5 ms·

I'm sure me switching to LED lamps will have offset this properly...

by Bhurn00985 5y ago

analognoise 5y ago
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  - xattt 5y ago
    What about the mild discomfort of keeping your home at 19°C in the winter?
    - bsder 5y ago
      That used to be a much bigger deal in the US back in 1975. Our house had a coal bin and a coal fired boiler at that point. Insulation was non-existent in many places. With almost 50 years of construction differences, moving that thermostat saves much less energy nowadays.
    - passerby1 5y ago
      How about +13 while just wearing more clothes? That would do a huge impact on ecology. Maybe even save us another hundred or so years before global warming comes
    - benjamir 5y ago
      What discomfort? My children and I go barefoot and T-Shirt while the rooms have 19°C. They are slim and muscular, ideal BMI, so spare me any "fat isolates" comments.
      - xattt 5y ago
        Subjectively, I am chilly keeping my house at 19° than at 22°. Not sure if this is an effect of thermostat placement or Nest’s algorithm for hot water rad heat (True Radiant).
- hnick 5y ago
  And recycling that just gets diverted to landfill since China stopped taking it.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    That’s not really much of a problem. Plastic is better off in the landfill anyway. Shipping it to China takes a decent amount of carbon, creates a decent amount of ocean pollution. Burying it locally is usually better managed and sequesters carbon. But it’s still good that people are in the habit of recycle because metals like aluminum are still very advantageous to recycle from an energy perspective.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Why don't you just buy an electric car? /s
- fphhotchips 5y ago
  You know this is disingenuous, right? All of the things you described are water saving measures - the rationale for them is almost completely divorced from the climate change argument made by GP. I mean there's definitely a conversation to be had about the effectiveness of domestic water saving measures in comparison to industrial ones, but I'm not sure it's entirely relevant here.
  - analognoise 5y ago
    The point is the same: none of the things we've been told to do to conserve actually make a difference. They're just a relief valve so we can feel in control, so we can be blamed for individual failings when massive polluters, water users, plastic makers, etc can continue to create waste.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >when massive polluters, water users, plastic makers, etc can continue to create waste. You realize most of these "massive polluters" are polluting on behalf of you? PG&E isn't emitting a gazillion tons of CO2 for fun, they're doing so to produce energy for you.
      - analognoise 5y ago
        This is the same kind of "individual responsibility" nonsense that allows manufacturers of plastic bags to continue to produce billions of them while we pretend us recycling has any effect. It's propaganda, specifically made to allow the true polluters to continue unabated while we impotently discuss ways to individually handle a collective problem.
teaearlgraycold 5y ago
The only solution is a quota on oil extraction. We need to cut the supply off at the source.
- umeshunni 5y ago
  There is a quota on oil extraction. Ever heard of OPEC?
  - kube-system 5y ago
    The way that it’s managed matters. OPEC also increases supply when it is advantageous to themselves, and certainly wouldn’t supply-limit themselves out of a market.
  - teaearlgraycold 5y ago
    The quota needs to head near 0. It should not respond to market demands.
gruez 5y ago
You alone? Probably not. Then again the impact of a single person is pretty limited, and you can't compare the emissions of an entire system (ie. the airport) to a single person. A quick search says this >The best-performing 60-watt equivalent LED bulbs available today consume 85 percent less energy than their incandescent counterparts. [...] Lighting accounts for 15 percent of global electricity consumption and 5 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions https://www.energy.gov/articles/rise-and-shine-lighting-world-10-billion-led-bulbs https://www.energy.gov/articles/rise-and-shine-lighting-worl... I'm not going to do any math here, but based on those numbers it seems plausible that the whole world switching to LED lamps will offset all the "flights had been flown empty to keep slots" in the world.
gorgoiler 5y ago
This kind of throwaway irony might have a place elsewhere on the Internet, but it’s not what we come to HN to read. Unfortunately you seem to be attracting a handful of thoughtful responses alongside some other over-trodden irony, but the latter means the former is going to at best be sunk to the bottom of the page and at worst, live on only in a detached thread.
- gjs278 5y ago
- benjamir 5y ago
  I hate people that speak in third person "we" off themselves. This form of entitlement is more disgusting to me than any snarky comments.
swampthing 5y ago
Even if it weren't for energy use, not having to change light bulbs for a decade is a huge motivation to switch.
- ghusto 5y ago
  Have you heard of the Phoebus Cartel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel?oldformat=true#Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel?oldformat=true#... So it's already possible to not have to change a normal light bulb for 10 years — in fact there's currently a bulb that's been burning for 118 years. The parent comment actually makes a good point, and shifting the blame for global warming to non-corporate entities is disingenuous. Sure, go ahead and recycle, buy LEDs instead of incandescent bulbs, buy local produce, these are all good things to do and I would never discourage them, but let's not buy into the nonsense that it's going to make a dent compared to say, shipping containers (https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution-114721 https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping...). To do so would move focus away from where things really need to change. If I was someone partial to conspiracy theories, I might point out that this shift in focus is convenient for the corporate entities I alluded to.
  - Gibbon1 5y ago
    You're touching on an opinion of mine that has hardened a lot in the last decade. You aren't going to solve systemic issues by going after random individuals. Systemic issues exist because some center of power benefits. Keep the focus on them.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Have you heard of the Phoebus Cartel? Yes I have, actually https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26946432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26946432 >So it's already possible to not have to change a normal light bulb for 10 years — in fact there's currently a bulb that's been burning for 118 years. yeah, the trade-off is that it's horribly inefficient and wastes more energy than it costs to replace.
    - 5y ago

I'm sure me switching to LED lamps will have offset this properly...

analognoise 5y ago

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
- xattt 5y ago
  What about the mild discomfort of keeping your home at 19°C in the winter?
  - bsder 5y ago
    That used to be a much bigger deal in the US back in 1975. Our house had a coal bin and a coal fired boiler at that point. Insulation was non-existent in many places. With almost 50 years of construction differences, moving that thermostat saves much less energy nowadays.
  - passerby1 5y ago
    How about +13 while just wearing more clothes? That would do a huge impact on ecology. Maybe even save us another hundred or so years before global warming comes
  - benjamir 5y ago
    What discomfort? My children and I go barefoot and T-Shirt while the rooms have 19°C. They are slim and muscular, ideal BMI, so spare me any "fat isolates" comments.
    - xattt 5y ago
      Subjectively, I am chilly keeping my house at 19° than at 22°. Not sure if this is an effect of thermostat placement or Nest’s algorithm for hot water rad heat (True Radiant).
hnick 5y ago
And recycling that just gets diverted to landfill since China stopped taking it.
- kube-system 5y ago
  That’s not really much of a problem. Plastic is better off in the landfill anyway. Shipping it to China takes a decent amount of carbon, creates a decent amount of ocean pollution. Burying it locally is usually better managed and sequesters carbon. But it’s still good that people are in the habit of recycle because metals like aluminum are still very advantageous to recycle from an energy perspective.
andrepd 5y ago
Why don't you just buy an electric car? /s
fphhotchips 5y ago
You know this is disingenuous, right? All of the things you described are water saving measures - the rationale for them is almost completely divorced from the climate change argument made by GP. I mean there's definitely a conversation to be had about the effectiveness of domestic water saving measures in comparison to industrial ones, but I'm not sure it's entirely relevant here.
- analognoise 5y ago
  The point is the same: none of the things we've been told to do to conserve actually make a difference. They're just a relief valve so we can feel in control, so we can be blamed for individual failings when massive polluters, water users, plastic makers, etc can continue to create waste.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >when massive polluters, water users, plastic makers, etc can continue to create waste. You realize most of these "massive polluters" are polluting on behalf of you? PG&E isn't emitting a gazillion tons of CO2 for fun, they're doing so to produce energy for you.
    - analognoise 5y ago
      This is the same kind of "individual responsibility" nonsense that allows manufacturers of plastic bags to continue to produce billions of them while we pretend us recycling has any effect. It's propaganda, specifically made to allow the true polluters to continue unabated while we impotently discuss ways to individually handle a collective problem.

teaearlgraycold 5y ago

The only solution is a quota on oil extraction. We need to cut the supply off at the source.

umeshunni 5y ago
There is a quota on oil extraction. Ever heard of OPEC?
- kube-system 5y ago
  The way that it’s managed matters. OPEC also increases supply when it is advantageous to themselves, and certainly wouldn’t supply-limit themselves out of a market.
- teaearlgraycold 5y ago
  The quota needs to head near 0. It should not respond to market demands.

gruez 5y ago

You alone? Probably not. Then again the impact of a single person is pretty limited, and you can't compare the emissions of an entire system (ie. the airport) to a single person. A quick search says this >The best-performing 60-watt equivalent LED bulbs available today consume 85 percent less energy than their incandescent counterparts. [...] Lighting accounts for 15 percent of global electricity consumption and 5 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions https://www.energy.gov/articles/rise-and-shine-lighting-world-10-billion-led-bulbs https://www.energy.gov/articles/rise-and-shine-lighting-worl... I'm not going to do any math here, but based on those numbers it seems plausible that the whole world switching to LED lamps will offset all the "flights had been flown empty to keep slots" in the world.

gorgoiler 5y ago

This kind of throwaway irony might have a place elsewhere on the Internet, but it’s not what we come to HN to read. Unfortunately you seem to be attracting a handful of thoughtful responses alongside some other over-trodden irony, but the latter means the former is going to at best be sunk to the bottom of the page and at worst, live on only in a detached thread.

gjs278 5y ago
benjamir 5y ago
I hate people that speak in third person "we" off themselves. This form of entitlement is more disgusting to me than any snarky comments.

swampthing 5y ago

Even if it weren't for energy use, not having to change light bulbs for a decade is a huge motivation to switch.

ghusto 5y ago
Have you heard of the Phoebus Cartel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel?oldformat=true#Purpose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel?oldformat=true#... So it's already possible to not have to change a normal light bulb for 10 years — in fact there's currently a bulb that's been burning for 118 years. The parent comment actually makes a good point, and shifting the blame for global warming to non-corporate entities is disingenuous. Sure, go ahead and recycle, buy LEDs instead of incandescent bulbs, buy local produce, these are all good things to do and I would never discourage them, but let's not buy into the nonsense that it's going to make a dent compared to say, shipping containers (https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution-114721 https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping...). To do so would move focus away from where things really need to change. If I was someone partial to conspiracy theories, I might point out that this shift in focus is convenient for the corporate entities I alluded to.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  You're touching on an opinion of mine that has hardened a lot in the last decade. You aren't going to solve systemic issues by going after random individuals. Systemic issues exist because some center of power benefits. Keep the focus on them.
- gruez 5y ago
  > Have you heard of the Phoebus Cartel? Yes I have, actually https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26946432 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26946432 >So it's already possible to not have to change a normal light bulb for 10 years — in fact there's currently a bulb that's been burning for 118 years. yeah, the trade-off is that it's horribly inefficient and wastes more energy than it costs to replace.
  - 5y ago