6 ms·

While these are personal choices, there must be some incentive. If increased electricity bill from abusing "Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the

While these are personal choices, there must be some incentive. If increased electricity bill from abusing "Air conditioning to point of needing sweaters in the summer and heating to wearing shorts in the winter" compared to conservative temperatures boils down to single digit percentage values (as non-USian I don't know what those values are) of all annual home upkeep expenses, it is difficult to rationalize saving.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago
And somewhat useless. Changing the temperature from 72 to 75 in my well-insulated house does take off a few kWh. But it seems a bit meaningless when the shop down the road is trying to get more people to come in by setting their thermostat at a chilly 65 and leaving the door open all day. Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car, only to drive down the road alongside coal-rolling semis that believe DEF is a conspiracy.
- codeulike 9y ago
  Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Incremental changes in the right direction help, whatever everyone else is doing.
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  Just because others aren't doing anything, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Every bit helps, and unless there is a major shift in public opinion, or the government steps in, businesses will not change their behavior, i.e. doing what improves their bottom line.
- vel0city 9y ago
  > Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car I'm really curious about this as well. I drive an old Honda Accord that gets ~22-26mpg. In Texas I can choose to only purchase renewable energy, but how much environmental impact will be had from my purchase from an electric car compared to keeping this nearly two-decade-old car running? What is the point where this car is better left as recycled metal vs. keeping it running?
  - danans 9y ago
    This depends on a lot of factors, including: - How much you have to drive. The more you drive, the more you can offset the embodied carbon footprint of the EV, and the more fossil fuels you offset. - How fast your decades old ICE car deteriorates, and therefore decreases in efficiency and increases its operational pollution emissions. - The embodied carbon footprint of the vehicle parts you replace through maintenance of an old vehicle. High range EVs with large batteries cancel their embodied footprint in 18 months with a typical drive cycle, even lower if you are mostly using renewably sourced electricity. Lower range EVs take even less time [1] It sounds to me like from your situation (old car, renewable power available) the numbers already suggest you should do it now. From the report linked below, driving an EV in Texas today is like getting 52 mpg with an ICE car. If you're using only renewables it is multiple times more efficient (see equivalents for CA and NY) 1. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.WuEpK6VlB-E https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life...
- Gravityloss 9y ago
  That's why we have these things called laws and democracy and international agreements. Relying on individual action rarely brought massive change.
spodek 9y ago
> there must be some incentive My experience and observation say otherwise. I have no incentive not to litter when I know no one will fine me. Still I get up and walk trash to garbage cans. Even with all the litter around, most people still walk trash to garbage cans instead of littering. Most people don't shoplift even when they know they wouldn't get caught. Most people stop at red lights in the middle of the night when no one is around. Etc. Etc. I've found living by my values the greatest incentive. The alternative is to try to accept that my comfort and convenience come at the cost of others' health and resources, which ate me up inside. I think most people value clean air and water enough that when the culture shifts, they won't need material incentive. Laws will follow behavior, not the other way around.
- skosch 9y ago
  Over many years, laws shape culture though. With all problematic behaviours, citizens fall into three groups: 1) those who refrain out of a healthy sense of personal responsibility; 3) those who persist out of a pathological understanding of personal freedom, and then 2) those who refrain only because they fear personal consequences (ostracism, fines, jail time). My suspicion is that a well-written, well-hated law can push a healthy chunk of people from pompous group 3 into reluctant group 2. As the next generation sees less of the problematic behaviour growing up, group 3 shrinks smaller and smaller over time. That's how progressives ended slavery, got women to vote, made gay marriage mainstream, banned public smoking, and how we are now reining in the war on drugs; it's not clear why it shouldn't work to address energy decadence and meat overconsumption.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    That's also how "progressives" sent thousands to the guillotine in 18th century France and starved millions in 20th century China. They wrote laws. People who couldn't get behind those laws (or who were just associated with the wrong people) got screwed. "Get on board or we'll screw you over", which is exactly the dynamic a "well-hated" law creates, is not how a healthy society is run. NY-SAFE is an example of a "well hated law". How is it working outside the areas that wanted it in the first place? Culture isn't shifting very much as far as I can tell.

LeifCarrotson 9y ago

And somewhat useless. Changing the temperature from 72 to 75 in my well-insulated house does take off a few kWh. But it seems a bit meaningless when the shop down the road is trying to get more people to come in by setting their thermostat at a chilly 65 and leaving the door open all day. Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car, only to drive down the road alongside coal-rolling semis that believe DEF is a conspiracy.

codeulike 9y ago
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Incremental changes in the right direction help, whatever everyone else is doing.
hvidgaard 9y ago
Just because others aren't doing anything, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Every bit helps, and unless there is a major shift in public opinion, or the government steps in, businesses will not change their behavior, i.e. doing what improves their bottom line.
vel0city 9y ago
> Likewise in spending thousands to upgrade from an average 25 mpg car to a 35+ mpg car I'm really curious about this as well. I drive an old Honda Accord that gets ~22-26mpg. In Texas I can choose to only purchase renewable energy, but how much environmental impact will be had from my purchase from an electric car compared to keeping this nearly two-decade-old car running? What is the point where this car is better left as recycled metal vs. keeping it running?
- danans 9y ago
  This depends on a lot of factors, including: - How much you have to drive. The more you drive, the more you can offset the embodied carbon footprint of the EV, and the more fossil fuels you offset. - How fast your decades old ICE car deteriorates, and therefore decreases in efficiency and increases its operational pollution emissions. - The embodied carbon footprint of the vehicle parts you replace through maintenance of an old vehicle. High range EVs with large batteries cancel their embodied footprint in 18 months with a typical drive cycle, even lower if you are mostly using renewably sourced electricity. Lower range EVs take even less time [1] It sounds to me like from your situation (old car, renewable power available) the numbers already suggest you should do it now. From the report linked below, driving an EV in Texas today is like getting 52 mpg with an ICE car. If you're using only renewables it is multiple times more efficient (see equivalents for CA and NY) 1. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.WuEpK6VlB-E https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life...
Gravityloss 9y ago
That's why we have these things called laws and democracy and international agreements. Relying on individual action rarely brought massive change.

spodek 9y ago

> there must be some incentive My experience and observation say otherwise. I have no incentive not to litter when I know no one will fine me. Still I get up and walk trash to garbage cans. Even with all the litter around, most people still walk trash to garbage cans instead of littering. Most people don't shoplift even when they know they wouldn't get caught. Most people stop at red lights in the middle of the night when no one is around. Etc. Etc. I've found living by my values the greatest incentive. The alternative is to try to accept that my comfort and convenience come at the cost of others' health and resources, which ate me up inside. I think most people value clean air and water enough that when the culture shifts, they won't need material incentive. Laws will follow behavior, not the other way around.

skosch 9y ago
Over many years, laws shape culture though. With all problematic behaviours, citizens fall into three groups: 1) those who refrain out of a healthy sense of personal responsibility; 3) those who persist out of a pathological understanding of personal freedom, and then 2) those who refrain only because they fear personal consequences (ostracism, fines, jail time). My suspicion is that a well-written, well-hated law can push a healthy chunk of people from pompous group 3 into reluctant group 2. As the next generation sees less of the problematic behaviour growing up, group 3 shrinks smaller and smaller over time. That's how progressives ended slavery, got women to vote, made gay marriage mainstream, banned public smoking, and how we are now reining in the war on drugs; it's not clear why it shouldn't work to address energy decadence and meat overconsumption.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  That's also how "progressives" sent thousands to the guillotine in 18th century France and starved millions in 20th century China. They wrote laws. People who couldn't get behind those laws (or who were just associated with the wrong people) got screwed. "Get on board or we'll screw you over", which is exactly the dynamic a "well-hated" law creates, is not how a healthy society is run. NY-SAFE is an example of a "well hated law". How is it working outside the areas that wanted it in the first place? Culture isn't shifting very much as far as I can tell.