Reducing dependency on fossil fuels

thepassanger

so maybe the reduction in economic activity and prosperity was the best thing to happen, regarding people and resourcefulness of their neccessities, like heating, petrol, cooking...
so if we aspire to have times where all of our demands for fuel will be met, we will always be 'destroying' for lack of better word, (exploiting maybe) the environment for our causes.
im not trying to stroke my own ego, but what are you guys doing to reduce your 'BASE LOAD'?

@ MOD; apologies if the following has been posted before in another topic, for me it seems to relate to this corrib pipe situation, feel free to move this post appropriately,
some are my following attempts
1; eating more raw foods, like sprouts, etc... as meals.
2; cycle to local places more,
3; no t.v slouching, read a book instead, or walk the dog,
4; eat as a group, ie. dinner parties are less demanding if proportioned right,
5; (we have an open fire hear in the house but a stove has been on the cards for a while so improvements to come here, )

a bit of motivation is needed to apply changes here so maybe others tales can influence our choices...

Capt'n Midnight

you could try the big three

Not having kids
No car
being veggie (though Irish cattle are mostly grass fed)

Daegerty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No car

Sure tis alright as long as you fill her with Biodiesel

The TV and cooking food don't use up too much energy, heating & insulating the house are the big ones. Long flights, long road trips are the things that really add up

Capt'n Midnight

Daegerty wrote: »

Sure tis alright as long as you fill her with Biodiesel

the fossil fuel inputs into biodiesel are very large, when you include all the inputs like fertilizers

for bio ethanol in the US some claim that it doesn't even reach break even :eek:

Daegerty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the fossil fuel inputs into biodiesel are very large, when you include all the inputs like fertilizers

for bio ethanol in the US some claim that it doesn't even reach break even :eek:

corn ethanol production is well known to be woefully inefficient that way. what about our own whey based ethanol, how much energy does it take to distill the stuff?

silverharp

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you could try the big three

Not having kids
No car
being veggie (though Irish cattle are mostly grass fed)

why would you say not having kids? isnt that like saying commit suicide to cut your carbon footprint?

edwinkane

silverharp wrote: »

why would you say not having kids? isnt that like saying commit suicide to cut your carbon footprint?

The real issue is the number of people on the planet. The populations is predicted to increase to 10 billion by 2050, from 6.5 billion now.

silverharp

edwinkane wrote: »

The real issue is the number of people on the planet. The populations is predicted to increase to 10 billion by 2050, from 6.5 billion now.

but not in ireland or Europe for that matter. the comment makes no sense, and even if it did who would listen, there seems little point in making wishful thinking utterences.

Macha

edwinkane wrote: »

The real issue is the number of people on the planet. The populations is predicted to increase to 10 billion by 2050, from 6.5 billion now.

Considering it's the top 10% that's causing 90% of the pollution (or something similar), I don't think the masses are the problem but the lifestyles of the top tranche.

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

Considering it's the top 10% that's causing 90% of the pollution (or something similar), I don't think the masses are the problem but the lifestyles of the top tranche.

I'm not sure what was happening in 2011 will be much consolation on 2050.

With India and China, (+-35% of the worlds population) rushing to "catch up" with the west, I wonder what the total CO2 footprint of the world will be in 2050, with all those extra chinese and indians starting to eat meat, drive cars, having foreign holidays and all striving to achieve the western lifestyle.

A 1% increase in carbon footprint per head of population is China and India is equivalent to a 625% increase in the Irish carbon footprint.

Daegerty

edwinkane wrote: »

I'm not sure what was happening in 2011 will be much consolation on 2050.

With India and China, (+-35% of the worlds population) rushing to "catch up" with the west, I wonder what the total CO2 footprint of the world will be in 2050, with all those extra chinese and indians starting to eat meat, drive cars, having foreign holidays and all striving to achieve the western lifestyle.

A 1% increase in carbon footprint per head of population is China and India is equivalent to a 625% increase in the Irish carbon footprint.

I don't know about that by 2050 they might have no carbon left to emit

Macha

edwinkane wrote: »

I'm not sure what was happening in 2011 will be much consolation on 2050.

With India and China, (+-35% of the worlds population) rushing to "catch up" with the west, I wonder what the total CO2 footprint of the world will be in 2050, with all those extra chinese and indians starting to eat meat, drive cars, having foreign holidays and all striving to achieve the western lifestyle.

A 1% increase in carbon footprint per head of population is China and India is equivalent to a 625% increase in the Irish carbon footprint.

True - the rapidly increasing footprint of developing countries is a serious issue. But we're not helping by holding up our lifestyles as the ultimate goal. I'm not talking about genuine quality of life in places like Switzerland, but the sorted of bloated over-consuming material-obsessed mantra that is pervasive in our society.

We also have an obligation not only to reduce our own emissions but also to show developing countries that it is possible to have a good quality of life without being so incredibly resource-inefficient.

The % increases you talk about with regard to China and India may be accurate but they are massive, massive populations compared to Ireland and so such a comparison doesn't really say much.

I agree we should be looking at educating women and giving them more rights over their fertility in developing countries - this will do a lot to reduce fertility rates.

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

True - the rapidly increasing footprint of developing countries is a serious issue. But we're not helping by holding up our lifestyles as the ultimate goal. I'm not talking about genuine quality of life in places like Switzerland, but the sorted of bloated over-consuming material-obsessed mantra that is pervasive in our society.

We also have an obligation not only to reduce our own emissions but also to show developing countries that it is possible to have a good quality of life without being so incredibly resource-inefficient.

The % increases you talk about with regard to China and India may be accurate but they are massive, massive populations compared to Ireland and so such a comparison doesn't really say much.

I agree we should be looking at educating women and giving them more rights over their fertility in developing countries - this will do a lot to reduce fertility rates.

I am not sure about you, but I certainly don't hold up my lifestyle as an ultimate goal, or an ultimate handicap. I'd have no idea how to do that, anyhow, and would be surprised if anyone else wanted to listen.

It's a fact that modern communications ( tv internet films) do show those in China and India that there are better ways to live, and we can't deny them the desire to achieve a better life for their children.

The comparison with India & China matters so much because they are so massive. If, for example, China's population doubles in teh next 40 years, and the average carbon footprint increases by, for example, 10%, then thats a massive increase in the carbon footprint of the world, and makes what we do here seem irrelevant.

Daegerty

Peculiar how China, one child policy and all is the place hwere the population is going through the roof. with people paying the fines just so they can have more children.

So they have made large families a thing for the elite that others aspire to. Brilliant

edwinkane

Daegerty wrote: »

Peculiar how China, one child policy and all is the place hwere the population is going through the roof. with people paying the fines just so they can have more children.

So they have made large families a thing for the elite that others aspire to. Brilliant

It is estimated that China's one child policy has prevented over 400 million births. Ultimately, climate change comes down to humans having less children, as each child is extra demand for food, and petrol, and electricity, and all those other things which add to our "carbon footprint".

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

It's a fact that modern communications ( tv internet films) do show those in China and India that there are better ways to live, and we can't deny them the desire to achieve a better life for their children.

Whether you like or not, it is our lifestyle that they aspire to. So perhaps we should be changing what our lifestyle is?

edwinkane wrote: »

Ultimately, climate change comes down to humans having less children...

This is a tremendously defeatist attitude – we can’t do anything about our wasteful, inefficient lifestyles, so the only possible solution is to force people to have fewer kids.

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

Whether you like or not, it is our lifestyle that they aspire to. So perhaps we should be changing what our lifestyle is?
This is a tremendously defeatist attitude – we can’t do anything about our wasteful, inefficient lifestyles, so the only possible solution is to force people to have fewer kids.

Well, its up to you to change your lifestyle if you want to, but I don't really think many Indians or Chinese know much about Ireland or the irish lifestyle, or even want to emulate it. I think its generally accepted they are more influenced by the American lifestyle through consumer brands, hollywood films and tv, and the internet.

If it's defeatist to state facts, then so be it. I don;t know who you think is going to force people to have fewer children, but thats not something I'd advocate. Do you really think people should be forced to have fewer children?

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

Well, its up to you to change your lifestyle if you want to, but I don't really think many Indians or Chinese know much about Ireland or the irish lifestyle, or even want to emulate it. I think its generally accepted they are more influenced by the American lifestyle through consumer brands, hollywood films and tv, and the internet.

I was obviously referring to the “Western” lifestyle rather than the Irish lifestyle specifically – from the perspective of the average Indian/Chinese person, there’s not a great deal of difference.

edwinkane wrote: »

If it's defeatist to state facts, then so be it. I don;t know who you think is going to force people to have fewer children, but thats not something I'd advocate. Do you really think people should be forced to have fewer children?

I’m not suggesting that people need to have fewer children – you are. Personally, I don’t see the need, seeing as birth rates tend to decline as standards of living rise.

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

I’m not suggesting that people need to have fewer children – you are.

I am afraid you are incorrect, as I never suggested any such thing.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

I am afraid you are incorrect, as I never suggested any such thing.

I see. So what exactly did you mean by the following?

edwinkane wrote: »

Ultimately, climate change comes down to humans having less children...

edwinkane

I am getting lost here. When I observed

edwinkane wrote: »

Ultimately, climate change comes down to humans having less children, as each child is extra demand for food, and petrol, and electricity, and all those other things which add to our "carbon footprint".

Are you saying that you took it to mean that I was saying we should force people to have fewer children?

djpbarry wrote: »

so the only possible solution is to force people to have fewer kids.

Have I got that wrong?

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

Are you saying that you took it to mean that I was saying we should force people to have fewer children?

I took it to mean that you are proposing "fewer children" as the solution to climate change. No?

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

I took it to mean that you are proposing "fewer children" as the solution to climate change. No?

Ah, now I see. No, I would never advocate the use of force.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

Ah, now I see. No, I would never advocate the use of force.

Ok, but you are suggesting that the solution to climate change is a reduction in population growth? Surely that depends on the lifestyle that people are leading? Which brings me back to my point that the problem is not the growing number of people on the planet, the problem is the unsustainable lifestyle that we at the top of the pyramid are living (that everyone else is aspiring to).

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, but you are suggesting that the solution to climate change is a reduction in population growth? Surely that depends on the lifestyle that people are leading? Which brings me back to my point that the problem is not the growing number of people on the planet, the problem is the unsustainable lifestyle that we at the top of the pyramid are living (that everyone else is aspiring to).

It's not one problem, but many problems. I hope I'd never be so crass as to suggest there is only one way to solve this problem, as there is no one solution to the problem. Both population growth and what you refer to as the unsustainable lifestyle contribute to the problem.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

It's not one problem, but many problems. I hope I'd never be so crass as to suggest there is only one way to solve this problem, as there is no one solution to the problem.

The problem and this problem? Didn’t you just state that there are many problems, not just one?

And I never suggested that there was only one solution.

edwinkane wrote: »

Both population growth and what you refer to as the unsustainable lifestyle contribute to the problem.

But if everyone lives sustainably, then population growth isn’t an issue, is it? For example, based on current trends, the population of the planet will level off at around 10 – 11 billion at some point during the middle of this century. So, if it were feasible for 11 billion people to live a Western lifestyle, then we don’t need to worry about population growth, do we? So what we need to do is change what a Western lifestyle is. It’s also worth considering that population growth tends to decline as living standards go up.

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, but you are suggesting that the solution to climate change is a reduction in population growth?

edwinkane wrote: »

It's not one problem, but many problems. I hope I'd never be so crass as to suggest there is only one way to solve this problem, as there is no one solution to the problem.

djpbarry wrote: »

And I never suggested that there was only one solution.

I agree, and didn’t suggest you did say there was only one solution.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

I agree...

With what?

edwinkane

You said

djpbarry wrote: »

And I never suggested that there was only one solution.

What I agreed with was that you never suggested there was only one solution.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

What I agreed with was that you never suggested there was only one solution.

Great - how about dealing with the rest of my post?

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

But if everyone lives sustainably, then population growth isn’t an issue, is it? For example, based on current trends, the population of the planet will level off at around 10 – 11 billion at some point during the middle of this century. So, if it were feasible for 11 billion people to live a Western lifestyle, then we don’t need to worry about population growth, do we? So what we need to do is change what a Western lifestyle is. It’s also worth considering that population growth tends to decline as living standards go up.

Is the post you are referring to the one above? If it is, I don't think it needs dealing with as it's just a statement of what you think, with a couple of rhetorical questions. Or have I got the wrong post that you think needs dealing with?

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

Is the post you are referring to the one above? If it is, I don't think it needs dealing with as it's just a statement of what you think, with a couple of rhetorical questions.

Ok, this is getting really tedious.

If you're not prepared to discuss something, then don't post it.

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

Ok, this is getting really tedious.

If you're not prepared to discuss something, then don't post it.

I didn't post it, you did!

Daegerty

Give up DJing, the amp, mixer and what have you use too much elecricity.


Who defines "too much"? Some fella sitting in an armchair who does nothing all day but complain about people using too much energy

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

I didn't post it, you did!

You suggested that "ultimately, climate change comes down to humans having less children", but have refused to discuss this point (despite being questioned several times).

So, once again, if you're not prepared to discuss something, then don't post it. Please note that this is a moderator instruction and this thread is not the place to reply to it.

manic mailman

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the fossil fuel inputs into biodiesel are very large, when you include all the inputs like fertilizers

for bio ethanol in the US some claim that it doesn't even reach break even :eek:

To actually make biofuels usable in car engines....isn't it meant to be a very energy intensive process, so that there still is just as much co2 going into the atmostphere (when you consider the whole process?). This (dodgy) knowledge is coming from an old national geographic i read last year at some stage but I'm not sure if i'm remember my facts right.

Macha

Please no in-thread discussion of moderation as it throws the thread off-topic.

If you have a concern, please raise it with the moderator in question or start a thread in the Dispute Resolution Forum.

Off-topic posts deleted

Thanks

PhiliousPhogg

manic mailman wrote: »

To actually make biofuels usable in car engines....isn't it meant to be a very energy intensive process, so that there still is just as much co2 going into the atmostphere (when you consider the whole process?). This (dodgy) knowledge is coming from an old national geographic i read last year at some stage but I'm not sure if i'm remember my facts right.

From Wikipedia (Reliable studies can probably be found):

For example, energy in the form of coal could be used in the production of ethanol. This might have an EROEI of less than one, but could still be desirable due to the benefits of liquid fuels.

In the US, ethanol is popular because:

-It eases the reliance on imports of oil, so if the fossil fuel input is coal then, energy inefficient as it is, it does contribute to the goal of having lower gasoline prices at the pump for American taxpayers.

-The farmers' lobby keep the ethanol subsidies in place.

-Cities will have less air pollution if vehicles use ethanol and the carbon emissions from it's production are released in rural locations.

This is a really interesting piece on the efficiency of ethanol production in Brazil compared to the States.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/21064

edwinkane

PhiliousPhogg wrote: »

From Wikipedia (Reliable studies can probably be found):




In the US, ethanol is popular because:

-It eases the reliance on imports of oil, so if the fossil fuel input is coal then, energy inefficient as it is, it does contribute to the goal of having lower gasoline prices at the pump for American taxpayers.

-The farmers' lobby keep the ethanol subsidies in place.

-Cities will have less air pollution if vehicles use ethanol and the carbon emissions from it's production are released in rural locations.

This is a really interesting piece on the efficiency of ethanol production in Brazil compared to the States.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/21064

Sanctions against South Africa also included Oil sanctions. So South Africa's oil company, Sasoil, turned its hand to converting oil (a plentiful resource is SA) to coal, which it still does to this day.

dahak

edwinkane wrote: »

Sanctions against South Africa also included Oil sanctions. So South Africa's oil company, Sasoil, turned its hand to converting oil (a plentiful resource is SA) to coal, which it still does to this day.

I think you may have made a typo here, South Africa's Sasoil has used coal as a feedstock to a Fischer–Tropsch prcess to produce hydrocarbon fuels and in more recent years have also used natural gas as a feedstock I believe.

Capt'n Midnight

dahak wrote: »

I think you may have made a typo here, South Africa's Sasoil has used coal as a feedstock to a Fischer–Tropsch prcess to produce hydrocarbon fuels and in more recent years have also used natural gas as a feedstock I believe.

and orange skin oil, allegedly

edwinkane

dahak wrote: »

I think you may have made a typo here, South Africa's Sasoil has used coal as a feedstock to a Fischer–Tropsch prcess to produce hydrocarbon fuels and in more recent years have also used natural gas as a feedstock I believe.

Yes, Sasol is an oil company which turns coal into oil! Rereading my post now I see my previous post was incorrect!