Climate Change

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

My point here is that you and all of us may be unwilling to reduce our carbon footprint to the levels that are required to fix the problem.

Yes, and on this you and I agree, but that is different than saying people who follow the climate change science are someone how deluded (drank the Kook-Aid).

Look, I could itemize how environmental wonderful I am (BIG ). You're welcome to drop in on my 800 sq. foot cabin (a camp outside of Thunder Bay) and we can discuss low-impact living. Whether you and I are willing to cut our environmental footprint will eventually become irrelevant. We will have no choice soon enough.

But to try and address your challenge seriously, let me ask you: how was life when you were child? I'm going to guess you're at least as old as me (46). Was life a hardship? Back in the day when one car per household was luxurious (my family had none until I was into my teens). When one b&w TV was more than enough, when we ate food that was more local, when we had one phone, etc...

Is it inconceivable to live at this level of consumption? Of energy use? And if the answer is no (as I'm setting you up to say ), then how about in our parents day? Grandparents? Look, I'm not saying we need to turn back to the stone ages. I'm just pointing out that just b/c we live this way now, doesn't mean we have to. And not that long ago, we were just as content (perhaps more content) to live a life that was somewhat less damaging to our global environment.

It is possible ... but sadly, it's not probable.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, and on this you and I agree, but that is different than saying people who follow the climate change science are someone how deluded (drank the Kook-Aid).

Look, I could itemize how environmental wonderful I am (BIG ). You're welcome to drop in on my 800 sq. foot cabin (a camp outside of Thunder Bay) and we can discuss low-impact living. Whether you and I are willing to cut our environmental footprint will eventually become irrelevant. We will have no choice soon enough.

But to try and address your challenge seriously, let me ask you: how was life when you were child? I'm going to guess you're at least as old as me (46). Was life a hardship? Back in the day when one car per household was luxurious (my family had none until I was into my teens). When one b&w TV was more than enough, when we ate food that was more local, when we had one phone, etc...

Is it inconceivable to live at this level of consumption? Of energy use? And if the answer is no (as I'm setting you up to say ), then how about in our parents day? Grandparents? Look, I'm not saying we need to turn back to the stone ages. I'm just pointing out that just b/c we live this way now, doesn't mean we have to. And not that long ago, we were just as content (perhaps more content) to live a life that was somewhat less damaging to our global environment.

It is possible ... but sadly, it's not probable.

That is the question on the table. What is the per person carbon allocation needed to solve the problem, to reach atmospheric CO2 equilibrium? How much do I need to give up. If it is better fuel millage for my car, LED lights in the house, yeah we can all be happy with that, no pain. How deep do the cuts need to be.

If it means no heat in the house over the winter or moving to a warmer climate, no AC in Florida, no hot water, no skiing, no travel, no car I submit you and most of us would opt out (this is where the Kool-Aid part comes in.)

[ReMetau]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Tell me what steps you will be taking to significantly and materially reduce your carbon footprint over the remainder of your life.

Tell me what steps you will be taking to find a solution to the looming apocalypse.

I am seriously interested in what you are proposing to do.

We have solar and wind that subsidizes some of our electrical needs.
We buy more local organic foods.
We are learning to forage for some foods.
If I hunted and lived in an area with significant game, I would do that, but for now, we eat a minimal amount of meat and animal products.
We try to buy things with reduced packaging and recycle what we can.
We sold one car and get by on the other.
We never eat fast food.
We drink tap water and use steel bottles that we refill so there is no plastic waste.
We have reduced the amount of times we eat out, and when we do, we eat at places that don't serve on Styrofoam.
We use canvas bags for shopping when we do shop and not just at the grocery store.
Since we live aboard our boat and shower on our boat, we reduce the amount of water that we use.
We use rags instead of paper towels.
We have bought fresh foods in bulk and canned them just like our grand parents used to.
We turn off electrical products and lights when not in use. Not just on our boat, but everywhere we go.
We try to make decisions that are not only best for us, but have a smaller impact on our beautiful planet.
When we leave and sail off, we will be looking for a community that lives minimally and would accept us for future living.

We're not even close to where we should be, but we are consciously aware of our impact and try to reduce it at least until we find a suitable place for use to live minimally.

There is no right answer for everybody, and it was mentioned earlier that it does not have to be all or nothing.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The assumption was that most of the world is living on one order of magnitude less energy than the Western standard of living.

And that assumption is not true. So conclusions you draw from it aren't true either

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by ReMetau

We have solar and wind that subsidizes some of our electrical needs.
We buy more local organic foods.
- probably energy neutral less chemical pollution but also less dense production requires more land area
We are learning to forage for some foods.
- please... just imagine 300 million Americans hunting for rodents
If I hunted and lived in an area with significant game, I would do that, but for now, we eat a minimal amount of meat and animal products.
- energy savings
We try to buy things with reduced packaging and recycle what we can.
- in the noise but energy saving
We sold one car and get by on the other.
- did it change the number of miles you drive if not no energy saving (beefing up the cruising pot I bet)
We never eat fast food.
- probably energy neutral you still have to eat
We drink tap water and use steel bottles that we refill so there is no plastic waste.
- you have to wash the bottle in hot water occasionally, noise
We have reduced the amount of times we eat out, and when we do, we eat at places that don't serve on Styrofoam.
- if I ate out rarely I wouldn't go to a place that served on Styrofoam either
We use canvas bags for shopping when we do shop and not just at the grocery store.
- noise
Since we live aboard our boat and shower on our boat, we reduce the amount of water that we use.
- hot water showers? neutral
We use rags instead of paper towels.
- wash the rags in hot water? probably an increased energy use
We have bought fresh foods in bulk and canned them just like our grand parents used to.
- energy negative, canning requires lots of energy more efficient to buy it already canned as the canners are more efficient
We turn off electrical products and lights when not in use. Not just on our boat, but everywhere we go.
- energy positive
We try to make decisions that are not only best for us, but have a smaller impact on our beautiful planet.
- doesn't seem like much of a delta reduction in your list!
When we leave and sail off, we will be looking for a community that lives minimally and would accept us for future living.
- hut with a dirt floor and no running water?

We're not even close to where we should be, but we are consciously aware of our impact and try to reduce it at least until we find a suitable place for use to live minimally.

There is no right answer for everybody, and it was mentioned earlier that it does not have to be all or nothing.

If you let me have the arrogance to judge based on your list I am not seeing substantial energy savings here over a normal middle class lifestyle. I see some feel-good stuff but nothing substantive. You are still driving the car.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

And that assumption is not true. So conclusions you draw from it aren't true either

I was using Lake-Effect's number in post 535. Didn't look up the real estimate. What is it?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

That is the question on the table. What is the per person carbon allocation needed to solve the problem, to reach atmospheric CO2 equilibrium? How much do I need to give up. If it is better fuel millage for my car, LED lights in the house, yeah we can all be happy with that, no pain. How deep do the cuts need to be.

If it means no heat in the house over the winter or moving to a warmer climate, no AC in Florida, no hot water, no skiing, no travel, no car I submit you and most of us would opt out (this is where the Kool-Aid part comes in.)

There will be pain. Is the pain of living with less worth it? Is it worth trying to do something to mitigate the coming environmental disaster that rapid climate change may bring to humanity's eco-system (the place where we live)? Only you can answer that question. But this is where I get frustrated with people like Al Gore, or the "technology will save us" crowd. There are no two ways around it. WE -- you and I, and everyone reading this forum, must learn to live with less.

Can I live without a/c in Florida -- I've never been there so don't know for sure, although I do know people DID live there before the advent of a/c, so it's obviously possible. I live on our boat without on-demand hot water. Doesn't seem that big deal. No skiing? I guess you mean no travel to remote places to ski -- I can ski out my front door in the winter. No travel? That's the benefit of boat life, but to less personal, it's only been in the last 20 years that travel for the masses has become anything close to the norm (and only for us rich people). Again, is it really that inconceivable to you to live like people did 25 years ago? No car ... lots of people do it now. Of course it's possible.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I was using Lake-Effect's number in post 535. Didn't look up the real estimate. What is it?

There is a concept often mentioned in the energy debate here in Switzerland, called " the 2000 watt society".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society

Basically average per capita power consumption in the world stands at around 2400 watt right now. Per person. As the population of the world grows to 10 billion we would have to reduce that to 2000 to maintain constant consumption.
The interesting question now is wether it's possible to have a comfortable, middle class life, as experienced in developed countries on 2000 watt. The answer appears to be yes. It's all a matter of using appropriate technology, and incentives.

So it ought to be possible to lift the whole world to this standard of living, without substantially increasing world energy needs.

Of course, if the world would evolve US levels of energy consumption total energy use would increase dramatically, but still not 100 fold.

You can see that for yourself here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The Earth is a very finite system..

l

The earth is a finite system but in many ways we've only scratched the surface so far.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

There is a concept often mentioned in the energy debate here in Switzerland, called " the 2000 watt society".
2000-watt society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically average per capita power consumption in the world stands at around 2400 watt right now. Per person. As the population of the world grows to 10 billion we would have to reduce that to 2000 to maintain constant consumption.
The interesting question now is wether it's possible to have a comfortable, middle class life, as experienced in developed countries on 2000 watt. The answer appears to be yes. It's all a matter of using appropriate technology, and incentives.

So it ought to be possible to lift the whole world to this standard of living, without substantially increasing world energy needs.

Of course, if the world would evolve US levels of energy consumption total energy use would increase dramatically, but still not 100 fold.

You can see that for yourself here:

World energy consumption - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting the EU average is half of the US, and the world average is one fifth. Guys you need to go on an energy diet. No more Supersize me A/C etc. open the windows more often ...

dave

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

l

The earth is a finite system but in many ways we've only scratched the surface so far.

True. But unless you're digging for geothermal energy, or iron, the resources which we depend on are all found in the surface layers of the planet. And at this level, we've scratched pretty deeply.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

interesting the EU average is half of the US, and the world average is one fifth. Guys you need to go on an energy diet. No more Supersize me A/C etc. open the windows more often ...

dave

I was surprised to see that also. I would have thought we are on par with the EU. It is well known that the weather is more extreme is North America, lots of population in the Northeast coast which has cold severe winters. We also drive more using bigger cars. But let's face it we embrace our very high standard of living and that costs energy. I would guess that England, France, and Germany are close to USA consumption levels.

[hpeer]

From post 540.

Originally Posted by K_V_B

So. We can farm fish. Just like we farmed other animas after we depleted the forests.


Actually they are more then keeping up. Diet is improving everywhere.



Energy is abundant. As someone said: the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones. We have moved from one energy source to another long before it ran out. With nuclear energy we can have almost unlimited amounts available.


What would make you change your mind?
What changed me was learning that we are hard wired for pessimism. That we tend to grossly underestimate the tremendous progress we have made, and the potential that still exists. When you look at the bare facts you see that the world is still improving.



A few millennia of history seems to attest that human ingenuity is even so fertile that it comes up with things that only a generation before were inconceivable. And thiscatvan increasing rate even. At the moment innovation is far from slowing down.



I think you are mistaken about what Malthus actually wrote... Anyway, we have massively increased living standards everywhere in the world. Even in the poorest country people are eating better then the French in the 18th century...

WOW!

That is probably the most egregiously miss informed post I have ever read.

Peace Bro, and good luck!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I was surprised to see that also. I would have thought we are on par with the EU. It is well known that the weather is more extreme is North America, lots of population in the Northeast coast which has cold severe winters. We also drive more using bigger cars. But let's face it we embrace our very high standard of living and that costs energy. I would guess that England, France, and Germany are close to USA consumption levels.

no , sorry Germany is the EU average as is the Uk , 2:1 against the US. If you think about it the major populations and ecomonies in the EU set the average. thats Ger, Fr, GB , sacandavia etc.

Nope the US just wastes more energy. its not a function of your geography ( europe is further north then most of the US)

Bigger cars , maybe, but less so in later years, ( i mean your all driving Jap and German cars anyway!). I still cant understand why modern turbo diesels haven't made a huge inroad into the US. Hence big petrol engines are gone, because the diesels are so much better performers and run cheaper.

as to standard of living, well thats a length of string


heres the top ten countries for "quality of life", ( education, healthcare, housing, disposal income,freedom of association, taxes freedom of capital etc etc)


HDI rank Developed Country Human Development Index(HDI) income ratio Income
1 Norway 0.943
2 Australia 0.929 7
3 Netherlands 0.91
4 United States 0.91
5 New Zealand 0.908
6 Canada 0.908
7 Ireland 0.908
8 Liechtenstein 0.905
9 Germany 0.905
10 Sweden 0.904

Yet the US have a income ratio of twice that of Norway , ( i.e. they pay very high taxes) but Norway gets a lot back

Interestingly Norway has the highest per population of boat ownership in the world.( the US is way way down the field)

some there you mightn't expect , yet most are half the energy consumption of the US.


The US has designed in a very high level of energy consumption , primarily cause its cheap, hence it waste a lot, IN Europe energy is more expensive and more heavily taxed, so people have to be more efficient.

Efficent doesnt mean a poorer quality of life

[Gadagirl]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Efficent doesnt mean a poorer quality of life