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 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 70

5 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 1

#2253216 6-Jun-2019 17:44

My dad used to say: "Improve the world? Start with yourself"

My recommendation? Get an electric car. It's even starting to make financial sense now for your daily commutes. Since most NZ households have more than one car anyways, it would be perfect to sub one of them out for an electric commuter. Also, the process of producing electric cars will be offset when the vehicle has driven 50,000km at most, the rest is without emissions. There are plenty of scientific articles available that back this statement.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#2253307 6-Jun-2019 20:38

Aredwood:

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.

It would probably have a negative impact, eg - take a cool million off a rich prick and give $10k to each of 100 poor people. You now have 100 families driving crappy old Honda Odysseys instead of catching the bus, and 1 guy driving an old Porsche instead of the very best Lambo.

Similarly, lift a whole lot of Africans out of subsistence farming into the knowledge economy so they're driving VW golfs to work in an air-conditioned call centre - the maths isn't difficult.

Greenism may be a really trendy excuse for socialism but I'm far from convinced the numbers stack up. As the silence from the main proponent of this argument attests.

debo

309 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

#2253312 6-Jun-2019 20:44

Aredwood:

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

That dirty capitalist scum. I find it funny when greenies state climate change as the most important issue of all time yet do every thing they can to stop renewable hydro power.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2253382 6-Jun-2019 21:41

Aredwood:

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.

I'm not suggesting any course of action/ Just pointing out the fallacy.

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

Right. But it was abandoned for many reasons. Even though it would have reduced coal-powered generation, it still had significant risks for limited benefit. "On 29 March 2004, Meridian announced that they would not continue with Project Aqua. Among their reasons were the uncertainty in gaining access to the water, that Aqua could not come on line soon enough to meet New Zealand's growing electricity demand, the amount of money it was costing the company, design changes due to geology reports, and the Resource Management Act making it difficult to get consent for large water based projects."

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.

It's a stretch, and probably libelous, to extend share ownership into allegations of using influence for personal gain. I suspect that she, and other people, have bought shares in wind generation companies (a) because they think it's a good idea that should be supported, and (b) a likely moneymaker.

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.

As I said, rich people take more international flights than poor people, and as you rightly point out, no airlines have zero emissions. And they buy more goods, like cellphones and cars. I'm not suggesting that you give up all of your goodies, nor that you reduce all your emissions to zero. As you say, that's unreasonable. But some relatively small lifestyle changes can make a big difference. Make your S9 last for 2 years instead of 1, that will reduce emissions. If you eat locally grown food or drink locally brewed beer rather than imported, that will reduce emissions. Reduce overseas holidays to one every other year. Or fly Economy instead of Business, thus emitting 1/9 of the carbon. If you were a little less rich, you would be doing these things anyway. And it is not about "taking money from rich people". It is about ensuring that people pay the actual cost of resources they use, or carbon they emit.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#2253390 6-Jun-2019 22:02

frankv:

[snip] But some relatively small lifestyle changes can make a big difference. Make your S9 last for 2 years instead of 1, that will reduce emissions. If you eat locally grown food or drink locally brewed beer rather than imported, that will reduce emissions. Reduce overseas holidays to one every other year. Or fly Economy instead of Business, thus emitting 1/9 of the carbon. If you were a little less rich, you would be doing these things anyway. And it is not about "taking money from rich people". It is about ensuring that people pay the actual cost of resources they use, or carbon they emit.

Do you really believe that?

It feels like a vast number of people share the journalistic shortcomings suggested here

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/1049519866154242048

"reminder that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice."

My take on that, even if the numbers aren't totally accurate, is that my individual contribution is so small as to be pointless, and even if a substantial number of people made changes, it would still be a small contribution.

As much as I personally hate the idea (because it will cost us all a LOT of money), the only way to make large changes is for the largest economies in the world (US/China/EU) to legislate against large corporations, massively increasing their cost of doing business which will be ludicrously unpopular at a corporate and consumer level.

But If that's not going to happen, I don't see why I should be bothered not having a nice steak or V8.

Call me selfish, fine... Call me an a55hole, yeah ok, in this case, probably.... But don't accuse me of not being a realist.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

QJay

40 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 6
Inactive user

#2253428 6-Jun-2019 23:48

all the news channels tell me its all plastic bags and straws, so when im cold i use more bags and straws, when its hot i use less, it seems to work on a 6 month cycle, so its all good.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1749

#2253483 7-Jun-2019 01:44

frankv:

Aredwood:

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.

I'm not suggesting any course of action/ Just pointing out the fallacy.

What fallacy exactly have I made?

As you have said that unequal wealth distribution is a factor causing emissions. And that taking wealth away from the riches few will mean that their emissions would be lower. Yet you have not explained why poorer people won't increase their emissions after they are provided with their newly redistributed wealth.

frankv:

Aredwood:

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

Right. But it was abandoned for many reasons. Even though it would have reduced coal-powered generation, it still had significant risks for limited benefit. "On 29 March 2004, Meridian announced that they would not continue with Project Aqua. Among their reasons were the uncertainty in gaining access to the water, that Aqua could not come on line soon enough to meet New Zealand's growing electricity demand, the amount of money it was costing the company, design changes due to geology reports, and the Resource Management Act making it difficult to get consent for large water based projects."

The overall reason was the cost increases meant that the price of the electricity generated would have been too expensive. It is also a big failure of the Resource Management Act. Were the negative effects of the coal mines that are needed to obtain the coal for fossil fuel generation. Considered as part of the Project Aqua consent? Did they consider the negative effects of higher electricity prices?

frankv:

Aredwood:

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.

It's a stretch, and probably libelous, to extend share ownership into allegations of using influence for personal gain. I suspect that she, and other people, have bought shares in wind generation companies (a) because they think it's a good idea that should be supported, and (b) a likely moneymaker.

JF had a Conflict of interest. According to the article I linked to, She failed to declare that conflict of interest.

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

The presence of a conflict of interest is independent of the occurrence of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. A conflict of interest exists if the circumstances are reasonably believed (on the basis of past experience and objective evidence) to create a risk that a decision may be unduly influenced by other, secondary interests, and not on whether a particular individual is actually influenced by a secondary interest.

frankv:

Aredwood:

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.

As I said, rich people take more international flights than poor people, and as you rightly point out, no airlines have zero emissions. And they buy more goods, like cellphones and cars. I'm not suggesting that you give up all of your goodies, nor that you reduce all your emissions to zero. As you say, that's unreasonable. But some relatively small lifestyle changes can make a big difference. Make your S9 last for 2 years instead of 1, that will reduce emissions. If you eat locally grown food or drink locally brewed beer rather than imported, that will reduce emissions. Reduce overseas holidays to one every other year. Or fly Economy instead of Business, thus emitting 1/9 of the carbon. If you were a little less rich, you would be doing these things anyway. And it is not about "taking money from rich people". It is about ensuring that people pay the actual cost of resources they use, or carbon they emit.

I don't even own an S9, I own an S8+. Previously I owned an S4 Mini, Which I used for over 3 years. And was upgraded due to: no 4G support, No WIFI AC support, old Android version causing security and incompatibility issues with new apps. Low spec processor / ram meaning it was getting slow when trying to use new apps. Poor battery life due to degraded battery.

My S8+ is no longer getting the battery life that it used to, and multiple charges per day will accelerate the rate at which it would degrade. And it would probably stop getting security updates soon. Hopefully I can keep it going until the end of the current financial year. But it definitely wont keep on working forever. I try to buy high spec computers where possible (but without being silly). The idea being to hopefully keep the hardware for around 5 years. Rather than buying slow hardware that you have to upgrade after only a year or so, because it is too slow. The S4 Mini was my first smartphone. And I made the mistake of choosing it the same way I had chosen non smart phones. Rather than choose it the same way as I would buying a computer.

I never fly business class (can't afford to), and almost all overseas travel I do is for family reasons anyway. I don't drink much, and the last alcohol I did drink was homebrew (can't get more local than that). Pretty sure that most of what I eat is NZ produced. Can't afford to buy an EV, Can't even afford to buy a new or near new ICE vehicle. My work van is getting close to 400,000Km on the odometer. But since it has a commonrail diesel engine, a brand new diesel van would only get me a small reduction in diesel use (best case). And some brand new models will actually use more diesel than my current van.

Although Im definitely not on a "low income", Im still not rich enough that I don't need to budget for living expenses. The "low hanging fruit" have long since been picked in relation to carbon emissions and my lifestyle.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2253528 7-Jun-2019 07:04

Aredwood:

I don't even own an S9, I own an S8+. Previously I owned an S4 Mini, Which I used for over 3 years. And was upgraded due to: no 4G support, No WIFI AC support, old Android version causing security and incompatibility issues with new apps. Low spec processor / ram meaning it was getting slow when trying to use new apps. Poor battery life due to degraded battery.

My S8+ is no longer getting the battery life that it used to, and multiple charges per day will accelerate the rate at which it would degrade. And it would probably stop getting security updates soon. Hopefully I can keep it going until the end of the current financial year. But it definitely wont keep on working forever. I try to buy high spec computers where possible (but without being silly). The idea being to hopefully keep the hardware for around 5 years. Rather than buying slow hardware that you have to upgrade after only a year or so, because it is too slow. The S4 Mini was my first smartphone. And I made the mistake of choosing it the same way I had chosen non smart phones. Rather than choose it the same way as I would buying a computer.

I never fly business class (can't afford to), and almost all overseas travel I do is for family reasons anyway. I don't drink much, and the last alcohol I did drink was homebrew (can't get more local than that). Pretty sure that most of what I eat is NZ produced. Can't afford to buy an EV, Can't even afford to buy a new or near new ICE vehicle. My work van is getting close to 400,000Km on the odometer. But since it has a commonrail diesel engine, a brand new diesel van would only get me a small reduction in diesel use (best case). And some brand new models will actually use more diesel than my current van.

Although Im definitely not on a "low income", Im still not rich enough that I don't need to budget for living expenses. The "low hanging fruit" have long since been picked in relation to carbon emissions and my lifestyle.

Fine. From my POV you're not "rich".

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253530 7-Jun-2019 07:11

You're not rich unless your income from unearned sources exceeds $500,000 a year IMO.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2253624 7-Jun-2019 10:32

Geektastic: You're not rich unless your income from unearned sources exceeds $500,000 a year IMO.

I don't see a reason to distinguish between earned and unearned. Maybe in terms of disposable income, and for round numbers figure minimum wage (about $35K pa) is minimum cost of living, and anything above that after tax is disposable income.

At an annual income of $200K, you pay $52K more tax than a minimum wage earner, and so have $148K of disposable income. IMO that's rich.

kobiak

1615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 551

Trusted

#2253631 7-Jun-2019 10:48

NZ could become an extreme example of GREEN county (well at least stand by it's international marketing campaigns) by introducing drastic changes:

- ban all consumer car imports with engine > 1000cc
- allow all electric consumer cars
- allow only small engine commercial vehicles and any electric
- build electric rail and ban all commercial regional flights (allow between islands only)
- introduce green changes to farming and factories, just punish any violators with 100% profits and imprisonment
- allow only LED bulbs
- electric busses only
- introduce strict quotes for fishing
- more renewable energy: more wind electric farms
- introduce basic income for all
- etc

and watch NZ go green but broke :)

helping others at evgenyk.nz

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#2253648 7-Jun-2019 11:07

I think a lot of our global problems are linked back to a shift in ideology towards Reaganomics, Thatcherism and our own version, Rogernomics. We've seen a shift towards relentless consumerism. Speaking for NZ only, I'm not saying we were some kind of utopia before Labour took over in 1984, but we've gone from one extreme to another.

Anyone can jump on the internet now and order some widget from the other side of the planet and have it delivered in less time than was ever possible in the past. Ain't it fantastic? Yes and no. The manufacturing, transportation, usage and eventual disposal of that widget all come at a cost. That cost comes in the form of pollution and climate change.

Senecio

2856 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3168

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2253668 7-Jun-2019 11:34

kobiak:

NZ could become an extreme example of GREEN county (well at least stand by it's international marketing campaigns) by introducing drastic changes:

- ban all consumer car imports with engine > 1000cc
- allow all electric consumer cars
- allow only small engine commercial vehicles and any electric

I can assure you that downsizing engines is not all it's cracked up to be. When I lived in Dublin the place was full of 1.6L diesels in medium to large cars (Passat's, Mondeo's etc...). You could also buy the same car with a 2L diesel which on paper was less efficient but in real world driving was far more efficeient. The smaller engines fine for around town but get them both out on a motorway at 100-120km/h and the 1.6L was ~20% less efficient than the larger engined cars.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253870 7-Jun-2019 14:38

This is quite a good piece. Despite the "shocking" headline, the article has nothing shocking, nothing new, no surprises. Towards the end it says the key problem.

"We're not waiting for solutions. We're simply waiting for the political will to understand that the solutions are here. Clean energy is not a matter of waiting, it's a matter of implementing," said Patz.

Such enormous undertakings are not unprecedented. Hsiang cites the tremendous economic shifts that helped fight World War II. "When we've faced real threats we've been willing to make these kinds of large-scale changes," he said.

The fact is there is no problem, we have the solutions, we can make big changes, as we have before, but we won't. We need a BIG reason, and yakking about the dire future isn't a big reason for the leaders of this world

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/113298790/climate-change-doomsday-scenario-could-start-by-2050-if-we-dont-act-report-warns

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2253960 7-Jun-2019 16:27

frankv:
Geektastic: You're not rich unless your income from unearned sources exceeds $500,000 a year IMO.

I don't see a reason to distinguish between earned and unearned. Maybe in terms of disposable income, and for round numbers figure minimum wage (about $35K pa) is minimum cost of living, and anything above that after tax is disposable income.

At an annual income of $200K, you pay $52K more tax than a minimum wage earner, and so have $148K of disposable income. IMO that's rich.

In world terms, that isn't even well paid.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 70