nope. you're forgetting all those frictional losses aka bovine burping and farting.. which will be avoided by going vegetarian/vegan..
it is waaaay more efficient for us to eat the crops directly (well ok, not grass, but you get my drift).
So what about the CO² emissions from humans ?
The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day. ... Take this number and multiply by a population of 7 billion people, breathing away for 365.25 days per year, and you get an annual CO2 output of 2.94 billion tons.
Well, if we go vegan, then we have to make energy efficiency improvements for the expansion required in other parts of agriculture in order to replace the offenders, energy efficiently. . Right ?
nope. you're forgetting all those frictional losses aka bovine burping and farting.. which will be avoided by going vegetarian/vegan..
it is waaaay more efficient for us to eat the crops directly (well ok, not grass, but you get my drift).
Well, if we go vegan, then we have to make energy efficiency improvements for the expansion required in other parts of agriculture in order to replace the offenders, energy efficiently. . Right ?
Not only what you said, but regarding the bolded above in NoEnz's thought, flattening the energy curve applies to all of the sectors above in the chart. It is in the natural best interest to improve energy efficiency in all of them. To think that no one is trying is just bizarre at any informed level.
energy production and transport are just part of the problem. "flattening the demand curve" as you put has to extend to all other sectors as well OR we find new technologies to allow demand to stay high but simultaneously become more sustainable, or, even better, we do both at once for the fastest possible response.
Constant growth as paradigm is a malefactor, esp. in economics.
Not only what you said, but regarding the bolded above in NoEnz's thought, flattening the energy curve applies to all of the sectors above in the chart. It is in the natural best interest to improve energy efficiency in all of them. To think that no one is trying is just bizarre at any informed level.
energy production and transport are just part of the problem. "flattening the demand curve" as you put has to extend to all other sectors as well OR we find new technologies to allow demand to stay high but simultaneously become more sustainable, or, even better, we do both at once for the fastest possible response.
Constant growth as paradigm is a malefactor, esp. in economics.
energy production and transport are just part of the problem. "flattening the demand curve" as you put has to extend to all other sectors as well OR we find new technologies to allow demand to stay high but simultaneously become more sustainable, or, even better, we do both at once for the fastest possible response.
Yes, but no. The best and fastest solution, imho, is to flatten and then reduce the energy demand curve, while we work on electrical energy generation advances.
There is a natural incentive to do this as energy is a huge part of the cost of production, let alone just living. This natural incentive does not need political or ideological intervention, hence the opposition or diversion from this type of approach. It is just simple economics.
And then we have to also work on electrical energy transmission problems, so that it does not start wildfires such as in NorCal, for example.
I've got no real idea of what you are actually trying to say here.. that climate activists should just shut up because it is all going to fix itself because of natural incentives? Like this kind of natural incentive?
yep, but not changing consumption patterns in the hope that there will be some kind of technology fix is also kind of irresponsible, don't you think? It's going to take both a change in consumption and investment in new technology. Only when we have the new technology can you think about upping your consumption (if you even need to).
Yes, but no. The best and fastest solution, imho, is to flatten and then reduce the energy demand curve, while we work on electrical energy generation advances.
There is a natural incentive to do this as energy is a huge part of the cost of production, let alone just living. This natural incentive does not need political or ideological intervention, hence the opposition or diversion from this type of approach. It is just simple economics.
And then we have to also work on electrical energy transmission problems, so that it does not start wildfires such as in NorCal, for example.
yep, but not changing consumption patterns in the hope that there will be some kind of technology fix is also kind of irresponsible, don't you think? It's going to take both a change in consumption and investment in new technology. Only when we have the new technology can you think about upping your consumption (if you even need to).
Less is more for one and all. - Something, not only the wise ones kept teaching, but Corona (meaning 'crown') seems to be teaching us, as well.
Just to make a point about technology and energy consumption.
The LED light is one such development that is groundbreaking in the kind of advancement I have been talking about.
It uses a fraction of the energy of incandescent and fluorescent lights (which are hazardous waste). They also generate next to nothing in heat, requiring no air conditioning (more energy) to offset the heat. The total energy usage savings of this one development has probably done more than anything else to reduce the greenhouse gases by reducing the need for energy versus direct intervention at the energy producing source.
These advances will come. Someone is always trying to build a better mousetrap.
yep, but not changing consumption patterns in the hope that there will be some kind of technology fix is also kind of irresponsible, don't you think? It's going to take both a change in consumption and investment in new technology. Only when we have the new technology can you think about upping your consumption (if you even need to).
Just to make a point about technology and energy consumption.
The LED light is one such development that is groundbreaking in the kind of advancement I have been talking about.
It uses a fraction of the energy of incandescent and fluorescent lights (which are hazardous waste). They also generate next to nothing in heat, requiring no air conditioning (more energy) to offset the heat. The total energy usage savings of this one development has probably done more than anything else to reduce the greenhouse gases by reducing the need for energy versus direct intervention at the energy producing source.
These advances will come. Someone is always trying to build a better mousetrap.
