大象传媒

One thing. I would use less energy from fossil fuels if others around me (people, firms, and governments) were doing the same.

I could lead a radically different, low carbon lifestyle without being any less happy if only the low carbon lifestyle was the social and ethical norm.

I would use less energy from fossil fuels in the following circumstances:
- more comprehensive public transportation (I miss living in New York!)
- having the utilities offer a mix of energy, and the possibility for individuals to pay a premium to support a higher % of renewable energy. (This happened while I lived in CA, and was followed by a horrendous energy crisis, though...)
- more nuclear power plants, with attendant safety features (of course) and continuing research into the disposal of nuclear waste.
- further improvements to hybrid/fuel cell/ electric car technology (though the energy for the electricity or creating the fuel cells would be its own issue)
- owning my own home, so we can make changes in adding solar panels, maximizing the use of daylight and increasing R values.
- affordable rents/ purchase prices of homes within a 10 minute walk of downtown - we're 20-25 minutes out now, and the convenience of driving lulls me into complacency!
- more component-based products: when my stereo broke, it was difficult to find someone who would repair it, and they all said that it was cheaper to buy a new one than to delve into its guts to fix the CD player.

4.8 Megawatt is an enormous amount of energy for your house to consume. Really the equivalent of 48,000 Ethical Men on bicycles rather than 4.8

If saving the world is to be taken seriously, then the numbers shoud at least be plausible.

"Did you know that a tonne of oil contains ten times the energy of a tonne of TNT?" Actually, Justin, I know that it doesn't.

TNT is an explosive and contains everything it needs to go "bang".

Crude oil is a FUEL and nees to combine with oxygen (i.e. burn) to liberate its energy.
How much? Well, 1 kg of petrol, for example, needs about 14.5 kg of air (of which about 20% is oxygen) to burn completely. So your 1 tonnne of oil becomes (very roughly) 4 tonnes of "stuff" all together. No Ten times, no capital letters, no exclamation mark. But that's science and you wanted hyperbole, didn't you? Or, one might say, a "sexed up" report. Is that ethical?
I actually agree with what you are trying to say but wish you would check your facts first. Or does calling yourself a blogger instead of a journalist permit sloppiness? is that ethical?

I think that global warming is a myth created by the left. I just can't buy the carbon dioxide bit.

I think you mean 4.8 kilowatts = 4800 watts = output of 48 ethical men, each producing 100 watts.

Oil contains more energy than TNT. As alewijnse has mentioned, it does need oxygen to liberate it, but that's beside the point. The energy comes from breaking the bonds between the carbon and hydrogen atoms of the oil, not by breaking the bonds between the two oxygen atoms that form the oxygen in the air.

"Physics for Future Presidents" by Richard A. Muller is a very readable introduction to this topic. I suspect it is the source of Ethical Man's comment in the first place.

I want to get away from using so many fossil fuels for many reasons.

I love the earth, and I believe it is mankind's place to take care of it, not destroy it. I think Tolkien's imagery of Middle-Earth can show us something, he shows us the difference between people who love the world around them and find a way to live within it, and people who either hate the world around them and/or just don't care and so they strip it of all resources and it becomes a wasteland like Mordor.

I also want to get away from using fossil fuels because I believe in simple living. I'm not Amish, but I appreciate what they do. We live in a world where we are always on the go, never slowing down. We need to slow down, take a breath, stop working for acceptance and social status, stop working for greed and overabundance, and begin to work and live for enjoyment and love. I want to stop relying on technology to fix all of life's difficulties. I want to stop being available 24/7, feeling like I have to answer the phone everytime it rings, or answer every single e-mail. I am not against technology in itself, I am against technology controlling my life. I am against consumerism, always wanting more and more stuff, entertainment, etc. because it doesn't make my life better, it makes it harder to see the things to do make life better.

It is difficult to quantify the last paragraph into how it affects the use of fossil fuels. But everything I mentioned, and more unmentioned, affects how much energy we use, how much stuff we get which took energy to make, how much entertainment we absorb that took energy to create, and how much of all of it doesn't make my life any better than before, but rather leaves me with the feeling that I have missed the important things in my life.

I do use less fossil fuels and more renewable energy each year.

Irregardless of climate change which could be more a function of solar activity rather than CO2, fossil fuels are finite and they pollute. And they enslave one to be a consumer.

Fossil fuels do make life easier, but they could have done so for many more generations that will actually be. And with wise usage, their negative impacts from pollution could have been minimized.

But we are cleaver yeasts and we will consume all the energy in this grape vat called Earth unless we learn to consume less energy, whether fossil or renewable based.

Future generations, should they occur, will curse our use of fossil fuels.

And I agree, it was 4.8 kilowatts not 4.8 megawatts.

BugBuck - what would be the point of such a myth?

#3, #6 - Of course Justin did mean kilowatts not megawatts. I've changed it.

Scientists and the world at large once believed that things burned due to a substance in the atmosphere called phlogiston.

They were convinced they were right.

Today we see a religion, with very little basis in proper science, using hoplessly-inaccurate climate models to predict doom and gloom. No scientist can get funding for any project unless they stick in a phrase mentioning climate change.

Yet this unproven mumbo-jumbo has the politicians worried. They have to be seen to be doing something, even though they haven't got a clue what.

So we get increased taxes, money wasted on bad science and busibodies generally telling us how to live our lives, based on nothing more than a religious belief.

Enough is enough.

I would produce less carbon if I could find meaningful ways to do it. Usually there are other reasons besides climate change to be more efficient and conserve energy. It costs money, it uses limited resources, it makes us dependent on big business and other countries. I need a new car. My current car gets about 30 miles to the gallon (US). It's 10 years old, and there isn't much out there that will do a lot better. I may buy a used diesel. We have had several diesel volkswagens and have found them to be reliable and cost-effective. A diesel-electric hybrid would be great, but before I bought my current car, I contacted VW and they said there was no market for a hybrid in North America! I would be happy to buy one, and even to pay the extra $$$$. I don't want to steal precious resources from my grandchildren.

I would use less fossil fuel based form of energy if I could have electric coming into my home from wave action, solar panels, wind generators and the like. I know the tree huggers fight that idea but some day they will not have a choice. In my home I use those curly Q light bulbs a Mac Computer and use other energy efficient items. Until the oil companies are willing to say okay we will use oil just for plastics and the like, the world will continue to burn itself out of oil and up with global warming. Unfortunately American business and American government don't care except at election time or until the price of gas hits $4 a gallon.

oh! and flourescent bulbs with a good color profile - I keep looking, and haven't found them yet, at least not available near me. I've tried the recommended 'warm' ones, but those I've found available near me don't deserve the name.

@skflyfish
"Irregardless of climate change which could be more a function of solar activity rather than CO2"

See here:


Quote:
"There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion."

Dr Spinpola:

While it is true that many things believed by the majority of Scientists have been proved to be wrong or more often adjusted and amended by experimentation and imperical objective investigation. Over the last 40 years the vast majority of scientists have come to believe, though detailed and peer reviewed investigation that human activity is leading to changes in the climate of the planet. So even though there is no cast iron 100% definite proof, there are repeatable experiments have indicated how increasing CO2 in the atmosphere could cause that. 2+2 are being added to get 4, by a large number of well informed & intelligent people who benefit in no way and as the likely results of Human Induced Climate Change are so serious I am happy to pay the taxes and make the changes. Exactly what proof do you require before you are willing to accept the risk and make changes for all our futures?

Dr Spinola:

You also make the statement that:

"No scientist can get funding for any project unless they stick in a phrase mentioning climate change."

Are you sure of that? What proof other than anicdotal do you have? Do you rally believe that Oil and Gas Companies, Airlines, Motor Manufacturers and all businesses that are high producers of CO2 and that will be hit by the Carbon tax, would NOT put up money for legitimate scientific research demonstrating that HICC does not exist or is not a problem. There would be no shortage of media outlets jumping at the chance to publish it either.

This is a serious subject that needs serious discussion not soundbites.

It would have to become more expensive than alternative energy, in which case I would use no fossil fuel energy, or it would just have to become more expensive, but still cheaper than alternative energy, in which case I would use less of it.

Leaving good will aside, it is pretty much irrational to use alternative energy as long as I still have the option of cheaper fossil fuel based energy, because my effort is of no help, as long as everyone else or at least most people, don't make the same sacrifice voluntarily. So I do not make that sacrifice voluntarily either.

Seeing as I, realistically, cannot improve the situation by using alternative energy, I will do what is cheapest for me.

@andrew_gillett

Point taken.

Based on the minimal solar activity for the past couple of years it was pretty easy to predict the colder than normal winter we are experiencing. There is a documented .5C global variance between solar max and solar min. But maybe we are entering another Maunders Minimum. I don't know, but I am keeping track, for sure.

My point was, irregardless of global warming or global cooling, it is imperative that we ween ourselves from fossil fuels. It is a gift that should have been shared for many, many generations.

And I do take fossil fuel reductions very seriously. In terms of CO2 emissions, I have reduced my carbon footprint to 6 tons of CO2 per year, which for a North American, is quite low. It is all a function of reducing my fossil fuel usage and gradually supplementing renewables, as I can afford it.

Cheers.

Re: ashipman and the proper coloured low energy bulbs. I have found the ones called 'daylight' bulbs to be pretty good. They are freely available here in the UK, at least by mail order, but I don't know where you are based.

Also climate change or no climate change, fossil fuels are a finit resource and we are running through the easy to get at (ie cheaper) supplies very fast.

And what is wrong with moving on to more efficient, high tech sources of power which is what green energy sources represents.

Those who want to stay with the fossil fuel economy are the same are the pre-industrial Luddites who did't want to move on from horse power and houses lit by candles.

Become interested in the Transition Town and Permaculture movements in the last couple of weeks (大象传媒2's Natural World documentary last Friday was very good on the latter).

I think that the Global Warming 'is it, isn't it' argument is becoming pretty irrelevant in the solid shadow of the Peak Oil problem.

We won't have to change our behaviour to save the planet from CO2 based problems; we'll have to change because we simply won't have access to the raw materials, oil and gas.

In reply to Dr Spinola, he is right, the scientists might be wrong; but in order for his view to prevail he will have to answer the following questions:
a) Given that it is scientifically irrefutable that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has gone from about 275ppm to 400ppm and rising, and given the characteristics of the carbon dioxide molecule, how is it possible that this will have no effects on the climate?
b) What scientific qualifications does he have to dispute the considered opinion of thousands of scientists who have each spent decades learning about the atmosphere?
c) If these scientists are so wrong, why is it that observed weather and climate phenomena around the world seem to be tracking their predictions fairly closely?
d) What would be the 'downside' of not acting on their advice now, and then finding in 50 years that they were right, but that it was too late by then to do anything to avert the catastrophe?
No sane or intelligent scientist ever claims to be 100% certain on anything, as Dr Spinola points out learned people have been hopelessly wrong before, but since the development of the scientific method major misunderstandings about nature have become progressively fewer and predictions progressively more accurate.
As to efforts by 'Ethical Man' and others to reduce our environmental impact, individually they seem paltry, but as the supermarket advertising campaign puts it so irritatingly: 'every little helps'

The key to getting people to use less energy from fossil fuels is pretty simple: develop alternative energy sources and storage mechanisms that are both as cheap and as convenient to use as fossil fuels.

I presume DrSpinola belongs to some misguided cult that doesn't understand science and scientific observations.

I have already started to use less energy and put a solar heater on the roof. I believe that we do have to use less individually but I also believe that there is a huge amount that we can do as a society and for that we need Government leadership - something that is sorely lacking. We now know that there are billions of pounds/dollars/euros sloshing around and, if one simplifies matters slightly, most of it going to repay people who made vast mistakes in their hubris in thinking that the earth is an open cheque. We have plenty of clever scientists and engineers with all sorts of technical solutions to replacing the energy provided by fossil fuels and what is needed is big, big funding pushed their way. Government must have the vision and courage to resist the lobbying of big business and luddite civil servants and get on telling the population how it is and how we will get from A to B.

GOOD OL' MICHIGAN, Needs to be given back, some of what She has given to the world. The economy fixed internationally first, then think of what Michigan gave to Russia during the war. If this is all new history, then let it begin. I don't see what can be done ABOUT ANYTHING!!! until the population is more controlled in size and ability. We have the needed skills God has given us when self contol will not work. We have a duty to save Michigan and to use the earth for good... over-population is not good. It hurts everyone!!! every individual. We must have planning, not accept everything as equal and have fair standards for all! Where are true leaders, they used to be all over Britain and America. We need their leadership and strength, with a sense of honour and fairness for all.
The weather seems different now, but does anything people can or not do really change it? I doubt it, however this doesn't mean we should stop trying to clean the air in towns and villages, some hard choices must be made by the whole earth peoples. England has done Her duty! We all must become examples of good to the earth, and be our best for each other. The evironment is for us all...we must all work to save it, in our own best way.
But we are inter-linked and must environmentally, honor others as ourselves and do it in harmoney with God's nature. We have to fing away from thinking the word is dying all the time, we are living and so is the Earth, we must work together as one. He's probably, to close to Home to realize it, but HRH Price Charles has had alot of good things to say on conservation and earth relief. Get by the politics, and enjoy HRH Him, we're all different.

I'd use less energy from fossil fuels if: 1) it were significantly more expensive; and/or 2) there were some cleaner, equally cheap alternative.

Both 1) and 2) would come true, or come true more quickly, if there were a carbon tax.

I can't think of any reason why someone would have created a myth around cilmate change. What would anyone have to gain? However, there are lots of people who stand to gain from denying the science behind it. There are those who have a financial stake in fossil fuels and the products that use them. These are the people who fund the deniers. Then there are the just plain folks who don't want to believe that they have been doing something that is going to affect people for generations to come. They listen to the people who decry the science.

I look out of my window and across the street is a row of brand new "eco-friendly" houses. Every one of them has a "safety" light on the front that is on 24/7. I no longer need to tun on a light at night to walk around, such is their glow.
Every one of these houses has a boiler vent on the side and several extractor fans: the heat thrown out from these is clear.
I emphasise again, that these houses are defined as eco-friendly - built on behalf of South Cambridgeshire Council (UK).
But it gets worse, the roundabout down the road has enough lighting to illuminate the sky 2 miles away. The church spot lights can be seen from further.
I've already taken many measures - LED lights, closing unnecessary vents, reduced heating, etc. But in all honesty, I did it to save money.
Seeing so much waste around me...and by authorities makes me realise that individuals can do nothing to make a difference.

Face it, you will never convince the likes of BugBuck and Dr Spinola that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to climate change. Instead you need to shift the argument into terms that appeal to their sense of PATRIOTISM.

e.g. Which would Al-Qaeda prefer, a USA that stays dependent on imported Middle East oil, or one that achieves energy independence through nuclear and renewables? Which would Vladimir Putin prefer, a Europe dependent on Russian gas or one that achieves energy independence?

Patriots support moves to reduce our demand for fossil fuels controlled by terrorists and despots. Traitors, well they'd want to keep those good ol' gas guzzlers rolling, leave the TV on standby, crank the central heating up another few degrees etc etc.

Even if you think climate change is a complete load of hogwash, you don't want to be helping Bin Laden and Putin do you?

I won't argue about "the point of such a myth" but I don't believe the carbon dioxide bit. Time will tell... I could buy the idea that that millions of car engines running at 210 degrees has raised the temperature more easily than the green house gas theory. We have natural huge reserves of natural gas, and oil right here and by the way, I never have wanted for us to be dependant on foreign anything but especially oil!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

If these scientists are so smart, why can't they build a filter or come up with a process that eliminates the carbon dioxide.

What happens to Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize when all of this global warming mumbo jumbo is proven to be wrong?

Why is Al Gore's carbon footprint 25 times the size of the average American's?

I don't know what happened to happy_red's comment, but it was right on target!!!

What would I do? Nothing!

Once the weather began to cool, the 'global warming' rant morphed into 'climate change'/

It's a thinly-veiled attempt to hijack both the economy and freedoms of the West.

Ethical Man and his ilk are a ship of fools afloat in a sea of nonense.

'Scuze me, I gotta go. Need to gas up my eight-cylinder pickup on the way to work at the coal-fired hydro plant.

I could reduce my energy usage by reducing my living space, but many of the municipalities in the area require a minimum of 1000 square feet...

I've visited several poorer countries were people happily live in small shacks, yet in America I am expected to live in a lavish house with wasted space... anything less would lower the neighbor's property value, and the city wouldn't want that.

People who doubt man-made climate change always do so for one of the following three reasons.

Either (1) They have low intelligence (underdeveloped intelligence - like that found in young children or in animals - simply cannot conceive of the world changing; so some people have a strong "intuition" that the scientists must be wrong), or (2) they are attention seekers (in any forum, climate-change deniers get a lot of attention because their opinion is so unusual and so outrageous), or (3) they personally profit by climate-change denial.

(2) and (3) often go together - think Jeremy Clarkson or Bjorn Lomborg, "the skeptical environmentalist" - i.e. in media or academia, attention=celebrity=reward.

鈥淣othing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity.鈥�
Martin Luther King


DrSpinola, BugBuck, Old South views are foolish, just like George Bush's administration.
What would scientists have to gain from making it up, compared to the energy companies, and the car industry.
People who think the scientists are wrong, have either something to gain from ignoring facts, or only care about themselves. This I m alright jack mentality is the major factor for climate change, the world economy, and the world's problems.
If the governments were not allowed to get elected with help from big business, by law, then they could come up with plans to fight it.

I think there will always be contrarian views, some more eloquently expressed than others.

What frightens me, are the views of George in 'Ethical Man goes to India' and Christine Loh, who spoke for the Asian nations at the 2008 Bioneers conference. Basically they are saying, 'hey it is our time to use as much energy as we wish, just as you did in the past'. 'It is our turn, eh'.

When over a third of the world population, which are the first and fourth highest CO2 emitters, says the heck with what we are saying about carbon footprint and global climate change, then we have a very difficult task in making any significant and needed change.

I feel like the oldest child who go hooked on drugs, got clean, and am now preaching to the younger siblings about the perils of drugs. But the younger ones want to experience it for themselves.

I am a Dudley Do-Rite kind of guy, so I will continue to do what I feel is right and lower my carbon footprint, but will the 100th monkey effect work for the rest of the world? Gosh I hope so.

Comment #24 stated it succinctly:

"The key to getting people to use less energy from fossil fuels is pretty simple: develop alternative energy sources and storage mechanisms that are both as cheap and as convenient to use as fossil fuels."


President Obama's Administration would seem to be intending to endorse this fully, as well as being intentional about making it happen fast, - judging by his address to Congress.

Of course if you are fortunate and able to, walk, cycle, dance and garden if you can. Insulate, buy LED's, build on a greenhouse to your home if you have one, put up a wind generator, photovoltaic panels, water and home heating from solar thermal systems, cook in a solar oven and eat a healthy diet if you can learn how to, and consider working from or near to home if you can find or make the opportunity. Barter bottle and bargain, arrange lifts and live happily ever after.

Telecommute if your employer can trust you. Commuting is unpaid expensive stressful lost time for millions. And a massive contribution to regular fossil fuel consumption. Put real value to your time beyond hourly income and try to look at what everything really costs.

Investigate and learn about the impact of and alternatives to everything you have to deem necessary. Take an interest in serious news and issues. Let yourself be shown sources of news you didn't know existed, exercise the magic of google and look behind the headlines at connections and influences.

Find out for real what is really going on worldwide with wind energy, solar electric and solar thermal, clean transport inventions, off-grid living, schools, colleges and organizations, gathering educational knowledge of efforts experiences and experimentation, whose mission is to publish information about anything which may have been a problem and may have been found to have solutions.

Really consider what economics based on incineration is, what dependence on wasting means, what else can happen in your life if you can travel twice as far on half the fuel, what having no heating, electric or water bill would look like in terms of real things, and what actual steps you would want to take if you could to improve the lives of people who really have less than nothing and none of what you are used to; use your imagination to do real research, your creativity to illustrate what you discover.

From here, think of a project might tell the stories clearly to another person with a different language.

An excellent publication to read through and dive into the archives is Homepower Magazine (Homepower.com) - and visit wherever there is a welcome to see and ask about any and all of the above - the over-riding goal being to willingly advance your understanding of some elements of what can be changed, so that you can share the benefit of new knowledge and interest with someone less well informed than you, such as someone younger than yourself, a child for example.

Encourage an electric vehicle construction project in the schools your children go to.

You'll find we can make impact on carbon emissions and climate change by acts of generous gain drawn from things we all need to know, of which education is the precedent.

Hi Justin - just found your site. what a great idea traveling across America raising awareness of climate change. i wish you every success. i wish i could be there too.

i read the IPCC 2007 reports recently and it is shocking read. amongst the horrendous facts about 100's of millions of climate change refugees, and 50% reduction in crop yields in Africa in 16 years time.
As the average American lifestyle contributes 22 tonnes to climate change ever year and the average African a mere 1 to 2 tonnes it does not seem fair that the poorest in the world will suffer the consequences of climate change the most. Still try to stay positive and go for it. Katharine

To effect real changes in energy consumption here in the USA a change must come in the total carbon footprint of an individual as to where all of their goods and services come from. All of the stores and businesses that we buy from have to consume energy 24/7/365 just waiting for us to come buy their products. My current solution was to come up with a fundamental rethinking about how energy was being consumed as far as it pertains to air-conditioning and refrigeration in our homes and businesses. My current beta tests have netted a gain of 12% - 15% savings in my home current useage. The theoreticals point to a potential 50% in energy useage when I am finished. My US patent pending is close and it will be followed by my application for a worldwide patent. This is where significant gains can be really made, not just a single light-bulb.