Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Top green living myths

guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: Top green living myths

#41

Post by cperciva »

run4yourlives wrote: post #40
cperciva wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Canada, it turns out that switching from incandescent light bulbs to more "environmentally friendly" bulbs actually causes a net increase in CO2 emissions, since most of our electricity is hydroelectric, but most homes are heated using natural gas.

I'd like to see some stats on that. Not that I think you're wrong, just that for me it isn't completely obvious that incandescent bulbs are giving off that much heat.

it isn't completely obvious that incandescent bulbs are giving off that much heat.

All energy ends up as heat eventually. Since indoor lighting only leaks a very small amount of light (unless you've got an excessive number of windows), a 60W lightbulb will contribute to very close to 60W of heating.

Re: Top green living myths

#42

Post by rdtsc »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #24
Daishiman wrote: post #19

However well-intentioned these articles are, I think it's intellectually dishonest to focus on such ridiculously irrelevant things as heating the water for your coffee when the fact is that it won't make any difference. If you want to reduce your energy footprint, buy insulation for your house and stop driving. Really, everything else is insignificant in comparison.

Really, everything else is insignificant in comparison. The problem with these sorts of statements is that nearly everything is insignificant compared to something else. The UK shouldn't bother about efficient energy use or renewable sources as China is a far greater consumer and anything we do will be insignificant. I shouldn't bother insulating my house because my neighbour owns a mansion and heats it to 25 degrees…

> The problem with these sorts of statements is that nearly everything is insignificant compared to something else. The UK shouldn't bother about efficient energy use or renewable sources as China is a far greater consumer and anything we do will be insignificant.

You were being sarcastic, but that is a very good point. I am tired of feel-good "stop taking hot showers" + "ask for paper bags at the store" kind of articles aimed at individual consumers. Sure it makes the writer feel good, it makes the consumer feel good -- they are all working together to save the planet. But if they really wanted to have an impact they should aim the article at the government and the big industrial giants. Instead of "stop taking hot showers" the article should say "write your representative".

Because even a million people taking cold showers might not make as much difference for the environment as installing a single scrubber on a coal plant, or forcing P&G to stop dumping tons of crap into the air. Those are the things that really make a difference. But somehow those things don't get talked about in the mainstream media.

Then we have China and it is a real big problem. How does one make China cut down on its coal plants? Can they claim that they are still industrializing, so they shouldn't adhere to the same rules as the rest of the 'already developed' world? Can we tell them what to do when we are also major offenders? Want to do something, talk to your congressman. Get involved, get the media involved...

And I am not advocating to start buying Hummers and letting our hot water run all night, but we shouldn't delude ourselves that it actually makes a real difference. We do it because it is a good thing to do, it make us feel warm and fuzzy but that is about it.

Re: Top green living myths

#43

Post by nfnaaron »

whatajoke wrote: post #26
jules wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the Volkskrant (newspaper): cheese takes more kg of food for the cows to produce per protein than chicken. For vegerarians cheese is an important source of protein.

For vegerarians cheese is an important source of protein. Sorry, but the vegetarian you talk of is doing it wrong. My primary source of proteins is pulses. Especially the red kidney beans contain the same amount of protein as chicken, 24 gm out of 100 gm. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(food) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_bean#Red_or_kidney_beans

The two wikipedia pages list the USDA Nutrient Database as their source.

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

You can put "chicken" in the search field wade through the many choices, or you can put input the NDB numbers from my own searches, listed below.

The two wiki pages don't say exactly which variation of bean or chicken from the database they're using, so I went with these:

chicken breast raw, NDB # 05057, 20.85g protein/100g chicken

chicken breast stewed, NDB # 05061, 27.39g p/100g

kidney beans raw, NDB # 16027, 23.58g p/100g

kidney beans boiled, NDB # 16028, 8.67g p/100g

So, whatajoke's source for beans looks like it's for raw beans, and tome's looks like it's for cooked.

Does anyone eat raw kidney beans?

Re: Top green living myths

#44

Post by pmorici »

"especially in colder months when any heat from the flames that escapes around the side of the kettle will warm the room, reducing the burden on the central heating system"

this article is nonsense. Excess heat from an electric heater is going to warm the ambient air just the same as a gas burner will.

Re: Top green living myths

#45

Post by ars »

ubernostrum wrote: post #8
ars wrote: post #2

Very good info! A rule of thumb: the cheaper it is, the less energy it took to make it. Some more details: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=346912 Be aware that less energy is not always equal to better for the environment.

Of course, something may have been cheap because it was produced in a place with lax environmental regulations (so lower compliance costs) and shipped via bulk freight options which dump a lot of nastiness into the atmosphere...

Yes, certainly. But if you compare two products made in the same country/area they nearly always have about the same pollution load, so price is an excellent way to compare them.

"bulk freight" being a problem is not correct. Bulk freight is probably the best way to ship something, and any energy cost is contained in the final products price.

Re: Top green living myths

#46

Post by ars »

rdtsc wrote: post #42
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, everything else is insignificant in comparison. The problem with these sorts of statements is that nearly everything is insignificant compared to something else. The UK shouldn't bother about efficient energy use or renewable sources as China is a far greater consumer and anything we do will be insignificant. I shouldn't bother insulating my house because my neighbour owns a mansion and heats it to 25 degrees…

> The problem with these sorts of statements is that nearly everything is insignificant compared to something else. The UK shouldn't bother about efficient energy use or renewable sources as China is a far greater consumer and anything we do will be insignificant. You were being sarcastic, but that is a very good point. I am tired of feel-good "stop taking hot showers" + "ask for paper bags at the store" kind of arti…

"ask for paper bags at the store"

Actually don't. Paper bags are MUCH worse for the environment than plastic. Paper bags are not just an example of a waste of effort, but actually have negative value! (Reusable is good of course, and on that note plastic is much easier to reuse as a trash bag than paper, but even if you don't, plastic is better.)

Re: Top green living myths

#47

Post by ars »

lsd5you wrote: post #25
Daishiman wrote: post #19

However well-intentioned these articles are, I think it's intellectually dishonest to focus on such ridiculously irrelevant things as heating the water for your coffee when the fact is that it won't make any difference. If you want to reduce your energy footprint, buy insulation for your house and stop driving. Really, everything else is insignificant in comparison.

Or elect to not have a child - something even more significant. Though arguably that is essentially 'freeing up' a permit for someone else. It conflicts with our view of family values and wholesomeness, but in general a wasteful consumeristic childless individual is going to be more ecological in the long run than pretty much anyone with several kids.

Not true.

In every country where people might listen to this idea, population shrinkage is a bigger problem than population growth.

The net value of a human to society is positive not negative.

The problems of overpopulation is a myth.

Re: Top green living myths

#48

Post by ars »

LucaDuval wrote: post #27

As usual the single most important advice is missing: * Don't have (more than one) child. * We could build an everlasting eden for humankind if we could persuade everybody to limit themselves to one child for couple for the next two or three generations and then switch to two children for couple. Lacking that we are doomed to damnation.

No you couldn't. Instead you would doom billions to death and starvation, because during the transition time you need young people to support the old.

And who exactly would operate this "everlasting eden"?

Just about every single technology we have only exists because there are so many people in the world, which makes the cost of the item bearable.

Re: Top green living myths

#49

Post by run4yourlives »

cperciva wrote: post #41
run4yourlives wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to see some stats on that. Not that I think you're wrong, just that for me it isn't completely obvious that incandescent bulbs are giving off that much heat.

it isn't completely obvious that incandescent bulbs are giving off that much heat. All energy ends up as heat eventually. Since indoor lighting only leaks a very small amount of light (unless you've got an excessive number of windows), a 60W lightbulb will contribute to very close to 60W of heating.

Sure, but how many 60W bulbs on the ceiling are required to raise the temperature in a room 1 degree.

You seem to be suggesting that leaving my lights on all night has a positive environmental impact since it would significantly affect my furnace use.

I find that rather unintuitive, although possible; hence, citation required.

Re: Top green living myths

#50

Post by gaius »

chandler wrote: post #29
whatajoke wrote: post #11

To quote from the article: In particular hard cheese, which takes a lot of milk to produce, can have a bigger footprint per kilo than chicken. This is super stupid. Hard cheese contains more than double the calories of chicken. And nobody in their right minds will consume hard cheese as the main food item.

Moreover, all these calculations of how much energy is required to grow meat fall flat when you consider grass-fed beef & pastured chickens (a la Saladin); unlike corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef can be self sustaining & actually rejuvenate the land. Choosing veganism over corn-fed carnivory is the lesser of two evils, only because veganism requires less monocropping. However, at best it can only slow--never reverse--en…

That veganism is "sustainable" is another myth. It requires massive energy subsidies. It's not that long ago in Northern Europe (let alone Canada, Russia, etc) that if you wouldn't use animal products or labour you'd starve or freeze.
Post reply on HN