The environmentalist CV

[DrZoidberg]

So, we're all (allegedly) rationalists. If we're:

1) rationalists

and

2) care about the environment

how should we live our lives?

I'm going to assume that everybody is aware how the environmentalism movement is primarily emotionally driven and doesn't give a hoot about the actual environment. They seem more focused on getting laid with other hippies.

So how can we change our behavior and live our lives that will actually impact the environment positively? What policies should we support that will actually help against global warming (and is realistic).

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Will Wiley]

I'm going to assume that everybody is aware how the environmentalism movement is primarily emotionally driven and doesn't give a hoot about the actual environment. They seem more focused on getting laid with other hippies.

As long as you don't have an ax to grind or a chip on your shoulder

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm going to assume that everybody is aware how the environmentalism movement is primarily emotionally driven and doesn't give a hoot about the actual environment. They seem more focused on getting laid with other hippies.

As long as you don't have an ax to grind or a chip on your shoulder

My only ax to grind is that I actually give a shit about the environment. I don't think this attitude is shared with the people who call themselves environmentalists. They seem more about appearing to care about the environment. It's like a competition on how much they can sacrifice themselves for the cause. But there doesn't seem to be a correlation between their efforts and any measurable impact. It just seems to be a colossal waste of time. So I'm not interested.

I just want to know what I can do that helps the environment, and helps against global warming? Whatever works works. So what works?

 

[bigfield]

Policies to support:

• Clean energy generation
• Emissions trading schemes

Consumer behaviours:

• Buy products and food made from ingredients grown using sustainable land management practices.
• Switch from hardcopy bills and paperwork to digital document management.
• Recycle plastics.
• Buy an electric, self-driving car once they are available, use electric taxis and shuttles, or ride a bike to work.
• Purchase products that are designed for disassembly and maintain them in good repair for as long as possible.
• Purchase reusable products over single-use disposable alternatives; use canvas bags instead of disposable shopping bags.

 

[bilby]

An immediate pigouvian tax on all fossil fuels at source. It should be large enough to pay to scrub the equivalent volume of CO₂ out of the atmosphere using currently available technologies, and should be paid to industries that permanently sequester carbon from fossil sources in some fashion (eg by burying plastics in landfill).

This would render most coal power plants uneconomic overnight; a massive worldwide program to replace them with gen III and IV nuclear power plants should ideally start about thirty years ago, but tomorrow is better than the day after.

Scrap the ludicrous LNT standard for assessing radiological risk, and replace it with one based on actual effects on the public of low exposures (one positive to come from the Chernobyl incident is that this data is now available - there is no excuse for using a hyper-cautious guess in the presence of real data).

Build lots of nuclear, solar, wind, wave and tidal plants to generate electricity. Use that electricity to run vehicles, either in batteries, or by making liquid fuels from atmospheric or oceanic CO₂. Or run vehicles on biofuels.

Cheap nuclear power, supported by renewables (but not in such proportion as to cause problems with maintenance of grid frequency from asynchronous generation), is not only a good solution to climate change; it is likely the ONLY good solution. Certainly it's the only good solution we could start today.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Policies to support:
[*]Clean energy generation

What does this mean? All I've read about this points to that we should be investing heavily in nuclear power. Renewables are good to continue to do research on, but we're nowhere near the point where it is a viable option.

[*]Emissions trading schemes

How do these actually work? To me it mostly just looks like magic with numbers.

Consumer behaviours:
[*]Buy products and food made from ingredients grown using sustainable land management practices.

So no tiger shrimps. But that's it isn't it? Are there any more unsustainable foods? I don't know of any. Oh, yeah... walnuts in California. But that's all the one's I know.

I'm a big friend of GMO. And the environmentalists seem to have this as their main target. Which makes me sad.

[*]Switch from hardcopy bills and paperwork to digital document management.

I wonder about this. I do this anyway. But because it's practical. Not because it saves on the environment. I strongly question whether there's any actual benefits to the environment by switching from paper to high tech screens.

I know that the entire paper recycling project is a colossal waste of time. It doesn't fix anything.

[*]Recycle plastics.

But aren't there plastics and plastics? Are all plastics really alike?

[*]Buy an electric, self-driving car once they are available, use electric taxis and shuttles, or ride a bike to work.

Is there really such a gain from electric cars over gasoline cars? Isn't the polution just moved somewhere else? Isn't the problem the car at all?

[*]Purchase products that are designed for disassembly and maintain them in good repair for as long as possible.

Or buy light-weight disposables that are cheap and easy to make. I wonder whether all these heavy duty high-quality things really help the environment. They are more work to build. And maintenance also require energy. It's hard to do the maths on how much it actually benefits.

I mean, chucking something on a rubbish dump doesn't impact the environment negatively. It might not look pretty. But we can do what we've always done. Cover them up by soil and plant trees on them. And then we get a pretty rubbish forest that is indistinguishable from nature around it. This is not a problem. Also carbon capture.

[*]Purchase reusable products over single-use disposable alternatives; use canvas bags instead of disposable shopping bags.

I recently saw a study on the canvas bags. The cotton industry is horrendously filthy. The plastic bag industry isn't. It's highly questionable whether going for the canvas bags actually has a positive impact. They calculated that you need to use each bag 95 times for it to pay off. I put this in the category of environmentalists thinking it's more important looking like they're doing stuff for the environment than actually doing stuff that helps. And even if you use that canvas bag more than 95 times the actual cumulative gains are so small it's a complete waste of time.



Based on what I've read 2/3'rds of all the energy we use is geared toward heating or cooling our homes and buildings. That's where we should put the greatest effort. The single greatest contribution a private person can do is to move into an apartment building. As well as not having a car. In my mind a person who walks around with a canvas bag but drives a car and lives in a house, doesn't really care about the environment. They just care about appearing that they do. Which is worse than doing nothing because it creates the illusion it's enough.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Scrap the ludicrous LNT standard for assessing radiological risk, and replace it with one based on actual effects on the public of low exposures (one positive to come from the Chernobyl incident is that this data is now available - there is no excuse for using a hyper-cautious guess in the presence of real data).

Yeah, I saw that to. The nuclear scare was mostly a scare. Even the worst case scenario for nuclear power isn't that bad.

 

[bigfield]

Clean energy generation

What does this mean? All I've read about this points to that we should be investing heavily in nuclear power. Renewables are good to continue to do research on, but we're nowhere near the point where it is a viable option.

I mean both research and immediate installation.

I count nuclear power as clean energy. Nuclear also provides a means to immediately increase the base load capacity of a grid, which will be necessary since electric vehicles may increase demand by something like 20-30%.

[*]Emissions trading schemes

How do these actually work? To me it mostly just looks like magic with numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

Consumer behaviours:
[*]Buy products and food made from ingredients grown using sustainable land management practices.

So no tiger shrimps. But that's it isn't it? Are there any more unsustainable foods? I don't know of any. Oh, yeah... walnuts in California. But that's all the one's I know.

Stockyards are not sustainable: the ecosystem of the land is destroyed by concentrated grazing. SLM rotates cattle and other grazing animals between areas in imitation of migratory herds; this allows grassland and waterways to flourish.

Allan Savory pioneered the approach; here is his TED talk on he subject:
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_sav...eserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en

[*]Switch from hardcopy bills and paperwork to digital document management.

I wonder about this. I do this anyway. But because it's practical. Not because it saves on the environment. I strongly question whether there's any actual benefits to the environment by switching from paper to high tech screens.

I know that the entire paper recycling project is a colossal waste of time. It doesn't fix anything.

Paper mills are continually clearing rainforest to create plantations, particularly in Indonesia.

[*]Recycle plastics.

But aren't there plastics and plastics? Are all plastics really alike?

You're probably thinking of thermosets and thermoplastics; the former cannot be re-melted as they burn when heated. However one should still recycle thermoplastics.

[*]Buy an electric, self-driving car once they are available, use electric taxis and shuttles, or ride a bike to work.

Is there really such a gain from electric cars over gasoline cars? Isn't the polution just moved somewhere else? Isn't the problem the car at all?

That's why it's also important to support clean energy generation. Electric cars charged by clean power sources are a far better option then petroleum-fuelled vehicles.

[*]Purchase products that are designed for disassembly and maintain them in good repair for as long as possible.

Or buy light-weight disposables that are cheap and easy to make. I wonder whether all these heavy duty high-quality things really help the environment. They are more work to build. And maintenance also require energy. It's hard to do the maths on how much it actually benefits.

As a rule of thumb, I suspect that the pollution required to prepare the materials and manufacture any given item exceeds the pollution to repair it.

[*]Purchase reusable products over single-use disposable alternatives; use canvas bags instead of disposable shopping bags.

I recently saw a study on the canvas bags. The cotton industry is horrendously filthy. The plastic bag industry isn't. It's highly questionable whether going for the canvas bags actually has a positive impact. They calculated that you need to use each bag 95 times for it to pay off. I put this in the category of environmentalists thinking it's more important looking like they're doing stuff for the environment than actually doing stuff that helps. And even if you use that canvas bag more than 95 times the actual cumulative gains are so small it's a complete waste of time.

Plastic bags also end up in waterways where they damage the ecosystem.

Based on what I've read 2/3'rds of all the energy we use is geared toward heating or cooling our homes and buildings. That's where we should put the greatest effort. The single greatest contribution a private person can do is to move into an apartment building. As well as not having a car.

Medium-density zones create fewer emissions per capita than high-density apartments, including the emissions during construction and the emissions required for commuting. Apartments may seem to offer efficiency by cramming people into small spaces, but those buildings also have shared facilities (including elevators) that consume energy as well. And unlike apartments, you can take a house off-grid.

In my mind a person who walks around with a canvas bag but drives a car and lives in a house, doesn't really care about the environment. They just care about appearing that they do. Which is worse than doing nothing because it creates the illusion it's enough.

A sanctimonious false dichotomy.

I don't care enough about the environment to go without a car, especially since I live and do business in the metropolitan fringe and nearby hinterland. The idea to relying on a bicycle is absolutely laughable, and I can't travel on public transport that doesn't exist.

 

[DrZoidberg]

[*]Emissions trading schemes

How do these actually work? To me it mostly just looks like magic with numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

What I mean is, how is it working out? Is it working?

Paper mills are continually clearing rainforest to create plantations, particularly in Indonesia.

But they are replanting. So what's the deal? Rainforrests look they way they do, because that's what happens when tropical forrests are unmanaged. But if they are managed they can look differently. Which is not a problem.

[*]Buy an electric, self-driving car once they are available, use electric taxis and shuttles, or ride a bike to work.

Is there really such a gain from electric cars over gasoline cars? Isn't the polution just moved somewhere else? Isn't the problem the car at all?

That's why it's also important to support clean energy generation. Electric cars charged by clean power sources are a far better option then petroleum-fuelled vehicles.
[/QUOTE]

But until our main source of electricity is nuclear, I don't see the point?

[*]Purchase products that are designed for disassembly and maintain them in good repair for as long as possible.

Or buy light-weight disposables that are cheap and easy to make. I wonder whether all these heavy duty high-quality things really help the environment. They are more work to build. And maintenance also require energy. It's hard to do the maths on how much it actually benefits.

As a rule of thumb, I suspect that the pollution required to prepare the materials and manufacture any given item exceeds the pollution to repair it.

Do we have numbers on it? I'd love to see some actual research. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I don't know.

Plastic bags also end up in waterways where they damage the ecosystem.

That's a separate issue. But there does exist bio-degradable plastic. So we just use those?

Based on what I've read 2/3'rds of all the energy we use is geared toward heating or cooling our homes and buildings. That's where we should put the greatest effort. The single greatest contribution a private person can do is to move into an apartment building. As well as not having a car.

Medium-density zones create fewer emissions per capita than high-density apartments, including the emissions during construction and the emissions required for commuting. Apartments may seem to offer efficiency by cramming people into small spaces, but those buildings also have shared facilities (including elevators) that consume energy as well. And unlike apartments, you can take a house off-grid.

That's total bullshit. The gains from being "crammed" into apartments is huge. With or without elevators. just the fact that you're surrounded by neighbors in three dimensions saves you colossal amounts of energy. I suggest comparing electricity bills. There's just no way to cook the books to make anything but apartments reign supreme. And it's not just the warming of apartments. It's also the fact that if people are crammed into small spaces the use of every inch of real estate becomes super optimal. Businesses become super efficient making life super easy.

In my mind a person who walks around with a canvas bag but drives a car and lives in a house, doesn't really care about the environment. They just care about appearing that they do. Which is worse than doing nothing because it creates the illusion it's enough.

A sanctimonious false dichotomy.

In what way?

I don't care enough about the environment to go without a car, especially since I live and do business in the metropolitan fringe and nearby hinterland. The idea to relying on a bicycle is absolutely laughable, and I can't travel on public transport that doesn't exist.

If people cared enough it would. But they don't. So you can't. If people gave a rats ass the metropolitan fringe would be under populated and you would barely be able to make a living there.

It's all about incentives. If people don't care we have incentives to match. I live in Copenhagen at the moment. Here people care a lot. It's easy to live life here without a car. Nobody needs a car in these parts.

 

[bigfield]

Paper mills are continually clearing rainforest to create plantations, particularly in Indonesia.

But they are replanting. So what's the deal? Rainforrests look they way they do, because that's what happens when tropical forrests are unmanaged. But if they are managed they can look differently. Which is not a problem.

Clearing out the rainforest wipes out the ecosystem, including the fauna and smaller flora. The Indonesian government is prohibits the mills from clearing designed areas to protect the ecosystems there, but they do it anyway.

But until our main source of electricity is nuclear, I don't see the point?

It takes time to replace everyone's vehicles--it's better to start now rather than wait until later so that we can eliminate petroleum fuelled transport ASAP. Once fossil fuel plants are replaced, the electric cars will be ready to tap into the clean energy immediately.

It's also handy for improving air quality and reducing noise pollution in built-up areas.

Plastic bags also end up in waterways where they damage the ecosystem.

That's a separate issue.

It's an environmental problem.

But there does exist bio-degradable plastic. So we just use those?

1. Those bags are shitty-quality.
2. They take time to degrade--in the meantime they are pollution.
3. They leave behind fibres that are ingested by marine life.

Medium-density zones create fewer emissions per capita than high-density apartments, including the emissions during construction and the emissions required for commuting. Apartments may seem to offer efficiency by cramming people into small spaces, but those buildings also have shared facilities (including elevators) that consume energy as well. And unlike apartments, you can take a house off-grid.

That's total bullshit. The gains from being "crammed" into apartments is huge. With or without elevators. just the fact that you're surrounded by neighbors in three dimensions saves you colossal amounts of energy. I suggest comparing electricity bills. There's just no way to cook the books to make anything but apartments reign supreme. And it's not just the warming of apartments. It's also the fact that if people are crammed into small spaces the use of every inch of real estate becomes super optimal. Businesses become super efficient making life super easy.

Fuck energy consumption--it's carbon emissions that matter more. Energy emissionconsumption is irrelevant if the energy comes from clean sources.

Edit: Energy consumption, not emission.

In my mind a person who walks around with a canvas bag but drives a car and lives in a house, doesn't really care about the environment. They just care about appearing that they do. Which is worse than doing nothing because it creates the illusion it's enough.

A sanctimonious false dichotomy.

In what way?

1. There are people who care about the environment, and
2. There are people who drive a car, live in a house and use canvas bags.

It's such a stupid characterisation.

I don't care enough about the environment to go without a car, especially since I live and do business in the metropolitan fringe and nearby hinterland. The idea to relying on a bicycle is absolutely laughable, and I can't travel on public transport that doesn't exist.

If people cared enough it would. But they don't. So you can't. If people gave a rats ass the metropolitan fringe would be under populated and you would barely be able to make a living there. It's all about incentives. If people don't care we have incentives to match. I live in Copenhagen at the moment. Here people care a lot. It's easy to live life here without a car. Nobody needs a car in these parts.

If I lived in Copenhagen then I probably wouldn't own a car, either, and my care factor wouldn't need to change one iota.

 

[Treedbear]

What can I personally do?
I live in the suburbs in a single floor house built in 1956. So it's not that well insulated, but I placed a second layer of fiberglass insulation in the attic about 20 years ago. If I had the money I'd remodel it and add a second layer of well-insulated walls inside. Dirt driveway rather than asphalt. I drive a 2004 van with all wheel drive that gets 12 mpg. A gas guzzler but I only use it for getting to work and the store so that's ~50 miles/week. It gets me through the snow when we have some and makes monthly trips to the dump for my employer. I don't travel much (at all really). I don't use air conditioning in the house or car, only fans. I burn heating oil to keep the house at 50 to 55 all winter here in the northeast US. I've used the same Black and Decker electric mower for the past 16 years and it's been great. I use a little fertilizer on the front lawn but no pesticides or herbicides. I replaced my incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents about 6 years ago. That saves about 800 kWH per year = $180/yr. I use plastic bags from the grocery store but I think that amounts to very little in terms of equivalent petroleum and I recycle them. I eat beef but not much because of cholesterol. I wish I could afford solar panels as my house is perfectly positioned. Basically, I live as efficiently and economically as possible.

ETA-
I almost never go out to eat and I cook most of my own food so there is very little waste. I make my own yogurt. I have re-useable deli type containers for storing stuff in the fridge. I don't subscribe to newspapers or magazines. I recycle paper, glass and plastic using city pickup, but it seems I put out far less stuff than my neighbors. I rake leaves instead of blowing them.

 

[bilby]

While most energy comes from fossil fuels, reducing energy use is probably better than doing nothing.

But only 'probably'. For example, the old style incandescent light bulbs are far less toxic to the environment than CFLs, as the CFL requires more materials to make, and in place of glass, steel, copper and a trace of tungsten, you have glass, steel, plastics, copper, mercury, and various phosphors that are chemically quite toxic - a dead incandescent bulb can simply go in the bin, but CFLs really shouldn't be landfilled (and because people don't know or care, they are, in large numbers).

Furthermore, in cold climates, the energy 'wasted' by inefficient incandescent bulbs went to heating the room. Due to the first law of thermodynamics, every joule saved by your CFLs is an additional joule burned by your heating system. For a net gain of exactly zero joules saved. Woo-fucking-hoo.

An energy rich society is actually good for the environment - as long as fossil fuels are not the source of that energy.

As Peter Drucker said (in a very different context), "There is nothing more useless than doing, with great efficiency, that which should not be done at all".

Saving energy by using CFLs is almost certainly not a net benefit to the environment. If your electricity generation mix contains a significant proportion of non-fossil sources, then it is absolutely definitely not a net benefit to the environment. And if your heating system burns fossil fuel, and your electricity is even partly sourced from anything other than fossil fuels, the use of CFLs is almost certainly doing more harm than good.

In summary, energy use is complex, and the effects of any given changes in useage are not usually as simple as they seem. Savings in one place often just mean using more energy somewhere else. And people don't burn energy for no reason - reducing energy use is usually the same thing as reducing quality of life. That's why fossil fuel energy generation techniques need to be eliminated at source. Tax the bejeezus out of their filthy fuels, so that it is cheaper to leave them in the ground where they need to stay.

 

[Treedbear]

... For example, the old style incandescent light bulbs are far less toxic to the environment than CFLs, as the CFL requires more materials to make, and in place of glass, steel, copper and a trace of tungsten, you have glass, steel, plastics, copper, mercury, and various phosphors that are chemically quite toxic - a dead incandescent bulb can simply go in the bin, but CFLs really shouldn't be landfilled (and because people don't know or care, they are, in large numbers).

Furthermore, in cold climates, the energy 'wasted' by inefficient incandescent bulbs went to heating the room. Due to the first law of thermodynamics, every joule saved by your CFLs is an additional joule burned by your heating system. For a net gain of exactly zero joules saved. ...

Saving energy by using CFLs is almost certainly not a net benefit to the environment. If your electricity generation mix contains a significant proportion of non-fossil sources, then it is absolutely definitely not a net benefit to the environment. And if your heating system burns fossil fuel, and your electricity is even partly sourced from anything other than fossil fuels, the use of CFLs is almost certainly doing more harm than good.

In summary, energy use is complex, and the effects of any given changes in useage are not usually as simple as they seem. Savings in one place often just mean using more energy somewhere else. And people don't burn energy for no reason - reducing energy use is usually the same thing as reducing quality of life. That's why fossil fuel energy generation techniques need to be eliminated at source. Tax the bejeezus out of their filthy fuels, so that it is cheaper to leave them in the ground where they need to stay.

First, this is what I do and I recycle fluorescent bulbs responsibly. If other people don't that's another problem. And the increased cost to purchase them is far less than the money they save me. Your right about the bulbs heating the house in winter. But the incandescent ones are a problem during the summer so I try not to use them as much. That's a quality of life issue.

And if your heating system burns fossil fuel, and your electricity is even partly sourced from anything other than fossil fuels, the use of CFLs is almost certainly doing more harm than good.

Don't know what my CFL's have to do with heating my home with fossil fuels. And I don't see any evidence that my using them does any harm to the environment. Point me to the source of your information. And what do you have to say about using LED's instead?

Savings in one place often just mean using more energy somewhere else.

That sounds terribly defeatist to me. But then I don't have all the money in the world so I guess quality of life means something different to me. Besides there's always a price to be paid for using more energy. Dams, windmills, solar farms and nuclear all have an environmental impact. It's worth converting to them eventually but it will still entail some sacrifices. Efficiency and conservation will always need to be a factor.

 

[bilby]

First, this is what I do and I recycle fluorescent bulbs responsibly. If other people don't that's another problem. And the increased cost to purchase them is far less than the money they save me. Your right about the bulbs heating the house in winter. But the incandescent ones are a problem during the summer so I try not to use them as much. That's a quality of life issue.

And if your heating system burns fossil fuel, and your electricity is even partly sourced from anything other than fossil fuels, the use of CFLs is almost certainly doing more harm than good.

Don't know what my CFL's have to do with heating my home with fossil fuels.

You appear to be having memory problems then. Check out the bolded text (above). (By the way, 'you are' contracts to 'you're', not 'your').

And I don't see any evidence that my using them does any harm to the environment. Point me to the source of your information.

It is the same information you just now agreed with

And what do you have to say about using LED's instead?

They have similar issues in terms of energy savings and resource and energy use in manufacture. They are slightly better overall than CFLs, but not much.

Of course, IF everyone disposes of used globes correctly, some of the harm is reduced. But they DON'T. And you being an exception doesn't change the fact that most people are not.

We need solutions that actually work, with the people we have. Solutions that work as long as people radically change their behaviour are futile. people will NOT radically change their behaviour.

Savings in one place often just mean using more energy somewhere else.

That sounds terribly defeatist to me.

So what? It remains TRUE

But then I don't have all the money in the world so I guess quality of life means something different to me.

This has nothing to do with how much money anyone has. If you use 100W for lighting and 1,900W for heating, changing to using 2W for lighting and 1,998W for heating doesn't affect your power bills one iota.

Besides there's always a price to be payed for using more energy. Dams, windmills, solar farms and nuclear all have an environmental impact. It's worth converting to them eventually but it will still entail some sacrifices. Efficiency and conservation will always need to be a factor.

On the contrary, intensive energy use can and does massively improve the environment. That's why rich nations are not polluted shit-holes, and poor ones are. The only net negative of high energy use to the environment is climate change, and this can be eliminated by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Once that is achieved, the rest is just hippy self-flagellation bullshit.

 

[rousseau]

We can't and won't be able to do enough, so just have an extra whisky this Friday.

 

[bilby]

We can't and won't be able to do enough, so just have an extra whisky this Friday.

Now THAT'S defeatist.

Of course we can do enough. We just have to stop following our emotions towards narrow but ineffective or counterproductive goals, and get the fuck on with replacing fossil fuels with nuclear fission.

 

[fromderinside]

If I were in India my personal environment would be primary. A/C is necessary. Water is necessary. Both require power. Some, those educated would say mobility is necessary. All require more energy. Primary driver there is both economy and population, both exploding. So hell yes, put cows in reactors.

That would be rational in India.

You say in Australia we should do this and that. You have 24 million people in a space nearly the size of China. Your government wants to restrict brown and yellow immigration. Is that rational? Hell yes you should do cap and trade because most of your energy is supplied from elsewhere and your big business export your coal to China. That's good for schools and taxpayers so its kind of rational. But it does very little to relieve you primary warming problem.

How about you find a way to cap CO₂ around Australia? Capture that already in the air and put it into materials that bond it strongly. Your temperatures going through the roof, yet you guys don't produce enough green house gases to make Iceland warmer. Now that would be rational because you don't make enough to cause a cockroach to take a time out. That would be rational in Australia.

OK so I should have put this in rants, but, hey, let's be rational.

 

[bilby]

If I were in India my personal environment would be primary. A/C is necessary. Water is necessary. Both require power. Some, those educated would say mobility is necessary. All require more energy. Primary driver there is both economy and population, both exploding. So hell yes, put cows in reactors.

That would be rational in India.

You say in Australia we should do this and that.

Actually, I did nothing of the sort.

Climate change is a global problem, and requires a global solution. What we should do in Australia is what you should do in the USA, is what the Indians should do in India, is what the Chinese should do in China

You have 24 million people in a space nearly the size of China. Your government wants to restrict brown and yellow immigration. Is that rational?

No. it's fucking stupid beyond belief

Hell yes you should do cap and trade because most of your energy is supplied from elsewhere

WTF? No it bloody isn't. Almost all of our electricity comes from Australian coal.

and your big business export your coal to China.

Yup, and gas too. Both things need to stop. Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground.

That's good for schools and taxpayers so its kind of rational. But it does very little to relieve you primary warming problem.

Exactly. So it's NOT rational. It's short-termism.

How about you find a way to cap CO₂ around Australia?

You are not clear here. Setting a cap is easy - it's done by government fiat. We just need to elect a government that will do that.

However your next sentence leaves me wondering if you meant 'capture'

Capture that already in the air and put it into materials that bond it strongly.

That's very hard to do. Largely because there's not enough of it in air to be a useful feedstock for commercial processes.

Your temperatures going through the roof, yet you guys don't produce enough green house gases to make Iceland warmer.

We have amongst the highest per-capita emissions in the world; and our fossil fuel exports make us responsible for far more besides. So that's nonsense.

Now that would be rational because you don't make enough to cause a cockroach to take a time out. That would be rational in Australia.

Your conclusion is based on a number of false premises. Clearly you haven't much of a clue about Australian fossil fuel use or export activity.

OK so I should have put this in rants, but, hey, let's be rational.

You need to check your facts before doing either. Your assumption that our low population means that we are not responsible for much of the problem is completely opposed to reality. Australia needs to stop exporting coal and gas; and we need to stop burning them too. Instead, we should export (and use locally) our vast uranium reserves.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Eat less meat.

 

[Bomb#20]

What can I personally do?

Don't have an additional child.