5 ms·

I think it's a reaction to people constantly saying "take shorter showers!" when doing that would have minimal effect on climate change. Industrial and agricult

I think it's a reaction to people constantly saying "take shorter showers!" when doing that would have minimal effect on climate change. Industrial and agricultural water use, and pollution, are massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis.

coldpie 7y ago
> Industrial and agricultural water use, and pollution, are massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis. Maybe, but people minimize the impact of day-to-day living. Which do you think is higher: US carbon emissions from passenger vehicles, or US carbon emissions from freight trucks, ships, trains and airplanes combined? In fact, it is passenger vehicles. Does your modern city dweller drive to work every day instead of taking transit? Individual choices really do have a real impact, it's not all due to industry and agriculture. Don't minimize the impact of individual choices. Source, US EPA: "The Transportation sector includes the movement of people and goods by cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, and other vehicles. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines. The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector come from other modes of transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains, as well as pipelines and lubricants." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- wffurr 7y ago
  What's the point of comparing vehicle emissions to the energy cost of hot showers? In fact, reducing access to long hot showers might increase vehicle emissions as fewer people would be inclined to bicycle, especially in hot weather.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    I'm not. The person I'm replying to said, "industrial and agricultural ... pollution [is] massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis." Many people use this premise as an excuse to avoid making changes in their own lives. However, my point is that it is a false premise. Industrial pollution is actually not massive compared to individual pollution.
ProZsolt 7y ago
Same with plastic. You can shame people who not recycle everything but till companies start reducing plastic packaging nothing will change.
- crankylinuxuser 7y ago
  Protip: more things can be done at the same time, than just 1. The best reading, this is a case what we would call "whataboutism". Do note, packaging companies and excessive use of single-use plastics is horrible and absolutely should get fixed. But one can also make local changes about your life that also reduce your impact. Well, if you care.
  - salawat 7y ago
    >The best reading, this is a case what we would call "whataboutism". Do note, packaging companies and excessive use of single-use plastics is horrible and absolutely should get fixed. Not sure I necessarily buy that. Easiest fix in many cases with the lowest impact in terms of lives to directly change should be happening higher in the industrial chain to start with. There is little or no point to trying to change things in the immediacy of the end consumer until the upchain effects of getting industry in check have settled out, as the situation then may have completely changed from the current day to day consumer reality. >Protip: more things can be done at the same time, than just 1. Yes, things can be done in parallel. No, there is a certain point where if you start pushing the pain on the consumer first without reining in industry, you'll end up with the better environmental cost delta amplifiers (industry) creating more problems for the consumer to have to fix/compensate for. Example: People want alternate ways to heat water, therefore tanks/plumbing systems supplies capable of making solar based heating become more popular. The parts to make that consumer change possible though rely on an industrial process that ends up outputting more carbon than people save through the solar water heating system. What you want is: Figure out ways that industry isn't mitigating carbon debt in satisfying current demand. Tweak those to rein things in and figure out how the consequences propagate out and how it impacts consumer behavior. Then rinse and repeat. Remember, if you create a hole through consumer behavior changes alone, all it does is signal capital into the most expedient form for utilizing current technology to try to create new demand from the change of the economic landscape. If your current technology was part of the problem your consumer behavior change was meant to remedy, you just ticked off a bunch of people when the actual figures come out saying you didn't realize the payoff, and you further hurt your credibility in suggesting additional changes. Once you have everyone playing to the same tune industrially, the societal approach to conservation and what can or can't be done fundamentally changes. I hope that makes sense.

coldpie 7y ago

> Industrial and agricultural water use, and pollution, are massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis. Maybe, but people minimize the impact of day-to-day living. Which do you think is higher: US carbon emissions from passenger vehicles, or US carbon emissions from freight trucks, ships, trains and airplanes combined? In fact, it is passenger vehicles. Does your modern city dweller drive to work every day instead of taking transit? Individual choices really do have a real impact, it's not all due to industry and agriculture. Don't minimize the impact of individual choices. Source, US EPA: "The Transportation sector includes the movement of people and goods by cars, trucks, trains, ships, airplanes, and other vehicles. The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines. The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector. The remaining greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector come from other modes of transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains, as well as pipelines and lubricants." https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

wffurr 7y ago
What's the point of comparing vehicle emissions to the energy cost of hot showers? In fact, reducing access to long hot showers might increase vehicle emissions as fewer people would be inclined to bicycle, especially in hot weather.
- coldpie 7y ago
  I'm not. The person I'm replying to said, "industrial and agricultural ... pollution [is] massive compared to anything a modern city dweller does on a daily basis." Many people use this premise as an excuse to avoid making changes in their own lives. However, my point is that it is a false premise. Industrial pollution is actually not massive compared to individual pollution.

ProZsolt 7y ago

Same with plastic. You can shame people who not recycle everything but till companies start reducing plastic packaging nothing will change.

crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Protip: more things can be done at the same time, than just 1. The best reading, this is a case what we would call "whataboutism". Do note, packaging companies and excessive use of single-use plastics is horrible and absolutely should get fixed. But one can also make local changes about your life that also reduce your impact. Well, if you care.
- salawat 7y ago
  >The best reading, this is a case what we would call "whataboutism". Do note, packaging companies and excessive use of single-use plastics is horrible and absolutely should get fixed. Not sure I necessarily buy that. Easiest fix in many cases with the lowest impact in terms of lives to directly change should be happening higher in the industrial chain to start with. There is little or no point to trying to change things in the immediacy of the end consumer until the upchain effects of getting industry in check have settled out, as the situation then may have completely changed from the current day to day consumer reality. >Protip: more things can be done at the same time, than just 1. Yes, things can be done in parallel. No, there is a certain point where if you start pushing the pain on the consumer first without reining in industry, you'll end up with the better environmental cost delta amplifiers (industry) creating more problems for the consumer to have to fix/compensate for. Example: People want alternate ways to heat water, therefore tanks/plumbing systems supplies capable of making solar based heating become more popular. The parts to make that consumer change possible though rely on an industrial process that ends up outputting more carbon than people save through the solar water heating system. What you want is: Figure out ways that industry isn't mitigating carbon debt in satisfying current demand. Tweak those to rein things in and figure out how the consequences propagate out and how it impacts consumer behavior. Then rinse and repeat. Remember, if you create a hole through consumer behavior changes alone, all it does is signal capital into the most expedient form for utilizing current technology to try to create new demand from the change of the economic landscape. If your current technology was part of the problem your consumer behavior change was meant to remedy, you just ticked off a bunch of people when the actual figures come out saying you didn't realize the payoff, and you further hurt your credibility in suggesting additional changes. Once you have everyone playing to the same tune industrially, the societal approach to conservation and what can or can't be done fundamentally changes. I hope that makes sense.