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.
I do not know what you said. You did not summarize, plus you shat woods. I think I would agree, but, too much!
... 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/
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.
Just to clarify, when they say "outdoors" they are referring to the big blue room with the trees, right?
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.
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;
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 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?
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.
Um, if you live in the UK it's the big, grey, wet room !!
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
Nah. It's caused >35 years of non-stop alarmist propaganda about "stranger danger".
I was a daily bicycle commuter for 15 years. What you say about free bicycles is plainly FALSE.
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.
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.
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.