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

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Top green living myths

#51

Post by LucaDuval »

ars wrote: post #48
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.

Overpopulation is a menace and family planning is the only viable solution. Two or three billions of healthy, nourished, educated human beings are more than enough to substain our economical, social and scientific structure.

Re: Top green living myths

#52

Post by gridspy »

dtf wrote: post #30

Maybe one thing that could help cut domestic energy consumption in the UK is the introduction of decent real-time meters. Getting a massive bill through the post once every three months doesn't really help you understand where your money's going, especially as they usually have confusing terms (kW/H, BTU etc) and strange pricing structures. Look at these new ones from British Gas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/…

Or even better, see how much you are using each second [My company] http://www.gridspy.co.nz/

Re: Top green living myths

#53

Post by ido »

ars wrote: post #46
rdtsc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

I am interested - why is plastic better even if the bag isn't reused?

Re: Top green living myths

#54

Post by bh23ha »

The buy local meme is everywhere and sadly like so much of environmentalism it is short on smarts, case in point:

What they don't tell you: The transport of goods accounts for a small but significant proportion of the human impact on the climate. It generally makes environmental sense, therefore, to favour local food and other products. However, it's not always true that local is best. One study suggested that lamb from New Zealand, with its clean energy and rich pastures, has a lower footprint when consumed in the UK than locally produced lamb, despite the long-distance shipping. Another study showed that cut flowers sold in Britain that had been grown in distant but sunny Kenya had a smaller carbon footprint than those grown in heated greenhouses in Holland. So while transport is important, it's not the only factor to consider.

Re: Top green living myths

#55

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jerf wrote: post #33
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." Yes. Yes it is. Welcome to reality, and engineering. The problem with your statement is that if you're burning a lot of time and mental energy on the insignificant things, then you are wasting your time. If you, personally, have already taken the time to secure your housing's heating situation, already…

The problem with your statement is that if you're burning a lot of time and mental energy on the insignificant things, then you are wasting your time.

One has to buy nappies*, as a minimal impact example, and one has to choose the brand and type. I don't really think there is any greater thought-cost, if you will, in choosing the more ecologically sound option provided proper scientific research has been performed - amazingly it doesn't appear to have been (note major problem with UK gov study which is now widespread used as a reason not to have reusable despite them being lower impact; I'm assuming big pharma corps are invested against proper research).

Things like turning off the tap as you brush your teeth are just habitual it doesn't need thought once it has been done for a few days, ditto turning out lights. These are not major lifestyle changes and so, I'd argue, don't impact at all the possibility of promoting better resource use in the large scale situations.

Finally, ten 0.001% optimisations that compound over a zero change threshold can be extremely important - ask anyone who is in debt and bumping the bottom of their agreed overdraft, a few pence is all it takes to cycle you down instead of up.

Food optimisation: in the States, I read today, 40% of purchased food is wasted. That's got to be at least half of all food production when you allow for spoiling and other waste (I'd reckon more). A small change in lifestyle, simply choosing to care, can lead to a huge drop in this figure - there are 300 million people in the USA.

Ultimately I see that the 95% I don't have direct control over, eg building of renewable energy capture in favour of fossil fuel based systems, the 5% I do.

If I've got a cup and my boats sinking I'm still going to bail-out until someone else comes along and helps.

Re: Top green living myths

#56

Post by cperciva »

run4yourlives wrote: post #49
cperciva wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Look at it this way: To raise the temperature by 1 K, you need to add X Joules of heat to the room, for some value X. Those X Joules can be added by burning approximately X * 9E-7 standard cubic feet of natural gas; by running a 1200 W electric heater for X * 2.3E-7 hours; or by leaving a 60 W light bulb turned on for X * 4.6E-6 hours.

Re: Top green living myths

#57

Post by randallsquared »

LucaDuval wrote: post #51
ars wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Overpopulation is a menace and family planning is the only viable solution. Two or three billions of healthy, nourished, educated human beings are more than enough to substain our economical, social and scientific structure.

Why two or three and not twenty or thirty, if we're specifying that they're healthy and educated? :) Overpopulation (in the sense of too many meat humans) is no longer particularly relevant to our future; simple copying seems likely to be more important.

Re: Top green living myths

#58

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ars wrote: post #46
rdtsc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Paper bags are reusable and [can] come from a renewable resource. You have a citation on your claim?

Re: Top green living myths

#59

Post by rjurney »

jerf wrote: post #33
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." Yes. Yes it is. Welcome to reality, and engineering. The problem with your statement is that if you're burning a lot of time and mental energy on the insignificant things, then you are wasting your time. If you, personally, have already taken the time to secure your housing's heating situation, already…

People who concern themselves with turning the water off while they brush their teeth also buy more fuel efficient cars, take public transportation, insulate their homes more efficiently, etc. The market responds to make the expression of environmental concern more efficient - but it only does so when it takes note of people wasting time on insignificant acts of efficiency.

Re: Top green living myths

#60

Post by jerf »

rjurney wrote: post #59
jerf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The problem with these sorts of statements is that nearly everything is insignificant compared to something else." Yes. Yes it is. Welcome to reality, and engineering. The problem with your statement is that if you're burning a lot of time and mental energy on the insignificant things, then you are wasting your time. If you, personally, have already taken the time to secure your housing's heating situation, already…

People who concern themselves with turning the water off while they brush their teeth also buy more fuel efficient cars, take public transportation, insulate their homes more efficiently, etc. The market responds to make the expression of environmental concern more efficient - but it only does so when it takes note of people wasting time on insignificant acts of efficiency.

[citation needed] - certainly I hear a lot of bitching about people who think economizing in small things gives them the right to take a plane flight to Tahiti. I would neither be surprised if you were right nor surprised if you were very wrong. In particular, people in the social classes wherein being "green" carries some sort of cachet are also very likely to do things like flying a lot more than those who don't, since that social class tends to have more money than most other social classes.
Post reply on HN