6 ms·
Okie dokie, replies below. However, I still would like to learn more about from where your views originated, so I hope you don't mind if I email you. > Blaming
by diafygi 7y ago
Okie dokie, replies below. However, I still would like to learn more about from where your views originated, so I hope you don't mind if I email you.
> Blaming the “companies” and “lobbyists” is such a cop-out. The companies are just giving people what they want. If people demanded a shift to a climate friendly lifestyle tomorrow, Exxon would have no choice but to follow suit.
As we've seen with Russian propaganda efforts, the firehose of falsehoods can be extremely effective at keeping people in the dark or convincing them of something not in their best interest. People demanding a shift requires education around the topic, and Exxon literally prevented research on the topic from coming out for decades.
> Looking at the major trends of the last several decades. People moving to brand new sunbelt suburbs where they drive everywhere in SUVs. Buying disposable clothes, electronics, etc., made in China and shipped over the ocean. Even the token attempts at being environmentally conscious are ridiculous. I go to Whole Foods here in Maryland and everything is grown in f—king California. It’s a joke.
I'm very confused what point you're trying to make here. That systems or not optimizing for environmental impact? Of course they aren't. They are optimizing based on the incentives they are following. People move to suburbs and drive SUVs to feel safer and more wealthy. People move to the sunbelt because the winter sucks. People buy disposable clothes and stuff is shipped from China because it's cheaper to do so. It's really expensive to grow produce in Maryland, so you ship it from California.
> Nobody is willing to make the lifestyle changes it would take to have a real impact on climate change. And it’s not unique to the US. Canada and Australia have similar carbon footprints per capita, suggesting it’s more a combination of material wealth and low density. Blaming corporations instead of the people for all that is asinine.
You're right, asking someone to give up their lifestyle sucks. However, you're equating changing lifestyle with fighting climate change. That's where we disagree. The goal of fighting climate change isn't to get people to change their lifestyles, it's to stop sequestered carbon from entering the carbon cycle. One way to do that is to ask people to stop being so excessive (e.g. changing lifestyle), but nowadays we have so many more options.
Most climate change solutions nowadays start with the assumption that we shouldn't ask people to change lifestyles, and just deploy carbon-free infrastructure that is a drop-in replacement for existing carbon-intense infrastructure. Solar, Wind, EVs, batteries, biofuels, etc. all never ask you to stop buying disposable shirts from China. All they do is replace the power that powers the factory and the fuel that is used to ship it to you with sources that don't add carbon the carbon cycle. So that when you are living your life in your disposable shirt and eating your California avocados, you're not contributing to climate change anymore.
> And what are our best and brightest from Stanford, etc., doing? Figuring out carbon recapture? No, working at Google figuring out how to more effectively advertise disposable consumer goods that are shipped over from China, used a few times, and shipped back to China for disposal.
We'll I'm just the best and brightest from UT-Austin, so not Stanford, but I did make the career switch from traditional tech to cleantech. And every time one of these threads come up I try to post that you, too, can make the switch from Google to cleantech. However, every time that happens, there are pessimists like yourself who shit all over my call for help. That's okay though, the capitalist in me kind of sees this as an opportunity. The fewer competitors I have in my particular niche, the more money I make. So I guess I should be partially thanking you for slowing down the climate change tech enlightenment :)
- anonuser123456 7y agoThe US per-capita power consumption is 10kw. That's 10kw of continuous draw every minute, every day. And that's not household use, that's per capital.. so a household of 4 is using about 1 megawatt-hours /day. Where do you plan to find that in your non-lifestyle change world? Solar? That's 8000sqft of installed solar with the highest efficiency panels. That needs to be coupled with hundreds of kwh storage. Total cost : hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good luck on that.
- adrianN 7y agoThe numbers cited here seemed high to me, so I checked them. Primary energy consumption in the US[1] ~1 * 10 ^ 20 Joules. Divided by population and number of seconds in a year[2] is about 10000 Joules per person-second, so about 10kW per person. A kilowatt of peak solar power requires about 8 square meters of panels[3]. Since the sun doesn't shine all the time and you don't get peak output all the time 750 square meters per person doesn't seem terribly unrealistic. That being said, there is a lot of space where nobody lives in the US. There are some 28000 square meters per person in the US. Dedicating about 3% of that to solar panels doesn't seem impossible. Some energy saving is also possible without changing the average lifestyle too much. Insulating homes helps quite a bit. Electric cars are more efficient that gas cars. [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home [2] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%5E20+joules+%2F+(3.1415*10%5E7+seconds)+%2F+(population+of+the+usa) https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=10%5E20+joules+%2F+(3.... [3] https://www.quora.com/How-much-solar-energy-can-be-tapped-in-1-sq-meter-on-a-roof https://www.quora.com/How-much-solar-energy-can-be-tapped-in...
- jdietrich 7y ago>Since the sun doesn't shine all the time and you don't get peak output all the time 750 square meters per person doesn't seem terribly unrealistic. At current prices, that much PV capacity would cost around 25 trillion dollars. That price doesn't include any storage capacity. The climate is changing far too rapidly for us to hope for science fiction solutions. We need a major reduction in emissions now, which means both a vast increase in renewable production and a vast reduction in overall consumption.