4 ms·
> I don't know how people's desires can be "wasteful". In a world where people paid for the true cost of their energy use, this argument might fly. But in mos
by jlebar 12y ago
> I don't know how people's desires can be "wasteful".
In a world where people paid for the true cost of their energy use, this argument might fly. But in most of the world today, this isn't the case, not by a long shot.
If you heated to "summer inside the house" and bought high-quality carbon offsets corresponding to your increased energy use, I think most people wouldn't call that "wasteful". "Warm" might be the adjective I'd use. :)
- wickedlogic 12y agoSorta like when people order whatever they want for lunch, because they bought high quality calorie offsets?
- Retric 12y agoAt sufficient exercise levels most people have trouble eating enough. 10,000 calories every day tends to be a lot of food.
- tempestn 12y agoEven if you're doing a couple hours of intense exercise every day, you're only going to be adding on the order of 1000 Calories to your daily usage. Resting burn for most adults is around 1500-2000, so that's ~3000. What do you consider "sufficient" exercise?
- PhantomGremlin 12y agoMichael Phelps needed 12,000 Calories a day when training. That's seriously "intense"! http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/08/14/michael-phelps-12000-calorie-day-diet-not-for-everyone/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/08/14/michael-phelps-12000...
- tempestn 12y agoWow, that is intense. Way beyond what I'd call "sufficient" exercise though!
- Dylan16807 12y agoYou're reading the word 'sufficient' in the wrong way. Sufficient to demolish calories, not sufficient to be healthy.
- XorNot 12y agoIn a world where people paid the true cost of their energy usage, there wouldn't be an absolute deluge of houses built by terrible contractors with terrible insulation on the market, where the biggest, best and cheapest energy saving measures weren't put in when the house was built. I want summer in my house during the winter. This should be an explicit goal, because you can't get there by just cranking up the heat since it doesn't deal with draughts and the like. If this were a recognized goal, then everyone would be better off in every way.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Dylan16807 12y agoThe cost of carbon offsets is apparently less than a penny per kWh. This is barely anything in comparison to the price of the electricity itself, so it doesn't matter whether people are in actuality paying the true cost; they might as well be. Such a world would look almost identical to our own.
- pflanze 12y agoI couldn't believe this, so I checked around a bit. According to [1], the cost for offsets are $5.50 to $29 per ton of CO2. According to [2], 1 kWh produces 2.08-2.18 lbs kg of CO2 when burning coal (0.94-0.99 kg). Thus, the cost for the offset is about 0.52-2.9 US cents/kWh, or when using different power sources[3], 0.32-1.7 US cents/kWh, hence your number is about right. Now I guess the next thing to check is how solid those offset efforts really are. Also, probably they are cheap because they are the low-hanging fruits, I suspect that if everyone would offset their usage, the offset costs per kWh would become much higher. Thus, your assertion that the world would look almost identical if everyone would pay the true cost may well still be wrong. [1] http://gogreen.whatitcosts.com/carbon-offsets.htm http://gogreen.whatitcosts.com/carbon-offsets.htm [2] http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 [3] http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate http://carbonfund.org/how-we-calculate "On average, electricity sources emit 1.222lbs CO2 per kWh (0.0005925 metric tons CO2 per kWh)"