Seriously thoughtful Contemplating the Onuissance

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

The price of that bulb is not what I'm arguing about (can't speak for you, obviously). I'm arguing that it makes more sense for me to upgrade bulbs I actually use with some frequency first.

It's just crazy to illuminate a whole room, when you only need light where you're looking.

If everyone strapped a torch to their head, it would drastically reduce power consumption (preferably a torch with an integrated sensor to switch itself off and on as you blinked).

[Daithi]

I already gave Lady Blue karma, but I just wanted to publicly say that that was a great post.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Xenophon - having now gone back and read your longer earlier posting, I respectfully withdraw my remarks and apologise for the somewhat 'kneejerk' nature of my initial response.

You have clearly given this rather more thought than I did and I promise to be a bit less confrontational in the future

That's a very graceful apology -- and far more public than was really necessary. Thanks.

Xenophon

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You sound like an example for others, Lady Blue. Good on you!

Originally Posted by Daithi

I already gave Lady Blue karma, but I just wanted to publicly say that that was a great post.

Thank you both.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You sound like an example for others, Lady Blue. Good on you!

Hear hear! Karma to Lady Blue. I wish you were the rule of a citizen in the US rather than the exception. (Yes, I do think you are exceptional in your "greenness").

BOb

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Hear hear! Karma to Lady Blue. I wish you were the rule of a citizen in the US rather than the exception. (Yes, I do think you are exceptional in your "greenness").

BOb

Thank you, too.

But I think more people do these things that are given credit.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Thank you, too.

But I think more people do these things that are given credit.

What she said. Lots of folks do this sort of thing without making any kind of fuss.

Xenophon

[vivaldirules]

The pundits that people here see or hear the most (television, radio, etc.) seem to take it for granted that none of the Kyoto Protocol targets have been met by the countries that signed it. I won't comment about what I think of pundits. But I thought I recently saw a table of figures that would indicate that there were many countries that had exceeded the targets (for carbon emission reductions) and many who had failed but had come close. I also don't recall where the figures came from. Does someone know something objective about those figures and if they may be fairly accurate?

[HarryT]

The UK is one of the countries which has exceeded its "goal" for CO2 reduction under the Kyoto treaty (the treaty required an 8% reduction compared to 1990 levels; the actual reduction has been around 15%), although it looks likely to fail to meet a more ambitious target set by the UK government in a 2007 "Climate Change Bill" (the target is a 60% reduction by 2050, with an intermediate goal of around 30% by 2020).

This goal has been met by dramatically raising fuel duties (to encourage people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles), and introducing a rigorous "carbon trading" system, with heavy tax penalties for industries which fail to reduce their emissions.

It can be done - and it's been something which has had broad cross-party political support - but not without a certain amount of "pain" in everyone's pockets, in terms of more higher fuel prices. My gut feeling, however, is that the majority of people in this country have been - "happy" is probably the wrong word - "willing to accept" the necessity of it for the "greater good".

[Xenophon]

Oh, and while I'm at it...

Don't put down the folks who make "no regrets" upgrades. Instead, congratulate them on their insight, and then ask them whether there are other "no regrets" upgrades available to them that they have not yet done.

A certain proverb involving flies, honey, and vinegar comes to mind.

Xenophon

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This goal has been met by dramatically raising fuel duties (to encourage people to buy fuel-efficient vehicles), and introducing a rigorous "carbon trading" system, with heavy tax penalties for industries which fail to reduce their emissions.

According to Greenpeace :
"Blair's boast that the UK is set to meet and exceed its Kyoto target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is mainly due to the policies of previous Conservative administrations which made the 'dash' from coal to gas. The Kyoto target (a 12.5 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions on 1990 levels by 2010) was all but met when Labour took office."

I can't say I've seen much of a culture shift among the general populace.

[HarryT]

Let's not argue about which "party" achieved it; the important thing is that it has been achieved, and it shows that CO2 reductions really can be achieved if a country has the political willpower to do it.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Let's not argue about which "party" achieved it; the important thing is that it has been achieved, and it shows that CO2 reductions really can be achieved if a country has the political willpower to do it.

I think the point is that the UK didn't have to do much to achieve the Kyoto targets. Countries that had cleaner environments than ours in 1990 face a much tougher challenge.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think the point is that the UK didn't have to do much to achieve the Kyoto targets. Countries that had cleaner environments than ours in 1990 face a much tougher challenge.

That's very true. France, for example, which, since 80% of its power generation is nuclear, had very low CO2 emissions to begin with.

[vivaldirules]

Our monthly electricity usage (below) since we moved to our Houston home in 1995 shows a couple of interesting things. We started using a few fluorescent lights at the outset but only slowly increased that to almost 100% of our lights now and we no longer leave a porch light on at night. And yet there's no indication that that's made any difference (see February, for example, where there's seldom a contribution from air conditioning). What is quite clear is that seasonal air conditioning accounts for about 55% of our household electricity needs and that, at least in this area, people who want to make a difference should be trying to ensure that their air conditioners are efficient, that ducting and insulation are in good shape, and their thermostats are set as high as they reasonably can. A few dollars spent there would be far better than spending it on CFLs, for example.

Note that our family of four consumes an average of 16.6 megawatt-hours per year - an astoundingly large figure in my mind although the average usage in the U.S. is 12.8 MW-hr/yr per capita (but the latter figure includes usage outside the home like schools, governments, businesses, etc.). Using the average accepted value of 0.63 pounds of carbon per kilowatt-hour for the emission of carbon dioxide from electricity produced in Texas (38% from coal and 45% from natural gas), our home usage for 4 people is about 10,500 pounds or over 5 tons of carbon per year. A few years ago we reduced that to 0 pounds per year simply by switching our electricity provider to one that produces it all from wind turbines only. That costs us less than $10 per month extra (3.3% more than the commonly used alternative) and is dramatically more cost-effective than buying CFLs. I'm a big supporter of CFLs and other strategies and I intend to keep looking for ways to reduce our usage anyway. I just think people should spend more than a couple of minutes thinking about what they can do that's most effective for their particular situation.

And if legislators would simply provide just a little more tax incentive for renewables (or a little higher taxation for nonrenewables), then the average consumer might make a similar switch simply for economic reasons.