4 ms·

I feel like there is literally no way for the average person to win this fight. I can't even avoid plastic and oil use in my day-to-day life because I live too

I feel like there is literally no way for the average person to win this fight. I can't even avoid plastic and oil use in my day-to-day life because I live too far from the only farmers market in town, because its too expensive to live any closer. The only way I can see that I could "win" is by buying a large plot of land and essentially returning to living an 1800s style agricultural lifestyle, but even that would probably be too difficult because of the startup costs to buy the land, house, and equipment. I also don't feel that many politicians understand and are popular enough to combat these issues, what else are we supposed to do?

robocat 7y ago
The amount of CO₂ we produce is correlated with our spending (embedded energy), and our spending is usually related to our income. If you have a good income, you likely produce a lot of CO₂, but you can also afford to spend some time and money on offsetting activities. For example, buy a plot of uneconomical farmland and plant good CO₂ absorbers, maybe good nursery trees so you can return land to a more native state. There's heaps of ways to do it, but check you are not being greenwashed. You do need to do some research: building an energy efficient home, or buying a Tesla feels good but might not actually be effective (and could easily be net producer of CO₂ depending on other factors). When I spend money, I figure 25% is embedded energy (e.g. employees in chain go on overseas holiday). E.g. I guess $8 spent uses a litre of petrochemicals. Edit: if anyone has good pointers to information about embedded energy per dollar, I am interested. The above comment is mostly from my own thought experiments.
- aaronblohowiak 7y ago
  Do you have a source for tesla being a net producer of CO2? Your assertion goes against my understanding that even when powered by coal plants, it is less CO2 per mile and over lifetime of vehicle as well.
  - robocat 7y ago
    Sorry, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Tesla since it tends to provoke needless reaction. However: 1. A geeky acquantance bought a Tesla X in New Zealand. I think it cost $200000. To me, that price implies a large amount of embedded energy. He felt he was helping the world, but by my calculations it wasn't. 2. In New Zealand a large amount of our power comes from hydroelectricity, so electric car owners are often smug. But every marginal extra kWh consumed comes from gas, so electric cars here indirectly use hydrocarbons (that's because virtually 100% of our hydro is already allocated). There are arguments about efficiency, but those arguments are hollow for expensive cars, or for low kilometres. 3. The electric car industry would have happened even without Tesla. They rightly claim some speedup of the market, which implies some gains (if we are careful to ensure electric cars don't cause more CO₂ than other transport options through other side effects). I don't see buyers being careful about finding real facts, and sellers don't really care to give them, so it is hard to know where the truth lies. 4. We import a lot of used cars from Japan, something like a second-hand Prius will usually be far better for the environment for most people than a Tesla IMHO. Obviously non-car choices, or to offset the CO₂ might be better still.
    - Ancalagon 7y ago
      I also want to point out a lot of CO2 comes from the manufacturing process as well, and buying a lightly used vehicle that is a hybrid or runs on gas might actually be better than buying a new car.
  - McWobbleston 7y ago
    It typically is unless you're comparing it to an efficient hybrid vehicle in certain areas. I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13 kg tons* C02 to produce, and found in my area a Tesla Model 3 getting ~58mpg equivalent to charge has a similar CO2 output as a 44mpg vehicle over 200k miles I'd say the Tesla still wins since you can likely recycle that 75kWh pack for energy storage afterwards, but it was interesting to see
    - robocat 7y ago
      > I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13kg C02 to produce That just sounds completely unbelievable to me. "That same battery if Elon is the believed will cost Tesla $100 per kWh by the end of 2018" so let's underestimate that it costs $7500 to the consumer. And let's say a barrel of crude costs $60, 13kg of CO2 is $2.50. I think that is 0.0325% embedded energy - I can't see how that could come close to covering transport costs, let alone all the other CO2 uses in the production. My crude heuristic is that $ cost indicates CO2 production, which helps when smelling the whacky numbers thrown around by most sources.
      - McWobbleston 7y ago
        You're right, I meant to say 13,000kg.
        robocat 7y ago
        Even that is only the battery, and it works out to be very roughly 1 litre of crude per dollar. 2.5 kg CO2 per litre of crude, USD60 for a barrel, 160 litres per barrel. So 40% of $7500 cost is embedded energy by my calculations. So let's say a USD35000 car is 35000 embedded litres of crude, which is 500 tanks full. Of course you need to compare against embedded energy in whatever other car you might choose to use. All the above doesn't matter too much to me, since I simply believe that cost is the most honest estimate for CO2 production I can use. Which doesn't mean I don't want a high salary, but it does mean I don't have kids!
asteli 7y ago
The people who make money in industries that pollute would love for you to keep buying into the myth of personal responsibility. We saw this with cigarette and drink companies with the "Keep America Beautiful" campaign, a wildly successful PR move that shifted the blame for litter 100% to the consumer. "Vote with your wallet" is valid, but it also takes the heat off of our elected representatives and regulators. We need to hold them to account for their failure to force companies to factor destructive externalities into their accounting. Vote with your vote, to hit companies in their wallets.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
1. Vote for politicians who want to transition our energy system 2. Support those politicians, and oppose the others 3. Drive less, drive more efficiently 4. Eat less beef, also waste less food 5. Use less heat and cooling energy 6. Bike, walk, or public transport whenever possible Just 6 areas I think about.

robocat 7y ago

The amount of CO₂ we produce is correlated with our spending (embedded energy), and our spending is usually related to our income. If you have a good income, you likely produce a lot of CO₂, but you can also afford to spend some time and money on offsetting activities. For example, buy a plot of uneconomical farmland and plant good CO₂ absorbers, maybe good nursery trees so you can return land to a more native state. There's heaps of ways to do it, but check you are not being greenwashed. You do need to do some research: building an energy efficient home, or buying a Tesla feels good but might not actually be effective (and could easily be net producer of CO₂ depending on other factors). When I spend money, I figure 25% is embedded energy (e.g. employees in chain go on overseas holiday). E.g. I guess $8 spent uses a litre of petrochemicals. Edit: if anyone has good pointers to information about embedded energy per dollar, I am interested. The above comment is mostly from my own thought experiments.

aaronblohowiak 7y ago
Do you have a source for tesla being a net producer of CO2? Your assertion goes against my understanding that even when powered by coal plants, it is less CO2 per mile and over lifetime of vehicle as well.
- robocat 7y ago
  Sorry, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Tesla since it tends to provoke needless reaction. However: 1. A geeky acquantance bought a Tesla X in New Zealand. I think it cost $200000. To me, that price implies a large amount of embedded energy. He felt he was helping the world, but by my calculations it wasn't. 2. In New Zealand a large amount of our power comes from hydroelectricity, so electric car owners are often smug. But every marginal extra kWh consumed comes from gas, so electric cars here indirectly use hydrocarbons (that's because virtually 100% of our hydro is already allocated). There are arguments about efficiency, but those arguments are hollow for expensive cars, or for low kilometres. 3. The electric car industry would have happened even without Tesla. They rightly claim some speedup of the market, which implies some gains (if we are careful to ensure electric cars don't cause more CO₂ than other transport options through other side effects). I don't see buyers being careful about finding real facts, and sellers don't really care to give them, so it is hard to know where the truth lies. 4. We import a lot of used cars from Japan, something like a second-hand Prius will usually be far better for the environment for most people than a Tesla IMHO. Obviously non-car choices, or to offset the CO₂ might be better still.
  - Ancalagon 7y ago
    I also want to point out a lot of CO2 comes from the manufacturing process as well, and buying a lightly used vehicle that is a hybrid or runs on gas might actually be better than buying a new car.
- McWobbleston 7y ago
  It typically is unless you're comparing it to an efficient hybrid vehicle in certain areas. I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13 kg tons* C02 to produce, and found in my area a Tesla Model 3 getting ~58mpg equivalent to charge has a similar CO2 output as a 44mpg vehicle over 200k miles I'd say the Tesla still wins since you can likely recycle that 75kWh pack for energy storage afterwards, but it was interesting to see
  - robocat 7y ago
    > I did some napkin math based on a claim that a 75kWh battery takes 13kg C02 to produce That just sounds completely unbelievable to me. "That same battery if Elon is the believed will cost Tesla $100 per kWh by the end of 2018" so let's underestimate that it costs $7500 to the consumer. And let's say a barrel of crude costs $60, 13kg of CO2 is $2.50. I think that is 0.0325% embedded energy - I can't see how that could come close to covering transport costs, let alone all the other CO2 uses in the production. My crude heuristic is that $ cost indicates CO2 production, which helps when smelling the whacky numbers thrown around by most sources.
    - McWobbleston 7y ago
      You're right, I meant to say 13,000kg.
      - robocat 7y ago
        Even that is only the battery, and it works out to be very roughly 1 litre of crude per dollar. 2.5 kg CO2 per litre of crude, USD60 for a barrel, 160 litres per barrel. So 40% of $7500 cost is embedded energy by my calculations. So let's say a USD35000 car is 35000 embedded litres of crude, which is 500 tanks full. Of course you need to compare against embedded energy in whatever other car you might choose to use. All the above doesn't matter too much to me, since I simply believe that cost is the most honest estimate for CO2 production I can use. Which doesn't mean I don't want a high salary, but it does mean I don't have kids!

asteli 7y ago

The people who make money in industries that pollute would love for you to keep buying into the myth of personal responsibility. We saw this with cigarette and drink companies with the "Keep America Beautiful" campaign, a wildly successful PR move that shifted the blame for litter 100% to the consumer. "Vote with your wallet" is valid, but it also takes the heat off of our elected representatives and regulators. We need to hold them to account for their failure to force companies to factor destructive externalities into their accounting. Vote with your vote, to hit companies in their wallets.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

1. Vote for politicians who want to transition our energy system 2. Support those politicians, and oppose the others 3. Drive less, drive more efficiently 4. Eat less beef, also waste less food 5. Use less heat and cooling energy 6. Bike, walk, or public transport whenever possible Just 6 areas I think about.