6 ms·

The low hanging fruit is always getting others doing something. I for myself see the low hanging fruits with the things I can do or influence.

prawn 13y ago
Perhaps "local hanging fruit"? ;)
ars 13y ago
Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in China is so bad that anything you can do is so utterly dwarfed by it as to almost be pointless.
- abm82 13y ago
  Emissions per capita in China are well under half of those in the US so something doesn't add up about your post.
  - ars 13y ago
    Emissions of pollution or emissions of CO2? Plus China has a LOT of people, and a TON of them are rural and very poor - it's not exactly the preferred way to reduce emissions (of any kind).
    - Volpe 13y ago
      I think the point is, China isn't the one that needs to reduce, it is the US.
      - ars 13y ago
        Nope. China. The only reason China has reasonably good numbers is that most of their population lives in miserable poverty.
        Volpe 13y ago
        Regardless, it should be measured on per capita, and China are WAY a head. So you are arguing to measure different countries in different ways. This seems inherently unfair.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    C02 per capita, China: 5.77 tons CO2 per capita, US: 17.28 tons Population, China: 1,334 million Population, US: 313 million Total CO2 emissions, China: 7.754 million tons Total CO2 emissions, US: 5.408 million tons (Source: Google queries). Note that this is CO2 emissions, where the article is discussion particulates. Given emissions controls (or lack thereof), China's going to be emitting far more particulate matter than the US. Factor in prevailing westerly winds and the lack of coal-burning facilities in California, and most particulate matter will come from elsewhere. Note too that long-range particulates are more likely to be small, which is to say, more harmful to health. China's coal consumption has been growing dramatically (it's roughly paralleled, and I'd argue, fed, its industrial and GDP growth), so that China has surpassed the US within recent years on total (though not per-capita) emissions. It's on track for the latter. You can also argue that China uses much of its coal (about 40%) for industrial uses, and exports much of that manufacture, so that the US and other importers of Chinese products have essentially outsourced not only jobs but carbon emissions and pollution. As for personal action to reduce CO2 emissions: lighting is actually pretty good low-hanging fruit. Dittos reducing your transportation usage (or sharing rides). And especially air travel. Huge contributor there.
    - ars 13y ago
      Who cares about CO2? (There is a serious obsession with CO2 in the world right now.) Pollution is the problem here. And it's a real bad problem. > And especially air travel. Huge contributor there. Sigh. OK, lets talk about CO2: http://www.travelmatters.org/calculator/individual/methodology http://www.travelmatters.org/calculator/individual/methodolo... Airplanes produce less CO2 per passenger mile than buses. And far less than cars. And if you do want to talk about CO2, how about CO2 per GDP? After all we can't keep the entire world in poverty in order to reduce CO2. In that measure the US is much better than China. As I've said elsewhere, the only reason China has low numbers is because of the human misery of their poor population.
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        Who cares about CO2? I do. Among other things. Airplanes produce less CO2 per passenger mile than buses. Airplanes are used to travel much further distances than buses. And by reducing the marginal cost of that travel, greatly increase the total amount traveled. So while a typical daily motor vehicle trip is on the order of 35 miles (based on average annual miles driven in the US), air flights are typically 10-100 times that (300-3000) or more. And with take-off and altitude gain, short-haul flights are relatively less efficient than long-haul. The per-trip CO2 emissions are thus vastly higher -- you're dividing by 2-4, but multiplying by 10-100. Additionally, many of the modes listed on your reference can substitute electricity (which can be generated from non-fossil sources). Heavier-than-air travel pretty much doesn't exist without fossil fuels: liquid hydrocarbons are simply too dense, cheap, and versatile a fuel and energy carrier. The maths on biofuels simply don't work out, except at very low fractions of existing fossil fuel use. Substituting 10% of present oil consumption biofuels might be possible), but with an effective cost of $600/barrel or more, and that 10% would have to supply portable, emergency, and defense, as well as commercial aviation needs. I see lighter-than-air craft as more viable in a not too distant future. And if you do want to talk about CO2, how about CO2 per GDP? That works out roughly to the amount of fossil fuels used per unit GDP, though it varies based on fuel source (which I don't factor in). I used Wolfram-Alpha to look up GDP per quadrillion BTUs a couple months back: For China & India, it's about $60b/quad. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+GDP+%2F+%28total+... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+GDP+%2F+%28total+... And for comparison, the United States -- we use far more energy, but use it far more efficiently as well at $150b/quad: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=United+States++GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=United+States++GDP+%2F+... But nothing like the Swiss at just a hair under $400b/quad: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Switzerland+GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Switzerland+GDP+%2F+%28... Italy shows in at ~$275b, Germany ~200 (plot's a bit wonky), UK ~$250b/quad, Spain ~$240b/quad, Japan ~$250b/quad, Russia ~$40b/quad. Incidentally, growth in GDP and energy use for China & India: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+total+primary+energy+consumption+vs.+GDP http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+total+primary+ene... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+total+primary+energy+consumption+vs.+GDP http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+total+primary+ene... After all we can't keep the entire world in poverty in order to reduce CO2. I see no real choice in the matter. GDP's going to get tanked one way or othe other (climate change, peak oil, peak everything). We're on an unsustainable path. Not cutting carbon emissions is going to be rather markedly worse than cutting them, in the long run (though next quarter's profits will take a hit in the latter case but not former). And we're going to have to learn to get by on vastly fewer fossil fuels as well. As I've said elsewhere, the only reason China has low numbers is because of the human misery of their poor population. Given their present energy mix, yes. However if they were to pursue renewables to a maximum extent, you might be proven wrong (I've got some doubts on the feasibility of this as well, but given other alternatives, it's really the only option we've got).
- salmonellaeater 13y ago
  > Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Can you explain or provide a reference? Are you suggesting that because you consume more calories if you exercise, and your food comes from farms, the extra farm pollution is worse than what your car would have produced?
  - ars 13y ago
    Yes, and because your body is much less efficient at converting that energy into motion than a car is.
    - sleepydog 13y ago
      This assumes that you will eat more from the exercise--many Americans eat more than they need to, and doing something for your health makes you more conscious of that.
      - ars 13y ago
        I know. I said that explicitly in my original message - if you are bicycling as your form of exercise then this doesn't apply. It's only if you are bicycling extra - then you end up eating more.
- crocowhile 13y ago
  What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving?! btw, if you look at CO2 emission and greenhouse gas emission, you'll find that USA and CHINA are pretty much tete a tete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse... Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. So, yes, the low hanging fruit it in your living room pretty much.
  - ars 13y ago
    > What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving? Do the math. It's quite clear. You don't realize just how much fuel (diesel) farms use to grow that food, and then your body is not as efficient at converting the food into motion. It's a double whammy and you end up with cars being more efficient than bicycles. > Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. Yes. Obviously. And since this article is talking about pollution why would you even look at CO2 numbers?
    - crocowhile 13y ago
      I commute 30km a day, consuming around 600 kcalories (it's about (0.1 calories per kg per minute for a 70kg adult going 25kmh). Driving would cost me about 21000 kcal (0.7 gallons a day, that is 0.7 * 31000 kcal in a gallon of diesel). So my car is about 36 times less efficient than me. Do yourself a favour and stop watching fox news.
    - mturmon 13y ago
      @ars: You're not doing the math. You're just repeating the same claim, which seems wrong, and probably is wrong. You should certainly not be surprised that you're not convincing anyone. And saying "It's quite clear" is really rich, because, of course, it is not clear at all. I think the best rebuttal has to do with the cost. The cost of buying, fueling, and maintaining a car is much greater than that of a bicycle plus the incremental food cost for the rider. Additionally, @wes-exp has pointed to figures (just concerning MPG equivalent, not counting buying and maintaining) that have bicycles much more efficient than cars.
- forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
  "Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]." That is totally nonsense. You simply invented that nonsense. Let's put some numbers in : My bike weights 15kg, my body 85. So I move around 100kg with my bike. My small Toyota weights naked 1500kg, so I am moving 1700kg around(including my weight and gas or fuel as we call it). 1700/100 = 17 times more weight. I move around at 30km/h max speed with my bike, normally around 15 or so. With my car it is over 80km/h. The resistance f the air is proportional to the square of the velocity so we are using over 28 times more energy per kg(as velocity resistance surpasses rolling resistance by far). So that's it :28x17 = 476 times more energy So let's consider half of that because velocity resistance is going to be similar to rolling resistance somewhere in the middle, that's over 200 times more energy, but then you have to add the car shape that exposes way more than 5 times my surface on the bike to wind. Farms don't make lots of pollution, and their pollution is natural, My grandpas had a farm. Dung is not the same kind of pollution than mercury or exotic organic compounds in the car's paint, or in the car's polymers, or in diesel exhaust.
  - ars 13y ago
    Lots of numbers and you ignored the only two important ones because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notion. 1: The efficiency of converting that energy into motion. A car is MUCH MUCH more efficient than a person. 2: The amount of energy from diesel needed to grow those food calories in the first place. Again, a car comes out way way ahead. > Farms don't make lots of pollution, and their pollution is natural, My grandpas had a farm .... not the same kind of pollution .... in diesel exhaust. A farm with no tractor. Interesting. Maybe in your grandpas day, but certainly not today. Farms use a TON of diesel to grow that food.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      If both of those were correct, it would cost more to cycle 10 miles every day than it would cost to drive 10 miles every day. It doesn't, therefore your points are wrong.
- wes-exp 13y ago
  According to this calculator http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html A 155 lb. cyclist gets about 75mpg equivalent, factoring in a typical diet. The vegan gets 145mpg. The site also claims that even with an all-beef diet, cycling is more efficient than driving. A physics professor (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/) gets similar results: factoring in the carbon footprint of extra food consumed, biking comes in at roughly 70–130 MPG. Even these analyses don't seem to include the embodied energy it takes to manufacture a car, which is huge and should be considered a tax on every mile driven. Bicycle manufacturing is obviously much less energy-intensive.
- Uchikoma 13y ago
  "Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]." This is a very interesting point, do you have some numbers to back that claim? Food production costs, car production, oil production etc.?

prawn 13y ago

Perhaps "local hanging fruit"? ;)

ars 13y ago

Honestly there isn't much you can do. Most pollution is industrial, and most industrial pollution is not in the US. Recycling just causes more pollution, so that doesn't help. You can turn lights off and install CFL's, but the difference is tiny. Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Coal burning in China is so bad that anything you can do is so utterly dwarfed by it as to almost be pointless.

abm82 13y ago
Emissions per capita in China are well under half of those in the US so something doesn't add up about your post.
- ars 13y ago
  Emissions of pollution or emissions of CO2? Plus China has a LOT of people, and a TON of them are rural and very poor - it's not exactly the preferred way to reduce emissions (of any kind).
  - Volpe 13y ago
    I think the point is, China isn't the one that needs to reduce, it is the US.
    - ars 13y ago
      Nope. China. The only reason China has reasonably good numbers is that most of their population lives in miserable poverty.
      - Volpe 13y ago
        Regardless, it should be measured on per capita, and China are WAY a head. So you are arguing to measure different countries in different ways. This seems inherently unfair.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  C02 per capita, China: 5.77 tons CO2 per capita, US: 17.28 tons Population, China: 1,334 million Population, US: 313 million Total CO2 emissions, China: 7.754 million tons Total CO2 emissions, US: 5.408 million tons (Source: Google queries). Note that this is CO2 emissions, where the article is discussion particulates. Given emissions controls (or lack thereof), China's going to be emitting far more particulate matter than the US. Factor in prevailing westerly winds and the lack of coal-burning facilities in California, and most particulate matter will come from elsewhere. Note too that long-range particulates are more likely to be small, which is to say, more harmful to health. China's coal consumption has been growing dramatically (it's roughly paralleled, and I'd argue, fed, its industrial and GDP growth), so that China has surpassed the US within recent years on total (though not per-capita) emissions. It's on track for the latter. You can also argue that China uses much of its coal (about 40%) for industrial uses, and exports much of that manufacture, so that the US and other importers of Chinese products have essentially outsourced not only jobs but carbon emissions and pollution. As for personal action to reduce CO2 emissions: lighting is actually pretty good low-hanging fruit. Dittos reducing your transportation usage (or sharing rides). And especially air travel. Huge contributor there.
  - ars 13y ago
    Who cares about CO2? (There is a serious obsession with CO2 in the world right now.) Pollution is the problem here. And it's a real bad problem. > And especially air travel. Huge contributor there. Sigh. OK, lets talk about CO2: http://www.travelmatters.org/calculator/individual/methodology http://www.travelmatters.org/calculator/individual/methodolo... Airplanes produce less CO2 per passenger mile than buses. And far less than cars. And if you do want to talk about CO2, how about CO2 per GDP? After all we can't keep the entire world in poverty in order to reduce CO2. In that measure the US is much better than China. As I've said elsewhere, the only reason China has low numbers is because of the human misery of their poor population.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      Who cares about CO2? I do. Among other things. Airplanes produce less CO2 per passenger mile than buses. Airplanes are used to travel much further distances than buses. And by reducing the marginal cost of that travel, greatly increase the total amount traveled. So while a typical daily motor vehicle trip is on the order of 35 miles (based on average annual miles driven in the US), air flights are typically 10-100 times that (300-3000) or more. And with take-off and altitude gain, short-haul flights are relatively less efficient than long-haul. The per-trip CO2 emissions are thus vastly higher -- you're dividing by 2-4, but multiplying by 10-100. Additionally, many of the modes listed on your reference can substitute electricity (which can be generated from non-fossil sources). Heavier-than-air travel pretty much doesn't exist without fossil fuels: liquid hydrocarbons are simply too dense, cheap, and versatile a fuel and energy carrier. The maths on biofuels simply don't work out, except at very low fractions of existing fossil fuel use. Substituting 10% of present oil consumption biofuels might be possible), but with an effective cost of $600/barrel or more, and that 10% would have to supply portable, emergency, and defense, as well as commercial aviation needs. I see lighter-than-air craft as more viable in a not too distant future. And if you do want to talk about CO2, how about CO2 per GDP? That works out roughly to the amount of fossil fuels used per unit GDP, though it varies based on fuel source (which I don't factor in). I used Wolfram-Alpha to look up GDP per quadrillion BTUs a couple months back: For China & India, it's about $60b/quad. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+GDP+%2F+%28total+... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+GDP+%2F+%28total+... And for comparison, the United States -- we use far more energy, but use it far more efficiently as well at $150b/quad: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=United+States++GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=United+States++GDP+%2F+... But nothing like the Swiss at just a hair under $400b/quad: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Switzerland+GDP+%2F+%28total+primary+energy+consumption%29 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Switzerland+GDP+%2F+%28... Italy shows in at ~$275b, Germany ~200 (plot's a bit wonky), UK ~$250b/quad, Spain ~$240b/quad, Japan ~$250b/quad, Russia ~$40b/quad. Incidentally, growth in GDP and energy use for China & India: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+total+primary+energy+consumption+vs.+GDP http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=china+total+primary+ene... http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+total+primary+energy+consumption+vs.+GDP http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=india+total+primary+ene... After all we can't keep the entire world in poverty in order to reduce CO2. I see no real choice in the matter. GDP's going to get tanked one way or othe other (climate change, peak oil, peak everything). We're on an unsustainable path. Not cutting carbon emissions is going to be rather markedly worse than cutting them, in the long run (though next quarter's profits will take a hit in the latter case but not former). And we're going to have to learn to get by on vastly fewer fossil fuels as well. As I've said elsewhere, the only reason China has low numbers is because of the human misery of their poor population. Given their present energy mix, yes. However if they were to pursue renewables to a maximum extent, you might be proven wrong (I've got some doubts on the feasibility of this as well, but given other alternatives, it's really the only option we've got).
salmonellaeater 13y ago
> Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]. Can you explain or provide a reference? Are you suggesting that because you consume more calories if you exercise, and your food comes from farms, the extra farm pollution is worse than what your car would have produced?
- ars 13y ago
  Yes, and because your body is much less efficient at converting that energy into motion than a car is.
  - sleepydog 13y ago
    This assumes that you will eat more from the exercise--many Americans eat more than they need to, and doing something for your health makes you more conscious of that.
    - ars 13y ago
      I know. I said that explicitly in my original message - if you are bicycling as your form of exercise then this doesn't apply. It's only if you are bicycling extra - then you end up eating more.
crocowhile 13y ago
What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving?! btw, if you look at CO2 emission and greenhouse gas emission, you'll find that USA and CHINA are pretty much tete a tete: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse... Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. So, yes, the low hanging fruit it in your living room pretty much.
- ars 13y ago
  > What kind of silly propaganda made you read where biking causes more pollution than driving? Do the math. It's quite clear. You don't realize just how much fuel (diesel) farms use to grow that food, and then your body is not as efficient at converting the food into motion. It's a double whammy and you end up with cars being more efficient than bicycles. > Obviously, emission pro-capita is quite different. Yes. Obviously. And since this article is talking about pollution why would you even look at CO2 numbers?
  - crocowhile 13y ago
    I commute 30km a day, consuming around 600 kcalories (it's about (0.1 calories per kg per minute for a 70kg adult going 25kmh). Driving would cost me about 21000 kcal (0.7 gallons a day, that is 0.7 * 31000 kcal in a gallon of diesel). So my car is about 36 times less efficient than me. Do yourself a favour and stop watching fox news.
  - mturmon 13y ago
    @ars: You're not doing the math. You're just repeating the same claim, which seems wrong, and probably is wrong. You should certainly not be surprised that you're not convincing anyone. And saying "It's quite clear" is really rich, because, of course, it is not clear at all. I think the best rebuttal has to do with the cost. The cost of buying, fueling, and maintaining a car is much greater than that of a bicycle plus the incremental food cost for the rider. Additionally, @wes-exp has pointed to figures (just concerning MPG equivalent, not counting buying and maintaining) that have bicycles much more efficient than cars.
forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
"Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]." That is totally nonsense. You simply invented that nonsense. Let's put some numbers in : My bike weights 15kg, my body 85. So I move around 100kg with my bike. My small Toyota weights naked 1500kg, so I am moving 1700kg around(including my weight and gas or fuel as we call it). 1700/100 = 17 times more weight. I move around at 30km/h max speed with my bike, normally around 15 or so. With my car it is over 80km/h. The resistance f the air is proportional to the square of the velocity so we are using over 28 times more energy per kg(as velocity resistance surpasses rolling resistance by far). So that's it :28x17 = 476 times more energy So let's consider half of that because velocity resistance is going to be similar to rolling resistance somewhere in the middle, that's over 200 times more energy, but then you have to add the car shape that exposes way more than 5 times my surface on the bike to wind. Farms don't make lots of pollution, and their pollution is natural, My grandpas had a farm. Dung is not the same kind of pollution than mercury or exotic organic compounds in the car's paint, or in the car's polymers, or in diesel exhaust.
- ars 13y ago
  Lots of numbers and you ignored the only two important ones because it doesn't fit with your preconceived notion. 1: The efficiency of converting that energy into motion. A car is MUCH MUCH more efficient than a person. 2: The amount of energy from diesel needed to grow those food calories in the first place. Again, a car comes out way way ahead. > Farms don't make lots of pollution, and their pollution is natural, My grandpas had a farm .... not the same kind of pollution .... in diesel exhaust. A farm with no tractor. Interesting. Maybe in your grandpas day, but certainly not today. Farms use a TON of diesel to grow that food.
  - phaemon 13y ago
    If both of those were correct, it would cost more to cycle 10 miles every day than it would cost to drive 10 miles every day. It doesn't, therefore your points are wrong.
wes-exp 13y ago
According to this calculator http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/energy.html A 155 lb. cyclist gets about 75mpg equivalent, factoring in a typical diet. The vegan gets 145mpg. The site also claims that even with an all-beef diet, cycling is more efficient than driving. A physics professor (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/) gets similar results: factoring in the carbon footprint of extra food consumed, biking comes in at roughly 70–130 MPG. Even these analyses don't seem to include the embodied energy it takes to manufacture a car, which is huge and should be considered a tax on every mile driven. Bicycle manufacturing is obviously much less energy-intensive.
Uchikoma 13y ago
"Riding a bike vs driving actually causes more pollution (because farms make lots of pollution) [unless you replace exercise you anyway do with bike riding]." This is a very interesting point, do you have some numbers to back that claim? Food production costs, car production, oil production etc.?