Global warming vs. indoor warming

[lemur]

Global warming seems to have failed to galvanize much cultural change as far as reducing energy-consumption goes. Yes, there have been some flashy high-profile projects designed to reduce carbon footprinting. However, radical cultural changes that would drastically improve conservation have continued to be treated as too painful to rush into. Hitting the snooze button just one more time seems to be more appealing. So if the prospect of global warming wasn't enough to motivate change, the question becomes how active people are willing to get to fight the prospect of indoor warming? Are they willing to build more power plants, increase fossil-fuel production, and nuclear as well as renewables? Are they willing to support global military and economic projects to secure long-term energy security that can provide at least another few generations of high-energy comfort living for at least a portion of the global population?

Edited May 13, 2011 by lemur

[mississippichem]

Hitting the snooze button just one more time seems to be more appealing.

 

I don't have much insightful to say here other than I agree, and that "hitting the snooze button" is exactly what we are doing. (Awesome metaphor by the way).

[CaptainPanic]

I don't know the answer to your question, but I want to stress that it has not been an objective democratic decision to stick to fossil fuels. It has been a marketing battle between different industries... and the fight isn't over yet.

 

And btw, many sustainable sources of energy show exponential growth curves... how much more can we ask for? Exponential growth is probably as good as it's gonna get. And it's not just Western governments that are subsidizing it. China is rapidly becoming the world's main manufacturer, and will soon have more wind (and solar?) installed than any other country.

 

People are willing to support a lot of stuff, as long as they believe it's the right thing, and as long as their friends and relatives also believe in it. And yes, people will easily go to war if they are fed a bit of propaganda. History has shown that numerous times.

[swansont]

And btw, many sustainable sources of energy show exponential growth curves... how much more can we ask for? Exponential growth is probably as good as it's gonna get. And it's not just Western governments that are subsidizing it. China is rapidly becoming the world's main manufacturer, and will soon have more wind (and solar?) installed than any other country.

 

China already leads the US in wind, and is currently growing solar much faster than we are. Germany is the current leader in solar.

[Marat]

Canada is one of the most environmentally committed cultures in the world, and it is no coincidence that Greenpeace was founded there. However, in the 2008 election, when the Liberal Party under Stephan Dion ran on a strong environmentalist program proposing a cap-and-trade/carbon tax system, the voters decisively rejected that party at the polls. It seems that even though the romance and the ideology of the green movement is extremely strong in Canada, the voters don't want to touch it with a barge pole if it turns out to cost any money at all. As a result, in the 2011 election the issue completely disappeared from the political agenda.

 

Why is democracy celebrated as our highest political value if it empowers people who are so dumb that they assume that what they want shouldn't cost anything, yet they still continue to affirm that they really want it?

[lemur]

Why is democracy celebrated as our highest political value if it empowers people who are so dumb that they assume that what they want shouldn't cost anything, yet they still continue to affirm that they really want it?

Emitting less CO2 costs less, not more.

[swansont]

Emitting less CO2 costs less, not more.

 

How's that? The cheapest fuels are generally the ones that emit the most CO2 and we usually socialize the cost of the emissions, so for a given amount of energy, it is not cheaper to emit less CO2.

[lemur]

How's that? The cheapest fuels are generally the ones that emit the most CO2 and we usually socialize the cost of the emissions, so for a given amount of energy, it is not cheaper to emit less CO2.

For a given amount of energy? Why is the amount of energy used given? My observation is that western culture is stocked with energy-applications that could either be completely cut or drastically reduced. People simply don't like low-energy applications.

[swansont]

For a given amount of energy? Why is the amount of energy used given? My observation is that western culture is stocked with energy-applications that could either be completely cut or drastically reduced. People simply don't like low-energy applications.

 

Marat's post was about a carbon tax being rejected, because it costs more, which is true under the assumption that the energy use would not change.

 

People have always had the option of using less energy, but not using the energy in the first place often means not doing something. Not driving your car, for example. You can do that, but there is a cost in terms of lowered convenience or just not going anywhere.

[Marat]

Since few people have lived in both North America and Europe (though many have visited both areas), I think most people aren't aware of what a profound, constant, nagging inconvenience it can be to live in an area where energy is very expensive and has to be used sparingly, as opposed to one where it is cheap and used lavishly. In North America I just don't think about energy use because it is sufficiently inexpensive to ignore, and as a result I gain about 5% life expectancy, in a sense, since I don't have to devote 5% of my day to the dull and irritating business of husbanding energy resources.

 

Unless as a prerequisite to taking a bath you want to lean out the second-storey window of your house on tip-toes to light a gas flame under the hot water pipe while holding a blanket over it with your other hand to keep the flame from being constantly blown out by the winds, and repeat this process four or five times per bath-filling on a windy day because the wind keeps extinguishing the wind, then don't pretend to be an environmentalist.

[CharonY]

I do not see that as a nagging inconvenience. In the countries with higher energy prices often technical but also behavioral elements are in place to reduce energy consumption. E.g. the habit of turning lights off when leaving a room for a longer time. Or to use energy saving light bulbs. Normally, one would not notice it after a while. I would argue that the inconvenience comes from the need to adapt to the different situation, but that goes for basically everything, when you live in a different country. After a while you just stop noticing.

[lemur]

Cultural conformism poses a chicken-egg problem where cultural change is concerned. Individuals resist deviating from the norms they perceive and as a result the behavior they resist deviating from remains widespread and therefore continues to be viewed as normal. The more annoying by-product of cultural conformity is that people tend to assume that somehow if everyone keeps living the same way, no one will really have to change. Maybe they just think that by the time change becomes a true dire necessity, the government will do something to make it easier for them. I don't think people realize that this free-market approach to energy-pricing IS the method for governing energy-usage by creating a financial incentive to conserve and/or seek substitute cultural practices. The problem, imo, is that instead of making serious attempts to save money, people try to make or borrow more instead so they won't have to restrict their consumption. Often it feels like you are failing or even harming your loved ones when you have to be the bearer of restrictions on their comforts and conveniences.

[Marat]

Believe me, the economies imposed on everyday existence by the high price of energy can be exhausting. I once lived in an apartment in Vienna where the entire hot water supply was contained in a barrel bolted to the ceiling above the bathtub. If you tried to use more hot water than that barrel could hold, then you were out of luck. Among other things, you couldn't expect to bathe and wash the dishes on the same day. And then there is the nighmare of Nachtspeicherheizung, the need to anticipate the next day's heating needs by setting a meter to draw heat the night before during the cheap rates; or in England, three-wheeled car/bicycle hybrids roaring along the street at 12 mph; or motorized mattresses called 'floats' delivering the milk because no one could afford the fuel for a genuine truck; or horse-drawn wagons carrying coal to heat houses in the middle of a modern metropolis like Vienna; or rows of students holding onto the pipes along the walls in the Cambridge University Library to keep warm with help of the feeble temperature elevation provided; or people taking for granted that you have to wear a coat all the time indoors in the winter; or aged and anemic patients dying every year in the hospitals from hypothermia ... I could go on, but these memories are just too depressing.

[lemur]

Believe me, the economies imposed on everyday existence by the high price of energy can be exhausting. I once lived in an apartment in Vienna where the entire hot water supply was contained in a barrel bolted to the ceiling above the bathtub. If you tried to use more hot water than that barrel could hold, then you were out of luck. Among other things, you couldn't expect to bathe and wash the dishes on the same day. And then there is the nighmare of Nachtspeicherheizung, the need to anticipate the next day's heating needs by setting a meter to draw heat the night before during the cheap rates; or in England, three-wheeled car/bicycle hybrids roaring along the street at 12 mph; or motorized mattresses called 'floats' delivering the milk because no one could afford the fuel for a genuine truck; or horse-drawn wagons carrying coal to heat houses in the middle of a modern metropolis like Vienna; or rows of students holding onto the pipes along the walls in the Cambridge University Library to keep warm with help of the feeble temperature elevation provided; or people taking for granted that you have to wear a coat all the time indoors in the winter; or aged and anemic patients dying every year in the hospitals from hypothermia ... I could go on, but these memories are just too depressing.

Many of these approaches sound clever, imo, but I have to admit that cold climates are probably the biggest challenge where energy-conservation is concerned. What is strange to me is that while you are usually promoting how great life would be with less economic stratification, you can suddenly be talking about how much you prefer energy-abundance to conservation. Do you think that given enough money-redistribution, everyone living in a cold climate could enjoy the same level of energy-abundance you do?

Edited May 15, 2011 by lemur

[Marat]

The general goal of wealth redistribution is to ensure the satisfaction of basic needs before the satisfaction of any demands for luxuries. Since keeping warm is a basic human need, I would hope that in the future socialist paradise, we would all be able to keep warm and afford enough light to read, even at night, albeit at the cost of not being able to manufacture Jaguars or build mansions in Hollywood anymore.

[JohnB]

Then watch the UK over the next 10 years and see "future paradise" in reality.

[lemur]

The general goal of wealth redistribution is to ensure the satisfaction of basic needs before the satisfaction of any demands for luxuries. Since keeping warm is a basic human need, I would hope that in the future socialist paradise, we would all be able to keep warm and afford enough light to read, even at night, albeit at the cost of not being able to manufacture Jaguars or build mansions in Hollywood anymore.

But what about the fact that so many luxuries are currently available to even the poorest people in highly developed economies? Whereas refined sugar and processed foods were luxury prior to industrialism, they are the staples of modern poor and working class diets. These luxuries have depleted people's health, along with the replacement of manual labor practices with automation and greater centralization in larger factories. E.g. local foundries required the labor of many people and horses to cut and haul timber to the foundries for fuel. This gave people something to keep them moving and thus warm in the winter and it was probably quite nice to be at the foundry when it was running to enjoy the waste heat. I'm not sure what women and children did to keep warm but presumably, school houses were partially warmed by having lots of bodies in the same room.

 

Anyway, I don't know that eliminating all luxury-consumption would liberate sufficient energy to keep everyone warm in cold climates. There are simply fuel limitations that have nothing to do with fiscal distribution. If the masses don't conserve, the fuel runs out that much faster. The upper classes provide a means of taking money out of circulation from the masses, which pushes them to conserve consumption because they can barely afford it. If you started liberating that consumption, they would quickly multiply resource-consumption and end up using up their own resources that much fast, imo.

 

If you want to help the masses, the best way to do it imo is to come up with technologies and lifestyles that produce the highest level of happiness with the lowest level of resource-consumption per capital, since this promises the longest possible duration for growth.