4 ms·

.

XorNot 6y ago
This is both untrue and incredibly unproductive - born of a mishmash of puritan morals and modern problems. Do you use a dishwasher? You should. They use less water and less energy per wash then any human washing by hand. Yet people instinctively seem to think hand washing is better because it's harder work. No amount of energy use reduction is going to make a shred of difference if all our power comes from coal. Period. Everything else is secondary and non-fundamental: solar panels can be manufactured cleanly, and the consequences of mishandling still only pollute locally - serious, but not an uncontrollable global problem. Environmentalism of the "we must sacrifice" nature is being pushed by idiots on the left and corporates on the right: the left feels it's honest because it's hard, the right knows that no one will do it but boy does it shift blame away from them and encourage populism and dismissal in public discourse.
- danans 6y ago
  > Environmentalism of the "we must sacrifice" nature is being pushed by idiots on the left and corporates on the right: the left feels it's honest because it's hard, the right knows that no one will do it I totally agree with your broader point that we shouldn't rely on individual behavior change, but I think you are using a dated perspective of the left and the right. The modern left is actually proposing massive green infrastructure spending in order to shift the country's energy production away from fossil fuels (aka the Green New Deal). The modern right has turned the use of fossil fuels into an identity politics issue, as if you become less American somehow if you use less coal and petroleum to power your life. The corporations are going where their business models and customer constituencies take them, which is why tech has invested heavily in renewables, and fossil fuel companies have balkanized around their products. The automobile industry is in limbo between the two, with a foot in both worlds.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  >You should. They use less water and less energy per wash then any human washing by hand. I've always been sceptical of that claim. I found one paper on it but you can guess who sponsored it.
- cableshaft 6y ago
  > Do you use a dishwasher? You should. They use less water and less energy per wash then any human washing by hand. I knew it was less water, but I'm unclear on less energy. Is it just because it uses more energy to purify and/or heat the added water? Because otherwise it seems like a lot of the energy is human energy, of which humans are generally already too sedentary anyway and could use with spending more of their energy on various activities. I agree with your other comments, and I don't doubt you're right about the other, just curious why that's the case.
danans 6y ago
> You can blame big oil or the government, but it really starts with you, and people need to start using less energy. Targeting individuals' behavior to reduce energy consumption has been tried and largely failed to have much impact. Even private industry has largely passed on the chance to offer renewable energy consuming products - like EVs or high efficiency homes - to consumers at mass market prices. The products are mostly targeted at the more well off, minimizing their potential impact on climate change. A price on carbon is precisely the input that the entire economy needs to stimulate a shift in demand away from fossil fuels, and the fact that we don't have that today is the direct result of fossil fuel industry actions and government inaction.

This is both untrue and incredibly unproductive - born of a mishmash of puritan morals and modern problems. Do you use a dishwasher? You should. They use less water and less energy per wash then any human washing by hand. Yet people instinctively seem to think hand washing is better because it's harder work. No amount of energy use reduction is going to make a shred of difference if all our power comes from coal. Period. Everything else is secondary and non-fundamental: solar panels can be manufactured cleanly, and the consequences of mishandling still only pollute locally - serious, but not an uncontrollable global problem. Environmentalism of the "we must sacrifice" nature is being pushed by idiots on the left and corporates on the right: the left feels it's honest because it's hard, the right knows that no one will do it but boy does it shift blame away from them and encourage populism and dismissal in public discourse.

danans 6y ago
> Environmentalism of the "we must sacrifice" nature is being pushed by idiots on the left and corporates on the right: the left feels it's honest because it's hard, the right knows that no one will do it I totally agree with your broader point that we shouldn't rely on individual behavior change, but I think you are using a dated perspective of the left and the right. The modern left is actually proposing massive green infrastructure spending in order to shift the country's energy production away from fossil fuels (aka the Green New Deal). The modern right has turned the use of fossil fuels into an identity politics issue, as if you become less American somehow if you use less coal and petroleum to power your life. The corporations are going where their business models and customer constituencies take them, which is why tech has invested heavily in renewables, and fossil fuel companies have balkanized around their products. The automobile industry is in limbo between the two, with a foot in both worlds.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
>You should. They use less water and less energy per wash then any human washing by hand. I've always been sceptical of that claim. I found one paper on it but you can guess who sponsored it.
cableshaft 6y ago
> Do you use a dishwasher? You should. They use less water and less energy per wash then any human washing by hand. I knew it was less water, but I'm unclear on less energy. Is it just because it uses more energy to purify and/or heat the added water? Because otherwise it seems like a lot of the energy is human energy, of which humans are generally already too sedentary anyway and could use with spending more of their energy on various activities. I agree with your other comments, and I don't doubt you're right about the other, just curious why that's the case.

danans 6y ago

> You can blame big oil or the government, but it really starts with you, and people need to start using less energy. Targeting individuals' behavior to reduce energy consumption has been tried and largely failed to have much impact. Even private industry has largely passed on the chance to offer renewable energy consuming products - like EVs or high efficiency homes - to consumers at mass market prices. The products are mostly targeted at the more well off, minimizing their potential impact on climate change. A price on carbon is precisely the input that the entire economy needs to stimulate a shift in demand away from fossil fuels, and the fact that we don't have that today is the direct result of fossil fuel industry actions and government inaction.