It astonishes me that people would rather build expensive, complicated desalination plants rather than just purify black water.
edit
iirc the 95% clean water that gets ejected out of most treatment plants is already a thousand times cleaner than those pristine mountain strips yuppies want to drink out of.
How practical would it be to pipe that water for irrigation purposes?
I remember I once attended a city focus group on how to encourage the ethnic community to use the city's composting program. I told them that it might help if you did a campaign around the people who actually used the compost, so that people could see where it was going.
Apparently, the city had never been asked that before, because they had no idea.
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
edited March 2015
We're discussing saving power and I have a question about that. It's going to sound either defeatist or "meh, fuck it," but I promise I'm not trying to be like that.
My apartment has replaced all of the bulbs with CFLs, new appliances, we turn off our lights when we leave the room, unplug electronics entirely when we're not using them, and do all we can to save electricity. This cuts down our bill, but are we actually helping the environment? The power is being generated anyway, so isn't anything we're not using just decaying over the lines?
Obviously over the long term these behaviors will help by lessening the need for electrical generation, but I feel a bit like the "sacrifices" are wasted for environmental protection right now.
This cuts down our bill, but are we actually helping the environment? The power is being generated anyway, so isn't anything we're not using just decaying over the lines?
While it's true that a power plant will always run at some set rate to keep producing electricity to stay ahead of demand, it does not need to be operated at nearly as high a level if a greater demand is not being drawn. In fact, during extreme peak hours many non-natural gas plants will not only ramp up their operations, but activate a small backup gas turbine to be able to handle any abnormally high amounts of power draw. If a large enough number of people take certain energy-saving measures, the draw from the grid is noticeably lower, and the power plant does not have to gear up as much as it would otherwise, producing fewer pollutants [in the case of Coal/Oil/Natural Gas].
Interestingly, many industrial plants that draw moderate loads have their own onsite power storage or power generation capabilities, and run on their own stored energy or generators during peak power, then reconnect to the grid during off-peak power generation hours. This model may be added to households by some companies this year: Tesla (among others) is already planning to unveil a standalone storage pack that can power the average California home for two days without grid power. Even without your own in-home power generation system (like solar panels), evening out demand on the grid will result in vastly more efficient power plant operation and lower electricity costs overall.
We're discussing saving power and I have a question about that. It's going to sound either defeatist or "meh, fuck it," but I promise I'm not trying to be like that.
My apartment has replaced all of the bulbs with CFLs, new appliances, we turn off our lights when we leave the room, unplug electronics entirely when we're not using them, and do all we can to save electricity. This cuts down our bill, but are we actually helping the environment? The power is being generated anyway, so isn't anything we're not using just decaying over the lines?
Obviously over the long term these behaviors will help by lessening the need for electrical generation, but I feel a bit like the "sacrifices" are wasted for environmental protection right now.
It's not wasted in the way you're implying because most cities supply power on a sort of "on demand" basis. If everyone is consuming less electricity then the coal power plant will run at less than full speed, less electricity will be produce, and less emissions will be released. It's more complicated then that but I think that's roughly correct.
I'm with quid in the thinking that nothing is too small to matter. Given that it takes no effort, and practically no cost to use more energy efficient bulbs and turn things off when you aren't using them, it is absolutely something everyone should do. It won't solve all our problems alone, but doing all the small things adds up. The decision making comes in when things become prohibitively expensive or time consuming to do. Then you have to decide if the energy savings/environmental impact is worth it.
Now that I've told you nothing is too small, I will go ahead and tell you that the sort of electricity saving you're doing is probably a pretty small affect. Electronics make up only about a third of the electricity use for most homes, so cutting that back by 10-20% is only saving you like 7% of your overall energy usage.
Edit - I should have also pointed out that energy efficiency is not the only consideration for environmental impact. With CFL's you have toxic chemicals (mercury) that are bad for the environment, so if you're using them and not disposing of them properly (at a hazardous waste site), then it's probably a net negative on the environment.
Technically speaking you probably also want to look into how much energy/pollution is necessary to produce a CFL versus an incandescent bulb to really understand whether switching will be better or worse for the environment. Such an analysis is typically called an LCA or life cycle analysis. I don't know of any off hand for bulbs, but it seems likely CFLs are better since I haven't heard any push back on their use (other than the improper disposal thing).
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
This cuts down our bill, but are we actually helping the environment? The power is being generated anyway, so isn't anything we're not using just decaying over the lines?
While it's true that a power plant will always run at some set rate to keep producing electricity to stay ahead of demand, it does not need to be operated at nearly as high a level if a greater demand is not being drawn. In fact, during extreme peak hours many non-natural gas plants will not only ramp up their operations, but activate a small backup gas turbine to be able to handle any abnormally high amounts of power draw. If a large enough number of people take certain energy-saving measures, the draw from the grid is noticeably lower, and the power plant does not have to gear up as much as it would otherwise, producing fewer pollutants [in the case of Coal/Oil/Natural Gas].
Interestingly, many industrial plants that draw moderate loads have their own onsite power storage or power generation capabilities, and run on their own stored energy or generators during peak power, then reconnect to the grid during off-peak power generation hours. This model may be added to households by some companies this year: Tesla (among others) is already planning to unveil a standalone storage pack that can power the average California home for two days without grid power. Even without your own in-home power generation system (like solar panels), evening out demand on the grid will result in vastly more efficient power plant operation and lower electricity costs overall.
Also, unused power in the grid can be used in other ways, eg a hydro dam pumping water back up. It's not necessarily wasted
I wonder if you could make retro reflective roofing. Sunlight bounces back at the same direction as the sun, regardless of angle, so the roof still appears dark from ground level.
Do they have roofs that can switch color based on the season? It'd be nice to get something that gets warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
Black not only warms up faster during the summer, but it also cools down faster in the winter. Physics is weird like that. But even if that wasn't the case, there would be no way in the world to make color changing roofing tiles practical. It could be done, but the costs would always outweigh the benefits.
Do they have roofs that can switch color based on the season? It'd be nice to get something that gets warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
Black not only warms up faster during the summer, but it also cools down faster in the winter. Physics is weird like that. But even if that wasn't the case, there would be no way in the world to make color changing roofing tiles practical. It could be done, but the costs would always outweigh the benefits.
eh..could always just use a simple mechanism like those mechanical billboards that have 5 billboards in one and just have a bunch of panels that flip twice a year between light/dark above the roof
Still expensive, but not overtly so. I imagine some garage mechanic could make one for a couple hundred dollars
Do they have roofs that can switch color based on the season? It'd be nice to get something that gets warm in the winter and cool in the summer.
Black not only warms up faster during the summer, but it also cools down faster in the winter. Physics is weird like that. But even if that wasn't the case, there would be no way in the world to make color changing roofing tiles practical. It could be done, but the costs would always outweigh the benefits.
eh..could always just use a simple mechanism like those mechanical billboards that have 5 billboards in one and just have a bunch of panels that flip twice a year between light/dark above the roof
Still expensive, but not overtly so. I imagine some garage mechanic could make one for a couple hundred dollars
And such a system would prevent any sort of direct contact, which would would defeat the whole purpose. Which doesn't matter anyway, because the presumably has many layers of insulation, specifically to prevent the transfer of heat from the house to the roof.
Heat transfers from warm to cold so that everything evens out. If the roof is warmer than the inside of the house (i.e., summertime), then the house will get warmer. If the roof is colder than the inside of the house (i.e., wintertime), then the house will get colder. Either way, you want good insulation. All throughout the year.
If you want to take advantage of solar in the winter, you have two main choices. You can use a PV system on the roof, or you can can use a passive solar system on one of the outside walls. Even then, the application is very limited.
Except then people decide that they're "doing their part" by taking part in mid-upper class luxuries like bicycling and eating organic produce.
You can't beat Amdahl's law -- shaving a sliver off of the US's energy demand by having everyone bike to work (who lives within a few miles of work, in an area where crime is sufficiently low, and is physically fit enough to do so, weather permitting, etc.) doesn't do anything to this chart but make yourself feel better.
People who have already achieved the highest standard of living in the world are just now saying they're willing to cut back, slightly, by driving a hybrid car or whatever. Meanwhile there's billions of people that want to catch up to where we were decades ago. And they're going to do it, they're not going to remain poor forever. They're going to do it by harnessing energy, because that's how economic growth has functioned since time immemorial.
Which means that first world drop-in-the-bucket nonsense isn't going to do it.
Oh, you're getting the Accord Hybrid this time around, and will sometimes ride your bike (when it's sunny out and you wanted to get some exercise anyway and your wife is dropping the kids off that day)? Well, this guy:
has been driving a 50cc Honda Super Cub, and wants to step up to something that won't kill his whole family in a crash. And there's six of him for every one of you.
So if there's a way out of this, it's going to be a technological solution. We need to find a way to allow developing countries to develop without increasing greenhouse gas levels too much. Because they're going to develop anyway, and in the absence of a better solution, they'll develop by burning more fossil fuels.
Even if the guy in your picture wanted to buy a bigger car, how exactly is he going to pay for gas? And where exactly is that gas supposed to come from? America had an SUV craze because we thought that gas was cheap and that it would always be cheap. India doesn't have that. India is a country where something like this is still a valid means of transportation:
Americans made a lot of mistakes to get to where they are. But not only do third world nations have the option to avoid those same mistakes, but in many cases, they're not going to have a choice. Americans are very wasteful and inefficient because we can afford to be wasteful. Other countries won't have that luxury.
I think another issue is that Americans are stuck on the idea of convenience. But for countries that are already used to doing things the hard way, convenience isn't nearly as big of a deal. But if your life is incredibly inconvenient, then the eco friendly option might actually be an improvement.
One thing I would love to see are more programs designed to invest in third world inventors. Because statistically, you would expect there to be a lot of untapped geniuses who never had the resources to develop their ideas, and that's just a waste in itself. Not only would investment bring more minds to the table, but the other benefit is that they can see the problems of their communities in ways that an American wouldn't notice.
Except then people decide that they're "doing their part" by taking part in mid-upper class luxuries like bicycling and eating organic produce.
You can't beat Amdahl's law -- shaving a sliver off of the US's energy demand by having everyone bike to work (who lives within a few miles of work, in an area where crime is sufficiently low, and is physically fit enough to do so, weather permitting, etc.) doesn't do anything to this chart but make yourself feel better.
People who have already achieved the highest standard of living in the world are just now saying they're willing to cut back, slightly, by driving a hybrid car or whatever. Meanwhile there's billions of people that want to catch up to where we were decades ago. And they're going to do it, they're not going to remain poor forever. They're going to do it by harnessing energy, because that's how economic growth has functioned since time immemorial.
Which means that first world drop-in-the-bucket nonsense isn't going to do it.
Oh, you're getting the Accord Hybrid this time around, and will sometimes ride your bike (when it's sunny out and you wanted to get some exercise anyway and your wife is dropping the kids off that day)? Well, this guy:
has been driving a 50cc Honda Super Cub, and wants to step up to something that won't kill his whole family in a crash. And there's six of him for every one of you.
So if there's a way out of this, it's going to be a technological solution. We need to find a way to allow developing countries to develop without increasing greenhouse gas levels too much. Because they're going to develop anyway, and in the absence of a better solution, they'll develop by burning more fossil fuels.
Even if the guy in your picture wanted to buy a bigger car, how exactly is he going to pay for gas? And where exactly is that gas supposed to come from? America had an SUV craze because we thought that gas was cheap and that it would always be cheap. India doesn't have that. India is a country where something like this is still a valid means of transportation:
Americans made a lot of mistakes to get to where they are. But not only do third world nations have the option to avoid those same mistakes, but in many cases, they're not going to have a choice. Americans are very wasteful and inefficient because we can afford to be wasteful. Other countries won't have that luxury.
I think another issue is that Americans are stuck on the idea of convenience. But for countries that are already used to doing things the hard way, convenience isn't nearly as big of a deal. But if your life is incredibly inconvenient, then the eco friendly option might actually be an improvement.
One thing I would love to see are more programs designed to invest in third world inventors. Because statistically, you would expect there to be a lot of untapped geniuses who never had the resources to develop their ideas, and that's just a waste in itself. Not only would investment bring more minds to the table, but the other benefit is that they can see the problems of their communities in ways that an American wouldn't notice.
The lack of energy and money is the only thing separating other countries from the US.
China is a wonderful example.
As other countries continue to ramp up energy production and consumption they will make many of the same mistakes, for the same reasons.
That is why it's funny. Everyone in the US could move back into huts and become hunter gatherers again and it wouldn't actually change the situation in any drastic sense.
It's all very feel good in here but ultimately technology and getting it to these other countries so they can bypass the entire industrial era the US went through will make far more of a difference to the world.
Except then people decide that they're "doing their part" by taking part in mid-upper class luxuries like bicycling and eating organic produce.
You can't beat Amdahl's law -- shaving a sliver off of the US's energy demand by having everyone bike to work (who lives within a few miles of work, in an area where crime is sufficiently low, and is physically fit enough to do so, weather permitting, etc.) doesn't do anything to this chart but make yourself feel better.
People who have already achieved the highest standard of living in the world are just now saying they're willing to cut back, slightly, by driving a hybrid car or whatever. Meanwhile there's billions of people that want to catch up to where we were decades ago. And they're going to do it, they're not going to remain poor forever. They're going to do it by harnessing energy, because that's how economic growth has functioned since time immemorial.
Which means that first world drop-in-the-bucket nonsense isn't going to do it.
Oh, you're getting the Accord Hybrid this time around, and will sometimes ride your bike (when it's sunny out and you wanted to get some exercise anyway and your wife is dropping the kids off that day)? Well, this guy:
has been driving a 50cc Honda Super Cub, and wants to step up to something that won't kill his whole family in a crash. And there's six of him for every one of you.
So if there's a way out of this, it's going to be a technological solution. We need to find a way to allow developing countries to develop without increasing greenhouse gas levels too much. Because they're going to develop anyway, and in the absence of a better solution, they'll develop by burning more fossil fuels.
Even if the guy in your picture wanted to buy a bigger car, how exactly is he going to pay for gas? And where exactly is that gas supposed to come from? America had an SUV craze because we thought that gas was cheap and that it would always be cheap. India doesn't have that. India is a country where something like this is still a valid means of transportation:
Americans made a lot of mistakes to get to where they are. But not only do third world nations have the option to avoid those same mistakes, but in many cases, they're not going to have a choice. Americans are very wasteful and inefficient because we can afford to be wasteful. Other countries won't have that luxury.
I think another issue is that Americans are stuck on the idea of convenience. But for countries that are already used to doing things the hard way, convenience isn't nearly as big of a deal. But if your life is incredibly inconvenient, then the eco friendly option might actually be an improvement.
One thing I would love to see are more programs designed to invest in third world inventors. Because statistically, you would expect there to be a lot of untapped geniuses who never had the resources to develop their ideas, and that's just a waste in itself. Not only would investment bring more minds to the table, but the other benefit is that they can see the problems of their communities in ways that an American wouldn't notice.
The lack of energy and money is the only thing separating other countries from the US.
China is a wonderful example.
As other countries continue to ramp up energy production and consumption they will make many of the same mistakes, for the same reasons.
That is why it's funny. Everyone in the US could move back into huts and become hunter gatherers again and it wouldn't actually change the situation in any drastic sense.
It's all very feel good in here but ultimately technology and getting it to these other countries so they can bypass the entire industrial era the US went through will make far more of a difference to the world.
The Chinese government though isn't stupid. China doesn't have the space to shove it's polluting industries out of sight and out of mind, and hasn't had the civic planning efficiency to accomplish it. The Chinese elite do not want to live in smoke clogged cities when they start to realize that they'd like to stay alive and oppulent for longer either, which means unlike the US, China has a very direct incentive to the powerful to reduce smokestack emissions from power generation (the single largest, most easily controlled emitter) where other countries do not.
Fusion and fission energy for example, has almost nothing to do with oil. It has everything to do with us not exhausting the 400+ years of coal we have left in the ground.
Except then people decide that they're "doing their part" by taking part in mid-upper class luxuries like bicycling and eating organic produce.
You can't beat Amdahl's law -- shaving a sliver off of the US's energy demand by having everyone bike to work (who lives within a few miles of work, in an area where crime is sufficiently low, and is physically fit enough to do so, weather permitting, etc.) doesn't do anything to this chart but make yourself feel better.
People who have already achieved the highest standard of living in the world are just now saying they're willing to cut back, slightly, by driving a hybrid car or whatever. Meanwhile there's billions of people that want to catch up to where we were decades ago. And they're going to do it, they're not going to remain poor forever. They're going to do it by harnessing energy, because that's how economic growth has functioned since time immemorial.
Which means that first world drop-in-the-bucket nonsense isn't going to do it.
Oh, you're getting the Accord Hybrid this time around, and will sometimes ride your bike (when it's sunny out and you wanted to get some exercise anyway and your wife is dropping the kids off that day)? Well, this guy:
has been driving a 50cc Honda Super Cub, and wants to step up to something that won't kill his whole family in a crash. And there's six of him for every one of you.
So if there's a way out of this, it's going to be a technological solution. We need to find a way to allow developing countries to develop without increasing greenhouse gas levels too much. Because they're going to develop anyway, and in the absence of a better solution, they'll develop by burning more fossil fuels.
Even if the guy in your picture wanted to buy a bigger car, how exactly is he going to pay for gas? And where exactly is that gas supposed to come from? America had an SUV craze because we thought that gas was cheap and that it would always be cheap. India doesn't have that. India is a country where something like this is still a valid means of transportation:
Americans made a lot of mistakes to get to where they are. But not only do third world nations have the option to avoid those same mistakes, but in many cases, they're not going to have a choice. Americans are very wasteful and inefficient because we can afford to be wasteful. Other countries won't have that luxury.
I think another issue is that Americans are stuck on the idea of convenience. But for countries that are already used to doing things the hard way, convenience isn't nearly as big of a deal. But if your life is incredibly inconvenient, then the eco friendly option might actually be an improvement.
One thing I would love to see are more programs designed to invest in third world inventors. Because statistically, you would expect there to be a lot of untapped geniuses who never had the resources to develop their ideas, and that's just a waste in itself. Not only would investment bring more minds to the table, but the other benefit is that they can see the problems of their communities in ways that an American wouldn't notice.
The lack of energy and money is the only thing separating other countries from the US.
China is a wonderful example.
As other countries continue to ramp up energy production and consumption they will make many of the same mistakes, for the same reasons.
That is why it's funny. Everyone in the US could move back into huts and become hunter gatherers again and it wouldn't actually change the situation in any drastic sense.
It's all very feel good in here but ultimately technology and getting it to these other countries so they can bypass the entire industrial era the US went through will make far more of a difference to the world.
The Chinese government though isn't stupid. China doesn't have the space to shove it's polluting industries out of sight and out of mind, and hasn't had the civic planning efficiency to accomplish it. The Chinese elite do not want to live in smoke clogged cities when they start to realize that they'd like to stay alive and oppulent for longer either, which means unlike the US, China has a very direct incentive to the powerful to reduce smokestack emissions from power generation (the single largest, most easily controlled emitter) where other countries do not.
Fusion and fission energy for example, has almost nothing to do with oil. It has everything to do with us not exhausting the 400+ years of coal we have left in the ground.
Right. China has gotten pretty aggressive about it. They definitely had no alternative. Things are looking pretty grim there.
Some European countries like France are dealing with similar issues and trying various things which I'll be interested in seeing pan out.
It's all very feel good in here but ultimately technology and getting it to these other countries so they can bypass the entire industrial era the US went through will make far more of a difference to the world.
Yes, that will likely have more of an impact.
Changing habits and improving technology in other ares will also still have an impact. This is not an either or situation.
Except then people decide that they're "doing their part" by taking part in mid-upper class luxuries like bicycling and eating organic produce.
You can't beat Amdahl's law -- shaving a sliver off of the US's energy demand by having everyone bike to work (who lives within a few miles of work, in an area where crime is sufficiently low, and is physically fit enough to do so, weather permitting, etc.) doesn't do anything to this chart but make yourself feel better.
People who have already achieved the highest standard of living in the world are just now saying they're willing to cut back, slightly, by driving a hybrid car or whatever. Meanwhile there's billions of people that want to catch up to where we were decades ago. And they're going to do it, they're not going to remain poor forever. They're going to do it by harnessing energy, because that's how economic growth has functioned since time immemorial.
Which means that first world drop-in-the-bucket nonsense isn't going to do it.
Oh, you're getting the Accord Hybrid this time around, and will sometimes ride your bike (when it's sunny out and you wanted to get some exercise anyway and your wife is dropping the kids off that day)? Well, this guy:
has been driving a 50cc Honda Super Cub, and wants to step up to something that won't kill his whole family in a crash. And there's six of him for every one of you.
So if there's a way out of this, it's going to be a technological solution. We need to find a way to allow developing countries to develop without increasing greenhouse gas levels too much. Because they're going to develop anyway, and in the absence of a better solution, they'll develop by burning more fossil fuels.
Even if the guy in your picture wanted to buy a bigger car, how exactly is he going to pay for gas? And where exactly is that gas supposed to come from? America had an SUV craze because we thought that gas was cheap and that it would always be cheap. India doesn't have that. India is a country where something like this is still a valid means of transportation:
Americans made a lot of mistakes to get to where they are. But not only do third world nations have the option to avoid those same mistakes, but in many cases, they're not going to have a choice. Americans are very wasteful and inefficient because we can afford to be wasteful. Other countries won't have that luxury.
I think another issue is that Americans are stuck on the idea of convenience. But for countries that are already used to doing things the hard way, convenience isn't nearly as big of a deal. But if your life is incredibly inconvenient, then the eco friendly option might actually be an improvement.
One thing I would love to see are more programs designed to invest in third world inventors. Because statistically, you would expect there to be a lot of untapped geniuses who never had the resources to develop their ideas, and that's just a waste in itself. Not only would investment bring more minds to the table, but the other benefit is that they can see the problems of their communities in ways that an American wouldn't notice.
The lack of energy and money is the only thing separating other countries from the US.
China is a wonderful example.
As other countries continue to ramp up energy production and consumption they will make many of the same mistakes, for the same reasons.
That is why it's funny. Everyone in the US could move back into huts and become hunter gatherers again and it wouldn't actually change the situation in any drastic sense.
It's all very feel good in here but ultimately technology and getting it to these other countries so they can bypass the entire industrial era the US went through will make far more of a difference to the world.
The Chinese government though isn't stupid. China doesn't have the space to shove it's polluting industries out of sight and out of mind, and hasn't had the civic planning efficiency to accomplish it. The Chinese elite do not want to live in smoke clogged cities when they start to realize that they'd like to stay alive and oppulent for longer either, which means unlike the US, China has a very direct incentive to the powerful to reduce smokestack emissions from power generation (the single largest, most easily controlled emitter) where other countries do not.
Fusion and fission energy for example, has almost nothing to do with oil. It has everything to do with us not exhausting the 400+ years of coal we have left in the ground.
Right. China has gotten pretty aggressive about it. They definitely had no alternative. Things are looking pretty grim there.
Some European countries like France are dealing with similar issues and trying various things which I'll be interested in seeing pan out.
Also A+ with relevant user name.
Don't be fooled, electricity likes him but the liquid fuels market hates him
Fifteen years ago in university, I remember my professor talking about one of the theorized effects of melting ice caps. It would send a lot of cold water south along the eastern sea board of North America; being fresh water, it would sit on top of the salt water. The result would either push the gulf stream eastwards, cooling eastern North America, or it would block off the gulf stream entirely, cooling most of northeastern North America and also much of western Europe. I wonder if the colder winter along the Atlantic coast is related to that - that even if they got the model wrong, they got the basic idea right. Of course, he was mostly talking about what would happen in the sprint-summer-fall, when ice was melting, but I can't help but wonder if it's related.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
+1
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
One thing we need to be talking about here is family planning services. People having less kids (because most of those third world couples who have a dozen kids didn't want that many, but either didn't know how to not have that many kids or didn't have the resources to do so), and also delaying having kids giving the parents enough time to get educated and some financial stability. Fourteen year olds having babies only leads to more fourteen year olds having babies unless the cycle is broken, and those children usually end up having way more kids than they want/need because again, they can't get the resources or education to stop having kids because they have kids too soon. There can also be serious health risks to having children too soon, and having a girl crippled for life at age 16 isn't helping anyone or anything. They can pull themselves out of poverty, and less people is less resources and space needed for them.
I'm putting together links for the Green Living thread of family planning groups that people can donate money and/or time to. There's the UN Population Fund and Planned Parenthood, and I'm looking through places to try to figure out which other groups actually do something directly like providing education or contraceptives (this takes a while - a lot of places like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation can get really vague and corporate-speechish so I can't tell if anything actually happens or if it's just Powerpoint presentations to each other). Anyone want to help out?
It's all very feel good in here but ultimately technology and getting it to these other countries so they can bypass the entire industrial era the US went through will make far more of a difference to the world.
Yes, that will likely have more of an impact.
Changing habits and improving technology in other ares will also still have an impact. This is not an either or situation.
Habits? I dunno.
People are more then welcome to it, don't get me wrong. Hell, it helps really spruce up a neighborhood if they all get on the bandwagon.
Globally though, the US has actually been dropping drastically in the carbon per capita but everyone else is more then outpacing that with growth.
In the short term (by this I mean the next century) nothing anyone does will really matter. For every penny you take out someone will drop a nickel. Anything bad that's going to happen is pretty much unavoidable in this time frame.
Long term though? It'd be good if people really doubled down on being more integrated with the environment.
Course we'll all be long dead and forgotten by then which is why it's pretty hard to get people to care. The future of your children's children's children is a pretty hazy concept for most people.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
For the ultra-cynical who think that everything is hopeless and every little incremental bit that we do is pointless and will be negated etc etc. you should still donate for family planning because that would be less people suffering and dying in the Doompocalypse. Otherwise you're also a sadist who is waiting and hoping for maximum human suffering.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I'd love to donate to family planning services, especially in developing world countries, but past international efforts aimed at that sort of thing have simply resulted in tipping the gender scale hard and fast towards men due to those nations' cultures heavily favoring male children over female children.
On the up side, China/India are going to see their massive population growth curve sputter to a halt sometime in the middle of this century, right around the time they fish the Indian and Pacific oceans into extinction.
+1
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
@Hacksaw, I hope you don't think I was aiming that at you. I was aiming that more at people who seem to gleefully throw their hands up in the air at how oh so hopeless the situation is, probably because they feel it absolves them of any responsibility so they don't need to care. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow the Doompocalypse is upon us. Or as someone else put it, "too bad other people didn't fix this so I'll give up and shotgun a beer."
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
For the ultra-cynical who think that everything is hopeless and every little incremental bit that we do is pointless and will be negated etc etc. you should still donate for family planning because that would be less people suffering and dying in the Doompocalypse. Otherwise you're also a sadist who is waiting and hoping for maximum human suffering.
Or a realist who knows we'll all be dead by the time it's some big catastrophe. So we'll never know.. Good old limited lifespan, probably one of the best excuses. "I'll be dead, sorry."
I do not understand the obsession with recycling as some sort of recent way to feel good about buying shit with too much disposable packaging. Or worse, buying cheap disposable single use shit and then acting smug when you put it in a different colored bin.
Like diapers. You could buy cloth and wash them ... but no, let's buy single use diapers and baby bottle liners and act like we're awesome when we put an aluminum can in a different bin.
You know what used to work? Not buying a bunch of single use jugs and food storage bags. Milk and even beer would come in glass that you could return to be washed and used again.
Glass is also made from fucking sand. I just don't think as a species we're cut out to be reasonable or even rational when it comes to how we exist within our environment. Whenever something is created or sold, the polution cost of manufacture or disposal is never factored in. Importing everything from countries with horrible labor laws and human rights records that make Stalin seem like a pretty friendly guy would be awful business.
We are a party species. As long as we can't see a problem it doesn't exist.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
isnt glass a lot like Aluminum in that it takes a metric fuckton of energy to make the initial batch, but it can be recycled for comparatively nothing afterwards forever and ever
Glass is more expensive I suspect because shipping, manufacturing and durability are the only things companies consider as costs.
Giving a dolphin a necklace that never dissolves? Doesn't impact the bottom line. We need to seriously revise total product cost to include monetary representation of disposal and pollution cost. Which won't ever happen.
We're good and fucked. When it impacts well off people in a meaningful enough way to get their notice they'll ask someone to make it all better. The planet isn't an etch a sketch you can just shake and do over.
Glass is more expensive I suspect because shipping, manufacturing and durability are the only things companies consider as costs.
Giving a dolphin a necklace that never dissolves? Doesn't impact the bottom line. We need to seriously revise total product cost to include monetary representation of disposal and pollution cost. Which won't ever happen.
We're good and fucked. When it impacts well off people in a meaningful enough way to get their notice they'll ask someone to make it all better. The planet isn't an etch a sketch you can just shake and do over.
The super rich will never be truly affected by climate change; they'll build space stations to house themselves and look down on the burning wreckage of Earth with a sigh and a shake of the head. Their very own Galt's Gulches among the stars.
Posts
How practical would it be to pipe that water for irrigation purposes?
I remember I once attended a city focus group on how to encourage the ethnic community to use the city's composting program. I told them that it might help if you did a campaign around the people who actually used the compost, so that people could see where it was going.
Apparently, the city had never been asked that before, because they had no idea.
My apartment has replaced all of the bulbs with CFLs, new appliances, we turn off our lights when we leave the room, unplug electronics entirely when we're not using them, and do all we can to save electricity. This cuts down our bill, but are we actually helping the environment? The power is being generated anyway, so isn't anything we're not using just decaying over the lines?
Obviously over the long term these behaviors will help by lessening the need for electrical generation, but I feel a bit like the "sacrifices" are wasted for environmental protection right now.
While it's true that a power plant will always run at some set rate to keep producing electricity to stay ahead of demand, it does not need to be operated at nearly as high a level if a greater demand is not being drawn. In fact, during extreme peak hours many non-natural gas plants will not only ramp up their operations, but activate a small backup gas turbine to be able to handle any abnormally high amounts of power draw. If a large enough number of people take certain energy-saving measures, the draw from the grid is noticeably lower, and the power plant does not have to gear up as much as it would otherwise, producing fewer pollutants [in the case of Coal/Oil/Natural Gas].
Interestingly, many industrial plants that draw moderate loads have their own onsite power storage or power generation capabilities, and run on their own stored energy or generators during peak power, then reconnect to the grid during off-peak power generation hours. This model may be added to households by some companies this year: Tesla (among others) is already planning to unveil a standalone storage pack that can power the average California home for two days without grid power. Even without your own in-home power generation system (like solar panels), evening out demand on the grid will result in vastly more efficient power plant operation and lower electricity costs overall.
It's not wasted in the way you're implying because most cities supply power on a sort of "on demand" basis. If everyone is consuming less electricity then the coal power plant will run at less than full speed, less electricity will be produce, and less emissions will be released. It's more complicated then that but I think that's roughly correct.
I'm with quid in the thinking that nothing is too small to matter. Given that it takes no effort, and practically no cost to use more energy efficient bulbs and turn things off when you aren't using them, it is absolutely something everyone should do. It won't solve all our problems alone, but doing all the small things adds up. The decision making comes in when things become prohibitively expensive or time consuming to do. Then you have to decide if the energy savings/environmental impact is worth it.
Now that I've told you nothing is too small, I will go ahead and tell you that the sort of electricity saving you're doing is probably a pretty small affect. Electronics make up only about a third of the electricity use for most homes, so cutting that back by 10-20% is only saving you like 7% of your overall energy usage.
Edit - I should have also pointed out that energy efficiency is not the only consideration for environmental impact. With CFL's you have toxic chemicals (mercury) that are bad for the environment, so if you're using them and not disposing of them properly (at a hazardous waste site), then it's probably a net negative on the environment.
Technically speaking you probably also want to look into how much energy/pollution is necessary to produce a CFL versus an incandescent bulb to really understand whether switching will be better or worse for the environment. Such an analysis is typically called an LCA or life cycle analysis. I don't know of any off hand for bulbs, but it seems likely CFLs are better since I haven't heard any push back on their use (other than the improper disposal thing).
Also, unused power in the grid can be used in other ways, eg a hydro dam pumping water back up. It's not necessarily wasted
Black not only warms up faster during the summer, but it also cools down faster in the winter. Physics is weird like that. But even if that wasn't the case, there would be no way in the world to make color changing roofing tiles practical. It could be done, but the costs would always outweigh the benefits.
eh..could always just use a simple mechanism like those mechanical billboards that have 5 billboards in one and just have a bunch of panels that flip twice a year between light/dark above the roof
Still expensive, but not overtly so. I imagine some garage mechanic could make one for a couple hundred dollars
And such a system would prevent any sort of direct contact, which would would defeat the whole purpose. Which doesn't matter anyway, because the presumably has many layers of insulation, specifically to prevent the transfer of heat from the house to the roof.
Heat transfers from warm to cold so that everything evens out. If the roof is warmer than the inside of the house (i.e., summertime), then the house will get warmer. If the roof is colder than the inside of the house (i.e., wintertime), then the house will get colder. Either way, you want good insulation. All throughout the year.
If you want to take advantage of solar in the winter, you have two main choices. You can use a PV system on the roof, or you can can use a passive solar system on one of the outside walls. Even then, the application is very limited.
Have you started doing that on your car? It also serves as extra protection in the event of an accident.
I'm intrigued, but I'm not sure I'm willing to trade the visibility for it.
Even if the guy in your picture wanted to buy a bigger car, how exactly is he going to pay for gas? And where exactly is that gas supposed to come from? America had an SUV craze because we thought that gas was cheap and that it would always be cheap. India doesn't have that. India is a country where something like this is still a valid means of transportation:
Americans made a lot of mistakes to get to where they are. But not only do third world nations have the option to avoid those same mistakes, but in many cases, they're not going to have a choice. Americans are very wasteful and inefficient because we can afford to be wasteful. Other countries won't have that luxury.
I think another issue is that Americans are stuck on the idea of convenience. But for countries that are already used to doing things the hard way, convenience isn't nearly as big of a deal. But if your life is incredibly inconvenient, then the eco friendly option might actually be an improvement.
One thing I would love to see are more programs designed to invest in third world inventors. Because statistically, you would expect there to be a lot of untapped geniuses who never had the resources to develop their ideas, and that's just a waste in itself. Not only would investment bring more minds to the table, but the other benefit is that they can see the problems of their communities in ways that an American wouldn't notice.
The lack of energy and money is the only thing separating other countries from the US.
China is a wonderful example.
As other countries continue to ramp up energy production and consumption they will make many of the same mistakes, for the same reasons.
That is why it's funny. Everyone in the US could move back into huts and become hunter gatherers again and it wouldn't actually change the situation in any drastic sense.
It's all very feel good in here but ultimately technology and getting it to these other countries so they can bypass the entire industrial era the US went through will make far more of a difference to the world.
The Chinese government though isn't stupid. China doesn't have the space to shove it's polluting industries out of sight and out of mind, and hasn't had the civic planning efficiency to accomplish it. The Chinese elite do not want to live in smoke clogged cities when they start to realize that they'd like to stay alive and oppulent for longer either, which means unlike the US, China has a very direct incentive to the powerful to reduce smokestack emissions from power generation (the single largest, most easily controlled emitter) where other countries do not.
Fusion and fission energy for example, has almost nothing to do with oil. It has everything to do with us not exhausting the 400+ years of coal we have left in the ground.
Right. China has gotten pretty aggressive about it. They definitely had no alternative. Things are looking pretty grim there.
Some European countries like France are dealing with similar issues and trying various things which I'll be interested in seeing pan out.
Also A+ with relevant user name.
Yes, that will likely have more of an impact.
Changing habits and improving technology in other ares will also still have an impact. This is not an either or situation.
Don't be fooled, electricity likes him but the liquid fuels market hates him
I'm putting together links for the Green Living thread of family planning groups that people can donate money and/or time to. There's the UN Population Fund and Planned Parenthood, and I'm looking through places to try to figure out which other groups actually do something directly like providing education or contraceptives (this takes a while - a lot of places like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation can get really vague and corporate-speechish so I can't tell if anything actually happens or if it's just Powerpoint presentations to each other). Anyone want to help out?
Habits? I dunno.
People are more then welcome to it, don't get me wrong. Hell, it helps really spruce up a neighborhood if they all get on the bandwagon.
Globally though, the US has actually been dropping drastically in the carbon per capita but everyone else is more then outpacing that with growth.
In the short term (by this I mean the next century) nothing anyone does will really matter. For every penny you take out someone will drop a nickel. Anything bad that's going to happen is pretty much unavoidable in this time frame.
Long term though? It'd be good if people really doubled down on being more integrated with the environment.
Course we'll all be long dead and forgotten by then which is why it's pretty hard to get people to care. The future of your children's children's children is a pretty hazy concept for most people.
On the up side, China/India are going to see their massive population growth curve sputter to a halt sometime in the middle of this century, right around the time they fish the Indian and Pacific oceans into extinction.
Or a realist who knows we'll all be dead by the time it's some big catastrophe. So we'll never know.. Good old limited lifespan, probably one of the best excuses. "I'll be dead, sorry."
Like diapers. You could buy cloth and wash them ... but no, let's buy single use diapers and baby bottle liners and act like we're awesome when we put an aluminum can in a different bin.
You know what used to work? Not buying a bunch of single use jugs and food storage bags. Milk and even beer would come in glass that you could return to be washed and used again.
Glass is also made from fucking sand. I just don't think as a species we're cut out to be reasonable or even rational when it comes to how we exist within our environment. Whenever something is created or sold, the polution cost of manufacture or disposal is never factored in. Importing everything from countries with horrible labor laws and human rights records that make Stalin seem like a pretty friendly guy would be awful business.
We are a party species. As long as we can't see a problem it doesn't exist.
we had automatic bottle machines and everything!
(actually, we still do)
glass was perfect! less pollution, less cancer, cooler looking product
it's like a win, win, win, win situation
edit:
we need more of this and less boring crap
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
not once it's made!
Giving a dolphin a necklace that never dissolves? Doesn't impact the bottom line. We need to seriously revise total product cost to include monetary representation of disposal and pollution cost. Which won't ever happen.
We're good and fucked. When it impacts well off people in a meaningful enough way to get their notice they'll ask someone to make it all better. The planet isn't an etch a sketch you can just shake and do over.
So just imagine that I included a clip.
The super rich will never be truly affected by climate change; they'll build space stations to house themselves and look down on the burning wreckage of Earth with a sigh and a shake of the head. Their very own Galt's Gulches among the stars.