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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
Whether you have kids, or you import a brood of children from Mexico (cheap labor), the population growth vacuum will be filled. If you're not paying for your kids, your tax dollars will most certainly be paying for others in the form of welfare.
Life is not for the lazy.
Where I live, more than 50% of electricity is from renewals, wind being one of the larger sources.
Solar doesn't need density. For a small increase in cost, it can be built into roofs. The amount of building space in the US is sufficient to power the grid. No need for central industrial generation.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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?
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.
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
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)
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.
Stephen Hawking invented black holes?
The bastard!
Worst. Signature. Ever.
If we don't solve the problem ourselves then nature will solve it for us and it won't be pretty. Those are the choices in a finite world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Even if there is a "failsafe solution to radiation leaks", whatever you understand by that, people will remain against nuclear as long as the scaremongers bang on about it, which is their plan of course. As a nuclear power station engineer, with particular responsibility for safety, I can tell you that the plants already have failsafe features against radiation leakage to the extent that they are safer than most other human activities.
As for waste storage, it is a political problem, not a technical one.