<!--quoteo(post=1644200:date=Aug 16 2007, 05:46 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Aug 16 2007, 05:46 PM) [snapback]1644200[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> So what is the worst that can happen?
[youtube]zORv8wwiadQ[/youtube] <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not willing to entertain the premise that "the best possible choice is box B vs A"
The absolute solution to box A is to kill all humans on earth. This would guarantee that carbon emission drop significantly and nothing impedes the natural restabilization of whatever the hell the earth feels like doing. That being said, that solution certainly is not preferable to the "worst that can happen" scenario.
What that dude in the video is doing is called "the false dilemma" and it is argumentative fallacy. The reality of the situation is that we do not face an "either or" scenario where we must choose to completely regard the threat of global warming, or completely disregard it. Even if we believe global warming is definitely true, we still can not exterminate humanity to counter it, although that is the only guaranteed solution.
What is happening in the world today is not a two box scenario, its a scenario where we have an immensely threatening problem, and we need to find the best possibly way to address the problem, while at the same time sustaining and improving human existence. Energy usage reduction is a good thing for alot of reasons that have nothing to do with global warming, global disaster is a thing possible due to many factors that have nothing to do with climate change. We can't just go "choose box A and we can draw a smiley face if global warming is true!". There is NO reasonable box A. And what's more, if we throw ourselfs too far into box A, we can cause alot more damage than the worst possible scenario in box B too... That dude MASSIVELY underestimates the power of the economy, and in the end of the day, we don't know enough about how the globe works to know for a fact that even if carbon emissions were stopped completely the globe doesn't have a massive warming trend about to come on anyways that would not stop regardless. Therefore the worst case scenario in box A is a lie as well.
The right answer here, is to take as many steps as is reasonably possible, without shooting ourself in the foot in the mean time, and at the same time advancing our knowledge of what is happening as quickly and effectively as possible so we can intelligently adapt to trends that are about to overtake us, and constantly strive for the optimum possible results. Just trowing ourselfs into a stance here based on a flawed doomsday argument isn't helping anything.
<!--quoteo(post=1644559:date=Aug 19 2007, 12:48 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Aug 19 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]1644559[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think people have a bit of a flawed perspective if they think that changing lifestyles is whats really going to make a difference.
In reality, it will probably be a lot more like a surcharge on energy and imported goods. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't understand where you get that. Even if there are surcharges for energy as you say, it's still going to make it harder for the common citizen, and this will on it's own produce lifestyle changes. It's a matter of whether these changes are by choice or by law.
And now let's crunch some numbers. Let's say a typical LED light that you'd find on your TV, PS2, remotes, coffee pot, computer monitor, and the like, consumes 1mA and 0.7V when it's on. Remember that a lot of these devices actually keep LEDs on in standby precisely because they use so little power.
Now, we can fairly safely say that a modern household will have at least 10 of these LEDs on at all times which don't really have to be on. So, that's 0.0007 * 10 = 0.007 Watts that household's using. Big deal, right?
Per million households that would turn these devices off, we've saved 7000 Watts. That's just those tiny LEDs that consume hardly any energy. If we replaced all of our lamps with LEDs bulbs? Well, I'm going to make an estimate here, and say that a 100 Watt lamp can be replaced by a 15 or 20 Watt bunch of LEDs without loosing too much intensity.
Let's say that a household has somewhere between 3 and 5 of these lights burning all the time. We'll say 4. So, per household, the power saved in switching to LED lighting is 320 Watts using 20 Watt LEDs. Across a million houses, that's 320 Million Watts.
Course, LEDs are expensive if you want really bright light. While they're lifespan is approximately 20 billion times longer than lamps, they can die in a power surge or something. And at hundreds of dollars a pop, you that would suck. So you could just turn off the lights your not using, or make sure you turn off lights when you leave, and drop the 4 lights constantly on down to 1 light constantly on. That saves 300 Watts per house, and 300 Million overall.
Leaving your TV on while you use the computer or take a shower or any time you're not actually watching it? 150 some Watts. This is all electricity that is essentially going to waste. Even if you don't care about the environment, I'm sure you care about your pocket book. Cutting back on how much power you waste every day will save you money if nothing else.
Don't ever say that individuals can't do anything.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1644919:date=Aug 21 2007, 10:38 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Aug 21 2007, 10:38 AM) [snapback]1644919[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Don't ever say that individuals can't do anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think his point is that to get people to care about the amount of energy they use, you have to make it cost more than the energy efficient alternatives. It's a drop in the bucket unless a substantial percentage of the population does something.
(All of my bulbs are compact fluorescents regardless.)
<!--quoteo(post=1644940:date=Aug 21 2007, 03:38 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Aug 21 2007, 03:38 PM) [snapback]1644940[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think his point is that to get people to care about the amount of energy they use, you have to make it cost more than the energy efficient alternatives. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not even that.
Not only do you have to make it cost less to be efficient, but you have to assume that the public is selfish. With their time, their focus, and their money.
It'd be best if they don't even have to think about it.
Since for every conciensous person, there's more non-conciensous person.
______
Trying to make large changes on a strickly voluntary level is never going to happen. Where as if you change a law, or change the economics AND make it dead simple.
Comments
So what is the worst that can happen?
[youtube]zORv8wwiadQ[/youtube]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not willing to entertain the premise that "the best possible choice is box B vs A"
The absolute solution to box A is to kill all humans on earth. This would guarantee that carbon emission drop significantly and nothing impedes the natural restabilization of whatever the hell the earth feels like doing. That being said, that solution certainly is not preferable to the "worst that can happen" scenario.
What that dude in the video is doing is called "the false dilemma" and it is argumentative fallacy. The reality of the situation is that we do not face an "either or" scenario where we must choose to completely regard the threat of global warming, or completely disregard it. Even if we believe global warming is definitely true, we still can not exterminate humanity to counter it, although that is the only guaranteed solution.
What is happening in the world today is not a two box scenario, its a scenario where we have an immensely threatening problem, and we need to find the best possibly way to address the problem, while at the same time sustaining and improving human existence. Energy usage reduction is a good thing for alot of reasons that have nothing to do with global warming, global disaster is a thing possible due to many factors that have nothing to do with climate change. We can't just go "choose box A and we can draw a smiley face if global warming is true!". There is NO reasonable box A. And what's more, if we throw ourselfs too far into box A, we can cause alot more damage than the worst possible scenario in box B too... That dude MASSIVELY underestimates the power of the economy, and in the end of the day, we don't know enough about how the globe works to know for a fact that even if carbon emissions were stopped completely the globe doesn't have a massive warming trend about to come on anyways that would not stop regardless. Therefore the worst case scenario in box A is a lie as well.
The right answer here, is to take as many steps as is reasonably possible, without shooting ourself in the foot in the mean time, and at the same time advancing our knowledge of what is happening as quickly and effectively as possible so we can intelligently adapt to trends that are about to overtake us, and constantly strive for the optimum possible results. Just trowing ourselfs into a stance here based on a flawed doomsday argument isn't helping anything.
In reality, it will probably be a lot more like a surcharge on energy and imported goods.
I think people have a bit of a flawed perspective if they think that changing lifestyles is whats really going to make a difference.
In reality, it will probably be a lot more like a surcharge on energy and imported goods.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really don't understand where you get that. Even if there are surcharges for energy as you say, it's still going to make it harder for the common citizen, and this will on it's own produce lifestyle changes. It's a matter of whether these changes are by choice or by law.
And now let's crunch some numbers. Let's say a typical LED light that you'd find on your TV, PS2, remotes, coffee pot, computer monitor, and the like, consumes 1mA and 0.7V when it's on. Remember that a lot of these devices actually keep LEDs on in standby precisely because they use so little power.
Now, we can fairly safely say that a modern household will have at least 10 of these LEDs on at all times which don't really have to be on. So, that's 0.0007 * 10 = 0.007 Watts that household's using. Big deal, right?
Per million households that would turn these devices off, we've saved 7000 Watts. That's just those tiny LEDs that consume hardly any energy. If we replaced all of our lamps with LEDs bulbs? Well, I'm going to make an estimate here, and say that a 100 Watt lamp can be replaced by a 15 or 20 Watt bunch of LEDs without loosing too much intensity.
Let's say that a household has somewhere between 3 and 5 of these lights burning all the time. We'll say 4. So, per household, the power saved in switching to LED lighting is 320 Watts using 20 Watt LEDs. Across a million houses, that's 320 Million Watts.
Course, LEDs are expensive if you want really bright light. While they're lifespan is approximately 20 billion times longer than lamps, they can die in a power surge or something. And at hundreds of dollars a pop, you that would suck. So you could just turn off the lights your not using, or make sure you turn off lights when you leave, and drop the 4 lights constantly on down to 1 light constantly on. That saves 300 Watts per house, and 300 Million overall.
Leaving your TV on while you use the computer or take a shower or any time you're not actually watching it? 150 some Watts. This is all electricity that is essentially going to waste. Even if you don't care about the environment, I'm sure you care about your pocket book. Cutting back on how much power you waste every day will save you money if nothing else.
Don't ever say that individuals can't do anything.
Don't ever say that individuals can't do anything.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think his point is that to get people to care about the amount of energy they use, you have to make it cost more than the energy efficient alternatives. It's a drop in the bucket unless a substantial percentage of the population does something.
(All of my bulbs are compact fluorescents regardless.)
I think his point is that to get people to care about the amount of energy they use, you have to make it cost more than the energy efficient alternatives.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not even that.
Not only do you have to make it cost less to be efficient, but you have to assume that the public is selfish.
With their time, their focus, and their money.
It'd be best if they don't even have to think about it.
Since for every conciensous person, there's more non-conciensous person.
______
Trying to make large changes on a strickly voluntary level is never going to happen.
Where as if you change a law, or change the economics AND make it dead simple.
Then change might happen.