Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Web surfing is now green.
I do not know what you said. You did not summarize, plus you shat woods. I think I would agree, but, too much!
Outdoors sucks which is why we invented the great indoors! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
... 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.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We may as well just be digital.
[($)]
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.
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?
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.
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.
thank you . very useful text
[url=https://www.emuregister.com/]ØØØÙSÙ Øر ÙØرØ[/ur
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.
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.
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.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
One British Thermal Unit is the energy released when burning 1/114,000 of a gallon of gasoline. That's 1392 micro hogsheads
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You do understand that inner city crime has been steadily going down for the last 30 years, yes?
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.
"What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
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.
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.
Some of us actually like to go for a walk in the woods.
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.
Just another day in Paradise
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?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
"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.
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?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Just another day in Paradise
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
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
We can either cut down the population drastically, or, we can go full matrix and never leave the internet.
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!
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?
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.
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just another day in Paradise