Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

Forums › Off topic › Climate change: What can you do to help halt global warming and when will you do it?

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 66

2399 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2252085 5-Jun-2019 13:20

frankv:

I wasn't particularly thinking of NZ, and I don't have any figures to back it up for NZ, but I think it's fairly well established that wealthy Westernised countries use more energy per capita than poor countries. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

And intuitively it feels right to me for within NZ. We live in an energy economy; the cost of *everything* is dependent to a large extent on the energy involved in producing it. If a person owns more or consumes more goods, then they're using more energy. A poor person simply doesn't go on overseas trips, for example. Or even travel much around NZ. And we do have extremely wealthy individuals who fly around the country and internationally in their own bizjets, at a vastly greater energy cost per person. A wealthy person accumulates possessions of various kinds, all of which take energy to manufacture and distribute. A wealthy person has a better diet, a larger house which costs more energy to heat and cool, a newer car (or cars), etc.

So I'm interested now in why it doesn't feel true to you.

I was thinking more quantitatively than in principle, and I was looking at it from an NZ perspective. Eg, if the top 1% wealthiest people in NZ took a lifestyle dip to say the 5 top percentile level, would that really have a noticeable impact on NZ's emission profile? My suspicion is "no", but I'd be interested to see some stats if they were available.

I'm not using this as an excuse or justification for doing nothing, I was just curious to know whether your assertion had any factual backing.

Presumably if we as a country were really serious about this, we could stop inward tourism by air travel and limit outbound air travel to one per person per year (maybe making the outbound visa a tradeable commodity). But I don't think anyone is quite that serious about it yet (hence my first post in this topic).

Personally, to answer the original question, I'm taking NZ holidays in preference to overseas ones, have switched to a more economical car and have switched to LED lighting at home. Will probably replace the second family car with an EV within the next six months.

Life360

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Life360 protects each family member with advanced driving, digital, and location safety features. Choose the plan that fits your family’s size and life stage.

boland

392 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2252087 5-Jun-2019 13:24

Another thing you may want to look at if you want to donate money to support green projects, check out this website by the United Nations. I've supported one project so far for $100 and it all seems legit.

Geektastic

16816 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2252204 5-Jun-2019 16:37

eracode:
Geektastic:
If you want a simple thing to do, Air NZ offer the opportunity to fly carbon neutral by adding a calculated amount that will be used to pay for planting trees to offset your flight. A return to London via LAX is $111 on top of the fare to offset.

So you do that?

Sometimes. Depends on how good a deal I think the ticket was....!

frednz

1431 posts

Uber Geek

#2252206 5-Jun-2019 16:45

https://plana.earth/academy/most-powerful-greenhouse-gas/

The above article explains that the world's most powerful greenhouse gas is sulphur hexafluoride, referrred to as "SF6":

The energy industry is SF6’s biggest consumer– it consumes more than 80% of the gas. SF6 is mostly used inside switchgears – which is an absolutely essential component of any electricity grid. They are also used inside wind turbines, which means that neither wind energy as such, nor electricity, in general, can be claimed to be completely environmentally friendly.

SF6 is known for its isolating potential in electricity. As such, it is a favoured material for energy infrastructures. When it comes to the total consumption, yearly SF6 emissions are equivalent to the annual CO2 emissions produced by approximately 100 million cars. Forecasts show that SF6 usage might grow, parallel to those industries, by 50% in 2030.

The article explains why SF6 is a very dangerous gas:

Think about everything that you know about CO2 and multiply it by roughly 24,000. This is how much a gas called SF6 (sulphur hexafluoride) is stronger than CO2 in terms of global warming potential.

You read right: SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas in existence with a global warming potential of 23,900 times the baseline of CO2. It means that one tonne of SF6 in the atmosphere equals 23,900 tonnes of CO2.

So this illustrates that we shouldn't just be concentrating our efforts on reducing, for example, CO2 and methane, there are more dangerous gases out there that are also contributing solidly to global warming!

gzt

13736 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2252623 5-Jun-2019 22:37

frednz: You read right: SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas in existence with a global warming potential of 23,900 times the baseline of CO2. It means that one tonne of SF6 in the atmosphere equals 23,900 tonnes of CO2.

On the other hand - get some perspective.

Numerous sources give the total contribution of SF6 to the greenhouse effect at -- between 0.1% and 0.2%.

I agree on including in capping and reduction targets. At the same time any claim that efforts should focus on that prior to CO2 emission reduction rings hollow. SF6 is already scheduled in reduction targets.

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#2252714 6-Jun-2019 00:39

frankv:

Aredwood:

... everyone having to suffer a big drop in living standards.

That's not necessary at all. Our living standards are governed more by the way wealth is distributed in society, and accumulated by a few, than by the amount of energy we consume. What's more, energy is used disproportionately by the wealthy. A large (or even moderate) drop in living standards by a few will have a significant impact on energy use.

What income or asset level do you propose to set such a cutoff at? Even someone in NZ who works in a min wage job has a very large income compared to a subsidence farmer in PNG or the Republic of Congo.

frankv:

Aredwood:

Labour/ Greens are not willing to admit that they were wrong.

This is a good thing when they're not wrong.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/47HansS_20040330_00000784/fitzsimons-jeanette-urgent-debates-energy-project-aqua

Speech by JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green Party) - At the time. Saying that the cancellation of the project Aqua hydro scheme was a good thing. As a result, power prices rose heaps. And lots more coal has to be burnt instead of using hydro power.

Then JF is now complaining that too much coal is being burnt

https://coalactionnetworkaotearoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/jac_2015_final-low-res2.pdf

That article doesn't say anything about using hydro generation to reduce carbon emissions. Only using solar and wind power to reduce emissions.

Yet no large western country has managed to successfully run a power grid using solar / wind. Despite Germany investing big money in Solar, and Denmark big money in wind generation. Both countries now have really expensive electricity prices, and both still have much higher carbon emissions from electricity generation. They also have the advantage of being able to export and import power from the rest of Europe. They also both use lots of Natural gas for heating and hot water. NZ is even further ahead when you consider that lots of NZ houses use electricity for hot water and heating.

It turns out that JF owned lots of shares in a company that makes wind generators. And it's share price jumped when project Aqua was scrapped.

https://m.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0508/S00503/greens-co-leader-should-come-clean.htm

I find it very worrying that it is considered OK for a politician to use their influence for personal gain. Especially as by doing so, they are harming low income people and the economy in general due to higher electricity prices. And harming the environment due to coal still being used for electricity generation. As project Aqua as originally proposed would have generated electricity for 4c / KW/Hr. While Huntly coal has a break even price of approx 7 - 8c /KW/Hr.

Also @frankv I intend to take an international flight later this year. Which airlines have 0 carbon emissions, and are their airfares the same as other airlines? I will probably need a new cellphone soon as well. What phones are available which did not cause any carbon emissions as part of their manufacturing? And do they have equivalent features as an iPhone X or Galaxy S10? And I definitely want an EV that has equivalent range and features as my ICE vehicles, that can be bought for the same price as what the equivalent ICE vehicle cost. And how about food? Emission free foods, especially high protein foods? Very keen to hear how I can reduce my personal emissions to 0. Without needing to make any lifestyle changes, or needing to spend any money.

How is taking money from rich people going to actually reduce emissions? Best case scenario is that total emissions stay the same, and the emissions per person changes. Except that won't actually solve the original problem, which is total emissions are too high.

Kiwifruta

1412 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#2252738 6-Jun-2019 07:42

Cycle to work and have done for years. Drink about 2% of the milk quantity that I used to.
Next would be the reduction in red meat consumption.

Geektastic

16816 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2252765 6-Jun-2019 09:19

This is the single biggest thing you can do:

"Having children is the most destructive thing a person can to do to the environment, according to a new study.

Researchers from Lund University in Sweden found having one fewer child per family can save “an average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year”.

Eating meat, driving a car and travelling by aeroplane made up the list of the most polluting things people can do to the planet.

But having children was top, according to the new study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

“A family who chooses to have one fewer child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to adopt comprehensive recycling for the rest of their lives,” it said."

The Independent July 2017

The New Zealand government appears to be using the taxation system to achieve quite the opposite - or at the very least, is not publicly supporting the idea of smaller families or being child free.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2252786 6-Jun-2019 09:33

We all know your opinion of children. Its the same silly argument about people flying to meetings about climate change. Other animals damage the environment, they eat all the grasses, so no grasses to be part of the carbon sink, or to add back oxygen, so these animals destroy the environment then move away, but it all grows back . Its sustainable. Humans do the same but they have no interest in sustainability. Its a waste of time having one less child or not eating meat if the vast majority of humans are happy to take everything and give nothing. The Amazon rainforest is a huge asset but we are removing it thats one example of many. If we actually got serious, we could do a lot of things that together make the required difference. But we don't and we won't. Most of the time we don't farm the Earth, we take from the Earth, and when we have tech that can help, we don't use it, we would rather burn coal. One day we will be focussed, but not on fixing the Earth, as its too late, but we will be spending more of our time and money working out how to live in a world that is broken. Its too hot, fresh water is low, food growth is low, and so on. That's the human way. Sand, head, bury. Or I don't want to inconvenience myself, Ill leave it to others, but the others think the same

Rikkitic

Awrrr
15631 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2252803 6-Jun-2019 10:04

I chose not to have children early on. I like children well enough, I just didn't want any of my own. My lifestyle didn't suit them.

I have been vegetarian for many years. I have replaced all our lights with LEDs. In my old age I rarely travel now, though I used to. I have an inefficient ICE car (can't afford electric) but I only use it for shopping once every couple weeks or so, so my emissions are negligible. There is no public transport where I live.

The biggest burden I place on the environment is probably having a wood burner for heating in a draughty, uninsulated farmhouse. There are reasons why I can't do much about this. I am a pensioner with a limited income and my age and means also restrict my choices. The house would have to be completely renovated before it would make sense to consider a different means of heating. There are also other factors involved.

Some changes are beyond individual initiative. They can only be made at a national or international level. For example, only the government is in a position to subsidise electric cars, or to underwrite solar power conversions, or to force change through legislation. That can only come if a majority of voters demand it. That is where we can make change as individuals. Whether we will or not I can't say. The problem isn't learning to live with new ways of doing things. It is making the transition.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2252809 6-Jun-2019 10:16

Agree, it needs to be regional, national and international. But when you combine money (annual budget for the council or country) and votes (to elect that council or that Government) you have a problem. People may march in the streets to save the Earth, but they will also march in the streets because of taxes or rates, used to save the Earth. Or use their vote to veto. That's a conundrum.

Geektastic

16816 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2252826 6-Jun-2019 10:53

tdgeek:

We all know your opinion of children. Its the same silly argument about people flying to meetings about climate change. Other animals damage the environment, they eat all the grasses, so no grasses to be part of the carbon sink, or to add back oxygen, so these animals destroy the environment then move away, but it all grows back . Its sustainable. Humans do the same but they have no interest in sustainability. Its a waste of time having one less child or not eating meat if the vast majority of humans are happy to take everything and give nothing. The Amazon rainforest is a huge asset but we are removing it thats one example of many. If we actually got serious, we could do a lot of things that together make the required difference. But we don't and we won't. Most of the time we don't farm the Earth, we take from the Earth, and when we have tech that can help, we don't use it, we would rather burn coal. One day we will be focussed, but not on fixing the Earth, as its too late, but we will be spending more of our time and money working out how to live in a world that is broken. Its too hot, fresh water is low, food growth is low, and so on. That's the human way. Sand, head, bury. Or I don't want to inconvenience myself, Ill leave it to others, but the others think the same

It's not my opinion: it is that of published scientists.

tdgeek

26525 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2252847 6-Jun-2019 11:09

Geektastic:

tdgeek:

We all know your opinion of children. Its the same silly argument about people flying to meetings about climate change. Other animals damage the environment, they eat all the grasses, so no grasses to be part of the carbon sink, or to add back oxygen, so these animals destroy the environment then move away, but it all grows back . Its sustainable. Humans do the same but they have no interest in sustainability. Its a waste of time having one less child or not eating meat if the vast majority of humans are happy to take everything and give nothing. The Amazon rainforest is a huge asset but we are removing it thats one example of many. If we actually got serious, we could do a lot of things that together make the required difference. But we don't and we won't. Most of the time we don't farm the Earth, we take from the Earth, and when we have tech that can help, we don't use it, we would rather burn coal. One day we will be focussed, but not on fixing the Earth, as its too late, but we will be spending more of our time and money working out how to live in a world that is broken. Its too hot, fresh water is low, food growth is low, and so on. That's the human way. Sand, head, bury. Or I don't want to inconvenience myself, Ill leave it to others, but the others think the same

It's not my opinion: it is that of published scientists.

Just as we could all stay at home on a Tuesday to save burning fossil fuels around the world but its a stupid idea. You attack the many low hanging fruit that you can make happen. Or we come up with silly ideas. Its about being realistic and doing something rather than rambling through hundreds of ideas that we cannot or will not do.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
15631 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2252898 6-Jun-2019 12:03

There is a serious point to this. There would be no climate change problems, no pollution problems, no resource problems, if there just weren't so damned many of us. All of it comes back to simple overpopulation. I have no useful solution to this, but that is the source of all problems. Most people feel a strong urge for children, which is perfectly natural. It is pointless to try to restrict that, Chinese fashion, but if some way could be found to control it, all the other issues would become less urgent. Nature has her own very effective population control measures, such as famine and disease, and if we don't do it, she may well.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

kingdragonfly

7171 posts

Uber Geek

#2253215 6-Jun-2019 17:27

Bill Nye: ‘The World Is Getting Warmer Faster Than It’s Ever Gotten In History’

Hardball | MSNBC

President Trump, recounting his 90 minute meeting with Prince Charles, told Piers Morgan that he shares the prince's desire for "good climate" but was skeptical of the science of climate change.

1 | ... | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ... | 66