Top green living myths • Hacker News Board

Re: Top green living myths

#61

Post by billswift » Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 11:13 PM UTC

nfnaaron wrote: post #43

whatajoke wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 # 05…

Nobody eats raw mature beans. They have several chemicals that will make you ill if you eat more than a tiny amount. You can eat the immature beans raw, that's what green beans/string beans are after all.

Re: Top green living myths

#62

Post by run4yourlives » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 12:29 AM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #56

run4yourlives wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Again, I'm not arguing the logic, I just want to see the supporting citation that shows how this translates into increased CO2 emissions for Canada, as you claim above.

Re: Top green living myths

#63

Post by lucumo » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 1:08 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #47

lsd5you wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Value as defined in? I think you're talking about economical value—at least that's what most talk about population shrinkage seems to be about. GP on the other hand was talking about ecological value. I don't think the units compare.

Did I interpret your comment correctly?

Re: Top green living myths

#64

Post by lsd5you » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 1:21 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #47

lsd5you wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you say 'not true', you mean you disagree, right?

Population shrinkage is certainly not a problem for the environment and it was not implied that it was not a problem in other respects.

The value of a human to society is a positive? Can you unequivocally state that a world with 3 billion people is worse off than one with 6 billion? It is an idealistic claim and only true in a personal sense, and even then may well be founded on an inconsistent set of values.

Re: Top green living myths

#65

Post by teeja » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 1:36 AM UTC

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…

Conservation is (in America at least) definitely at the top of what most people can do. And they will, given time and good arguments. Water heaters used to be the #1 energy sink appliance in the average US home (early 1970s).

But drafts, single-glazing and inadequate wall/ceiling insulation continue to waste enormous energies every winter. And car engines, like light bulbs, continue to be about 15-20% efficient.

Re: Top green living myths

#66

Post by evgen » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 4:46 AM UTC

ido wrote: post #53

ars wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

A plastic bag uses very little oil (a quarter teaspoon or so) and some of them can even be made from renewable resources. The real problem is that paper bags are bulky. It takes a lot of energy to move those bags from where they are manufactured to where they are consumed. For the energy cost to get that stack of paper bags to your local grocer you could probably make and transport a hundred plastic bags.

Re: Top green living myths

#67

Post by holygoat » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 9:32 AM UTC

teeja wrote: post #65

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…

Conservation is (in America at least) definitely at the top of what most people can do. And they will, given time and good arguments. Water heaters used to be the #1 energy sink appliance in the average US home (early 1970s). But drafts, single-glazing and inadequate wall/ceiling insulation continue to waste enormous energies every winter. And car engines, like light bulbs, continue to be about 15-20% efficient.

As soon as the calendar flicks over and you switch from using the air conditioner to using your heater, your lightbulb is 100% efficient.

(Indeed, if you have a furnace for your central heating, and the ductwork passes outside the heated volume of your house, it's more efficient for you to leave the TV on than it is for the furnace to heat your house, because none of the TV's waste heat escapes the heated volume.)

Most of what people consider to be "green" is irrational during the winter. They'll turn the lights out but run a space heater.

Re: Top green living myths

#68

Post by rjurney » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 11:22 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #60

rjurney wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, s…

Ok - but they're also the same people that click the little button to plant a tree to offset their carbon footprint for the plane ride :)

Products are driven by people's concerns, and so concern about the environment is a good thing - it impacts products, it drives policy.

Re: Top green living myths

#69

Post by imurray » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 12:33 PM UTC

holygoat wrote: post #67

teeja wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservation is (in America at least) definitely at the top of what most people can do. And they will, given time and good arguments. Water heaters used to be the #1 energy sink appliance in the average US home (early 1970s). But drafts, single-glazing and inadequate wall/ceiling insulation continue to waste enormous energies every winter. And car engines, like light bulbs, continue to be about 15-20% efficient.

As soon as the calendar flicks over and you switch from using the air conditioner to using your heater, your lightbulb is 100% efficient. (Indeed, if you have a furnace for your central heating, and the ductwork passes outside the heated volume of your house, it's more efficient for you to leave the TV on than it is for the furnace to heat your house, because none of the TV's waste heat escapes the heated volume.) Mo…

This is a common misconception.

1) reducing electricity consumption will reduce use of fossil fuels in power stations (in most parts of the world). Burning fuel in your own home bypasses the inefficient conversion to electricity.

2) if you are going to heat your home with electricity you can be more than “100% efficient” by using a heat pump, so you still wouldn’t want to do it with light bulbs and TVs.

Re: Top green living myths

#70

Post by sp332 » Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 2:17 PM UTC

run4yourlives wrote: post #37

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…

This is a brilliant comment. You should rework it into a blog post so that it can be shared with a broader audience. (That is, of course, if you don't consider it a waste of time!) Well done.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=964020

Share away!