4 ms·
>Expending energy to cool the house that heats the planet is so counterproductive Please don't spread this anti-environmental claptrap. Expending energy does n
by xoa 5y ago
>Expending energy to cool the house that heats the planet is so counterproductive
Please don't spread this anti-environmental claptrap. Expending energy does not "heat the planet", as a quick consideration of the night side of Mercury would reveal. It's greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that heat the planet, and they'd do so even if humanity vanished tomorrow. To the extent that "energy consumption" is at all related it's purely in terms of externalities in energy generation, but we have the tools to deal with those.
There has long been this strain of moral Puritanism in environmentalist movements wherein people must suffer and "return to nature" and such to be Green. But more often then not no, we don't. So I consider that to be an anti-environmental, counterproductive stance since it creates a false choice wherein people are told everyone must give up often key parts of their lives entirely or else they're bad. Given that, it's not surprising many will plump for the status quo. But in reality it's completely fine from an environmental point of view for everyone to spend their luxury energy budget as they wish, and indeed gaining/growing that is a key bit of human progress. What needs to be done is ensure that energy budget, unlike today, is actually environmentally (and in particular GHG) neutral. Societies can work from there.
- finiteseries 5y agoCharles C. Mann would describe that strain of moralist, prosperity = ruin, return-to-nature type thinking as a “Prophet” mindset, traceable back to even before William Vogt and the early 1900s of, among other things, eugenics, Malthusianism, and an unshakeable fear of the masses in e.g. Delhi (but not Paris!). On the other side, and especially here on HN and the like, the tech building, win-win seeking, prosperity maximalist “Wizards” essentially just keep trying to build their way out of problems, e.g. massive gains in ag productivity of pesticide treated, fossil fuel fertilized, genetically modified high yielding, mono cropped strains that have already saved a billion. Cannot recommend “The Wizard and the Prophet” enough, a great history of environmentalism in the 20th century and how this split evolved, and it’s not nearly as biased as I am (though still clearly leaning “Wizard” in its text). https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34959327-the-wizard-and-the-prophet https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34959327-the-wizard-and-...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- acdha 5y agoI share the larger point but it seems like you're reading a LOT more into that comment. They didn't say anything about, say, giving up cool houses — simply a preference for passive rather than active cooling. The last part is especially relevant in cities where poorly-designed AC units dumping heat into crowded environments increases the ambient temperature and thus AC load. While you're not always wrong to say that expending energy doesn't have to heat the planet, it's wrong in practice for the substantial percentage of the world where energy production emits greenhouse gases. Until that percentage is zero, there is a considerable amount of good which can be done by using less energy and we have enormous efficiency wins possible without any real suffering. As a simple example, a geothermal heat pump system will require less power than a convention gas heater and AC system even if your thermostat is set to the exact same levels. A building which is designed with passive cooling (heavy earth walls, use of ground/water cooling) or windows placed to optimize for winter sun angles but not summer will require less power to maintain a comfortable temperature. As long as your power is not completely emission free, that's probably a win — and if you are trying to fit within the solar/wind/etc. power you can generate on-site the lower usage will make that easier.