SUV Self-righteousness
Offline There's something that happens with addicts of any drug, it seems, when they're firmly entrenched in their need. They compare themselves to other drug addicts, and find that they aren't "that bad". "I'm certainly not doing as much cocaine as she is" is the common refrain of many a party girl. But what does this have to do with SUVs?
The popular take on the Hummer is that it's a symbol of our environment-killing decadence. Humvees burn more fuel than other cars, and presumably pollute more as a result. Like other SUVs, they're unnecessarily large and opulent.
However, just because the owner of a Prius doesn't pollute at a faster rate than someone with an SUV doesn't mean they aren't polluting. They are. They're still addicted to the same drug as the owner of the SUV.
I've heard people say that they simply couldn't survive without a car, and that may be true for them, since they don't know any other way to live. From supporting family and friends in their efforts to fight addiction, that pattern is extremely familiar. The number of times I've heard people say that they couldn't live without alcohol staggers the mind.
Also familiar is the self-righteousness in pointing at others as "worse polluters" (ie "worse users"). If you drive a car, you're addicted, and you're an oilaholic. We all are. Blaming others and putting the bulk of the blame somewhere else is another common denominator among addicts.
Hey, don't worry, we can go on fuel-cell methadone. No problem. Wind power will save us, sure. How about solar power? That looks promising, doesn't it?
The frank and simple answer is "no". We're going to have to quit the same way every addict does: the drug becomes too expensive, both personally and financially. That includes Prius drivers, who may believe themselves somehow immune from environmental criticism by their car purchase. Not so, fellow oilaholics.
We're in this one together. The type of mirror you use to snort your coke doesn't make that much of a difference.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
I prefer to focus on obvious, siren-blaring, immediate problems. Right now, hydrocarbon scarcity and overwhelming overpopulation are those problems.
Honestly, if we simply stopped using cars and had 4-5 billion less people, we could essentially do whatever we wanted without running into serious problems. In either case, there will never realistically be any kind of 'silica shortage' as it's one of the most abundant resources on the planet. Not having computers would, I would argue, not provide any significant benefits outweighing the loss in communicative power or (well) computing power - both of which are instrumental for providing education.
Not having personal cars on the other hand, or trying to deal with the energy needs of 7 billion people?
That's rather another story.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Actually computers take up power.
So they should be restricited to educational use only. Making games consumes un necessary power. Espically these MMORPGs, I mean can you imagine how much power the Blizzard servers consume? Is that really needed?
A lot of sites are also unnecessary and consume room [and hence power] on servers which causes the server to consume more power. And then you probably need cooling units etc...
So yeah, gaming and non-educational use of computers produce unneeded waste from the power the consume.
Since your idea of success is a population reduction of 80% I guess 8 out of 10 of us are lucky the world is a failure by your standards.
You talk about people being selfish but you want four and a half billion people to disappear while you stay here. That's the height of selfishness. Have you sterilized yourself yet? Are you going to have yourself euthanized at 21 like in Logan's run? If not then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to criticize other people.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Neither computers nor gaming systems use a fraction of as much energy as automobiles do.
For example, let's say you have a big high-end computer with a gaming-level graphics card and an old CRT monitor, and you leave them on 24/7. That's about 330 watts x 24 hours x 365 days/yr = 2,890,800 watt-hours, or 2891 kilowatt-hours. If you're paying $0.14 per kWh, you're paying $405 a year to run your computer.
Let's try a different example: You have a computer that's less of an energy hog, like in iMac G5 20", which uses about 105 watts, and you're smart enough to turn it off when you're not using it. You use it for two hours a day, five days a week. That's ten hours a week, or 520 hours a year. So your 105 watts times 520 hours = 54,600 watt-hours. Divide by 1000 and you have 55 kilowatt-hours (kWh). If you're paying 10¢ per kilowatt-hour, then you're paying $5.50 a year to run your computer.
That's quite a range, $5.50 to $405 a year. It really depends on what kind of computer it is, and how much you use it -- and especially whether you sleep it when you're not using it. Both the examples above are extremes. I used to have only one example somewhere in the middle but then I'd see people on blogs and messageboards misquoting it by writing, "Mr. Electricity says a computer costs about about $150/yr. to run" No, that is not what I said. I said that was just an example. Your situation is almost certainly different, and you need to consider all the variables, like what kind of computer it is, how much you use it, and most especially whether you leave it running all the time or sleep it when you're not using it.
I'd get into the cars...but I've never heard of anyone who only had to spend 400 a year to do their general driving. Maybe in Venezuela...
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
True it depends
True and i have said that about four times so far in this thread, btw computers are essential to how we live. having huge cars arn't.
It is resonable and and don't see why it is so hard. South Africa saved 200 tons (if im remembering properly) of coal alone with the whole earth hour thing I posted and that was just one hour.
Yes i do agree I suspect what I call inconvenient and what other call inconvienant is very different. Yes the 'solutions' are ridiculus but there are some reasonable ones, don't believe I have mentioned recyling though. That is why a few posts back I siad we need an agricultural reform away from the energy intensive green revolution model. My only piont was there are some very reasonable things you can do instead of doing nothing.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I wasn't thinking energy as far as electronics go. Cars last longer than five years, whereas a laptop will last about three on average, and a desktop system five. The amount of waste that creates is phenomenal. More recycling happens with cars than with computers, so I'd say there's much less waste in the fabrication of a car.
But cars definitely use more energy. By far. A car with a 150 horsepower engine uses almost as much energy as 30 houses. (150 horsepower = 112 kilowatts, the average house uses around 3-5 kilowatts at peak.)
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I don't know if computers are essential, for the most part, but you're right in saying that having a huge car isn't. But if there's little difference between having a huge car and a small car as far as environmental impact, then maybe just addressing cars in general would be more to the point. North America is now dependent on cars, having painted itself into a corner through bad city planning and the degradation of the public transit system.
Truthfully, I don't know why it's so hard, either. I can travel 100km on my bike without much complaint. In fact, it's a fun trip. But not everyone feels the same way. For some people, just turning off their lights every once and a while is a huge deal, and even though I don't understand exactly why that is, North American values still include the Greek notion of the importance of freedom.
Agricultural reform would be fantastic, I'll give you that. The organic movement at this point is the only indication that we might have a good start going. If enough people learned to farm organically, it might not be a shock when the price of oil and natural gas really goes up.
Here's where my light-heartedness about this comes from: I think that this is going to be the only problem ever that actually solves itself. Our faith in the free market will convince us that we're at the mercy of a high oil price, and we'll slow down consumption just like we did this past price spike. Once the price of oil really starts ranging high, we'll come to accept that food costs more, and travel costs more, and we'll slow down because we have to. It won't be a big catastrophe or anything, we'll just slow down. When we've slowed down, we won't be able to afford to have as many kids, and we won't be able to afford to pollute, and the population will come down just like it does in any other period of resource crisis.
Hopefully the seas can recover, because all of the big fish are gone. I mean gone.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I am not sure organic is the way to go, true it would be a nice goal but would we have to have enough food to feed every one, with 100% organic it is doubfull that we could, expessially after 30 years of green revilution soil degradation perhaps one day we will manage 100% organic but for now I think GM is possibily the way to go, so long as they have a strain that doesn't require so much oil based products. GM with organic methods would be good if the scientists can work it out. I know there are questions aout safety but they have been in the food market for a while now and we aren't all dieing so I think it is safe to assume the ones currently out are relativly safe, although it is possible they could be increasing peoples chances of geting cancer etc.
Cars in genral are for now essential so are computers, I am not a fan of public transportation expessially trians as they use more fuel per person they cars (most of them). I realise that the differance per car is not statistically relavant but when you take them as a group It would reduce consumtion by perhaps 1% assuming everyone got into a real tiny thing. Add a number of other easy things and you have a decent change but still not enough.
I see where your logic comes from but I doubt it will solve itself. Regardless of what we do oil will run out by that it cannot solve itself but yes we will use less when the price jumps but this isn't an acceptable solution, it may be all fine and good in america or other first world countries but in the third world it would be a killer.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I'm saying we won't, full stop. Regardless of what we do, we can't feed everyone right now. That means the poorest will die in even greater numbers than they do now, and the richest (that's us) will be pretty much fine. If we try to get into organic as a transitional step, then we might stand a chance before a serious drop in available energy occurs. Mind you, I think that will be gradually, but we'll know when people don't have access to an unlimited amount of food like they do now.
That's a pretty big "if". Simple breeding in plants can cause unforeseen difficulties, but the recent tendency towards "suicide" strains of corn and wheat is just plain fucked up.
Really? I didn't know that. Where did you see that statistic?
It already is a killer in the third world. They keep making kids, and the kids keep dying of starvation. It's awful. I forgot to mention that earlier to Gauche, who should know that population control is already underway, and has been for quite some time. It's the poor people who represent the unlucky starving.
Don't even get me started on ethanol and bio-diesel. What a waste.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Actually there is enough food in the world for everyone to eat it is purchasing power that screws people over.
Yes there are problem but it does seem the most logical solution. I personally don't see any better around the corner. You are right it is a huge if. Mainly because the people who fund it want to make money off the other inputs they will require so research naturally gets steered in that direction.
This isn't where I saw it but a quick google does the trick, first heard it in my university lecture. It isn't all trains basically the faster the train the worse it is. Normal trains are only slightly worse though. The comparisin is between a full car and a full trian so oviously it depends.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1465041/Cars-are-more-fuel-efficient-than-trains-claims-study.html
Taxi's are cool lift clubs or whatever are cool busses im not sure about I suspect they are fine when they are full probably not when they aren't though.
The only way it is going to improve is with better economic conditions not more food avaible. The kids are a by product of the povety, I hope you can take my word o that because I don't really feel like typing out why that is. To most people it seems well weird, thats what I have found though. ethanol and bio-diesel are fun! Lets take food starving people could be eating and run our cars on it. Yay us!
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I see that you're into economics. That may have made you overlook a few things that usually get externalized in economic theory. (It's no fault of economic theory, it's just what happens.) I'll explain:
You're examining a closed system with food supply. There's only so much sunlight we could possibly get to hit plants over the course of a growing season, and there's only so much space, and even with the addition of artificial fertilizers, there's only so much nitrogen we can bind to the soil. The closed system that is the earth has gone past its capacity to sustain this population. My evidence that this is happening is the declining fish stocks of the sea, and the amount of rainforest being turned into wasteland. So whether or not more people have more purchasing power is irrelevant, as purchasing power is merely an illusory representation of what people are willing to sell things for. If food all of a sudden becomes so scarce that not everyone can afford it, then the people dying of starvation aren't really suffering from a decline in purchasing power, they're suffering from the fact that there simply isn't enough food for everyone.
Regardless of what it is, "better economic conditions" have been shown to exist only in formerly imperialist countries with access to other countries' cheap labour and resources. Those countries with the cheap labour and resources are not in terrific shape. Even China, with its massive economic expansion, has not produced a better economic situation for the majority of its people. Nor has it solved the problem of feeding its people.
Seriously, the world is simply past the point of being able to expand its population. That means that the population needs to shrink one way or another. We won't be able to solve the problem of feeding everyone. When I say "solve itself" I mean "oh shit".
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
While yes resources are on the decline as it currently stands there is enough at this particular piont in time, if that will be the case in ten twenty years I don't know. Most of the rain forests going to hell is due to farming. More and more is being cut down for farms. Mainly in third world first world not so much or at all really. It is third world where it's happening. My piont is that even if there is food avalaible it is pontless if people can't afford to buy it. Yes tomorrows problem could very well be a lack of food but today it is a economic problem. Should we try stop tomorrows problem? yes, but todays needs adressing aswel.
lol by oh shit you are correct it's just not a solution I would want to happen. With overpopulation, raise peoples economic standings and they will have less kids. It isn't them having money that reduces the number of kids, it is all the things that make your country capable of improving its position and i'm sorry to say it is all but impossible with free trade. It is nice in principle but it harms less developed countries economies. Btw yes in all likelyhoods first world countries would have to take a dip for it to happen.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
The transportation industry's pollution is actually quite small when compared to that of agriculture, energy production, and manufacturing. I think there is a fad going on right now where corporations are telling consumers that they can buy their way into fixing the earth's ecosystem - just by purchasing an "eco friendly" products. I do admire those who eat less meat, drive less, and conserve energy. However, their contribution does little to nothing to change anything. There will have to be tariffs, carbon taxes, and criminal prosecutions for a significant change.
This is without going into the economic system, which by itself is unsustainable. Because we are so reliant on multi-national corporations, there is an overproduction of goods, and the buying of "green" products only perpetuates the production.
What we are dealing with is not a the result of people being addicted to polluting.This assumes that regular people are the ones deciding energy policies. They are not. if regular people had any influence on energy policies, im sure there would be less pollution.
I would totally drive any one of these.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I want to drive one of these
Think I would feel guilty thought 
Eh..I'll pass on that.
So far safety standards don't seem to be up to par for those.
Plus think how expensive it would be to fillup.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
And we name thus things “plants”(trees , grass ) maybe you can find them in this magical place we name a forest and they are zero cost.
Nonsense explain how according to the lows of physic and the rules of reality biodegradability is something good ? If I take plastics and burry them underground then nothing will accrue plastics are non reactive they eventually turn into carbon. And you always can burry amounted stuff underground simply spray some dirt on it and grass will grow.
Why do you hate rocks ? Rocks are non biodegradable and the most abandon thing on earth and they are non recyclable and don’t biodegrade they are simply in the ground and every non reactive substance is the same you can bury it in the ground ! No problem !
Besides I have a better idea burn the plastic ! You get the energy back and the carbon dioxide gets back into circulation so plants absorbed it and you can extract it again from them. With brings us back to the 1950 model with is ultimately the most perfect solution for everything and environmentalism a silly superstition.
BTW :
Peak oil hysteria if you can not do a dam thing about it then don’t panic the end will come if it comes and if you wrong it will not come. Enjoy life and don’t cry that the end will come in X time. If you can not stop it there is no way to be worried about the unavoidable. If you have answers and solutions present them with would negate the need for a hysteria about the doom. Nuclear , hydro electric and solar panels in space will solve all energy problems of the world.
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
Yeah they don't work at the rate we produce. I was more thinking something more immediate that won't take years and years to grow. But either way more trees is good.
There is a differance between not that big a deal and a good thing. No clue what you are on about with rocks.
on second thoughts... on reading this i cannot tell if you are serious or not. I really cannot tell if you are joking.
"synthetic" oil from plants is a bad idea.... full stop. The reasons are obvious if you think about it for a minute im sure you will figure out why.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.