Americans Are Saving Energy Because Fewer People Go Outside (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Americans are saving energy because they don't go outside as much anymore, researchers say. It's a plus for the environment, though in another light (no pun intended), it's just sad. In 2012, Americans spent an extra eight days at home compared to 2003, according to the American Time Use Surveys. Being at home means using more energy by keeping the lights on and watching TV. But it also means less travel, and it means that fewer people are outside operating offices and stores. So overall in 2012, we saved 1,700 trillion British thermal units (BTU) of heat, or 1.8 percent of the national total, according to an analysis published today in the journal Joule. That's about how much energy Kentucky produced in all of 2015. Specifically in 2012, Americans spent one day less traveling and one week less in buildings other than their homes when compared to a decade earlier. The trend of staying indoors is especially strong for those ages 18 to 24: the youths spent 70 percent more time at home than the general population. At the other end of the age spectrum, those 65 and older were the only group that spent more time outside the home compared to 2003. Next, the researchers want to look at energy consumption changes in other countries as a result of lifestyle changes.

Comments

Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

not quite as progressive as we hoped. We can get everything delivered to our door, and with the right job maybe never have to leave. I used to have work at home days, but those went away. The thing is now that I work a bit closer to my house I don't mind as much. I at least get some exercise walking around the huge campus at work.

Of course not having to drive long distances may be making my distance vision deteriorate just a little faster...

I don't have a suggestion, or at least one that would work. Maybe one day we will be able to work three or four days a week and pull in enough money to afford a family, a house, and a car payment. That day isn't today, but if it was we would have the time to get out more, but would we?

Re:Progress is perhaps

[MellowBob]

I do not know what you said. You did not summarize, plus you shat woods. I think I would agree, but, too much!

Re:Progress is perhaps

[sheramil]

To enter out into that silence that was the city at eight o'clock of a misty evening in November, to put your feet upon that buckling concrete walk, to step over grassy seams and make your way, hands in pockets, through the silences, that was what Mr Leonard Mead most dearly loved to do. He would stand upon the corner of an intersection and peer down long moonlit avenues of sidewalk in four directions, deciding which way to go, but it really made no difference; he was alone in this world of 2053 A.D., or as good as alone, and with a final decision made, a path selected, he would stride off, sending patterns of frosty air before him like the smoke of a cigar.

There is a saying in talk.bizarre, you asshat, used if you quote someone else's work: "ATTRIBUTION, DAMNIT"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pedestrian

Re:Progress is perhaps

[djinn6]

A lot of older people have this strange notion that only things you do in "real life" matters, that if you had the most fun experience in virtual reality, it isn't as good. But the fact is, there's no such thing as a fake experience. Every experience you had is real, otherwise you wouldn't remember them.

For many people, having fun in beating a boss in WoW is a much better experience than hunting down a bear in real life. So if you could have a better experience on your computer, why would you try to do it in real life? It costs much less, there's no animal protection laws to worry about, a lot less of sitting around waiting for the bear to show up, absolutely no risk of being mauled, and if you want to go with a group, you don't need a bunch of well-off friends with a lot of time to spare.

Virtual reality is the future. Soon it will surpass real life in every aspect. When that day comes, you can fully expect nobody to be outside anymore except to do work that needs to be done outside.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Hal_Porter]

I do not know what you said. You did not summarize, plus you shat woods. I think I would agree, but, too much!

Maybe you'd be happier watching TV.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Hal_Porter]

Virtual reality is the future. Soon it will surpass real life in every aspect. When that day comes, you can fully expect nobody to be outside anymore except to do work that needs to be done outside.

This sounds like one of the solutions to the Fermi paradox.

Re: Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember my dreams sonetimes. Does that mean they were real?

Re: Progress is perhaps

[djinn6]

The contents of the dream were not real, but the dream itself? The experience you had? That's real. The feelings and thoughts you had weren't imaginary. If you ran away from velociraptors in the dream, you really were running away in fear. If you were marrying the love of your life in the dream, you really were happy. Likewise, if you had fun playing an MMORPG, the fun was real.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[hawguy]

a lot less of sitting around waiting for the bear to show up, absolutely no risk of being mauled, and if you want to go with a group, you don't need a bunch of well-off friends with a lot of time to spare.

While I've never hunted bear, part of the fun of hunting is the tracking and anticipation -- hunting would not be nearly as interesting if I could press a button and a deer would walk right in front of me. Even being cold and uncomfortable in the rain makes for a good experience. While deer hunting is not particularly dangerous (just don't mix guns & alcohol), the little danger there is also ads to the experience - who cares if someone 'shoots' me with a bazooka in an online game, I know I'll still be going downstairs for dinner in an hour. But walking down a trail and seeing a mountain lion perched on a rock above the trail ahead is a real thrill, even if you have a hunting rifle. You've clearly never gone hunting if you think that hunters are all well off. Given what people spend on gaming rigs and the games itself, you can't say that gaming is cheaper than hunting -- you can get a hunting rifle for a few hundred dollars and a deer license for $25.

Virtual reality may be the future for some people, others will seek real life experiences, just like some people would rather stay home and read a book than go out for a hike.

Re: Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us actually like to go for a walk in the woods.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[dcw3]

You've clearly never hunted bear, nor been outside your mom's basement much. VR will be part of the future, but will never replace real life.

FWIW, I've had fun "beating a boss in WoW", and hunted IRL. The two don't compare.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a pretty farfetched "solution".
I'd go with one of those that involve the universe not being old enough (Dense matter necessary for life haven't been around for that many billion of years.) and the vast distances.

To put it in perspective: If we send a radio message and someone replies only about 2000 stars are close enough for they to get the message and us to get the response within 100 years.
We are pretty sure none of our closest stars have any advanced civilization.
This also assumes that a non-directed signal is strong enough to be detected.
Since we are also dealing with quantization there will be distances where it is no longer possible to detect a weak radio signal.
You only get something like 10^33 photons per second for each watt/frequency so a 100W, 1Mhz signal will give you something like 10^29 photons per second.
50 light years away that is 10^(29-36) photons per second and square meter. That is, a square meter antenna will be hit by a photon about three times a year if you keep the signal going for that long.
It might be necessary to target a planet with possible intelligent life and send a signal for them to be able to hear it and respond.

There could be several civilizations more advanced than us in this galaxy alone and it might take several millennia before their first radio signals will even pass us, despite it being to weak for any photons to actually hit Earth.

The Fermi paradox isn't much of a paradox. It is very far fetched that we will get in contact with another form of life given the physical constraints we are aware of.
Also, the Drake equation is just silly hokum. Anti-vaxxers have more credible science behind their retardedness than the Drake equation.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW, I've had fun "beating a boss in WoW", and hunted IRL. The two don't compare.

Agreed.

You don't have to gut the WoW boss and drag his steaming, over-30kg carcass through a half-kilometer or so of meter-deep snow covering partially-wooded, broken terrain in -35C to get it to your vehicle.

Yeah, that's what people will miss. Well, that and adding to the odds you could be shot by a nervous-Nellie rookie cop during a traffic stop on your way there or back because of having the gun(s). The most dangerous thing in the world is a scared person holding a deadly weapon, and the most certain to result in tragedy all around.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtual reality is the future. Soon it will surpass real life in every aspect.

Sure. Just like the last 3 or 4 times it was the "future".

Virtual reality will never be a substitute for real life, no matter how many times you click your heels together.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot your medicine today.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

For many people, having fun in beating a boss in WoW is a much better experience than hunting down a bear in real life.

Really? The bear is a bit risky, but there is the reward in form of a bear skin that you'll have for life. (Or you can sell it for real money.) A computer game is fun, but you have nothing to show later. in 10 years, WoW will be replaced by a newer game - few will remember.

But go ahead and play VR games all your time. You won't be fighting wars or committing crimes that way. (or reproduce, for that matter.) Improving the world & earning money is also something you leave to us others.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go with one of those that involve the universe not being old enough (Dense matter necessary for life haven't been around for that many billion of years.) and the vast distances.

FYI, four billion years ago the Universe entered the accelerated expansion phase. It's getting rarified as we speak. It's a wonder that the Sun even came to form.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[fluffernutter]

You'll be saying that until you have bed sores and your muscles atrophy. Then you'll understand that you have been feeding your brain and denying your body.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

VR provides no future for humanity, it provides escapism for the mind. AR on the other hand is most certainly the future.

Re: Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were marrying the love of your life in the dream, you really were happy

Maybe if you die in your sleep. Otherwise, you wake up and your hapiness goes away in a puff of smoke.

Unlike a real woman, which does not usually vanish upon waking. Even when you wish she would. But that can be arranged too, unlike a dream.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[bigpat]

"Reality Check" is more than a saying. Reality matters. Whereas you can become a unicorn or Pegasus in virtual reality and fly among the clouds. In there real world we need to live, breath, make babies, drink clean water, not kill or hurt one another over stupid things.

While I think virtual reality is great in many ways for expanding the human experience and improving our communication and imaginations and has great potential.

If we get to the point where we care more about our virtual worlds than the real one, then we are going to be worse off for it.

Both individuals and society needs to have a greater focus on making our own world a paradise of opportunity and plenty rather than merely distracting ourselves from the reality ahead.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of younger people have this strange notion that there's nothing wrong with sitting around being a disgusting fatass.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand. The VR thing is part of the plan. All these nerd weirdos are having their genetics culled from the population. These stupid wish-fulfillment distractions are the final step as we transition to a frictionless, automated economy.

Have you seen Lucky Palmer? The tubby nerd behind OCULUS RUFT who looks exactly like a fat lesbian ? He is a protoypical fat ginger bitch. He knows exactly what most overweight, lonely childlike men enjoy and how to pander to their desires. A slow, profitable euthanasia.

This will advance humanity.

Re: Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

But your gains were imaginary.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[dcw3]

FWIW, I've had fun "beating a boss in WoW", and hunted IRL. The two don't compare.

Agreed.

You don't have to gut the WoW boss and drag his steaming, over-30kg carcass through a half-kilometer or so of meter-deep snow covering partially-wooded, broken terrain in -35C to get it to your vehicle.

Yeah, that's what people will miss. Well, that and adding to the odds you could be shot by a nervous-Nellie rookie cop during a traffic stop on your way there or back because of having the gun(s). The most dangerous thing in the world is a scared person holding a deadly weapon, and the most certain to result in tragedy all around.

Yeah, like all that bullshit actually happens in any but the most rare of hunting trips. Sorry that real life doesn't fit your agenda.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Better spend the money on computers and potato chips than on guns and ammunition for killing animals for fun.

Re: Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

And that really satisfying feeling you got fixing that bridge in your dream? That maybe felt real to you, but in the "real" world cars keep driving off it on their way to the time mashine at costco...

Sorry, dreams are not reality.

Re: Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I dream about an AI playing a MMORPG, is that real?

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Rick Schumann]

But sitting around indoors not seeing the sun, not getting sunlight on your skin, and breathing recirculated, treated air instead of fresh air, sitting on your butt all the time staring at a computer screen, getting fat, weak, and diseased, isn't good for you at all, and I don't need to link to peer-reviewed double-blind University studies to prove that, either, it's common sense. It's also proven by the obesity, diabetes, and heart disease rates in first-world countries where the ability to sit on your ass in front of a computer is ubiquitos and people don't go outside and move their bodies regularly. Forget the Internet, forget 'virtual reality', GO OUTSIDE AND MOVE YOUR BODIES MORE. Without a healthy body, you can't have a healthy brain, plain and simple.

Re: Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise, you wake up and your hapiness goes away in a puff of smoke.

As someone undergoing a divorce I can say that this absolutely happens in real life too.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Rakarra]

I still have tons of fun beating a lot of bosses in WoW.

I also like to go riding through the hills on my bike on the weekend. The outdoors, the actually immersive experience (as opposed to faux immersive that VR guys like to sell you), the physical exercise. The online world is fun, but it simply doesn't compare.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Future technology might be able to go with you outdoors and be fully integrated with active activities, so that you can be healthy outside with augmented reality that's just as fun as the best home programs.

But did Alice dream the Red King, or did the Red King dream Alice?

Re:Progress is perhaps

[hawguy]

Better spend the money on computers and potato chips than on guns and ammunition for killing animals for fun.

Unless you're a vegetarian, you can't really have a moral argument against killing animals for food. Even if the hunting part is "for fun". Not to mention that in some states, there are so few predators that unless hunters killed the deer, overpopulation and starvation would.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Rick Schumann]

Why the actual fuck would I want to do that? I go outside to get AWAY from technology! The highest-tech device I want to look at when I'm outside is the cyclocomputer on the handlebars of my bike, and that's only a quick glance every once in a while. Leave all your tech at home and GO OUTSIDE.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

I eat meat, but I don't think I'd like to hunt. If I shot an animal, I'd have to cut it open and scoop out its guts and stuff. I find that thought gross. I'd rather it be done by professionals. But perhaps if I did it myself, I'd have a greater appreciation for meat.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

For many people, having fun in beating a boss in WoW is a much better experience than hunting down a bear in real life.

Well, it is certainly a better experience for the bear.

Re:Progress is perhaps

[dcw3]

As do I. I've been on WoW since open beta, but gimme some hunting buddies any day. Looking forward to retirement and a new fishing boat soon too.

Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Those demographics also coincide with who has the most money (65+ baby boomers) and the least (18-24 year olds). When you have no money, you can't afford to go places and do interesting things.

Re:Money

[skids]

those 65 and older were the only group that spent more time outside

...simpler explanation: to get away from the smell of mothballs and ben gay.

Re:Money

[alvinrod]

Utter nonsense. Get a cheap bicycle and rid down to a local park. Drop by some basketball courts and meet some new people and get some exercise. Go down to the city library and find some interesting books to read. Go to some wacky community event involving art or music. There's all manner of things that can be done for free and even more on top of that which can be done for $10 or less if you're willing to look around a bit.

I think the real truth is that the 18-24 crowd is too absorbed in Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to want to get outside. If John Calhoun were still alive he'd be yelling about behavioral sink right about now.

Re:Money

[philmarcracken]

I can smell the boomer on you.

Re:Money

[djinn6]

Get a cheap bicycle and rid down to a local park.

A cheap bicycle costs $50+ and there's nothing to do at the park except talking to old people and judgmental moms who look at you like you're about to eat their baby.

Drop by some basketball courts and meet some new people and get some exercise.

Then you need to be able to play basketball. A lot of people are too short for that.

Go down to the city library and find some interesting books to read.

Why do that when you have a Kindle or project Gutenberg? You're just wasting gas money.

Go to some wacky community event involving art or music.

If it's free, it's probably something nobody cares about, and usually for good reason.

Re:Money

[hawguy]

A cheap bicycle costs $50+ and there's nothing to do at the park except talking to old people and judgmental moms who look at you like you're about to eat their baby.

...

Why do that when you have a Kindle or project Gutenberg? You're just wasting gas money.

You can't afford a cheap bike or gas money, but you have a Kindle?

Re: Money

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just hearing excuses from you. Can't you at least take your kindle preloaded with some e-books outside? It wouldn't be much different than taking a book with you to the local park.
Who cares if the people there don't want to talk to you. Unless they're committing a crime leave them be and they'll leave you be to enjoy the weather.
Maybe just go on a run around the park. I know this isn't applicable to everyone, but having a dog is a good reason to go outside and not become completely obsessed with some stupid social media drama. Just go outside and breath the air.

I worry about humanity's future if this keeps up.

Re:Money

[dcw3]

"A cheap bicycle costs $50+ and there's nothing to do at the park except talking to old people and judgmental moms who look at you like you're about to eat their baby."

It's likely because, as you pointed out in an earlier post, been too busy killing bosses in WoW to take a shower, and they don't want you near them.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

I got most of the bikes I ever had for free. It just takes a little willingness to learn how to fix them and people will gladly give you their old bikes.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone can enjoy a Kindle rain or shine, day or night. A bicycle, not so much. If I can get the same words on a Kindle as going to the library then I'm really just riding the bicycle for the sake of riding the bicycle, no? That might be enough reason to go for a bike ride for many but some might rather spend the time they'd be riding the bike reading instead.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

"Buuuh, Videogames are for losers"

meh

Re:Money

[Reverend Green]

My Kindle, purchased second-hand, cost way less than a cheap second-hand bike. Hell, if I bought it new, it would still have cost less than the price of a second-hand bike in a major city.

The idea that bicycles are super cheap is a fantasy found only in the minds of non-bicyclists.

Re:Money

[Reverend Green]

Nah. It's caused >35 years of non-stop alarmist propaganda about "stranger danger".

Re:Money

[Reverend Green]

I was a daily bicycle commuter for 15 years. What you say about free bicycles is plainly FALSE.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I think everyone will be happy if you're one of the ones that stays at home all the time. You're not fit for society, and your shit obsession means you're probably a coprophage.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that supposed to be an insult of some sort? Or is it supposed to be amusing, like your lame user name?

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Not my fault your out of shape, fat ass can't pedal more than two blocks

Re:Money

[Drethon]

Utter nonsense. Get a cheap bicycle and rid down to a local park. Drop by some basketball courts and meet some new people and get some exercise. Go down to the city library and find some interesting books to read. Go to some wacky community event involving art or music. There's all manner of things that can be done for free and even more on top of that which can be done for $10 or less if you're willing to look around a bit.

I think the real truth is that the 18-24 crowd is too absorbed in Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to want to get outside. If John Calhoun were still alive he'd be yelling about behavioral sink right about now.

Interestingly, most of those inexpensive methods of getting out to have fun use little to no energy, particularly if you use a bicycle to get there.

Re:Money

[l20502]

meet some new people

But those places are empty most of day, might as well just go cycle in the woods.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get them near free off Craigslist and free off Freecycle. There's always people moving away who are unwilling to ship their bikes and just want to get rid of it. You might not see a free one today, but if you check daily for a month you'll see them.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you need to be able to play basketball. A lot of people are too short for that.

No, you just suck at basketball, and probably anything that requires physical coordination.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Social media provides a very safe nearly guaranteed supplement of social interaction.

Going through the advent of the social media craze, I would skip those types of events because social media was nearly a guaranteed fix for social interaction. Why look at an art event when I can see much better art (world renowned) at often at higher resolution (much art locally includes photography printed at 300 dpi) online, even with 3D scan technology--I could even print off a copy at home? Why listen to some live music artist when I can listen to some of the best recordings or most diverse body of music in human history at a whim with better quality with no almost no variance using my computer/headphones? Why read books at a library when I have Amazon, Project Gutenberg, etc. at my fingertips? And as OP mentioned--all for cheaper (time/money).

The problem with that line of thought is, none of this is a substitute for real human interaction, biologically speaking. My brain and body know that now--it took a lot of substitution and real events to realize the subtle differences. The fact is, I was a bit risk adverse so I don't want to risk getting in awkward social situations, wasting some of my limited money, and potentially wasting my time at a live music event. That risk however is needed, it helps us grow as individuals and opens chance possibilities you wouldn't have ran into playing on your laptop at home.

Re: Money

[stabiesoft]

As you say though not everyone will benefit from the dog. If you are not going to take your pet for walks daily and give them attention, please do not adopt one. They are not a game that you can pause for a week and then turn them back on.

Re:Money

[hawguy]

Someone can enjoy a Kindle rain or shine, day or night. A bicycle, not so much. If I can get the same words on a Kindle as going to the library then I'm really just riding the bicycle for the sake of riding the bicycle, no? That might be enough reason to go for a bike ride for many but some might rather spend the time they'd be riding the bike reading instead.

You've obviously never relied on a bike as transportation, you can (and people do) ride a bike in the rain and at night, with the big difference between a bike and a kindle being that a bike can get you to work.

Re:Money

[CanHasDIY]

My Kindle, purchased second-hand, cost way less than a cheap second-hand bike. Hell, if I bought it new, it would still have cost less than the price of a second-hand bike in a major city.

The idea that bicycles are super cheap is a fantasy found only in the minds of non-bicyclists.

The last 3 bikes I've owned were free, so...

Re:Money

[CanHasDIY]

http://www.bikeforfree.net/7-w...

Re:Money

[hawguy]

My Kindle, purchased second-hand, cost way less than a cheap second-hand bike. Hell, if I bought it new, it would still have cost less than the price of a second-hand bike in a major city.

The idea that bicycles are super cheap is a fantasy found only in the minds of non-bicyclists.

Or in the minds of those that are willing to shop at garage sales -- I bought my commute bike at a garage sale for $20.

Re:Money

[King_TJ]

I disagree, at least to an extent. Sure, there are always free activities out there people can attend. But quite frankly, a vast majority of them I see on a regular basis don't interest me much or at all. The small city I live in tries to do a number of events each year to promote some tourism and stimulate the local economy, and I participate whenever it's appealing. (For example, they do a big Veterans's Day parade each year. As a Jeep owner, I always volunteer to be part of the parade along with a whole group of other Jeeps - throwing candy to the kids on the street as we go through the town. Costs me maybe $40 or so in candy plus the gas, but a good time and a chance to show some appreciation for our Vets.)

But most of the time, free events are things like some band performing live in a park, and often not even performing a style of music I care for. I'm not into drawing or painting so all the "paint nights" and the like are out for me too. (And heck, those are rarely free either. Usually they ask at least $25 a person for those things.)

I was never into sports, so you wouldn't have found me at the local basketball or tennis court -- and I'm in my 40's now. Can't blame social media for my choices....

The people really spending a lot of time "getting out and about" DO tend to be retirees. They're the ones who not only qualify for senior discounts on all the restaurants and lodging and sometimes on the travel itself, but have the free time to do it without it causing problems.

When I was younger, I went to a lot of movies with my friends, or we went bowling, shooting pool or to the arcades at the mall. These days, the arcades are pretty much dead, bowling alleys are struggling and count more on serious league players than teens and 20-something occasional bowlers, and I'm not sure many pool halls are left that don't focus more on drinking for the 21+ crowd? The movies have gone up in price as the quality of the films has dropped too. So who can blame people for staying home and doing Netflix instead?

Re:Money

[dcw3]

Yeah, that's why I got Nishiki 18 speed for $50 from a coworker who was moving overseas. I must be a non-bicyclist.

Re: Money

[Anonymous Coward]

GGP is too busy killing WoW bosses to have one.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, babies are good eatin!

Re:Money

[Rakarra]

"Buuuh, Videogames are for losers"

meh

Unfortunately, the GP's every post is confirming the stereotype for him.

Re:Money

[c-A-d]

I'm hearing a lot of excuses. (insert whiny voice) "oh, I'm too short. It's all old people. it's boring..." My Dad would STILL smack me if I said something like that today, and we've got 25 years between us and my teenage years.

If you don't want to go to the park, then go hiking in the mountains. Anything so I don't have to listen to the whining.

Re:Money

[blindseer]

I have relied on a bike for transportation. If it's raining, dark, icy, snowing, or windy then the bike is often not safe to ride. I have a nice scar on my elbow from my bike sliding out from under me when I hit a wet patch of pavement, leaving me skidding across the concrete.

I learned to schedule more time for a walk if the weather was not favorable to ride my bike. In really cold weather I drove to a parking lot about halfway to my destination and walked the rest. Getting to my destination soaked to the bone, with a nice stripe of mud down my back from the rear wheel picking up dirt and flinging it at me, is not the most comfortable way to spend my day. That's also not great on my clothes, that mud can stain.

I've also found it fun to go ride out in the rain, but only when I know I can at any time turn around, go home and shower off the sweat, mud, and rain. I'd also wear clothes for the occasion, not something I'd wear to work.

I still have that bike but it hasn't been moved in years, foot problems prevent me from enjoying riding my bike like I did before.

Re:Money

[hawguy]

I have relied on a bike for transportation. If it's raining, dark, icy, snowing, or windy then the bike is often not safe to ride. I have a nice scar on my elbow from my bike sliding out from under me when I hit a wet patch of pavement, leaving me skidding across the concrete.

I still rely on a bike for transportation, and regularly ride in the rain, even the dark and rain. Snow/ice are not a problem where I live now, but when I was in college, I regularly rode in the snow, which was tolerable. Ice was a problem, but then, it was a problem in a car too.

Getting to my destination soaked to the bone, with a nice stripe of mud down my back from the rear wheel picking up dirt and flinging it at me, is not the most comfortable way to spend my day. That's also not great on my clothes, that mud can stain

Ahh, I think I see the problem, you haven't discovered the utility of a fenders and a rain jacket for riding in the rain. I always wear rain gear when it's cool or cold and raining. When it's very warm or hot, then I forgo the rain jacket and just change clothes at work since in the rain jacket, I get as wet from sweat as I would from the rain.

.

I've also found it fun to go ride out in the rain, but only when I know I can at any time turn around, go home and shower off the sweat, mud, and rain. I'd also wear clothes for the occasion, not something I'd wear to work.

I still have that bike but it hasn't been moved in years, foot problems prevent me from enjoying riding my bike like I did before.

Try putting yourself in a situation where $50 is a big expense, and I think you'd manage to get yourself on the bike when it's the difference between getting to work in 30 minutes or getting there in 2 hours by walking since you can't afford a car. A foot problem is less of an issue when the bike means the difference between eaning enough money to eat versus not earning any more. I biked for 6 weeks with a broken ankle (in a cast) for just this reason -- it was either ride the bike, walk (which was even harder than riding), or skip work (and the paycheck). Driving wasn't an option.

Re:Money

[blindseer]

Try putting yourself in a situation where $50 is a big expense, and I think you'd manage to get yourself on the bike when it's the difference between getting to work in 30 minutes or getting there in 2 hours by walking since you can't afford a car.

30 minutes vs. 2 hours? I think you walk too slow or bike too fast. Must not be many stop lights for you. Where I live traveling as far as you imply could be a death sentence by bike in the winter. If sliding on ice won't kill you then the sub-zero temperatures will. Seeing 40 below zero temperatures are not uncommon, and wind chills can take that down a few notches more. I could bundle up in a heavy coat and such and find myself sweating a bit from the walk when I get to my destination. I do that on a bike and I'll find myself blown about like a leaf on the wind. If I'm to survive this on a bike it's not just $50 for a bike, it's a bike and a whole new winter outfit to bike in the wind and snow.

Oh, and finding a bike that's safe and comfortable for someone 6 feet 5 inches tall is not $50. That's about what I spent to replace the bent seat post on my last bike. Turns out that a cheap steel seat post will bend under my weight, and I was 180 pounds then. I weigh more now, and have an aluminum seat post on my current bike. Does anyone even make winter biking outfits for someone my size?

I know I'm in the 1% of the population, if only because of my height, but still if people are on that tight of a budget then getting a bike is still not always the wisest choice. Take that $50 and buy a bus pass. That might not get you all the way to and from but should cut that walking time down a bit, and you won't be freezing off body parts in the process.

Re:Money

[djinn6]

Anything so I don't have to listen to the whining.

Maybe you should consider taking your own suggestion to heart and get off the internet.

Re:Money

[djinn6]

Funny, all I did was list a few reasons that could explain the decrease in energy usage. Nowhere did I ever say I didn't go outside, or played WoW, or even that I agreed with what some people choose to do. You're free to believe whatever you want though.

Re:Money

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he is insinuating that the parent has had relations with Chris Berman.

SO

[MellowBob]

Web surfing is now green.

Re:SO

[Patent Lover]

As is Type 2 Diabetes.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is why, are people now that unsocial/introverted that they aren't going out any longer. Or is it a symptom of something else like people being broke because of stagnating wages while the costs of everything else increase?

Re:Why?

[AHuxley]

In the past people had a car to enjoy a drive. Just for fun. To go see a movie, eat a restaurant, go to the beach, a national park. Enjoy a sport. Enjoy watching a sport as a fan in person.
That needed a car that was working, a price of fuel and a wage to cover the costs of fun and driving.
Now that same discretionary money from a living wage is under pressure. For the decades of costs of food, health care, transport, heating, cooling, internet, rent/loan payments, city/state/federal taxes, a hobby, a sport. Something had to give in that math and it was the freedom to go out that past average generations enjoyed.
Costs are going up and stating at home is all people can average people can still afford.
Crime, begging in once well cared for inner city areas is also not making enjoying city areas fun. Why risk going to parts of a city and face a criminal culture?
Malls are failing as wages cant keep up with fashions.
Police try and act and they are told by politicians that they are doing police work in the wrong way.
Police try and be political and party political protected inner city crime takes over.
Average people earning a wage don't want to risk areas that are criminal. Less travel, less cash for spending. An internet account with some tv shows and movies, computer games becomes fun rather than anything in the local community.

The fix would be to allow police to police. Invest in areas to track the no go areas. Allow people to enjoy and shop in their cities again rather than plan essential travel around no go areas.
Energy savings is due to less people been able to afford fun, more people been aware of the risks of moving around some parts of their city, state.
More energy aware designs? That would need a lot of new building codes, new rental and new buildings? A lot of people buying new appliances that are more efficient.
Could be everyone has a new dwelling that is well designed, with brand new appliances that don't use as much energy? Everyone got new heating and cooling upgrades?

Normal people with an average wage in a good city should not be staying indoors. Unless they could not afford to spend on extra travel? Unless city and parts of their state had crime problems.

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I can just do more from the comfort of my own home. No need to go out to rent movies, buy clothes, checkout books from the library or play arcade games.

And of course, declining investments in civic works are killing parks.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that inner city crime has been steadily going down for the last 30 years, yes?

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahahaha - did you read that in Pravda?

And our lighting is much more efficient

[Anonymous Coward]

In spite of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's heroic efforts to save our incandescent light bulbs from those Washington bureaucrats.

As I say...

[Gravis Zero]

Outdoors sucks which is why we invented the great indoors! ;)

Re:As I say...

[skids]

Pretty much. Bugs, skin cancer, and sneezy tree spooge. (Not that there aren't plenty of indoor air quality hazards, but it's much easier to clean a house.)

Re:As I say...

[ShanghaiBill]

Just to clarify, when they say "outdoors" they are referring to the big blue room with the trees, right?

Re:As I say...

[amalcolm]

Um, if you live in the UK it's the big, grey, wet room !!

Re:As I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks out of window, currently beautiful sunny morning...

Re:As I say...

[amalcolm]

Yup, my bad!

Re:As I say...

[Cro Magnon]

Right now, it's too cold to go out. In 6 months, it will be too hot. In between, it will be too rainy.

Re:As I say...

[SoftwareArtist]

Actually no. They mean the really ugly building with fluorescent tubes in the ceiling and lots of desks. Or maybe lots of shelves stocked with things to buy. They define it as "buildings other than their homes". The author seems a little confused about what "outside" normally means.

Re:As I say...

[dcw3]

Bunch of sissies. Get on a bicycle, motorcycle, boat, snow or waterskis, snowmobile, jet ski, basketball court, hiking trail, the side of a mountain, swimming pool, ice rink, Buy some suntan lotion, deet bugspray and a hat to address the issues you raised.

It still boggles the mind that someone above claimed VR is better than real life, and got modded +5. If you guys really believe that crap, we're all fucked in the future.

Re:As I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the surveillance cameras in it.

there is no need to go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

I have come to the conclusion that for an adult, other than for work, groceries or other necessities, there is no reason to go outside at all.

For myself, I have a treadmill that I walk on 30 - 60 minutes a day. I sit in the sun in my garden for 10 minutes a day to get my daily vitamin D. I might go out with friends (I don't have many) or to the library once or twice a month. I do online banking and shopping.

There is absolutely no need to be outside just for the sake of being outside.

Re:there is no need to go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds depressing.

Re:there is no need to go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

For you, maybe.

The reality is..

[blahplusplus]

... the internet opened the doors to endless entertainment and curiousity, you can really never get bored because you're interacting with other people. Despite all the trolling and awfulness of internet comments the reality is humanity likes a train wreck, even amongst the most intelligent it's hard for those curious primates NOT to look.

Re:The reality is..

[Anonymous Coward]

I do get bored on the Internet, actually I can't stand it for long. It's a huge mess of bored agressive people insulting each other for no other reason than relieving their bad mood. Not to mention that most parts of it are nothing more than a circlejerk.

Seriously, what are you doing on the Internet that you find so interesting ?

Re:The reality is..

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about GP, but I watch educational videos and fun experiments I cannot do myself (or experiments I want to do, before I do them).
EEVblog, SlowMo Guys, Backyard Scientist, Doug's Lab, NurdRage, Hydraulic Press Channel, Scott Manley, Fran Blanche, Jehu Garcia, SmarterEveryDay, EbikeSchool, Jeri Ellsworth, AmazingDIYProjects, Jointheteem.
The I discuss what I've learned, share and develop ideas and help people on forums. Amateurpyro, Flashback, Spudfiles, Elektronikforumet, ScienceMadness, Freak.no.
I follow Good News Magazine, IFLScience and some tech magazines on social media.
I listen to audio books and sometimes podcasts.

Of course I too get bored of the web, because even forums cannot replace real human interaction, but the web can replace lots of other ways to waste one's time with more constructive pursuits.

Re:The reality is..

[Anonymous Coward]

... that you find so interesting?

Watching season 13 of 'Supernatural'; reading the advanced rules for "Five rings: LCG"; reading Slashdot; searching for a password manager that requires TOTP log-in, not offered as a service; searching for an android applet that performs UTM conversion that isn't obvious spyware, checking for software updates. Wishing I was playing computer games instead of surfing the internet!

... huge mess of bored aggressive people ...

They are easily avoided; if you truly need people, walk out the front door. It's why I'm learning to play "Five rings: LCG".

Parent:

... humanity likes a train wreck ...

Have you watched television lately, it's not any different? The original models; 'Big brother' and 'The amazing race' had a lot of unscripted activities. The latest batch of reality game shows; with blind dates, cooking, DIY renovating and 'Survivor' sound like a WWF (now WWE) bitch-fight.

I still haven't recovered

[rsilvergun]

from 2008. There where promotions that got delayed and at least one that just plain went poof. I couldn't get far enough ahead career wise to get ahead of the cost of my kid's college, so any gains I made in the 8 years immediately got eaten up by that. By the time she graduates and the debt I'm taking on (not much for scholarships & 2008 wiped out my savings, and there's limits to how much she can borrow) It'll be time to desperately save for 'retirement' (e.g. when I'm laid off in my 60s and nobody'll hire me thanks to age discrimination).

So yeah, I'm not going much of anywhere, and I probably never will. The money's just not there.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[omnichad]

and there's limits to how much she can borrow

I hit those limits as a student. My parents took on the loans - but in name only. I'm the only one who has ever made payments on them.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome, sounds wonderful. Glad to hear you're incompetent. Maybe the government should take more money away from successful people and give it to you because you deserve it.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[another_twilight]

This sort of argument always assumes that there's only ever 'the government' and the individual.

What of society, or on a smaller scale, community?

They are the ones who will suffer when their members can no longer afford to pay for locally produced goods, and have to purchase from cheaper retailers who import from places with lower standards of living and lower costs. They suffer when people can no longer afford to live in the area and move away. Property prices fall, the neighbourhood changes.

Crime correlates pretty strongly with income disparity. When there's too much difference between the haves and have-nots, crime is higher.
Higher crime costs society directly in terms of increased need for police, judicial systems, penitentiaries etc. and in less obvious ways by having a portion of your population absent form gainful work, raising and supporting families etc.

Communities do better when there are social programs to support those those who aren't as successful as you; aren't as lucky as you; aren't as well supported by friends and family as you.

You pay either way. More police or more social programs.

If your government is not able to do this effectively, maybe it should be handled at the community level.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

> Crime correlates pretty strongly with income disparity.

Counterpoint: Venezuela. Their attempt at social policy has caused a massive crimewave.

I think it's more accurate to say government policy causes some of these problems. Government policy for decades has caused massive immigration (legal, visa, and illegal) that lowers wages and puts people out of work. The policy aids businesses that want cheap labor while also helping certain politicians.

No one ever talks about a compromise: in exchange for drastically reducing immigration and implementing some protectionism, you can have a national health care system, anti-discrimination laws (age, sex, gender, whatever), unionization of private sector blue collar jobs, and maybe some other things.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

But the truth is that you will get none of that in exchange, except a bunch of very happy xenophobes.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe no one will hire you because your outlook on life completely sucks?

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's let 90% of people die and the rest struggle to survive in a "performance"-driven society where you have to spend your life in fear with the sole purpose of filling an Excel sheet that won't lead your manager to fire you!

Seriously, you all attacking people for wanting a decent quality of life instead of the unchecked capitalism clusterfuck we are heading to, go fuck yourselves. You want to become "successful", lead a shit pathetic life with nothing to remember, just to enrich a boss and get the crumbs ? Go ahead. But alone. The rest of us will try to build a system that actually makes people happy.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[drinkypoo]

Seriously, you all attacking people for wanting a decent quality of life instead of the unchecked capitalism clusterfuck we are heading to, go fuck yourselves.

They're doing it because they're abject cowards. They cannot stand hearing about it happening to someone else because they cannot accept that it could happen to them. Their whole lifestyle is predicated upon causing that kind of suffering, after all, and the idea that they've been screwing themselves over conflicts with their idea that they are smarter than everyone else. Lo, cognitive dissonance. This is one of those things that happens to people who believe in things too strongly. They build a whole psyche around their assumptions, which cannot afford any challenge.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you waste time on Slashdot when you could instead be listening to The Side Hustle podcast and picking one of their many, many different ways to make money in your spare time. Have you gone to your local shopping centers and asked if they needed someone to remove trash from their parking lot for $50 an hour? People have gotten paid that much to do so.

Re: I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

Crime correlates pretty strongly with income disparity.

Counterpoint: Venezuela. Their attempt at social policy has caused a massive crimewave.

Venezuela has massive wealth disparity. Your rebuttal is grounded in a confusion of propaganda over reality.

The same nature of which pervades human behavior. People lie.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the only one who has ever made payments on them.

This statement implies that someone else should make payments, which requires some kind of justification.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[pauljlucas]

Perhaps if you lived in an enlightened country with free college, you wouldnâ(TM)t be in your current situation.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the government should take more money away from successful people..

Then you have nothing to worry about, and should mind your own business.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[blindseer]

Perhaps if you lived in an enlightened country with free college, you wouldn't be in your current situation.

There is no such thing as an enlightened country with free college.

The people still pay for it through their taxes, and an enlightened country would not shackle their educational system with government mandates. I've read some history books. Government controlled schools are not where people get educated, they get indoctrinated. Schools know where they get their money, they will not bite the hand that feeds them and allow their students to think freely on matters that the government has already decided for them.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[CanHasDIY]

Is that one of those enlightened countries that jails people for being offensive?

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should also read some books about how research funding works in different countries and what incentives professors have. If you keep and open mind, you might find that sometimes it's not too much government that curtails the freedom of research and teaching but too little (as in too little basic funding without any strings attached).

Re:I still haven't recovered

[SoftwareArtist]

They suffer when people can no longer afford to live in the area and move away. Property prices fall, the neighbourhood changes.

That's backward. If people are moving away because they can't afford to live there, that means property prices are *rising*, not falling. That's classic gentrification. When a neighborhood gets expensive, the poor people move away. That does change the neighborhood, but a lot of the rich people moving in probably think it's changing for the better. And income disparity within that neighborhood decreases, not increases, because the poor people are moving away.

What you really end up with is segregation. Rich neighborhoods and poor neighborhoods. And maybe crime goes up overall, but the rich people can deal with that by building gated communities and hiring private security services to police their neighborhoods. It's not a big deal for them, because the crime is happening somewhere else, not where they live.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[apoc.famine]

So, why are you still in this position? You've had a decade to change your skills, change jobs, careers, and location. If you're not happy, fix your life!

In the same time period I moved a thousand miles away, went through 3 different jobs doing different things, and doubled my income in the process. My current job isn't similar to the one I had back then, but tangentially relies on some of those skills. I'm in an area with a reasonable cost of living and unemployment in my general field that often hovers under 3%. I.E., so desperate we'll pay extra to get you.

What I didn't do was just keep moping through life. Is that really the example you want to set for your kid?

If you're not saving for retirement now, you're not saving for retirement ever. You're planning to work into your 70s, while desperately hoping social security will still exist. Retirement saving only really works when you can compound interest over a couple of decades.

So yeah, I'm not going much of anywhere, and I probably never will.

Not with that attitude, buddy.

Change it up, if only so your kid doesn't have to house and feed your sorry ass when you're old. She'll appreciate it, I'm sure.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the strings attached to "free" college. I specifically know a PhD who was the product of the "free" education system of France. Out of 100 students who start on the road for a PhD perhaps 2 succeed. Those two succeed because they are the number 1 or 2 in their class for their entire post secondary education career. If someone else comes along from outside the system, i.e. moves to France and gets into the university and does better than them in the 8th or 9th year of their university education they are out.
They also didn't get the choice to pick just any major either. No "library science" or "Movie appreciation" or "woman's studies" just because. Quotas are set for how many degrees at each level the government thinks they need to fund.
So yeah it free, for the cream of the crop in fields that are thought to be important to the government official setting the quotas.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[pauljlucas]

Of course itâ(TM)s paid for with taxes. An enlightened country realizes that an educated population is a good thing for everyone. Just like you pay taxes for your local police and fire department.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[blindseer]

Sure, and an enlightened nation realizes that a population that has food, clothes, shelter, clean water, and medical care is a good thing for every one too. Does that mean the government is somehow obligated to feed, house, clothe, shelter, etc. everyone too? Maybe these things are so important that the people need to be free enough to figure out how to get their food, shelter, clothing, and education on their own.

I've read some history books. I've seen what nations look like after the government provides education, clothing, food, shelter, etc. to the people. Police and fire are services the government provides on a very local level. If the government provides an education then it should also be on this very local level. If it doesn't then over time society starts to rot from within from generations that are not free to think what the government did not tell them.

An enlightened society will know that the family is the foundation of a free and prosperous nation. If the parents are not free to educate their own children as they chose then you have a government that does not trust the education and intelligence of the very same people that voted them into office. If this "enlightened" government wanted to make sure that the poor were properly educated then they'd give the parents the money to spend on their education, not to pay teachers' salaries from the government coffers. If these government officials deem the judgement of these parents unfit to make such important decisions then they've declared themselves unfit to hold office, because these same "unfit parents" voted them in.

I pay the government to stay out of my way, not teach my children. It's my job to educate my children, not the idiots that can't find a real job in the private sector.

Re:I still haven't recovered

[omnichad]

The loan is not in my name. That is the justification - my parents took out the loan in their name and my identity is not tied to them whatsoever.

For some reason, the federal government will only allow your parents to take on the debt if they are in a certain income bracket - even though it was laughable to think they could even afford it. While if they weren't eligible for the loans (i.e. made less money), I probably would have received more financial aid myself.

We spend so much time online

[wolfheart111]

We may as well just be digital.

Confusion

[sjames]

There seems to be a lot of confusion. Staying home doesn't necessarily mean staying indoors. I telecommute and I hate the mall, but I like to go outside when I make a phone call and when the evenings are nice I go for a walk around the neighborhood.

Re:Confusion

[E-Rock]

Right? I'm not sure where they got to staying indoors more from data that says people travel less.

Re:Confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a point.

When counting travel, people usually count plane, train, bus, maybe car (but that's hard to get any good statistics on). All of these I would count as "indoors".

They don't count walking and bicycling, and they are the outdoors forms of travel.

go team

[TimMD909]

Glad to see team Slashdot is doing our part to combat global warming. Go team!

Sadly, I do go outside a lot, but it's to run from my problems. Running and hiking soothe the soul way more than a speed run through Dark Souls. Can't we all confirm?

Correlation vs. causation

[Lucas123]

Being at home means using more energy by keeping the lights on and watching TV. But it also means less travel, and it means that fewer people are outside operating offices and stores.

The logic here appears flawed. Fewer people aren't "outside operating offices and stores?" What does that mean? Offices and stores don't shut down because fewer people are in them. There aren't fewer office buildings or stores, and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Re:Correlation vs. causation

[Radical Moderate]

I'm not so sure. Big retailers like ToysRUs and Sam's Club are shuttering many of their properties. Whether there's been a net reduction since 2003, I can't say, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. I for one would rather browse Amazon than go to the mall.

Re:Correlation vs. causation

[SeaFox]

Huh?

Offices and stores don't shut down because fewer people are in them.

An office or business with limited foot traffic may reduce their hours so they aren't paying for staffing when people aren't coming in often enough.

There aren't fewer office buildings or stores...

There most certainly will be "fewer office buildings and stores" when businesses are closing from lack of customers (who are doing their business online while they are staying closed up at home).

...and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.

Yeah, that's why when I'm driving around at 4am in the commercial district all the businesses have their road signs on and interiors fully lit. ...Oh wait. No, they don't. And I'm sure the have their thermostats adjusted for hours when they are not open, too.

Re:Correlation vs. causation

[hawguy]

There aren't fewer office buildings or stores, and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.

Correlation does not imply causation.

My office turns off the lights when people aren't there (and you have to stand up and wave your arms every hour so the motion sensor keeps the lights on). Just last year our building announced that they weren't going to turn on HVAC on weekends due to lack of use. And they already turned off HVAC off from 9pm-6am. For a fee, after hours HVAC can be arranged, but as far as I know, no one has asked for it.

Re:Correlation vs. causation

[Anonymous Coward]

LED lights use a nearly insignificant amount of energy.

Re:Correlation vs. causation

[thegarbz]

Poor example but still a good conclusion. Sitting at home and watching TV is still far better for the environment than sitting in the car and watching traffic, even when the latter activity takes up a fraction of the time.

Also you're implying that everything is fixed on the other end. It's not. We just closed down an office and merged it with another due to a rise in working from home. This reduces travel, well reduces the amount of energy spent lighting (why the hell are there so many fluros over my head?), and as another tenant picks up that office space it quite likely prevented yet another building being built.

Combine that with the archaic heating systems a lot of people have that heat their homes while they aren't even there and the savings do make some sense.

Re:Correlation vs. causation

[Anonymous Coward]

HVAC load is tied to indoor temperature. A person gives off about 100W of heat. Fewer people=lighter load in the summer, and fewer doors opened to the outside=lighter load in the winter.

Re:Correlation vs. causation

[apoc.famine]

If your lights use more energy than driving around in a car, just WTF do you light your house with? 1000W halogens? Do you use them for heating too?

Whoever modded you informative apparently doesn't math at all.

Gas has about 33 kWh/gallon.

Modern LED lights will draw around 0.01 kWh, and even hungry plasma screens are in the ballpark of 0.1 kWh.

Moving our fat asses around is ridiculously energy intensive.

Basement dwellers save the Earth

[Anonymous Coward]

More news at 11... Stay tuned

Latest news...

[Anonymous Coward]

"So overall in 2012 ..."

What year is this? I can't remember.

thank you

[emuregister]

thank you . very useful text

Article is lacking in a definition...

[Anonymous Coward]

of outside.

Energy cost of the health impact?

[RhettLivingston]

Wouldn't the energy cost of the portion of the obesity epidemic attributable to the sedimentary lifestyle subtract from this? I didn't see any consideration of that though it would be tough to untangle.

Perhaps you could start by estimating what portion of the million plus deaths directly and indirectly attributable to obesity could be prevented with a less sedimentary lifestyle, total up the entire health industry's energy bill, figure out what fraction of the health industry's business is attributable to those illnesses, and multiply the energy bill by that fraction.

Re:Energy cost of the health impact?

[geekmux]

Wouldn't the energy cost of the portion of the obesity epidemic attributable to the sedimentary lifestyle subtract from this? I didn't see any consideration of that though it would be tough to untangle.

Perhaps you could start by estimating what portion of the million plus deaths directly and indirectly attributable to obesity could be prevented with a less sedimentary lifestyle, total up the entire health industry's energy bill, figure out what fraction of the health industry's business is attributable to those illnesses, and multiply the energy bill by that fraction.

If we weighed the impact of one of our largest health issues against damn near anything, the end result would likely invalidate the original study. How many of "those" illnesses are you going to attribute to a sedimentary lifestyle? Heart disease? Diabetes? Cancer? There are a number of our top killers in society that are certainly exacerbated by sitting on your ass all day every day.

When I was allowed to work from home, it saved me two hours every day in commute time. I took one hour of that time and dedicated it to exercise, and gave the extra hour back to my company. It was a win-win for all involved. People either give a shit about their health, or they don't.

Re:Energy cost of the health impact?

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect that the additional energy to treat those people pales in comparison to the drop in energy consumption due to those deaths. If say, the average lifespan of an obese person is shorter, you can take their average energy consumption per year times the years of reduced lifespan to get a first order approximation of the energy savings. To improve the approximation you would need to figure out the impact of the decease living alone vs with a household of other people, since if the deceased is just one member in a household of people then the reduction in energy consumption won't be as large as if there the deceased lived alone (meaning one less household would be using energy).

Staying indoors... in the indoor rainforest

[John.Banister]

It was kind of amusing to see this article about people staying indoors shortly after the one about an indoor rainforest environment being built in Seattle. I suppose it's not a temperate rainforest like the Hoh, and they don't have the actual rainfall one frequently encounters just outside the doors. But, still, nothing says "we're avoiding the outdoors" like creating an indoor rainforest in a rainy city.

Re:This is Bullshit!!!

[Hal_Porter]

One British Thermal Unit is the energy released when burning 1/114,000 of a gallon of gasoline. That's 1392 micro hogsheads

BTU??

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a unit of measurement that only the USA would use!

Ultimately

[thePsychologist]

I see this as bad for the environment. The fewer that appreciate the natural beauty of the outdoors, the fewer people there will be to protect it when humans inevitably carelessly expand to more regions.

Re:Ultimately

[Khashishi]

I disagree. There's plenty of people willing to stand up and protest destruction of the environment. They are pretty much crushed under the boot of the market. Decreasing demand of energy is key.

Also, I'm very suspicious of a particular type of "environmentalist"--the kind that appreciates the natural beauty of the outdoors, but wants it all for themself. The kind that drives around national parks in big RVs, perhaps owning a large amount of land where they hunt and camp, while feeling smug about themselves for protecting their land from being spoiled by the unwashed masses, while perhaps having an ecological footprint 10-100 times larger than the typical person. They see their actions as sustainable, simply because they are the only ones wealthy enough to do it.

It's possible to enjoy nature at a low footprint, but it requires a certain amount of grit that most people don't possess.

Re:Ultimately

[SoftwareArtist]

The summary is totally confused. It defines "outside" as "buildings other than their homes". So specifically not including being outdoors. Probably it just means more people shop online and telecommute, so they spend less time in stores and offices. Hopefully that leaves them more time to spend enjoying the outdoors.

Re:Ultimately

[vandamme]

Well, less malls anyhow. That's good.

Re:Obviously...

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree. They are fucks and their offspring are all mixed mutants, some with gender identity issues. Stupid fucks.

British?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are Americans saving British Thermals?

I thought it's God's job to Save the Queen?

Still the most polluting though

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with this so called energy savings, Americans are still the most polluting people on the planet.More than EU twice China and 6x India.

Re:Still the most polluting though

[Anonymous Coward]

But 1/2 that of Iceland and way behind Canada. The US is #11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

Why care about saving energy?

[blindseer]

So, what's important here? When it comes right down to it I don't care much about saving energy. Energy costs money, and money is something I care about, so I'll reduce my energy use if that means saving money. If I can find cheaper sources of energy then that means saving money too.

If the concern is carbon output then I still don't care much about how much energy I use so long as it's from carbon free sources. Going for a drive takes energy. So does running power tools in my shed to make something. If my car runs on gasoline, and my shop runs on electricity from hydro or nuclear, then even if I'm using the same total energy for both activities then working in my shop has far less impact on global warming. Not all energy is equal on environmental impact.

I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?

What I keep hearing is that solar power will lower our carbon output per energy produced AND the money we have to spend for this energy. So, problem solved? Well, not solved exactly but the concerns over global warming should stop any day now and all we have to worry about is paying for the energy we use. Germany solved this problem. They got all kinds of solar power now and cheap energy too, right?

Re: Why care about saving energy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Environmentalists have confused you, this should clear things up https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/27/16935382/climate-change-ugly-tradeoffs

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[yes-but-no]

It's just like telling people to abstain from sex; then the ones who want to enjoy will have more supply. In a group, the cheaters win. So you keep promoting things that is for the group to follow.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what's important here? When it comes right down to it I don't care much about saving energy. Energy costs money, and money is something I care about, so I'll reduce my energy use if that means saving money. If I can find cheaper sources of energy then that means saving money too.

When it comes right down to it, you could have probably stopped right here, because saving energy does save you money. For 99.999% of the population, that's a good enough reason to not need to dissect it further.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[hipp5]

Not all energy is equal on environmental impact.

I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?

Because right now, most everyday residents don't have control over where their energy comes from; "energy used" is the best proxy you and I have for environmental impact.

Plus, in many areas, low-impact energy is a limited resource. So even if the electrons YOU are using are from the wind turbines down the road, by using them you are preventing* someone else from using them and potentially offsetting higher-impact sources.

*Yes, I know grid dynamics are a little more complicated than this. But again, this is something beyond which we have control, and beyond the understanding of everyday residents. Again, "energy used" works as a good order-of-magnitude proxy for reducing your impact. If you, in your personal situation, are able to be more accurate and precise with your energy impacts, by all means do so!

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, what's important here? When it comes right down to it I don't care much about saving energy. Energy costs money, and money is something I care about, so I'll reduce my energy use if that means saving money. If I can find cheaper sources of energy then that means saving money too.

When it comes right down to it, you could have probably stopped right here, because saving energy does save you money. For 99.999% of the population, that's a good enough reason to not need to dissect it further.

Saving energy doesn't always mean saving money. Energy saving devices cost money. There's also a cost to our comfort or convenience for lowering our energy use. We might be able to convince people to lower their thermostats from 72F to 70F in the winter. Maybe even to 68F. Every degree lower saves energy right? Then why not heat the house to 40F? Perhaps we should not even bother to heat our houses at all?

I'm willing to spend the few pennies per day to heat my house since that means not getting frostbite. Let's assume that saving energy ALWAYS means saving money. There is still a point where saving money gets to the point of the absurd. If we're reducing energy only to save money then what are we saving that money for? Perhaps so we can afford to live in a house that isn't freezing cold?

If everyone on Slashdot decided they needed to lower their energy use tomorrow then this place could get real quiet real quick. Good thing we didn't all decide to save energy then. Otherwise we would not have learned from reading Slashdot on how to reduce our energy usage.

Re: Why care about saving energy?

[blindseer]

That did not clarify anything. Are they saying we should build more nuclear power plants? I'm not sure since it seemed to open with a concern over the shuttering of some aging nuclear power plants in the northeast US, but then never mentioned new nuclear power as a solution.

I'll get on board with the reduction of carbon output if that means nuclear power is part of the solution. We can choose nuclear power, keep burning coal, or we can all freeze to death in the dark. We don't have any other options.

I have many citations for my claim. This is the most recent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

We cannot power the nation with wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal. It cannot work with existing technology. If we are going to reduce our carbon output now then we need nuclear power. If we are going to do it later, once solar and wind technology has improved, then we might be able to do it without nuclear. If it can wait then we don't need to do anything. If we need to do something now then that something must include nuclear.

To those that won't bother to watch the video the complaint is most likely to be that nuclear is too expensive. Well, an all nuclear power solution would cost less than 7 trillion dollars (as low as 3 trillion dollars) and an all renewable solution would cost over 15 trillion dollars (quite likely more). Oh, and we'd have to replace 1.23 million square meters of solar panels EVERY DAY to keep up with replacing of old panels. These conclusions came from the numbers based on a paper from a solar and wind advocate. They just failed to mention the whole story.

Even if the numbers are off by an order of magnitude here or there it still does not look good for a nuclear free future.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[blindseer]

That's fine if we assume the continued use of coal and natural gas, and people don't have control on where their energy comes from. If the Democrats had not held up nuclear power then we'd have energy that is "green", cheap, and safe.

Oh, and nuclear power is effectively unlimited. There's enough uranium and thorium in the crust of the Earth to last humanity beyond when the sun consumes the planet.

Democrats holding us back from nuclear power goes back to the Carter administration. If the Democrats don't change their views on nuclear power then they will either find themselves irrelevant, or the cause of the fall of civilization. We do have a choice on where our energy comes from. That choice comes in the form of the boxes that protect our liberty, the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and if all that fails (and let's not let that happen, okay?) the cartridge box.

Go nuclear or go extinct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Short answer? TANSTAAFL.

Longer answer? If everyone demanded twice as much energy then the costs would rise significantly because the transmission and distribution system would need to be expanded dramatically, which is very expensive. Generation capacity would also need to be increased dramatically. If there are bottlenecks to expanding generation sources sufficiently (like insufficient manufacturing capacity to scale to build enough panels/windmills/boilers/other components) then the cost per unit won't scale linearly.

If you care about cost then efficiency is the key. Using less energy means that even if the price per unit of energy rises for some reason, you will not be as bad off as someone who uses energy gluttonously. It is hard to change ones energy-usage habits all the sudden in response to higher prices. It takes forethought, such as ensuring your home is well-insulated, using energy-efficient appliances, etc.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not missing anything. It's the money, and the pollution (which is generally subsidized instead of billed).

Ideally, it would be purely about money, because the pollution subsidies wouldn't be there. Dirtier energy would cost more, but since we still subsidized polluters, there's reason to be unhappy about conspicuous energy usage even if you pay for bills, since some of the expense isn't in the bills.

Why should I care about energy used?

No reason, if the stuff above is covered.

If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon.

(You should generalize that as "measure the pollutants" but carbon is the trendy pollutant to care about right now.) I think that's a good idea, but we have decided that if we measure pollutants, a lot of people get angry that they're expected to pay directly (e.g. at the gas pump) instead of having higher medical bills, etc. Any time you threaten to take away peoples' subsidies, they will resist.

You and I probably aren't any different. Suppose there was a new law that people had to pay a tax on (just an example) gasoline that doubled how much it costs to fill your car, and all the money was spent on planting new forests to soak up the carbon, and/or other giant atmospheric processors to take other stuff out. Might not you be angry and whoever voted for, and signed, this law every time you commuted to work? Might you be angry that csot of goods increased because shipping costs went up?

If you used less than average energy, you might realize that overall you came out ahead. But what if you use more than average energy?

We can't charge people for pollution yet, because if you try, they will vote you out. Things need to be more concealed, indirect, and democratic.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[SoftwareArtist]

Well, not solved exactly but the concerns over global warming should stop any day now

Only if you take a very long term view of "any day now". Most energy infrastructure (power plants and the like) is built to last around 40 years. Even if we completely stopped building non-renewable energy sources today (and we're not there yet, though the majority of new capacity is now renewable), existing power plants would keep producing greenhouse gases for decades. To prevent that, we need to accelerate the process and shut them down ahead of schedule. That's a lot easier (less expensive) to do if overall energy use is decreasing than if it's increasing.

And it's not just power plants. Transportation produces a big part of the world's CO2 emissions. Right now, only a tiny fraction of new cars being sold are electric. It will probably be about 10 years before the majority of new cars are electric, then more years after that before the majority of cars on the road are electric. At that point we'll need to add a ton of new generation capacity to power all those electric cars, which will make it even harder to retire old power plants.

Airplanes are a harder problem. Right now, electric planes just aren't practical. Airplane manufacturers are predicting within 5-10 years they'll become practical for short flights, but making them useful for long flights will take really huge advances in battery capacity.

And then there's the fact that the earth is just really big, and the climate has a lot of inertia. It takes a long time (decades to centuries) to respond to changes. If we totally stopped producing greenhouse gases today, the earth would keep warming for decades. Glaciers would keep melting and sea level would keep rising. That's because we've only seen part of the warming from the CO2 we've already emitted. To really "solve" global warming and stop that from happening, we would need to start taking CO2 back out of the atmosphere and get back to the level it was at several decades ago. But we're a long long way from doing that.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[blindseer]

To prevent that, we need to accelerate the process and shut them down ahead of schedule. That's a lot easier (less expensive) to do if overall energy use is decreasing than if it's increasing.

If we use the same amount of electricity year after year then those existing plants will still be producing energy from burning carbon. If usage increases then new power plants must be built to meet demand. Those new plants would presumably be using new technology. This can be carbon free sources like solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear. Or at least "greener" energy like natural gas, "clean coal", or something. The per joule carbon output would be lowered. The funds for these new plants would be from people paying their electricity bills.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for an electric utility to see this growing demand and decide that instead of buying new land and running new wires that they could instead put these funds from new electricity demand into upgrading existing power plants. Instead of keeping the same old coal plant going for another decade or two they can shut it down, install a new natural gas boiler instead, and cut their carbon output in half. If demand really grows then they might shut down an old coal plant and clear that land for a nice shiny new nuclear plant and cut their carbon output to near zero.

I can play that game too. I can argue the ease in transitioning to carbon free from growing demand just as you can from a shrinking one. Japan went through something like this after the meltdown at Fukushima. They saw an effective growth in demand from the government forcing old nuclear plants to shut down. This meant that they had a lot of people that wanted electricity and were willing to pay for it. This meant a lot of old small power plants were shuttered so the land could be cleared for newer, bigger, and "greener" ones. They used to ship in all kinds of coal and saw air quality decline as a result. Now they've explored for more natural gas, and are building new nuclear plants.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[blindseer]

I think you should check yourself, your false dichotomy is showing.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[SoftwareArtist]

The per joule carbon output would be lowered.

It's the total emissions that matter, not the per joule emissions. If we cut the emissions per unit energy in half but double the amount of energy we produce, the effect on the climate is the same.

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for an electric utility to see this growing demand and decide that instead of buying new land and running new wires that they could instead put these funds from new electricity demand into upgrading existing power plants.

Sure, that could happen if they have a financial incentive to do it. A carbon tax for example. But it's not going to magically happen on its own. Most power plants are in places where land is cheap, and anyway solar takes more land than coal, not less. (Actually that's only true if you don't count the land used for mining the coal, but the power plant owner doesn't own that land, so it's not a factor for them.) Nuclear is super expensive to build. Hardly anyone is building nuclear anymore, because it just can't compete. What incentive do they have to throw our their existing investment, shut down a power plant with decades of useful life left on it, and build a cleaner replacement?

Eventually it will all get replaced, of course. But we're already well into the climate danger zone, and if we keep emitting CO2 at anything close to our current rate for another forty years we'll be in really bad shape.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[blindseer]

A carbon tax for example.

Why would I vote for a carbon tax? Why would anyone vote for a carbon tax? I'm assuming we are discussing nations where people get to vote. A government can get addicted to taxes, creating a carbon tax means the government will never want to see coal go away. If the government honestly thought electric cars would dominate the roads then they'd be taxing electric cars right now instead of gasoline to pay for highway construction. If anyone thinks that there is an "addiction" to petroleum then that applies to the government tax revenue as much as anything else.

Hardly anyone is building nuclear anymore, because it just can't compete.

Provably false.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...

There are 400+ nuclear power plants operating now. 50 new plants are currently under construction. 160 are currently planned. Many existing plants are being upgraded and are expected to run for decades longer. In the short term the numbers of total nuclear reactors will remain about the same but total output is increasing. In a decade or so the numbers of operating reactors will be increasing.

Eventually it will all get replaced, of course. But we're already well into the climate danger zone, and if we keep emitting CO2 at anything close to our current rate for another forty years we'll be in really bad shape.

Well then, good thing that there are 20 more nations planning to get nuclear power to meet expected future demand for energy. Wind and solar power can only meet demand if there is storage available. The only technology we have that can do that right now is pumped hydro. Unless a nation has just gobs of existing hydro today then they aren't going to be seeing much for growth in wind and solar in the next 40 years.

But it's not going to magically happen on its own.

There's no "magic" involved here. All we need are government bureaucrats to get out of the way. They need to regulate, not ban, nuclear power. If the government makes rules that are logical then the market will make the nuclear power plants appear. It's not "magic" but it's close, it's called a free market.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[Rakarra]

I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?

Because nothing is free. Everything has a cost. The more energy you save in one area, then that's energy that can be applied for other work instead. Or it's less effort and cost to serve 100k people, money that can be applied to other tasks. We're still an energy-starved society. Need a desalination plant in a state with a drought? Sorry, desalination takes a huge amount of electricity. Etc.

Re:Why care about saving energy?

[SoftwareArtist]

I have no clue what point you're trying to make. You made the assertion that "concerns over global warming should stop any day now". I explained all the reasons that's not true. We are currently emitting large amounts of CO2, we are currently on a path to keep doing so for decades (worldwide emissions actually increased last year), and even if we stopped today the planet would continue getting warmer for the next century. This has nothing to do with ideology. They're just facts. We can discuss the best way of solving the problem, but it shows no sign of going away on its own "any day now".

Re:Go outside?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we get ONE FUCKING DISCUSSION where nobody mentions this retard ?

Already zero statutory holidays...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the USA is one of only a few countries in the world with no mandatory minimum vacation days per year, I'm unclear what other measures could be introduced to further prevent Americans from venturing out of the house. Clearly saving energy and reducing greenhouse foot print in this case could be associated with increased GDP if only discretional holidays could be capped at a maximum rather than the current unfair arrangement.

Re:women

[Anonymous Coward]

Retard

Re:This is Bullshit!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

and here i was thinking BTU stood for Body temperature units , as in the heat one person generates being alive. oh well.

Daylight savings time?

[sims 2]

Am I understanding correctly that this is yet something else that is having more of a positive effect than daylight savings time is?
Has anyone thought about getting rid of that yet?

If you live in a built up city

[rsilvergun]

you can't just ride down to your local park. Cops will nail you for riding on the side walk and there's no bike paths. Drivers are generally hostile to bicyclists. I'm a roadie and I ride a lot, but I also make decent money and live away from the center of town without a 90 minute commute. I got incredibly lucky that way.

Going down to the city library isn't exactly getting out. It's a drive, followed by being inside for a bit, followed by another drive. Thanks to urban sprawl Most of the community events in my city are 50-60 minute drives for me, but YMMV. They're also not usually free or even cheap. There's no money in the city coffers to subsidize them.

Re:women

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you have to worry about getting laid again. Ever.

It takes effort

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to have a really nice thing going, where I carpooled with my wife, we parked at her employer's parking lot, and the dog and I walked to work from there. (Yes, I get to work with my dog. If it makes you feel any better, I probably make a lot less money than you.) I did that for about 9 years, rain or shine, freezing or frying. Whether I felt like walking or not.

Then my employer moved. Now we carpool to her workplace, drop her off, and I drive to work and can park on the street about 20 feet away from the door. Now I never have to walk.

I hate it. By all my measures of technological progress, I'm ahead, but I hate it and know it's a bad thing.

So I drop off the wife, drive to a public park, and the dog and I walk a few laps. Then I drive to work.

I had easy/free exercise by default, but now I have to try, and on a day when I'm feeling lazy or the weather is unpleasant, I've been known to skip it or at least cut down on the number of laps. Fuck.

I don't like my new situation. I love freedom, but there was something good about the constraint of not being at work yet when I got out of the car. Ambivalence? Paradox? Be careful what you ask for. :-|

Bullshit!

[BlueStrat]

People are not using as much energy because they're too damned broke to go anywhere or do anything that costs money, so they stay home.

This ain't rocket surgery.

Strat

two ways to save the environment

[Khashishi]

We can either cut down the population drastically, or, we can go full matrix and never leave the internet.

re: bad for the enviornment

[King_TJ]

Nope.... That concern isn't that valid, IMO. We know from our history that we tend to congregate together in densely packed groups. Half of the U.S. population exists in something like a dozen big cities.

The people who really get into "the great outdoors" tend to be the ones motivated to sacrifice a lot of conveniences and even better job prospects to live in more rural areas. But they're also the ones more likely to take care of the place they're moving to!

junk science

[Anonymous Coward]

"Joule" is a new journal devoted to energy activism.
Surveys are ever more unreliable because no one responds.
Maybe it's valid research, maybe not. Probably full of holes.

Ah, biking

[Anonymous Coward]

a bike can get you to work.

Yep. Wet (if raining) and with your armpits stinking. The perfect silent signature for "social retard."

The only way left to avoid

[Anonymous Coward]

The police state.

Wait a minute...

[supremebob]

I thought that we just had a Slashdot story a few days ago about our energy consumption going up because of cryptocurrency mining. Which story is right?

Re:Wait a minute...

[WillAffleckUW]

I thought that we just had a Slashdot story a few days ago about our energy consumption going up because of cryptocurrency mining. Which story is right?

That would be classified as either industrial or commercial energy usage. It's not residential per se.

Kind of like how grow ops are commercial now, while initially they may have been masked as residential usage.

Not necessarily

[WillAffleckUW]

One thing rarely remarked upon is that modern lighting and modern appliances all use dramatically less energy, due to being more efficient.

Additionally, this is true of where we go out - modern pursuits all tend to be low energy intensive (hiking, walking, biking, cafes) instead of high energy intensive (old lighting in disco, outside heat lamps for outdoor music events, etc).

The world has changed. Both in terms of how much energy we consume in living (home), going out (commerce), and even transportation (half of my friends use bikes or electric cars to get places, which drastically cuts energy consumption). But also in terms of our pursuits - a modern smartphone uses much less energy than a boombox used to.

Yes, absolutely.

[Anonymous Coward]

For me it was 2001 not 2003. And it's not that I don't go outside. It's that I avoid air travel. Work now won't pay for travel since I am not customer facing and all meetings are now on the internet. And TSA ruined the airport, so the only time I fly for vacation is when I go to Hawaii, which happens less often than all the places I drive to in the Western U.S.

So yeah. I travel less, and air travel is a lot of energy. But I don't really go outside less often.

And yeah, it's sad that TSA fucked up the airport without making anyone more secure. At least they aren't irradiating the passengers anymore like lettuce.

"Saving energy" - in what form?

[Anonymous Coward]

That headline sounds dubious to me...if I get off my arse and go outdoors, suddenly I'm going to be expending a lot *more* energy than I do currently.