Are we going green?

[mountain_tiger]

Link to original post: [drupal=2358]Are we going green?[/drupal]



As we all know, in the past couple of decades, people have been talking a lot about global warming. We hear stories all the time about how in another 20-30 years' time, there will be more floods, hurricanes etc. and they will be even more destructive than before. Thus, attempts to 'go green' have been initiated, including, but not limited to, getting energy efficient light bulbs and more fuel efficient cars, which aim to decrease our carbon footprint and help reduce global warming.

However, amazingly enough, performing actions like these actually increases the carbon footprint of the country as a whole. Now, if you don't know how this works, you'll probably be completely baffled by this. And I wouldn't blame you. The reason for this is due to a little thing called the 'Jevons Paradox', whereby increasing the efficiency of the usage of a resource leads to more, not less of it. An example would most likely explain this better:

Let's say, hypothetically, that you own a business which sells computers, and your monthly energy bill is $500 a month. You've decided to try and make your business greener, and you do this by replacing incandescent light bulbs with energy efficient ones, turning down the heating and getting your staff to wear warmer clothes instead and you improve the insulation. After this, your monthly bill decreases to $250 a month. Thus, after ten months, you will have saved $2,500. Though this will definitely make your business more profitable, it does nothing to help out your carbon footprint. In fact, it makes it worse.

Think about it. If you had $2,500, you wouldn't leave it lying around, would you? Chances are you'd use it for one of three things:

a) To buy something (e.g. a new TV). All products require fossil fuels to make. Not only to transport them but to extract the materials used to produce them, and to work the machinery as well. By buying a TV, you are increasing the demand for TVs, thus menaing mroe are produced, thus leading to a higher carbon footprint.

b) You invest it back into your business. Let's say that you spend it on advertising, to attract more customers. This results in more computers being sold. Like anything else, they require fossil fuels to produce (10 times their weight in fossil fuels, in fact), thus meaning a higher carbon footprint.

c) You deposit your money in a bank account to get interest. (I know the interest rate is like 0.25% atm, but this is hypothetical...) Now, because you're not buying or sellign anything, you'd think it wouldn't lead to more carbon dioxide emissions.

But it does. See, for every dollar that a bank holds in deposits, it will loan out anywhere from 6 to 12 dollars. These loans can be used for all sorts of things, including starting a new business, or buying a new car, or whatever, all of which needs fossil fuel energy to produce.

In a sense, the economy is like a giant machine which turns resources into goods, and needs oil to run. Removing its ineffiencies simply leads to the extra energy getting re-invested back into the machine, causing oil to be used at a faster, 'more efficient' rate.

After all, that's how capitalism works. The aim is to produce as much (And thus, consume as much fossil fuel energy) as possible. Although these green measures will allow more goods to be produced, in its primary aim to cut down on fossil fuel emissions, it fails.

tl;dr Green measures aren't actually green, even if they do save you money.

 

[CRASHiC]

Fun fact:
Farmers market provide better food at lower cost and effects to the environment.

 

[illinialex24]

Fun fact:

They have underestimated by huge amounts the number of trees on farms.

 

[Pakman]

Nuclear Power is a "green" alternative to fossil fuels. Just what do we do with the radioactive waste.......

 

[Jam Stunna]

"Carbon footprint" is such a BS term anyways. I agree that we need to reign in pollution and we need to conserve more, but I refuse to take global warming seriously when one of its leading proponents used more energy than any of us.

 

[Scott!]

@OP: I see what you're saying, but some of it seems just a little silly to me. To say that because a bank loans out money you deposit, that suddenly your company is less green than if you hadn't "gone green" is putting the blame in the wrong place. It's the people that they loan the money to that are making things less green. Saving money on efficiency puts more money into the economy, yes. But if there's more money there, then there's more money to possibly go towards making other places greener as well.

Also, more money can lead to more innovation to make those computers more efficient. That's a big area of research these days, to increase battery life on laptops and reduce the heat they release. If the companies making computers do well, they can fund this more. It may not make the computers you're selling now greener, but it will help in the future.

The problem with going green is that it doesn't provide instant gratification. It's a process, and one that doesn't really show tangible results while we go. We see plenty of warning signs that we're doing things wrong, but not really any results for doing things right. Everything a person does is so insignificant relative to the scope of the problem. The Tragedy of the Commons comes into play, with everyone thinking that, since they're so small relative to the population of people doing things that they think that they can get by without contributing to the solution, since everyone else is doing their part. But if everyone thinks that, nothing changes.

Edit @ Jam: Just because Gore is a hypocrite doesn't make the problem less serious. It may make it harder to take his words seriously, but there's still a problem.

 

[El Nino]

On principle, you are correct, mountain panda. Human activity produces carbon emissions, and economic stimulation increases human activity, which in turn produces emissions.

Though, on a similar principle, eliminating all humans would eliminate all carbon emissions produced by humans. Problem solved.

The point to "going green" is to actually improve the process by which we do business. You can't single-handedly stop people from conducting business, but you can refine the process. Will it all balance out in the end? Hard to say. There are a lot of variables out there. But improving the process is a better strategy that trying to put a cap on all humanity activity, which was the previous strategy used by environmentalists. If your company saves money on energy-efficient light bulbs and uses that money to invest in itself, it is also going to be conducting business at a more energy-efficient level. And, like Scott! said, that money could also go into investing in a company that conducts environmental engineering.

Last I heard, though, we're far beyond the point where any of these tactics would actually help. We're all effed, as of now, and the industrialized world still likes pointing its finger at developing nations even when the industrialized countries consume more resources per capita than anyone else.

@Jam: It's sad that Gore is the face of environmentalism in the U.S. Like any politician, he has to put spin on things for leverage on his career. However, the evidence behind global warming is real. It's been real for decades. I wish it weren't because life would be easier then. But life is never easy for this species.

Large scale systems are hard to control, if they are at all possible to control. This is just another challenge for humanity. These tactics to control global emissions are just steps that may or may not lead to a better outcome. Progress is hard to predict. Currently, hybrid cars emit fewer greenhouse gases but they consume other nonrenewable resources during manufacturing. This is, however, a necessary hurdle. The first airplane looked nothing like the Boeing 747.

Systems do have a way of balancing out. That process causes a lot of grief and suffering though. All these tactics are just attempts to cushion that fallout. I have a feeling that those who stand to take the brunt of it are those on the lower ends of the global socioeconomic hierarchies, while those who have the most control of the situation are those at the upper end, those who also have the least amount of incentive to improve the situation.

But then, isn't that the way it always goes?

 

[mountain_tiger]

Nuclear Power is a "green" alternative to fossil fuels. Just what do we do with the radioactive waste.......

Nuclear power is probably the most viable alternative. But as you said, all that radioactive waste has to go somewhere, and in addition, nuclear power stations take a good 10-20 years to plan and build due to how dangerous they can be.

@OP: I see what you're saying, but some of it seems just a little silly to me. To say that because a bank loans out money you deposit, that suddenly your company is less green than if you hadn't "gone green" is putting the blame in the wrong place. It's the people that they loan the money to that are making things less green. Saving money on efficiency puts more money into the economy, yes. But if there's more money there, then there's more money to possibly go towards making other places greener as well.

I'm not pointing the blame finger at any specific person. That's just what happens with capitalism...

 

[Pakman]

Nuclear power is probably the most viable alternative. But as you said, all that radioactive waste has to go somewhere, and in addition, nuclear power stations take a good 10-20 years to plan and build due to how dangerous they can be.

EDF is currently making a TON of Nuclear powerplants in France and some in the UK. TVA and Exelon Power are also planning a few PowerPlants in the US. By 2012 there will be a good amount of new state of the art power plants in the developed world.

 

[El Nino]

By 2012 there will be a good amount of new state of the art power plants in the developed world.

Isn't the world supposed to end in 2012?

 

[Dr.Brawl]

Isn't the world supposed to end in 2012?

Why if you believe in the Mayan Calendar which says that the sky god/ sun god/dragon/ something along these lines, will come and release huge floods upon the earth, and will wipe out all life. However, if you believe in that movie, 2012 which is going to be absolute crap, a giant solar even will happen wiping out a huge amount of life of the planet.

I find it very weird because even though we are going green it probably not polluting the planet as fast. Look at the bright side to that business you are not throwing out as many light bulbs as you would have before. Sure you are saving money, and of course you are going to spend it on something. This , would have a great impact if you placed it on I do not know how about solar panels, they are quite expensive. Then from the solar power you buy all new products that are much more efficient, and that will last longer, such as a new energy star TV, dish washer, etc.

So going green I guess means that we are trying to stop global warming. It means by not throwing away as much or using as much. Going green has made a difference look at hybrids for example. Sure they are very expensive but they limit the Carbon dioxide in the air. We are going green now, sure people can think what they want, that god will not allow man's time to run out, or that other crap. Going green is away to use our resources better. Would you rather a bulb that works with one volt and then craps out? Then you are really polluting.

Capitalism was mention so... Capitalism is more oppressive than feudalism because you are forced to go out and earn more money, and that you are just pretty much renting your home and other objects, cars, TVs, so on and so forth. Not that I am against Capitalism or anything, I love it, but just though I might throw that out there.

 

[Jam Stunna]

@Jam: It's sad that Gore is the face of environmentalism in the U.S. Like any politician, he has to put spin on things for leverage on his career. However, the evidence behind global warming is real. It's been real for decades. I wish it weren't because life would be easier then. But life is never easy for this species.

Large scale systems are hard to control, if they are at all possible to control. This is just another challenge for humanity. These tactics to control global emissions are just steps that may or may not lead to a better outcome. Progress is hard to predict. Currently, hybrid cars emit fewer greenhouse gases but they consume other nonrenewable resources during manufacturing. This is, however, a necessary hurdle. The first airplane looked nothing like the Boeing 747.

Systems do have a way of balancing out. That process causes a lot of grief and suffering though. All these tactics are just attempts to cushion that fallout. I have a feeling that those who stand to take the brunt of it are those on the lower ends of the global socioeconomic hierarchies, while those who have the most control of the situation are those at the upper end, those who also have the least amount of incentive to improve the situation.

But then, isn't that the way it always goes?

The complex system argument cuts both ways though. If we're not sure that anything we do will mitigate global warming, how can we be sure that we're even causing it? My problem with global warming isn't whether it's real or not. It's become this phantom boogeyman, like terrorism or communism, where everything we do is defined in terms that either support it or deter it. No, it is not a good idea to be pumping tons of CO2, methane and other gases into the atmosphere. But I definitely think that environmentalists have reached absurd levels of hysteria in terms of global warming.

And the economic issue you bring up is a great point. Assuming that the worst-case scenario does occur, you're right; poor people around the world do stand to lose the most. But the really messed up thing is that those same people stand to gain the most by ignoring the doom-and-gloom forecasts. Right now, we're asking China and India to cut their greenhouse gases just as they're in the midst of rapid industrialization, and essentially asking them to halt the (admittedly) dirty, pollution-heavy process that the West has already been through and that gave us the highest standard of living in the world.

And how do they respond to that? With a big f*ck you, and who can blame them? We're asking them to stop industrializing, and it's Al Gore on an international scale: do as a I say, not as I do.

 

[Arora]

going green can actualy be alot easier than most people think
yesterday i covererd my books with shoprite paperbags GO GREEN or im really lazy to get book socks
wait i think i was lazy
but still what bad can happen from going green

 

[Slhoka]

EDF is currently making a TON of Nuclear powerplants in France and some in the UK. TVA and Exelon Power are also planning a few PowerPlants in the US. By 2012 there will be a good amount of new state of the art power plants in the developed world.

As far as I know, this is wrong, at least for France, which is currently building one new nuclear powerplant, and has on in planning. Not so long ago, there was a debate about building new ones, though.
However, I think the UK is building new ones. I couldn't tell for sure.
Overall, nuclear powerplants are mostly in development in developing countries, not developed ones.

 

[Pakman]

As far as I know, this is wrong, at least for France, which is currently building one new nuclear powerplant, and has on in planning. Not so long ago, there was a debate about building new ones, though.
However, I think the UK is building new ones. I couldn't tell for sure.
Overall, nuclear powerplants are mostly in development in developing countries, not developed ones.

Sorry I meant to say is that EDF HAS a bunch of power plants in France and they are expanding outside of the country. I think they have somewhere between 50 and 60 units. France's power industry if I am not mistaken is somewhat run by the government. They have a heavy reliance on nuclear power.

I know in the US there are a few companies looking to complete new nuclear units in the next few years.

 

[El Nino]

if you believe in that movie, 2012 which is going to be absolute crap, a giant solar even will happen wiping out a huge amount of life of the planet.

Sounds fun. No worries about global warming in that case.

how can we be sure that we're even causing it?

That was the million dollar question brought up in my ecology classes. There's a lot of evidence that global warming is happening, but to prove conclusively that human activity causes it is a difficult task. I don't know if they've found the smoking gun since then. I suspect that they haven't simply because I think it would have made the news if they did.

A former instructor of mine, while researching something unrelated, came up with the idea that high atmospheric CO2 might be related to deforestation. Plants consume CO2, right? And it's known that on the small, local scale, the loss of forests correlates with a rise in CO2 in the area.

I ought to look that guy up and see if anything ever became of his research. It would be promising, if his hypothesis were true, because promoting the preservation of forests (in particular rainforests) and ecotourism as a trade might be more worthwhile than just trying to cap industrialization.

But I definitely think that environmentalists have reached absurd levels of hysteria in terms of global warming.

And the economic issue you bring up is a great point. Assuming that the worst-case scenario does occur, you're right; poor people around the world do stand to lose the most. But the really messed up thing is that those same people stand to gain the most by ignoring the doom-and-gloom forecasts. Right now, we're asking China and India to cut their greenhouse gases just as they're in the midst of rapid industrialization, and essentially asking them to halt the (admittedly) dirty, pollution-heavy process that the West has already been through and that gave us the highest standard of living in the world.

And how do they respond to that? With a big f*ck you, and who can blame them? We're asking them to stop industrializing, and it's Al Gore on an international scale: do as a I say, not as I do.

Those are some of the biggest issues I have with the environmentalist movement as a whole. There tends to be this lack of understanding of how economic systems work, among other things. They've gotten better over the years, trying to generate eco-friendly jobs to replace things like poaching and such. It's good, but there's still room for improvement. They really try to work the political lobby angle, which unfortunately leads to a lot of what you mentioned up there, guys like Gore playing to the audience and pissing off people on the international scale.

The public mass hysteria is also a result of this. Environmentalism is kind of being promoted in standard media fashion, like a giant ad campaign, the hot button issue of the season, which doesn't allow for very much education to seep through.

 

[Slhoka]

Sorry I meant to say is that EDF HAS a bunch of power plants in France and they are expanding outside of the country. I think they have somewhere between 50 and 60 units. France's power industry if I am not mistaken is somewhat run by the government. They have a heavy reliance on nuclear power.

I know in the US there are a few companies looking to complete new nuclear units in the next few years.

Oh. Then if you mean this, yeah that's right. I think that only the US use more nuclear-produced energy than France does.
Also, there're 58 units, and the power industry is partly run by the gouvernment (though that's kinda complicated).

However, I don't think nuclear energy is developping over here. I tend to see more and more wind farms and other ways to make use of renewable energy in construction recently. The hostilty toward nuclear is now too big to have too much new projects.