3 ms·

We need more analyses like that. As an ex-consultant I always amazed by how people try to optimize the smallest blocks. The Pareto principle is universally appl

We need more analyses like that. As an ex-consultant I always amazed by how people try to optimize the smallest blocks. The Pareto principle is universally applicable. Let's tackle the biggest carbon blocks first.

JPKab 5y ago
Excellent point. As I've commented elsewhere, there is a Puritanical, moralistic urge in many climate activists that focuses on as many individuals as possible changing their consumption habits for small gains over targeting the super-polluters like these power plants or the individual cargo ships which emit more CO2 than entire cities. My father is one of these. He used to be a religious fundamentalist in the 80's, and over time has replaced his need to be a part of a religion that polices people's sexual/linguistic habits with being a part of an ideology that polices people's consumption/linguistic habits instead. It clearly fills the same void. Whenever I mention things like this to him, it clearly bothers him that we can help the climate WITHOUT calling on individuals to sacrifice the way he already does.
- sitkack 5y ago
  > moralistic urge in many climate activists I don't know how prevalent this attitude is, your proximity to your father could be affecting your perceptions.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  nope... If you improve the efficiency of coal plants say by 25%, then you have a choice : either you keep those 25% as CO2 that's not produced anymore in the future, either you say that for the same amount of CO2 you can have 25% more appliances. In the first case, it means that the 25% kept for the future shall not be used : you cap consumption to 25% less than what it is today (great, but many people unhappy because you stop producing more electricty). In the second case, you accept to use those 25% but then you stay at today's CO2 production level, which is known to be too high. Whatever scenario, you'll have (you, me and other individuals) to use less electricity.
  - JPKab 5y ago
    I don't think that reducing CO2 emissions from a given electrical plant should be assumed to be something that made the plant more efficient and the electricity it produces to be cheaper, and therefore resulting in a proportionate increase in consumption. In my opinion, this is a false dichotomy.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  I attribute it to the desire to do something, and at the same a perception that an individual cannot affect the big fish. The only option left becomes individual action. Logically, people in this state will see indiviual action as a virtue in others regardless of their Puritanical views. I don't deny that it's moralistic though :)

JPKab 5y ago

Excellent point. As I've commented elsewhere, there is a Puritanical, moralistic urge in many climate activists that focuses on as many individuals as possible changing their consumption habits for small gains over targeting the super-polluters like these power plants or the individual cargo ships which emit more CO2 than entire cities. My father is one of these. He used to be a religious fundamentalist in the 80's, and over time has replaced his need to be a part of a religion that polices people's sexual/linguistic habits with being a part of an ideology that polices people's consumption/linguistic habits instead. It clearly fills the same void. Whenever I mention things like this to him, it clearly bothers him that we can help the climate WITHOUT calling on individuals to sacrifice the way he already does.

sitkack 5y ago
> moralistic urge in many climate activists I don't know how prevalent this attitude is, your proximity to your father could be affecting your perceptions.
wiz21c 5y ago
nope... If you improve the efficiency of coal plants say by 25%, then you have a choice : either you keep those 25% as CO2 that's not produced anymore in the future, either you say that for the same amount of CO2 you can have 25% more appliances. In the first case, it means that the 25% kept for the future shall not be used : you cap consumption to 25% less than what it is today (great, but many people unhappy because you stop producing more electricty). In the second case, you accept to use those 25% but then you stay at today's CO2 production level, which is known to be too high. Whatever scenario, you'll have (you, me and other individuals) to use less electricity.
- JPKab 5y ago
  I don't think that reducing CO2 emissions from a given electrical plant should be assumed to be something that made the plant more efficient and the electricity it produces to be cheaper, and therefore resulting in a proportionate increase in consumption. In my opinion, this is a false dichotomy.
rhn_mk1 5y ago
I attribute it to the desire to do something, and at the same a perception that an individual cannot affect the big fish. The only option left becomes individual action. Logically, people in this state will see indiviual action as a virtue in others regardless of their Puritanical views. I don't deny that it's moralistic though :)