Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Secret, Aug 15, 2015.
Still looks like a fact to me, pending some kind of argument not yet visible.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That individual/private solutions at the level of the homeowner and private vehicle MUST be part of any successful attempt to reduce carbon emissions.
Well, yes, an untrue one.
They will take effect at the level of the home and private vehicle, but they won't be individual/private solutions, as has been demonstrated. They will be large scale political solutions, imposed on - for example - the industry that supplies the home with power, and the government that regulates that power supply. Or they won't be successful.
That's one of the lessons one can learn from that website and its little, mistaken, poorly thought through formulas.
Explain how a "large scale political solution" imposed on the industry that supplies my home with power, and the government that regulates that power supply, will further reduce my carbon footprint.
Just to point to a recent obvious example, the ongoing political fight over the conditions under which your power company will purchase whatever extra you generate with your panels or windmills or whatever has a direct effect on how much solar power you will, or can, use to reduce your footprint in that way.
Or another: Mass transit and manufactured vehicle requirements will largely determine how much you can, or will, reduce your transportation carbon footprint.
And so forth.
That's not what I asked.
We have been talking about the results of the quiz that shows personal carbon footprint. I complained that no matter what I did with electrical consumption (indeed with three other parameters I tried as well) my footprint didn't change. You claimed that that was because any solutions to reduce that footprint "are going to be political and imposed on governments and corporations, not individual and imposed on one's back yard. That's a fact."
So let's see you support that "fact." How will a "large scale political solution" imposed on the industry that supplies my home with power, and the government that regulates that power supply, further reduce my carbon footprint? Specifics please, not the usual Sciforums hand-waving, misdirection and goalpost-shifting.
Let's try a specific example, with a made-up number because I don't feel like looking it up:
Let's say that residential electric power creates 10% of our greenhouse gases and I live in an average house. Two separate things could change that:
1. The government could switch all of our fossil fuel power to nuclear, wind and solar, thus eliminating that 10% of *our* greenhouse gas emissions.
2. *I* could switch my house to full solar with battery back-up, thus eliminating that 10% of *my* carbon footprint.
Each could, separately, have that effect, but whichever does it first gets all of the credit and renders the other moot in terms of my personal contribution.
Now, I don't know what the residential electric power carbon footprint is, but can guarantee that my three biggest personal greenhouse emissions (electricity, heating propane and gasoline) are a noteworthy part of my personal carbon footprint: I'm going to guess close to half. So the calculation done on that website - implying our personal contributions are on the order of 5% - could not possibly be accurate.
I didn't claim that was "because" any such thing; the complaint was that it didn't change enough to be reasonable, thus casting doubt on the formulas. And I pointed out that the lesson there - that one's personal and backyard adjustments were not going to be "solutions" - was a reasonable one, and despite the bad formulas in the sideline entertainment section the website presented some good lessons.
And I objected to this, from you
This is false. What it shows is that the things you can do to help will have to include politics - decent, adult, informed, honest, well intentioned politics, curbing and imposing on large corporations and governments.
What 's wrong with the example - specific and timely, btw - I posted?
So after making up numbers and guessing percentages, you have decided that a calculation you have misinterpreted cannot be accurate in what it actually says.
The government doing it also eliminates all the other aspects of your personal electrical footprint (your share of the juice feeding the advertising and streetlight bulbs, pumping the gas, keeping your internet up and running, backing up your personal solar, etc) - the part that milkweed was complaining about being absent - so it would be a much bigger bite out of your personal footprint than you can take in your back yard only.
Yeah, that's right.
Indeed it would. Yes, the government changing all electricity to non-fossil fuel would decrease my overall carbon footprint by more than the 10% I cited because of indirect uses of electricity. But we're discussing the direct part and how their number for the direct part is way too low.
That personal responsibility is foolish, and that one should wait for the government to require you to do something before you do it if you want it to matter? I would find that a poor lesson - but I imagine everyone's different.
It is quite literally true, and demonstrated numerically in several examples given by myself and others. No changes you make change the number of "Earths" you use.
I would be happy to answer your question if you answer mine.
I don't think that kind of idiotic misrepresentation is the website's problem.
Neither is this: "I would be happy to answer your question if you answer mine" my problem. Your dishonest, trolling, dumbass question has been answered three times now. That's enough.
No, it isn't. Recall the issue: "If the goal is to show that nothing you can do will help, it does that admirably. " None of the supposed "numerical demonstrations" here have addressed anything other than individual backyard actions, the very minor and sideline aspect the website itself says is poorly set up and missing key factors, and they demonstrated that they will help - just not enough to impress some folks, apparently.
The point I made was that there is a fact visible in this, which is a perfectly solid lesson available at that website: the solutions to the CO2 boost problem are political - necessarily political, inherently political. The problem is a Hardin Commons in the first place, the effects have no correlation with cultural boundaries or personal domains, and if you aren't doing sane politics you aren't solving any significant part of it, while if you are doing sane politics you are solving some part of it regardless of your personal footprint or whatever.
Have you done this?
billvon, milkweed and I can smell the BS the website is shoveling, because it is really rank. Can't you smell it? Don't you guys have instincts for this kind of thing? How about this: you (and/or iceaura), take a guess at the amount of an American's carbon footprint that comes from their home use of electricity. We'll compare it to the 10% I pulled out of the air, then whoever is less lazy can search for the real number and we can see who came closer. Game?
yes, of course
if, however, billvon had done the calculations, 't'would be interesting.
(I wouldn't even know where to find unbiased raw data)
Respect for the earth is a morality issue.
You can not legislate morality!
I'm much of the existentialist mind-set in that I take actions derived from personal responsibility as though I were making those choices for all mankind.
Beware those who would seek power.
Fair enough. I'll let this sit for a little while in case iceaura wants to respond before I take it any further.
The first part is certainly true, the second certainly not. Most laws involve some level of legislated morality. At a basic level, disrespect for Earth kills people. There can't be more of a "morality" issue than making laws to save lives.
Of course you can. Murder is immoral and we legislate against it. Seems to work.
I agree that there are those who seek power for nefarious purposes. However, that does not mean all use of power is bad.
I disagree. I think the sort of idiotic misrepresentation we have shown coming from this website is the website's problem. Whose should it be?
Nope. If your purpose is to troll rather than to have a rational discussion, then feel free to ignore all questions while demanding others answer your questions.
The question in the OP is not addressed, because of an analysis that suggest a possible wrong premise problem that lead to a 2 page debate
Therefore let me rephrase the question:
Suppose we temporary ignore whether the calculation, politics, logistics, solutions etc. and premise that lead to the concept of Earth Overshoot Day. Based on the concept of Earth Overshoot Day alone, what will the day when Earth Overshoot Day is pushed to the limit look like. I.e. what are we expecting when Earth Overshoot Day happened at the beginning of every year, and is this the most extreme it can get?
With such clarity of perception, it's a bit odd that you guys can't get a clear handle on the site, or find something significant to complain about.
I can see why you would want your misrepresentations to be somebody else's problem, but that would conflict with your stated desire for rationality in discussion.
After answering a single question three times, with far more civility than its obvious nature and motivation warranted, I'm just going to label it and blow it off. That's the best of the rational responses, imho.
It probably can't - it's a percentage thing, and the sooner it arrives the harder it is to get it to arrive sooner yet.
Illustration: To move the Overshoot Day from day 365 (i.e. no overshoot, an exact match) to 364 (December 30th) the human dayrate wold have to increase from 1 Earthday to 365/364 or 1.00275 Earthdays, an increase of .00275 Earths. To move it from day 181 to day 180, the h rate must boost from 365/181 to 365/180 Earths, an increase of .0112 Earths (about 4 times as much). To get from day 2 to day 1, the boost would have to be from 365/2 to 365 E, or 182.5 E (more than 66 thousand times the boost in rate from day 365 to day 364).
My point/challenge was quite specific and significant. Feel free to respond to it.
Separate names with a comma.