13 ms·

I think another great move would be to start dealing with excessive energy consumption. Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amou

• coolspot 8y ago
  + heated ceiling instead of floor in many apartments.
• wang_li 8y ago
  Compared to Europe the US is doing better on carbon reduction seeing as the US went down and Europe went up. I'm not disagreeing that everyone should try to improve and the items you mentioned can be looked at, but comparing to Europe the US looks pretty good.
  • llukas 8y ago
    https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=EU-US https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location... Looks pretty good on what metric?
    • tomnipotent 8y ago
      Misleading chart. It's showing the average across the EU and not the total.
      • garmaine 8y ago
        Why should we care about the total? EU and US are different sizes to begin with. Per capita seems to be appropriate here.
        • tomnipotent 8y ago
          Then compare EU against US states individually - I'd wager the US result will drop significantly when you average the per capita results by state.
          • garmaine 8y ago
            That is not how averages work.
            • yongjik 8y ago
              Besides, doing that will most certainly inflate the number, considering US has many small rural states with much worse emission (per capita) than large, less carbon-intensive states like NY or CA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_... (By the way, what the hell is happening in Wyoming? 111.55 tons per person?)
              • jcranmer 8y ago
                Low population, but exporting coal-based power to the rest of the country? The top emissions are Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, and Louisiana, which are all big energy producers, and energy producers tend to have naturally high emissions.
              • garmaine 8y ago
                Lots of cows in Wyoming.
            • deleted 8y ago
              [deleted]
    • wang_li 8y ago
      2017. The charts you linked to end in 2014. In 2017 the US reduced carbon emissions[1]. The EU increased their emissions[2]. 1 - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/in-2017-the-u-s-had-the-largest-reduction-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-in-the-world/ https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-... 2 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-carbon-climatechange/eu-carbon-emissions-rose-in-2017-eurostat-idUSKBN1I50YU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-carbon-climatechange/e...
      • gowld 8y ago
        The EU emits 50% as much per capita. A 0.5% reduction for the US isn't better than the EU in absolute terms.
        • wang_li 8y ago
          So? Is 6.8 tons per person carbon neutral? No? Then Europe needs to be cutting, not increasing, their emissions.
        • adventured 8y ago
          Total output is what really matters, not just the per capita. The earth has a carrying limit for total emissions. The EU has nearly 200 million more people than the US, roughly 60% more, squeezed into an area less than half the size of the US. Whose fault is that population density? The total EU emissions are ~80% as high as the US in ~45% of the land area (a drastically worse rate of emissions per km2), due to that population density. How do you think that emissions concentration impacts the local environment? Population matters, it's why we wouldn't have to care much if Iceland had 2x the per capita emission output of the US. If your nation has three billion people - ie vast over-population - you shouldn't have the same per capita emissions considerations or concerns as a nation with three million. I understand that sounds unfair. The earth sets the real limitations and it doesn't care about perceived fairness. If a country like Nigeria or Indonesia somehow rapidly expanded to five billion people, would it be acceptable for them to have the same per capita emission output of the EU? Obviously not. It'd be an environmental disaster for the planet due to the overall output. Population is the other critical factor in emissions (eg in China's case their emissions would be catastrophic at US per capita levels with 1.4b people in that small of an area).
  • acdha 8y ago
    Do you have a cite for that? It's common in lobbying circles but they studiously avoid mentioning that the US was starting from a substantially higher baseline so EU consumption was still considerably lower. See for example the chart through 2014 here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-biggest-carbon-polluter-in-history-will-it-walk-away-from-the-paris-climate-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-bi...
    • strictnein 8y ago
      One source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-carbon-iea/global-carbon-emissions-hit-record-high-in-2017-idUSKBN1GY0RB https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-carbon-iea/global-... > "Most major economies saw an increase in carbon emissions, though Britain, the United States, Mexico and Japan experienced declines. The biggest drop came from the United States, where they were down 0.5 percent"
      • acdha 8y ago
        That’s exactly the dynamic I was talking about: the US percentage dropped more but that only made us less far behind the EU than we used to be. That’s not how almost anyone is going to interpret a statement that the US is doing better than the EU.
        • strictnein 8y ago
          The US is currently doing a better job cutting emissions than the EU is. You're purposefully misreading the original statement which is very clear: > "Compared to Europe the US is doing better on carbon reduction seeing as the US went down and Europe went up. " The US is doing a better job on _carbon reduction_.
          • acdha 8y ago
            Again, you have to look at the actual data to avoid being mislead by that statement since it doesn’t have any context to let you know that the US is still significantly further behind. A single year which is within the range of normal year to year variation doesn’t invalidate a long-term trend.
  • adrianN 8y ago
    The US is producing crazy amounts of natural gas, that probably leads to some reduction in the use of coal. I don't see much policy driving towards sustainable technology.
• mattygh 8y ago
  Compared to the rest of the USA (low bar), California is a saint. They started doing Energy Efficiency in the 70s, currently spend $1Bn / year on EE. Energy consumption as a whole in the state has flatlined since they started doing EE (1). All that to say, they're trying. It's crazy how much of a difference culture makes. 1: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-is-proof-that-energy-efficiency-works https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/california-is-p...
  • wlesieutre 8y ago
    California's appliance efficiency regulations (Title 20) are much stricter than to anywhere else in the US, as far as I know. http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/ http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/ EDIT - for an example, their clothes washer energy/water requirements got stricter in 2015 and then again in 2018 https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IC95DA848BDAD489294F06754177B0C50?originationContext=document&transitionType=StatuteNavigator&needToInjectTerms=False&viewType=FullText&contextData=(sc.Default) https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IC95DA848BDAD48929... They also have the strictest building energy codes (Title 24). https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/ https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/
    • mattygh 8y ago
      That's probably been the main driver over time
      • lostcolony 8y ago
        The effects are felt elsewhere, too. Most manufacturers aren't going to design two versions of a model for two regions, the energy efficient one, and the less energy efficient one. They'll just work to make one that fits the more stringent one. California has been one of the biggest drivers of EE nationwide because of that. It's interesting to see it in practice too; if you move to California and bring a car, part of the registration process is to check the car and make sure it indicates it meets California requirements in design and build (not just smog testing; they do that too, but the actual registration/titling will involve them popping the hood and checking the car has the right markings). And basically every modern car does.
• fdr 8y ago
  That may well happen. Keep in mind California doesn't have full control as a regulatory state: consider the special EPA waiver that came in, along with EPA itself, during the Nixon era. Many regulations one is accustomed to from the Federal government require such special permission to act. We might see a bevy of tax credits or the like over time to do the lifting.
• phil248 8y ago
  There is no doubt room for improvement, but California is already among the most energy efficient states. https://database.aceee.org/state/california https://database.aceee.org/state/california
  • nradov 8y ago
    Only because Californians have outsourced most of their manufacturing and other heavy industry to other states and countries. If we factor in the total energy or carbon emissions cost of stuff we import then California doesn't look nearly as good.
    • village-idiot 8y ago
      I mean, it's not like your iPhone was made in Missouri.
  • 8bitsrule 8y ago
    Yep. And I salute them for their results. According to the US EIA, "California's total energy consumption ranks among the highest in the nation, but, in 2015, the state's per capita energy consumption ranked 49th, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs." That per-capita figure results from action. Instead of just talking the talk, they've been actively building green capacity for decades. "In 2016, California ranked ... first as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources." https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA Energy consumed per-capita across the US in 2016: https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/12 https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/#/series/12
• ancarda 8y ago
  On the topic of large cars, what is the solution here? I can imagine forcing people to replace A/C units won’t be so objectionable, especially if it’s free to do so, but there may be some real opposition to requiring people to drive different cars. Nobody gets attached to an A/C. I don’t drive right now - I take public transport everywhere - but I’d love a large car (a Dodge RAM). If I try to buy something small to be conscious of my carbon footprint and energy usage, I think I will end up buying the large car a few years later. Is there anything at-all I can do to drive a large car while not being part of the problem? I’m looking into carbon offsetting, but that’s all I am aware of for the time being. I wish Dodge would make an electric RAM 1500, that could make this much easier.
  • johnmsd 8y ago
    Dodge is making strides towards that, releasing a mild-hybrid version of the ram for 2019 https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-ram-hybrid-could-hit-a-decent-22-mpg-combined-1822086050 https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-ram-hybrid-could-hit-a-decent-...
  • ams6110 8y ago
    The way Europe deals with cars is they tax the bejezus out of them, and gasoline also. In some countries, half the price of a new car is tax. That is why people drive little toy cars there. Everyone would like a nice big comfortable car but they are unaffordable for most.
    • ancarda 8y ago
      Oh yeah! It’s crazy expensive :( What I’m trying to grapple with is this desire of mine while trying to be aware of my environmental impact. If there’s no way to have my cake and eat it too, I won’t get one.
      • justinator 8y ago
        Where is this desire rooted in?
• washingtub 8y ago
  > vertical-drum washing machines (!!!) There are a number of issues with front-loading washers. While they use less water, they are also worse at cleaning clothes and much worse at sanitizing them. There was a recent post here on HN where a biologist did several experiments in her own washer to show how poorly they sanitized things compared to her older one. They also tend to trap water in the bottom and it gets musty and moldy, which with my spouses allergies is a non-starter. But I whole-heartedly agree with your other issues. Moving from the Midwest, I can't believe how poorly insulated things are in CA. Our first apartment in Santa Monica had windows that didn't even seal properly when closed. You could very easily stick a sheet of paper through the gap between the window and the frame when it was supposedly closed. Some people even have glass louvres instead of windows in their bathrooms here!
  • merpnderp 8y ago
    Yeah, I have yet to see a side loading washing without the moldy ring on the side of the door. I'm unsure how this is in any way a net improvement, as whatever action people take to fix the mold problem is likely to more than make up for the energy saved processing the water.
    • NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      20 seconds with a damp cloth every few months, which is all our washer requires to keep the door seal crud-free, doesn't seem likely to raise energy requirements much.
    • jedberg 8y ago
      We leave ours open when it's not in use. No mold for years.
      • jrockway 8y ago
        Same. You have to let the thing dry out.
  • ajross 8y ago
    > Moving from the Midwest, I can't believe how poorly insulated things are in CA. Our first apartment in Santa Monica had windows that didn't even seal properly when closed. ... yeah. Because it's in Santa Monica. Without even bothering to ask details about your personal temperature preference or the size or construction date of the homes, I can 100% guarantee you you're using less energy on climate control in SoCal than in "the midwest". Trying to fix energy consumption by improving construction and code regulation in the major city least in need of climate control, like, worldwide is just a silly waste of resources. LA is wasteful in many ways. But a city that sits at a 60-70F average basically year-round is just not in need of attention here.
• verelo 8y ago
  Hopefully "market forces" will cause this to occur as a by-product of this legislation.
• greglindahl 8y ago
  Great suggestion! We've been working on that for decades already.
• ajross 8y ago
  > Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units, Are you living in a particularly new region? Every time I've seen this come up, the data actually says the opposite: the median US home is better insulated, more recently built and more efficiently climate-controlled. Which is unsurprising, because they're newer, basically. Home technology over the last half century has made huge improvements in energy consumption. It's true that the median US home is much larger than what you probably see where you are. And obviously that goes to total consumption. But it's not an issue with housing technology at all.
  • stefan_ 8y ago
    I've pulled up a random "YouTube star" "building my dream house in california" video and that looks all the world like a single glazed window, in 2018: https://youtu.be/OWglKkE-0a8?t=2m17s https://youtu.be/OWglKkE-0a8?t=2m17s It also seems to be a wooden construction.. so frankly I don't know what to think. I'm sorry if this seems like very unconventional evidence but then going from building codes to what people are actually building out there is a whole different story, and then you didn't actually provide any data, either. Though you are spot on with the ridiculously oversized buildings, like a 3 door garage that is so intimately integrated into the structure you're climate controlling it year round.
    • kenhwang 8y ago
      California uses a lot of wood because of wood's seismic resistance properties.
    • hippich 8y ago
      modern wooden frame houses with good insulation are very efficient at keeping heat/moisture where it needs to be kept. I am in the process of building new house and recently had same research - build like we used to build house where I am from (eastern europe, brick and mortar) or use something everybody is doing. turned out that this stick frame structure with foam insulation is actually much more efficient. Attached garages are typically is separated from the rest of the house conditioning space. I do insulation of the garage, but only because I plan to work there. Plus water heater I am installing is actually heat pump, so it should cool garage down a bit.
• oceanplexian 8y ago
  I'm not against energy efficiency, however, conservation is fundamentally the wrong approach. What is the future going to look like? - Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it - These people, if we don't screw up and start another war, will want a house, air conditioning, a car, air travel, lots of kids, and more - Human will inhabit more parts of the Earth that are uninhabitable (Antarctica, Siberia, Canada, Australia), which will require an order of magnitude increase in energy for heating/cooling - Industry and manufacturing will need to provide for the leisure spending of billions of additional humans (iPhones, Televisions, etc) - New technologies will require orders of magnitude more energy, such as flying cars, space travel, etc. The solution to these things isn't to crawl in a hole and try to shave a few % efficiencies out of a washing machine or a pickup truck. Energy isn't a limited resource. It's one of the most abundant things in the universe. With today's technology (Nuclear Fission and one day, Fusion) you could make energy more cheaply and abundantly than the air we breathe. People should expect to behave as if energy is free. And energy should be free. The problem is that society at large (and NIMBYs and Anti-Nuclear activists) don't have any imagination and therefore set back our civilization and post-scarcity society 50-100 years.
  • deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  • michaelchisari 8y ago
    Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it Luckily, we're looking at a very real possibility that we peak at 9 billion and then start to shrink from there. Which creates a whole host of other social issues, but at least gross overpopulation isn't one of them.
    • village-idiot 8y ago
      Sudden population shifts are really bad for stability.
      • Findeton 8y ago
        It's not sudden.
• blake1 8y ago
  This already happens in at least two ways. First way is called demand response, and entails the operator asking some users “how much is the next MW worth to you?” If no one can supply that MW at that price or less, the customer can agree to not consume that MW. It is significant for some operators, but by design of the market, is only an option for industrial customers, really. Some utilities also offer a limited form of this, where you can allow them to shut off your AC, receiving a discount on your bill, generally. Both work, in their way. Would have a much larger effect if they were more universal, and of the price signal were felt more strongly by consumers. Which I think was your point.
• rayiner 8y ago
  What would be the numerical impact of those efficiency gains (accounting for the cost of manufacturing new units to replace less efficient ones that may work just fine)
• village-idiot 8y ago
  As someone who lived in 3 Chicago apartments heated by radiator heat and had visible gaps in every single window, I'd be inclined to disagree with this assessment.
• st26 8y ago
  IMO California suffers from pride/nationalism on a state level. I grew up there, and everybody took it for granted we were the best at the environment. The most efficient, the most conservation minded, the works. But I left ten years ago and as I travel the states, I realize CA is not always the best. Not even most of the time. But due to this mindset, CA is never challenged to up their game by the good work other states do.
• URSpider94 8y ago
  Europe was built (re-built after WW II) to be energy-efficient. Cars have diesel motors that make half the power of the same model in the USA. Air conditioning in the home is almost unheard-of. Nobody I know there has a clothes dryer that roasts your clothes with gas or electricity - the unit I had when I lived there was a washer/dryer combo with a really powerful spin cycle and then a mild heater coupled with a condensing unit (basically a dehumidifier) - clothes come out damp, so you have to hang them up to get to final dry-ness. All light bulbs are fluorescent, if not LED, and all lights in public buildings are on motion sensors or timer switches. California skates by because the big population centers need almost zero heating or cooling, relatively speaking. Other than that, our power use would make a German Green Party member see red.
• cameldrv 8y ago
  Homes are very poorly insulated here because it's not necessary. The climate is so nice, the heater only runs a month or two out of the year, and not even the whole day. It maybe brings up the inside temperature 5 degrees C. We could get by without air conditioning entirely, but I have it and it gets used perhaps for a total of two weeks in the summer. Compare that to northern Europe where the outside temperature is below 0C for a lot of the winter, the payoff for properly insulating a house, installing new windows, etc, just isn't there. If you really wanted to save energy, move somewhere where you don't require so much energy to not freeze to death.