a growing air of suspicion, not the other way around.
It doesn't take a vast conspiracy - that requires a central malice and string-puller. But the current "scientific" environment around Global Climate Whatever it's being called this week (just look at these comments to see a half dozen other terms folks are now using that Global Warming has used up its cache), is not only anti-science (science is all about questioning), and it isn't a leap to think that the reason "99% of scientists agree!", the current talking point, is because it might be self-sustaining. It doesn't take a conspiracy for folks to see which side their bread needs to be buttered in to survive in their jobs.
If everyone agrees, of course any science that might shed the tiniest bit of doubt will be buried because the scientist would lose all funding, likely their job, and be out of work just for questioning a hypothesis. Do you see how anti science that really is, and how easily many individuals have it in their best interest to keep proving this thing they already say is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
I'm not a skeptic or a believer in human climate influence. I can see both ways, and to be honest think it's probably somewhere in the middle, where obviously the earth has cycles and with how little we truly understand about how many infinite factors go into such, but that likely humans have helped whatever cycle is happening now along.
What I do know is human nature, and the scientific community (please forgive me for this next reference, I don't take making it lightly) is somewhat like Nazi Germany at this point - agree, support, or you will be eliminated. The fact that any scientist would take any modern notion studied over such a short time (a few decades is a blink) and with such veracity state that it is the unequivocal, be all, end all, no questioning allowed is not only scary, it's coming from a generation who has no understanding whatsoever of the true nature of scientific discourse.
You actually will find that a good portion, if not most (over 50%) actually agree that there should be some questioning or at least don't believe in the severity - because, you know, fifteen years ago we were told by the end of this decade the ocean would overtake Manhattan - but like Israel, any possible Autism/vaccine connection, "supporting our troops", or any number of issues we are only supposed to be of one hive, unquestioning mind of - folks just don't admit their true feelings on it when asked in surveys, etc, because of social pressure, not that they actually don't question them.
If there is true consensus about global warming, then science should be inviting opposing thought - not trying to stifle the discussion like a dictator.
@ 2:12 actually. But twenty seconds into that video we hear "one of the things I write about in my book." Always, *always* hold anyone in suspect who is trying to sell you a book. The prospect of money via publication leads to the Al Gore effect - inflate the hyperbole for dramatic effect and sales.
While I don't disagree with that, this report is the wrong one to trumpet about. The asked 250 people a question that is quite ambiguous, and then monitored them for a year. I read the article earlier today on some other site, and it sounded like rubbish for those reasons and others.
They are asking a question that is heavily dependent on the number of children in the household.
Those surveyed were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “The effects of climate change are too far in the future to really worry me.”
I think the correlation here is electricity usage and children in the household.
Al Gore is a primary shareholder in some of the companies that have been formed to trade carbon credits
So...you're saying it's a bad thing he puts his money where his mouth is, right?
Yeah I personally think Al Gore is an idiot but he seems to be an honest idiot which in some ways makes him better than a lot of people in both camps...
Ad homonym attacks are just plain dumb.
I must remember to wear sunglasses the next time I read your comments.
Blinded by thine radiance, art thou Helios?
Didn't need a study to tell me that people "most concerned" about climate change aren't necessarily the must frugal per-capita energy users.
Just look at Al Gore.
He's considered the biggest climate change advocate by many.
He probably uses more energy in his mansions than 99.9999% of the people in the world, let alone the energy jetting around everywhere. But of course his houses only use "clean" energy and all his jet travel is offset by purchasing carbon credits (most likely through clean energy and carbon credit trading companies he has shares in.)
That's because their claims of enviro-superiority are like medieval "indulgences", permissions to sin without penalty. So Saint AlGore flies all over the world preaching the "Stop flying!" mantra, as if he'd never heard of Skype or Webex.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "All men are created equal." Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Therefore all men are not created equal and we need to go back to feudalism. Yes, it's crap. It's crap in exactly the same way that your yelling about AAAAALLLLL GOOOORRRRRE! is crap.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
I believe in science based policy...
I don't understand why people like you are against market solutions: Simply make polluting more expensive than not polluting and the problem will go away.
You say you believe in science based policy, but then you say "simply...". Sadly, so far we have unfortunately little science on how policy impacts on carbon emission. We do know that it can on occasion create false markets for wind and solar (lots of wind and solar installed, lots of people happy to buy the carbon credits awarded for all that solar and wind and everyone cheers, except the output variability means the coal stations aren't turned down significantly and essentially just as much carbon gets pumped out of their chimneys as yesterday). We have very little idea (yet) of whether we can actually make policy genuinely reduce carbon output rather than just enabling ineffectively designed projects to skim money from the incentives.
Halogen. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Halogen lights run VERY hot and bright, but do not offer any energy savings, as they are still incandescent (glowing resistor) lamps.
Do you perhaps mean fluorescent or compact-fluorescent lamps (CFL)? They are filled with low pressure mercury vapor and argon, xenon, neon, or krypton. They are about the same efficiency as LED, but are slow to come to full brightness as you describe.
Otherwise, great post. Completely agree on the advantages of LED. I've actually skipped the bulb-style and have started installing LED strips with a standalone 12vDC converter.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Here in an area known for bitterly cold winters, every new home goes up with an air conditioner, every second big home investment is a pool, and every other driveway has an SUV. Facts I've used to successfully shut up the local climate change propagandists for years. Oh well, I guess it's now official.
One supposes that the climate change outcry should really be: " I want someone else to take care of the effects of climate change so I can keep living just the way I please."
You really want to help the planet? Lighten your own footprint on it.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I say was because now I expect it to be cleaner and cheaper and will be installing solar PV on the roof of my new home later this year. They will pay for themselves in ~2yrs,
Wait you are saying your PV cells are going to pay for themselves in 2 years? Is this with or without subsidies and other tax considerations? Where the hell do you live that gets enough sunlight that PV cells can pay for themselves in 2 years? I've never heard of this kind of ROI on PV (or any power generation) anywhere.
Power grab, by who, from who? That sounds very conspiratorial. Can you enlighten me?
I think you'll get off to a better start if you think of people as individuals. I doubt you enjoy being assigned to some monolithic dehumanized collective.
Took you dumb asses this long to figure that out? All you need to do is visit some place like oh I don't know, lets say Black Mountain NC. Lots of tree huggers there, funny at seeing the unexpected large numbers of H2/H3 and the like in peoples driveways. To say I am in shock and awe is to lie.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Your preconceived notions were that I had preconceived notions in relation to this study, this thread, and global warming.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Which is technically also called halogen because that describes the type of gas inside but that label is also on very hot and bright lights that consume more power than CFL lights.
I saw that complaint about CFL lights a lot here and thought it was bullshit - then I bought a piece of shit Phillips CFL that pretended to look like a incandescant globe and found out what so many were going on about. Don't get the good looking dimmable CFLs aimed at the US market, get a cheap and nasty Chinese thing with long loops everywhere and you'll have something that seems to come to full brightness within a couple of seconds, is cheaper and puts out more light.
Yeah because oil is real cheap *eye roll* - moron.
I can attest to this personally. I'm unfortunately the most green person I personally know but I never wear it on my sleeve. My motives aren't completely altruistic all the time since I'm often motivated in doing it by saving money. My town's recycling tote is full every week, I turn off appliances and devices like a nazi, I carpool at every opportunity even if it's me the one driving, I keep the temperatures very conservative in my house, I minimize my laundering, I reuse grocery bags instead of buying garbage bags, I buy LEDs whenever I can score 50%-off or more (my house is 75% LED now, rest is CFL), I drive instead of flying whenever practical, I've always hypermile'd all of my vehicles including my latest Prius which pushes 60mpg, buy things in bulk to reduce packaging, solar powered exterior lights, and I even use the bare minimum for soaps and detergents. Notice nearly all of these save me money. The green aspect is extra bonus. Whether or not global warming is man made, no one can dispute the benefits of keeping our environment clean if it's easy to do.
However, contrast that with some friends and family which are bleeding heart tree huggers, but all have gigantic houses with AC on full blast, drink their plastic water bottles on a daily basis, throw things out that are perfectly recyclable, running incandescent lights, have 3 cars, and driving their SUVs, sports car, and/or Hummers. But they donate money to renewable green energy sources!!!! lol
If anyone is going to accuse me of being a tree hugger it's going to be because they've been watching me carefully, not because I've been preaching it...
I am an old fashioned "greenie", I believe in science based policy, I've never understood why people think that means I should shiver in the dark waiting for a clean energy utopia arrives?
Because if they can strawman your argument, they think it means they can ignore you instead of addressing the issues. It comes down to tribalism (us vs. them), denial, and not wanting to change their lifestyles and/or pay more taxes.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Dude seriously? Stephen Hawking did not invent black holes. The "idea" of black holes was put forward by John Michell in 1783. The issue at hand is the Black hole information paradox, whether or not information (total mass, charge, and angular momentum) is lost or persists. Hawking said it doesn't (1997). In 2004 he conceded it did and provided a proof.
You're argument might have carried more weight had your analogy not been so wrong.
That was one of the first thoughts I had as well. Just because someone worries about global warming, doesn't mean they don't cook dinner, have multiple computers for parents and children, and in general stay up later to do something after the kids go to bed, whether that is cuddling or paying the bills.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
John Michell.
Why do anti-enviros keep bringing up Al Gore instead of focusing on the issues? It's like you'd rather make childish personal attacks instead of trying to solve the problem, and that's sad.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Actually no he did not. The scientific community is firm about climate change. The debate only exists in tiny little minds that can't grasp science. The "discussion" you see is refinements in the models.
"they" ? distinguishing strongly overlapping normal distributions by the difference in a rudimentary statistical variable is a very convenient framework to support your opinion, no? I wouldn't assign any political labels to myself, but others might call me a socialist and I don't understand anything about what you label as the basis of my ideology.
One of the things I do to reduce energy consumption relative to U.S. per capita consumption is to use a 7 day programmable thermostat, basically for night time/unoccupied reset. Setting aside the fact that it was free from the utility because they have an economic incentive to reduce peak demand, it had an economic payback of approximately 35 days. That gave an effective ROI of ~500%. Attic insulation about ROI ~60% is another example. I only plan to be in my home for 8 years, but consequently, I will reduce emissions from coal and natural gas, and have $4500 extra in a non taxed retirement account. Add this to other energy related choices with financial incentive (e.g. most) and you recover $100k's of savings by retirement. How am I a ‘dupe’ and what does it have to do with a socialist outlook?
They really need the same disclaimer as mutual funds: past performance does not guarantee future results". Because the massive doom and gloom predictions, proven wrong by time, don't help the cause. c.f. Henny Penny, the Boy Who Cried Wolf,
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Wow, I weep for the educational system.
" If you do "save energy" at one point, it's because you've used more to get to that point in the first place, or used up some even rarer mineral in order to do so."
Care to prove that Zippy. So recycling is no good. Car pooling is not good. Turning down the heat-a/c not good? There are lots of things people can do to lower their energy consumption that would not as you say use more energy elsewhere. The point is most people are not aware and don't bother. Make the pocket book argument. Turning down your thermostat will save you money. Don't leave the lights on all the time or the tv on and then walk away. There's a lot of low hanging fruit out there. During the '70s people understood that. Today, not so much.
And yet there are people who believe it so fervently as to dismiss rational thought and criticize those who are not in lockstep with believers. They turn to logical fallacies and hold ideals such as "You can't see it, you can't reasonably measure it, but it's coming and by then you'll be too late and you'll be doomed!"
No, doesn't sound like a religion at all.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
...are all about controlling OTHER peoples' behavior (and redistributing THEIR property).
I'm not sure what your point is. Of course, it is possible to use analysis to reach the opposite conclusion. For example on my terribly oriented (NW-SE) roof in northern climate ~45deg, and relatively cheap coal electricity (~11c/kWh), a smallish (~1 kW), no subsidy solar system will pay back financially (1) is cashflow positive based on my HELOC rate (2) pays off more quickly than the local utility's new gas plant, and (3) utilizing only self consumption, thus requiring no grid support for enhanced payback (net metering)
On a related note, one is an energy pig if they can't offset their electrical with a solar array the size of their living footprint. For comparison, my home is small ~60 m^2, but with that area I would produce 300-400% net excess or 1.5 - 2 US avg household.
Does anyone else find a story published by a conservative British newspaper criticizing climate change a bit suspicious? Or perhaps question the validity of a survey consisting of just 250 people for the entire UK? All one has to do is follow the money that fights climate change to see who has a vested interest in keeping the world addicted to fossil fuels.
Seriously, we put solar city on our house (46 panels). Right now, we pay $100/month for electricity and are locked in on that rate. We even end up with extra that is sold to Xcel (we expect about $300 back at the end of the year from them). Xcel is already pushing to increase their rate for next year (to 14.5/KWH) and we will continue to pay only $8 / month to Xcel for their base. Even better yet is the fact that we grandfathered in with this so that as Xcel's prices increase, they will be forced to pay us the same price. Down the road, they will get that part removed for NEW installs.
We then changed out our bulbs from a mix of incandescents/CFLs to mostly LEDs with about 13 more bulbs to replace. We did that when Cree bulb prices dropped to below $10/$5 for Br30/A19. We will replace the other 13 when the prices drop again (6 of these are the global bulbs used in a bathroom; so the bulbs are right now $20 for good ones and I refuse to buy the cheap junk from GE, Lights of America, ecosmart, etc ). Once that is done, then only 3 bulbs will remain, which will simply continue to use the old bulbs on (crawl space; under-stairs;outside light that is almost never used).
We have figured out that based on the KWH, that we save about $5-10/month (we have kids that leave lights on). As such, these will be all paid for in 2 years. That is not a bad deal considering that we have removed nearly all of the mercury, and no longer have to wait for CFLs to come on (well 7 bulbs, but they will be replaced at the next sale of cree ).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If there's global warming, I honestly don't give a flying fuck (or even a ground-based one) about whether it is human-caused or not.
I want to know the plans for actually DEALING with it.
"Carbon credits" isn't the answer. All CC are is a gigantic profiteering tool that does little to actually help the problem. Worse, it diverts funding away from real solutions into what is, effectively, a betting pool.
Reduction in power consumption. Sorry but that just is NOT going to happen. Our lives are getting more and more energy dependent every year. Reduction in consumption, at its core, reduces to the idea of (as someone else put it) "shivering in caves, waiting for the clean energy utopia".
Coal, Oil, Natural Gas. These technologies aren't going to get us "there". And the industries they've spawned are holding us back from cleaner solutions. And big hydro power is pretty much tapped out. Plus hydro power has its own ecological problems that set the enviro-nuts wrangling amongst themselves instead of being productive members of society.
What the world needs is a clean, modern nuclear system for baseline power, augmented by wind, solar, and existing hydro. And, if we can find another form of clean, renewable power that doesn't damage the environment, for fucks sake, add it in there too!
The fact is, the people in power don't WANT clean energy. Not really. Because the status quo is too financially renumerative for them. They can also make political hay about it REGARDLESS of which side of the idiotic "debate" they're on. Meanwhile, they, at every turn, castrate any and every industry that has a chance of providing humanity with clean, renewable power.
About the only government that ISN'T doing this is China. Yeah, they're chugging out massive pollution right now. But they're putting money and research into clean technology. Because they HAVE to. They have too many people and their power requirements are too high to get it done with non-renewables. Worse, the non-renewables, at this juncture, become a point over which their government could be toppled (if supplies dry up or become too expensive).
Right now the US on a fast track to become a nuclear technology CLIENT STATE instead of pioneering the tech themselves.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
WRONG APPROACH.
Gov. will NEVER do it. Look at Europe. They do not even meet their own conditions of kyoto, while America did due to ONE THING: economics.
The ONLY way that this will be solved is via applying economics to this problem and leveling the playing field.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When summer starts here in the South, my electric bill goes from ~$50 per month to ~$150 per month. And I already live in a new, relatively small, well insulated house surrounded by lots of shade trees. There's only so much you can do when it's 100 degrees outside.
I already don't waste power, there's not much more for me to reduce. And since I don't own any power plants or write legislation for a living, I don't know what you expect of me.
Maybe you should complain to the people who DO own power plants or write legislation. Just a thought...
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist" -I guess I should leave then
In my country, recycling consists of putting some of the paper back into paper processes (not unlike has been done for a long while), melting down the "easy" plastics, and selling them on. A lot of the rest is sent abroad and landfilled. It was the result of several news stories - fact is, the effort in collecting that plastic probably outweighs the energy saved by reusing them. Have you seen the process that you have to put a bit of used paper through to make it saleable again?
Recycling is about not using up the raw material (oil), not saving energy. To collect, clean, filter, melt-down and redistribute that paper or plastic costs a ton of energy, not least our own. Want to save the planet? Don't let it get on there in the first place and (in my case) make it illegal to post adverts through my door (several dozen sheets of glossy paper every single day).
Carpooling? That's again about resource conservation of oil, not energy-saving. Even buying the cheapest electric bike would do a bucket more than any amount of carpooling.
Turning down the heating? That's real energy-saving, I don't deny that - that's kind of the point of what I'm talking about where that outweighs EVERY OTHER MEASURE by orders of magnitude.
However, there's a limit to the amount you can car-pool and turn down a thermostat (or put off turning on the a/c). You can't sit and freeze/boil, so it's about accepting a different tolerance to your comfort level. If you live without a/c, or with a/c that's energy "free", then - as I say - that's to be respected, but knocking down a degree when you always could have and never needed it that warm in the first place?
Feeling big because you dropped the thermostat to 20 one day because you didn't notice cold that day? That's pathetic. Especially if you then have to ramp it up /down all day long later to compensate.
People are not aware, that's the problem. Where I work, I label the printers with a total cost per page - the cost of the energy, the cost of the paper, the cost of the ink, all added together. People are shocked. So they turn the printer off to "save energy" every five minutes. The cost of the initial boot on a large photocopier is often more than 8 hours of standby, not to mention the wait for the 10-minute boot process where everyone goes off and turns on the other printers to see if they are any faster.
It's about the bigger picture and, sorry, but your low-hanging fruit are really a waste of time. Lightbulbs? You'd have to leave an energy saver on constantly for several days to cope with forgetting you'd boiled the kettle and having to boil it again (which could take seconds on already-warm water).
Sure, we can make pence here and there, but it's totally wiped out, completely, by ignorance of the larger things. And often such energy-saving is directly at the expense of some other limited resource, usually a non-renewable one (e.g. the materials used in solar panels, CFL bulbs, etc.).
The reason my dad - a 60's child bringing me up in the 70's- stopped telling me to unplug everything at night? Because I did the maths and showed him the worst possible scenario. And then plugged in an energy meter and showed him the actual (lesser) result. It was so little for most things that it just wasn't worth wasting breath on, let alone the personal energy to go around at night switching things off (fire concerns aside). And that was 20 years ago.
The things that matter are being ignored PRECISELY for the worthless low-hanging fruit that make lives unnecessarily uncomfortable for the sake of some false peace of mind. And then those people will go on holiday where there's a hot tub, wipe out several dozen times their annual saving, and not give it a second thought. I'd much rather we took things seriously and forgot about lightbulbs, standby, etc. and thought more about several dozen miles of motorways illuminated 24 hours a day, or superstores that put heaters on the entrances and then put the freezer aisles
It certainly is a bizzare world we live in, Al Gore, the high priest of Apocolyptic Global Warming has a home in Tennesee that uses more energy the Goerge W Bush's ranch does, flies all over the world in a private jet and owns a condo in San Francisco that's 3 feet above sea-level; while Anthony Watts the leader of the Denier Illuminati has solar PV panels on his home and drives an electric vehicle.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I'm not sure what your point is. Of course, it is possible to use analysis to reach the opposite conclusion in particular small holding situations. For example on my terribly oriented (NW-SE) roof in northern climate ~45deg, and relatively cheap coal electricity (~11c/kWh), a smallish (~1 kW), no subsidy solar system will pay back financially (1) is cashflow positive based on my HELOC rate (2) pays off more quickly than the local utility's new gas plant, and (3) utilizing only self consumption, thus requiring no grid support for enhanced payback (net metering)[...]
There, fixed it for you.I was talking about a 1500 MWh plant, functioning about 96% of the yearly available hours. that includes nights and winters, btw. that means that you would need about 8,4 million plants like yours, plus an intermittent generating capacity that big to cover nights, bad weather etc.
calculations look like this:
1.500 MW/h plant;
365 days a year;
24 hours a day;
yearly availability stats, 96%;
kilowatts instead of Megawatts, multiply by 1.000;
there it is, 8.409.600. multiply by two, because the sun sets, winters bite ( I live at 42 north myself ) etc.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
I want you to quit externalizing the costs of your cheap polluting energy onto the rest of us. You should have to pay for the damage coal does vs. cleaner forms of energy like natural gas or fission instead of making your grandkids' generation suffer.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Finally. Someone who understands that saving time, gas, and energy is not always about hypermiling and driving 10 or 15 under the speed limit. I have argued on Slashdot many times this same point. It is invariably the hypermilers, blocking both lanes driving side by side that constipate the flow of traffic during the 5:00 rush for my 4.4 mile trek home through 15 traffic lights. And why do the idiots commuting by themselves in a F250 Supercab 4x4 or a Tahoe bother trying to hypermile anyway? Do they expect to get 12.7 MPG instead of the usual 12.1?
My municipality spent $180,000 for upgraded coordinated traffic lights two years ago and it only takes one idiot "saving gas" to ruin the flow for everyone else. They double my commute time.
did you also included a calculation on the subsidies for nuclear ? http://laka.org/docu/boeken/pd...
first off, let me thank you for the link. I will most certainly read it in full, but if I may, there's a phrase at page 5 which put my nose slightly out of joint:
[...]When only looking at money transfers and tax reliefs (see Table S.1), it can be concluded that the total amount of subsidy that the EU and its Member States give to renewable energy is substantially lower than the amount of subsidy to fossil fuels, and probably in the same order of magnitude of the subsidies to nuclear alone.
It 's my view that no serious analyst would be caught writing such a phrase in a study summary, and I'll show you why.
Imagine that the total available energy pool at the grid operator is 100 units, of which 85 is fossil, 10 is nuclear and 5 is renewables. in a "neutral" world, subsidies per unit would be equal (or zero, which is a subset case), and subsidies to fossil fuels would dwarf subsidies to renewables 85 to 5. So, knowing that fossil fuels get mmore money does not show or imply any preference or disdain against any particular source, unless some other information is added. in my view therefore calling that page a summary is an insult to the english language, or an ode to gullibility. As Dr. Evil said, " I am the boss, need the info"
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
Thanks. See? There's the scientific method working; I learned something new. Unfortunately, many of the more passionate advocates will not admit mistakes, and don't learn anything new.
Which was my original point.
Al Gore is a primary shareholder in some of the companies that have been formed to trade carbon credits
So...you're saying it's a bad thing he puts his money where his mouth is, right?
Well if he doesn't, I will. Yes, it's a bad thing. I have always viewed carbon offset trading as crap. It is a net sum game. If you want to shut down polluters, don't give them and out to purchase "papal indulgences" and make them clean up or close. If a business has "excess" carbon reductions, then fine. That is their own reward. To become a broker on the offset "business" is just plain wrong.
caveat: I live in Canada, your mileage may vary.
When I see a person panhandling on the street, I know full well that there are social assistance programs, welfare, employment insurance, homeless shelters, retraining programs, health care programs, etc. In many cases, they have trained professionals who will probably do a much better job than me of helping people that need help. In a sense that means that *I have already helped them* by supporting a society and government that includes these programs, and by funding them with my tax dollars. In many cases the problem is just getting people into programs that will work for them.
That said, I still help people out sometimes if I think it makes sense. Most of the time though my charitable giving goes outside the country to places with less of a social safety net.
If the hypothesis of AGW is valid, and the Hypocrits like Gore believe that Un-Green lifestyles is destroying the climate and dooming humanity to death, famine and pestilance, and those hypocrits continue to engage in those lifestyles then what kind of monsters are they? At least the deniers honestly think that the past warming was predominately due to natural cycles and any anthropological input is self-limiting so if they destroy the world it's through ignorance instead of malice.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
That's just not the way it works unfortunately. People take fashion advice from looking at some star on tv, not from market analysis. The behavior of people at the top definitively matter. So flying your jet around and buying "eco-credit" while preaching abstinence for the common folk will always translate in people mind that this is all bullshit.
The last time there was a crisis, with the ozone layer, a few years later you could not find a can of anything containing that attacked it. For regular Joe, that means 2 things: 1. people in power are not really convinced that there is something wrong, 2. the day they decide there is something wrong the peasant will all need to go f* themselves because it will be legally impossible not to be fully-200% green, and that means live the lifestyle you want while it lasts.
That said, I agree with your 3rd point. I'm not hoping much from the carbon credit though - it has been at least a decade of green consciousness (here in Europe), and green still mean premium for almost everything and for the rest a 5+ investment (if government financial help are not canned like they did this year for solar panels in my country)
We are not burning coal because of stupid jackassery. We are burning coal because we have to.
Or did you think we could just shut off 1/3 of the power production in this country with no negative effect? Believe me, we understand your argument about coal being bad. Ok, fine: what's the alternative? How do you replace ~33% of power production with something better without seriously disrupting the electricity supply which seriously disrupts civilized society?
As I surmised that quote was taken out of context. The runaway greenhouse effect that he's talking about is pretty unlikely but impossible to rule out at this point. The part that I thought was a bit over the top was when he said it's possible for the polar ice sheets to melt in a century or so. There's a lot of ice there, as he said more that two miles thick. If it's hot enough to do that then it's going to get way to hot for humans to survive well before that happens.
I wholeheartedly thank whomever modded the above as "troll" (check my /. number, my karma can take it haha, bring it on) - as you just proved my point entirely. There was nothing unreasonable in what I said, and any true scientist would agree with my premise even if they 100% support the AGW theory. Science is about asking questions, and anyone who tries to stifle the discussion is simply hiding something, a sheep following the herd, or not confident enough to enter the discourse. Seriously, thank you - point proven. :)
I think someone telling the world they need to make do with less should start making do with less.
"Climate Change" is not some major conspiracy; But there are plenty of unscrupulous people who are trying to profit from it. This is the nature of people. Sorry, nothing to see here, move along...
That said, the only way to truly get people "on board" with reducing carbon emissons is to make it less expensive than the alternative. Otherwise, you have the (huge) uphill battle of making them believe it is their natural "God-given" right to be carbon-neutral. Good luck with that...
The answer is, and has always been, better technology. Do more with less energy, generate more energy with less fuel, "make" more fuel with less "fossil"... You get the picture.
The only catch is, "Who is going to pay for the R&D?" I would argue most people would be quite OK with the government providing grants & subsidies to research centers dedicated to doing just that. "Oh, you're using my tax dollars to help reduce my cost of living? Carry on!"
Nice. Didn't know. Thank you.
They will pay for themselves in ~2yrs, after that initial investment it's virtually free compared to coal.
No they wont.... no it isn't
Let's see everything wrong with the survey, just 250 households. How where the people selected. How much of a cross section was there. Was it per capita energy usage or simply per household usage (per household), difference between a person living on their own and say a family of five. A far right wing government commissioned the survey how biased were they in the selection. Some were monitored for a full year some only for one month, no clarification on summer winter split. No clarification on meals, home cooked or takeaway or restaurant (hidden energy usage) Also clothes washing, how much done in house, how much an laundrette and how much professionally cleaned (hidden energy usage). Study included rented and owned properties but did not differentiate between the two. There was a large north south divide hence different climatic conditions.
So it's a whole lets come up with a bullshit report to slander climate change and make it seem acceptable to do nothing about it.
The original "97% of climate Scientists agree" consenseus came from a 77 person population; so while your point is well taken, but needs to be applied more universally.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Oh, there are a lot of idiots on both sides. But unfortunately, the scientists are only still trying to find out whether it will be catastrophic or hugely catastrophic. Things like 1.5C more (the current minimal prediction that is likely to be exceeded) do not sound seriously to an average person, but the impact will be catastrophic. Of course, it will also creep up on us very slowly and that is what most people cannot deal with mentally.
But at this time, deniers are ignoring well established scientific facts. Sure, if you only see the "believers", you could get the idea that this is indeed just a mass-panic, and that is why the "believers" are making the problem worse instead of helping. But when you dig into the scientific material, it starts to look very bad indeed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I see the same thing in my research in California. While many, many people are willing to profess the need to use less water (especially during this drought), use less electricity (with recent plant closures, summer peak demands), and use less gasoline, they have a very hard time reconciling these very distinct concerns with the demands of modern social expectations.
How do we over-use water and why?
-- Showering 1+ times per day - We do this for person comfort, to reduce the potential of being odorous around others, and because it's socially expected to shower daily regardless of actual need. The vast majority of people living California can get away with showering every other day, but choose not to.
-- Laundry - We try to buy water-conserving washing machines, but we still have to actually use the water. And the bigger you are and the lower your tolerance for wearing clothing for more than one day increases your water consumption for laundry.
-- Landscaping - The most onerous of water sins in California is the use of water-hungry plants to keep everything looking green. Our landscaping shouldn't be bright green during a drought. Many private citizens cannot simply stop watering their lawns for fear of receiving fines from their HOAs, City governments, or their landscaping actually dying and then needing to pay to replace them.
How do we over-use electricity and why?
-- Air Conditioning - Despite living in California, people don't like to feel the heat in their homes. Most important, though, is office air conditioning. The office I'm in right now is at 68 degrees. I sweat on my way to work and put a jacket in my office. And on cooler days? The AC is still on because none of the buildings in my area have windows that open.
-- 24-hour Appliances - Perpetual connectivity has convinced many Americans to allow newer devices to be active while they're away. DVRs, newer TVs, etc. all eat up big kWh.
How do we over-use gasoline and why?
-- Long-distance commuting - Everyone in California expects to some day own a 2-story track home or a large-footprint ranch home. However, if you want the job to afford the home, you have to work in an area of high-property demand. You must then decide: small home and short commute or large home and long commute. Many select the latter and end up with 80 miles of commuting every day-- just chewing up that gasoline.
-- Designing communities around the automobile - Modern cities and housing communities are designed around the expectation that the vast majority of transportation trips (non-recreational) will be done by personal automobile. This enables designers to create ped/bike un-friendly housing communities, roads, and intersections that make it *feel* less safe to travel by anything but a car/truck. Thus, small trips like going to/from K-12 school or to pick up eggs and milk from the closest market imply a very distinct need to consume more gasoline.
Given all these engineered and socially enforced standards of resource consumption, I can't really be surprised when, as the article describes, people who are concerned about the environment don't reflect those concerns in their own personal habits.
If we want to see actual change, we have to either change those social/engineered constructs or bend them in such ways to make them more environmentally-sensitive.
Since Asia is the World's largest net emitter of CO2, where do you propose we start?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
But the Hobby Lobby issue was about religious fundamentalism, pure and simple. Insurance likes birth control. It is available generic, is reasonably cheap to synthesize and is way, WAY cheaper than a childbirth. A covered childbirth is stupidly expensive. The prenatal care, the actual birth and follow up (that's the biggest part) and then young kids cost more. They would very much like to not pay for that. Some cheap pills are far better than that.
The case was about controlling women's reproductive rights. That has been a major feature of a number of fundamentalist religions, and Christianity is no exception.
I am frequently labeled as a socialist too. The "they" is just my lazy writing. I see a lot of people who complain about some other people killing the planet, and I don't really see them doing anything about it. At most, tricks that don't amount to anything; no real lifestyle changes that are actually necessary if we want to affect things. Maybe it's an unrealistic generalization, but this study at least seemingly supports my general impression. I'm not saying the attitude is derived from socialism, but rather that people who think this way incline towards socialism.
For a few years, I lived without a car, stopped eating expensive food (and meat altogether), stopped going on unnecessary trips and tried using the environment I live in optimally. People around me, most of who are "concerned" (unlike me btw.), typically continued consuming expensive "organic" food, bought new cars and bigger houses, had kids and increased their diet of expensive trips. The most striking thing about the experiment to me was the fact that people began to talk less about environmental concerns with me, presumably because of the sudden tangibility of the attached obligations.
Regarding your case; if you are increasing your financial savings by consuming less of something, then the incentive is already there. If savings were to be the only concern though, it would mean that you are only delaying the consumption until your retirement anyway, so there is no net gain. At that point, you are still a 'dupe' for not enjoying your final years if you are not going on a cruise with your lady. Or you are just a principled person whose values are not dependent on other people's behavior.
Eh, I think Karl Schwarzschild is the name you're looking for...
Actually, I think the name you might be looking for is John Michell...
Nobody really knows who deserves the actual credit for INVENTING the name black hole, but Johnny Wheeler (for those that know, he was the Feynman before Feynman) certainly was the person to popularize the term.
Anecdotally, Mr. Wheeler claims to have heard it shouted out from the audience at a meeting Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York in 1967, but it seems to have been popular for some time before that. In Jan 18, 1964, the Science News Letter about a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) apparently had this quote:
According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, as mass is added to a degenerate star a sudden collapse will take place and the intense gravitational field of the star will close in on itself. Such a star then forms a ‘black hole’ in the universe.
Perhaps even more importantly, a few French scientists objected to the term (because of it's dual meaning in French), but that objection probably sealed the deal on the name.
Excellent argument. I'm convinced.
Or it could just make you gullible. I leave it to history to decide which
Can it? Only if you're simple minded. Otherwise there are many factors to be considered.
Me, gullible? I've never fallen for anything! Excuse me, I have a bridge in New York to procure.
I wasn't particularly talking about the name. I was talking about the physical explanation for the astronomical object. It does appear that John Michell had the basic concept down before it was physically characterized, though.
But what if the opposing "thought" you're inviting is simply a bunch of specious reasoning debunked a long time ago? Repeated over and over. To the point that you realize that the ones doing the arguing have no interest whatsoever in any kind of objective truth. How long should you be inviting it then? How long do you pretend they deserve respect?
Happy people make bad consumers.
I propose we start with a revenue neutral carbon tax that includes tariffs on the CO2 emitted in producing imported goods. The tax should start out very low but increment over time until in 25 or 30 years it's high enough to make CO2 emissions very expensive. That is a market based solution that allows maximum freedom in how to respond.
I haven't reduced my energy usage because all I have working is a light and a computer whenever I am at home. I don't have large tvs, I don't have AC, I don't have a f*cking fan, nor a heater. WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT FROM MEEEEEE!? *cries*
He may have qualified his statement a bit, but it was clearly misleading and meant to scare people. Other scientists have said there is no possibility for a runaway greenhouse effect on earth, which I think is the general view.
People who look fondly on Communism view themselves as the policy makers in that system, when they imagine it implemented. They never see themselves as the slave being told to toil away in the coal mines.
Just as anyone who thinks they could be a "benevolent dictator" is wrong.
Ozone depletion, which is probably the most relevant example
The crazy thing is, a lot of that stuff *could* make use of an off switch. There's no need for my stove or microwave to be drawing power just to run a display that is simply not needed probably 98% of the time.
Part of the problem is *everywhere* has AC so it's hard for your body to adapt. There are limits of course but there's a fairly wide range where our bodies can adapt but a fairly narrow range that are set on thermostats.
I think one of the biggest things that would get people to adjust their thermostats would be an indicator that showed how much it was actually costing to run right there on the display. I also have considered the idea of a thermostat where you set a budget for the month and it does its best to maintain the temperature you set within that budget.
Also what would be nice was a thermostat that took account of changing external conditions. Don't run the cooling when the sun has set and it's got cold outside and the inside temperature would be dropping soon anyway.
I did. Just build a moat around your power plant with the water tool. That way, when the beam misses it won't cause your very expensive power plant to catch fire and explode. Can't say the same for whatever is on the other side of the moat though :)
Not everyone lives where there is a connection to the US mainland, coal fired, $0.08-$0.10/kw/hr grid. Hawaii and Alaska have $0.40 kw costs. There are solar incentives, but you don't actually need them to get payback rapidly. There are private islands where there is no utility power whatsoever. If you want power, you are having gas shipped in personally.
Off grid, some people use diesel or non-piped gas generators as their main power. Europe, especially remote areas have power generation costs of almost $1/kwh ( remote mining towns).
I agree that there may be outlying areas where PV could potentially have that kind of ROI, I've just never personally heard of it. That is why I want to know where the guy lives. It didn't sound like he was living on some rock out in the middle of the Pacific or something like that. For his claim to be true he has to be living somewhere unusual, and that is my point. And the odds of him living somewhere that unusual are low.
That's why people with any sense know that "cutting down" is futile.
If you don't want lung cancer the answer is to not smoke... not just drop from 100 a day to 99 a day... if everyone saves 1% of their energy usage, it will add up globally to whopping... 1% reduction, in combination with the global population growth rate that is utterly pointless.
Change in energy production is the answer, and for that it's not quite as easy for everyone to "do their bit". Trying to justify quantity is impossible, because there is no line to draw, and ultimately not existing is the answer to solving the problem using quantity as the only variable.
It starts from the very title "bla, bla" It should have specified that they they are AMERICAN subjects who do that. Else they wouldn't be able to explain policies passed in the EU... yes, yes, we all know, the Governements are Big and Bad. but WE vote them. And down here we actually have a good degree of control over them.
Well, I have found a crack in the very logic of this "study" from the very beginning ;)
Sorry for that guy. Rembmeber: THe IPCC is EVIL because it wants to take our guns!!!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
I took my sample from my friends in the Facebook Group "Dead Metal Addicts"... it's as valid as the one in the article, isn't iit? The population is 250, the same as in the featured study.
BTW, when I was studying about samples in statitics intro... I can't recall how many were needed but for all I know If I had presented a dataset of 250 samples I would have been laughed at.
Nevermind. Anybody has the phone number of Mr Cameron? If he pays well I can make a study with 50 stoners from the coffe-shop around the corner demonstrating that gravity is a lie fabricated by the IPCC to tax the fuck out of the British Worker :), 15000 pounds and it's yours (I'm cheap)!!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
40 hour work week
No longer solved, especially if you are classified as Exempt.
monopolistic behavior
AT&T was broken up... and yet it is back again. Microsoft?
The ones that are still more or less enforced are:
child labor
acid rain
slavery (perhaps not with H1B folks not being allowed to switch employers!)
worker safety
consumer protection (payday loans and enforced monopolies like ISPs kind of argue against this)
clean air and water (There was a situation in Texas relatively recently about a company dumping blood into a river but for the most part, correct)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
In other news, "Fire burns".
I care. But I can't do anything alone. Unless everyone changes behaviour, all that happens if I change mine unilaterally is that I end up paying more for my standard of living, or with a lower one, or both. Impact on climate change - effectively zero. All my effort can buy me is a clearer conscience - and frankly, that's not high on my list of priorities.
Yo Greenpeace, how many Arabs died for the oil you used to computer-generate the LEGOs in that movie you're trying to get unbanned claiming that it's because you offended Shell in some way when in all likelihood it's more to do with the recent movie release featuring those plastic blocks which are made from... you guessed it, oil byproducts!
Fucking hypocrites!
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel