3 ms·

There is a lot of talk about renewable energy. But I believe this is distracting us from the real issue: we are using too many resourses. Our family uses aroun

• icoder 7y ago
  I agree with the first part, but being consumption aware brings you only so far. As an example I'll be moving into an A++++ isolated, triple glass, gass-less home using an efficient heat pump to convert 1x electrical energy into 5x heat energy using earth heat. Even then, we'll probably be at your consumption level (ballpark), for heating and ventilation alone. Many places on earth just won't work without heating (or AC), no matter how 'consumption aware' you are. Curious as well to how you came to your last remark.
• Dumblydorr 7y ago
  Personal choice is only about 5% of the change needed to mitigate climate change. Individuals can not choose most things, such as steel and cement and plastic production, they can't enact a carbon tax, they can't close down coal plants or raise capital for nuclear or renewables. Can individuals educate millions of women in the third world or change how refrigerants are managed? Look at drawdown.org, you will see the majority of reductions will be on elected officials and corporations. The most developed world individuals can do, as you say, is reduce their own footprint in minimal ways and VOTE!!
  • seminatl 7y ago
    This does not really apply to individual Americans. The American carbon footprint boils down to driving and meat. Individual decisions made by super-consumers can be impactful.
    • nothrabannosir 7y ago
      Impactful but not sustainable nor scalable. Climate change as we face it is a tragedy of the commons. We are using a negative resource without pricing in that externality. Individual action does not solve a tragedy of the commons; this is a very well established economic theory. I would almost call it a fact. Without a tax on the resource, all you’re doing is leaving more of it for the others to abuse. The same happens with fishing, rhinos, etc etc. Individual action is a moot point: we must solve this collectively. Everything else is a polarising distraction.
    • WhompingWindows 7y ago
      You're still not correct...you're saying eating plant based diet has essentially zero footprint, which is untrue, especially with food waste. And you're saying driving/transportation choice alone is sufficient, when we know that even if they bought an EV or used a train, those transportation regimes still incur carbon emissions in their production and operation, though admittedly less LOCAL emissions (great!) and potential for lower future emissions as the grid cleans up (great!). These individuals still can not choose zero-carbon heating/cooling (which is probably 1/3 of American's footprint, which you neglected to even mention), they can't choose how their infrastructure is produced (steel and cement, big time emissions there), they can't choose the actions of their American government, which spends a lot of carbon emissions on its internal activities as well as its foreign incursions. So no, you really can't "boil down" to zero net emissions as an American unless you stop using heating, cooling, roads, transportation of any kind except walking/bikes, and if you completely stop supporting the US govt and its activities.
• adrianN 7y ago
  Being conscious of what you use is of course important, but it's not a path to carbon neutrality, so in the long run it's not enough. It is also a surefire way to prevent any change if you wait for every single person to change their personal lifestyle instead of government action that provides alternatives which don't require becoming a hermit hunter gatherer to reach carbon neutrality.
  • _Microft 7y ago
    These things are not mutually exclusive.
    • KnightOfWords 7y ago
      Yes, only top-down and bottom-up changes are enough to mitigate the risks of climate change.
• zzzcpan 7y ago
  > We don't own an AC, use LED lights everywhere, and always check the power consumption of appliances we buy. > Being aware of your consumptions really helps. A lot of people live in places with summers and winters though, with ACs working through may to september and central heating through november to march.
  • Sharlin 7y ago
    Outside of (sub)tropics AC isn't really needed; it's a luxury. Air-conditioned homes in Europe are still fairly uncommon. As for heating, the unfortunate fact is that most of that is needed due to subpar (or often close to nonexistent) insulation, even in climates where it could make a big difference.
    • shantly 7y ago
      Houses in the US haven't been built to be livable without AC (in areas that have highs over 85F or so more than a month a year) in decades. Nor have apartment buildings. You need special attention to floor plan, facing, and to make choices that go the opposite direction of what you do if you have AC and want it to work efficiently, like having really big windows that open, several big doors, and high ceilings. These tend to make your heating less efficient, so there's that problem too. You also need more expensive materials and different/better craftsmanship than has been commonly available to keep the house's interior finishes from deteriorating quickly when subjected to wide seasonal temperature swings. And more maintenance regardless.
      • madhadron 7y ago
        This is the other side of the problem. Much of the construction in the US is a net negative rather than a net positive. I found this recently when buying a house: the majority of houses in the town in question I looked at and said, "I would need to knock fifty thousand dollars off the land value to have this bulldozed before I could build something habitable." It's not financially viable because they are classified as being worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, not negative tens of thousands of dollars.