(Part 4) Top products from r/environment

All resources and economic activity tie directly into energy.

Food, fiber, goods, tech, it all has energy inputs and cost is determined largely by the cost of the energy needed to produce and move these things.

I'm working through a really good book on this subject called Environment, Power and Society for the 21st Century on this subject which lays it all out very well.

It's pretty technical about how to model energy flows through systems such as ecosystems, human civilizations, economies, etc.

Something really interesting was that the author claims that around 1973 we saw the US economy move from an era of superacceleration into an era of slow growth (and even stagnation), and that this had largely to do with energetic underpinnings of slower and more difficult extraction of oil, as is seen clearly on this graph (you can see the clear transition from exponential growth to slower linear growth).

That really caught my eye as I had long been interested in why there was a sort of sudden shift economically around the early '70s where wages stopped growing and inequality began growing very quickly. Kind of interesting to see that correlation.

The author is a big proponent of investing energy resources now into the energy resources of the future, and basically shows that it gets more expensive as time goes on, so those who are investing strongly in energy transition now are at an advantage.

There are smart things to do during each phase of what is going in the global energy scenario. During the acceleration and growth phase the US capitalized very well on the situation. But now we're in a stagnation phase and there will come a time soon where we must go through a bit of energy descent, until hopping on a more stable income of renewables.

What the US is trying to do is to grasp at policies that worked in the superacceleration phase, but which are not wise in the current phase we're in.

For example, under Trump we're talking about literally subsidizing the old methods that aren't worth it anymore so they can work again. This is also something that is mentioned in the book as a sort of dysfunctional loop of investing more and more energy into extracting forms of energy that are dying out, which ultimately just wastes energy and thus wastes wealth.

Really a fascinating perspective once you begin getting it more and more.

Lot you're still not understanding here.

First, you're getting taken in by Tesla corporate PR about its factory, which makes your "shill" accusations especially ironic. Repeat after me: ALL energy requires carbon emissions. Solar requires quite a bit less, which is why it's a good idea to move to it, but it's still pretty substantial -- something like 5% of the life-cycle-emissions (might want to familiarize yourself with that term) of coal, 10-15% of natural gasSource. So when you repeat Tesla's corporate talking points that their factory is "carbon-neutral," you're exposing yourself as ignorant of even the most basic environmental analyses.

Ride-sharing is great, but even extremely-efficient use of cars is an energy hog compared to bicycles and frequent trains. This is due to a few considerations: trains pack people in together in the same vehicle, and therefore don't need to maintain absurd following distances at highway speeds. (Recall that stopping distances increase quadratically with speed.) This means that cars take up a LOTTTT more route-space even while in transit than trains. Have you noticed that Lyft and Uber haven't prevented traffic jams, even in places like L.A. where they've exploded in popularity? That's why. Cars are stupidly inefficient for urban trips, and making them autonomous is just putting a band-aid on the deeper, structural engineering problems associated with their use.

You say that biking is incompatible with suburban living. Well, so much the worse for suburban living! Suburbs would have never existed if auto companies hadn't lobbied the fuck out of state and federal governments to build car-friendly development. Of course, we can't change our residential infrastructure on a dime, but that doesn't mean we can't work hard to densify our suburbs, re-zone them so bike/transit commuting becomes an option for more people, and put a stop to building new 20th-century urban-planning monstrosities.

You can't just assume that it's cheaper to operate EVs over the lifetime of the vehicle. At current electricity and energy prices, marginal costs of operating a car are $.04/mile for a Tesla (assuming roughly 3 miles per kWh), and $.05 for a car getting 45 mpg Source. Assuming you keep the car for 150,000 miles, this means that the the electric car can't cost more then (150,000$.01) $1,500 more than the conventional vehicle. But we all know electric cars are far more relatively expensive than that -- usually around $10,000 more than a comparable ICE vehicle.

Biking in the snow isn't inherently unsafe. By far the biggest contributor to fatal bike accidents are the cars that you're addicted to. Like I said, it's not an option for everyone, but the more people do it, the less car infrastructure we need, which is an enormous boon from land-use, emissions, and equity angles.

Electric batteries are a beast to recycle, and so is rarely done. The book [The Elements of Power*](https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Power-Gadgets-Struggle-Sustainable/dp/0300196792) is well-researched and can help you obtain a good base understanding of the issues involved in rare-earth mining.

Bikes have less than 2% the lifecycle emissions per passenger mile as conventional cars. Because electric cars are only about a quarter to half as bad as ICE cars, this means that bikes are still better than electric cars on a per-mile basis by over an order of magnitude -- about 3-6% of the energy per mile.

Biking the equivalent from Boston to NYC twice will take you about a month if you bike 6 miles to work and back every day. And thanks for linking that article -- it nicely explains all the reasons bikes whoop the shit out of cars in the sustainability department, many of which are independent of whether it's electric or ICE.

Yeah, it is difficult to write a comprehensive theory of ethics in a 100px high comment box; even harder to write one that people find interesting :-)

Singer has said (and I paraphrase): "The foundation of ethics is the theory that you are not above the rules, just because you are you." All my messages are variants on this theme: if you claim a rule, you must be consistent in its application.

I'm not certain intentionality is terribly important (I would like to be protected from an avalanche, even though an avalanche presumably has no "intent") so I would disagree with the last part of your statement, but that is essentially it. More formally:

1. If I claim X for my self, I must allow others to claim it as well
   
2. I claim a life free from suffering
   
3. Therefore, I must allow others to claim the same
   
   This is somewhat simplistic (it doesn't tell us, for example, how to handle competing claims) but it is not too bad. I have basically attempted to summarize the first chapter of Writings on an Ethical Life, so if you would like to hear the same argument but by a better philosopher, I would encourage you to check that out :-)

Okay, how about production and disposal of Lead Acid batteries? None of the large scale battery technologies are environmentally friendly. Environmentally friendly batteries are just like Cold Fusion, perpetually 10 years into the future.

What countries in South America produce that Lithium and what kind of environmental impact does that cause? Where are all of these other batteries produced and where do they go when they hit their life expectancy?

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does a terrible job of protecting the environment most of the time but they do enough to make things like batteries and PV panels to expensive to produce in the US at the scale other countries with no protection can.

My assertation isn't should we make the shift to "renewable" energy but rather how quickly and in what way should we make the transition. History is always the best determiner of the future and history tells these transitions are never quick or complete. I suggest reading Energy and Civilization, A history or Energy, A Human History.

Seems you've read some interesting literature, and that's fine, but there are millions of books and websites and documentaries in the world. You can find any piece of literature to support almost any view.

There is one book I would recommend to you, and it's not about peak oil at all. It's called "Demon Haunted World", and the wisdom within this book can help you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

A theory is a collection of explanations and predictions that attempt to describe factual observations. For example, it is fact that a ball will fall to Earth when lifted and then let go. The theory of gravity attempts to explain why, how quickly, etc. You can disprove the theory of gravity easily enough: measure a phenomenon that doesn't agree with its mathematics. This has already been done for Newtonian gravity. But that doesn't disprove gravity itself.

This misinformation is like a "greatest hits" of climate change denialism. Every single point has been comprehensively debunked to the point that they now sound like clichéd parodies of the nonsense that deniers come out with, and yet to the average Heartland supporter, they are just as comforting as the day they were coined.

While I'm here, I might as well admit that this used to really mystify me until I read these two excellent, though grim, books

Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

You should read Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. It's all about non-judicial mechanisms of influencing behavior that don't restrict anyone's rights: opt-out retirement plans, putting the fruit closer than the junk food, etc. They also have a blog.

It seems like some of these decision architectures could be employed to reduce the birthrate without infringing on people's rights.

On this particular topic, here are some books that I have read (sorry, mere comments from them will not do them justice):

• The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery
  
• Storms of My Grandchildren by James Hansen
  
• CO2 Rising by Tyler Volk
  
• Hell and High Water by Joseph Romm
  
• With Speed and Violence by Fred Pearce
  
• Under a Green Sky by Peter D. Ward
  
  All of these authors have legitimate scientific credentials. With a little searching there is a lot more to be found. You might also check out www.climate.gov.
  
  Good luck.
  

>According to a recent study released by NAVTEQ, the average U.S. driver that uses a GPS system with real-time traffic updates is able to cut nearly 4 days off of their annual commute as well as decrease their carbon footprint by over 21%.

Navteq is shilling their products and the blog author parrots their marketing press release. Nice research and value-add. Submission downmodded.

Now for the real issue.

The "study" conveniently ignores what happens when everybody starts using the service.

Their findings depend on the edge that drivers using a GPS with real time traffic updates get over the regular drivers. Once the percentage of GPS users, it is obvious that the current data is meaningless as that edge decreases in size.

Will it be better if everybody used them? Depends...

If GPS systems give everybody the same advice, they are obviously worthless.

Attempting to design GPS systems that are smart enough to try to balance the load by giving different people different advice has its own challenges. How do you decide who do you send where? How do you adjust when people ignore the advice they got and drive somewhere else? How real-time is the "real-time" data? (Hint - absolutely not real time, and a few minutes make a huge difference in traffic).

Look, we could go on and on, but let me point out two things:

A) The blog entry submitted is worthless.

B) If you want to understand traffic, please read this book. It will not answer all those questions, but it will help you appreciate the complexity of the problem.

> do you believe that harmful traits can't intentionally be added to organism via modern genetic engineering techniques?

I recommend you read Demon In the Freezer.

https://www.amazon.com/Demon-Freezer-True-Story/dp/0345466632

The concept of weaponizing biology is old.

"GMO" is an industry term for a certain type of crop, correct?

There's a whole book about how beautiful they are: http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Chickens-Christie-Aschwanden/dp/0312613776

Oops, I must have stumbled into /r/Christian where evidence is tossed out the window in favour of personal attacks. Oh wait, [enviromentalism is a religion](http://www.amazon.com/New-Holy-Wars-Environmental- Contemporary/dp/0271035811) and you are a foot soldier in the Holy War on the economic religion.

I am not American. After perusing your comment page, it
is apparent that you are Australian. If you had bothered to
check mine you might have answered your own question. Regardless, here is the Australian Govt's fossil fuel subsidy data. The Australian Govt would have saved itself alot of time and money had it cut these subsidies instead of plowing additional resources into the carbon tax.

Regarding the "linked FUD". The second link is from a respected Australian scientist Bob Carter, who bothered to take time out of his busy research schedule to address the biased climate rhetoric from govt and mainstream media. His presentation is aimed at a non-technical, laymen level which would suit most of the subscribers on this subreddit. And from his profile page...
>Bob's research has been supported by grants from competitive
public research agencies, especially the Australian Research
Council (ARC). He receives no research funding from special
interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy
companies or government departments. Bob strives to provide
critical and dispassionate analysis based upon scientific
principles, demonstrated facts and a knowledge of the scientific
literature.

Yes, that sure is alot of FUD.

>Animals, without a mind or conciousness, cannot rape as they do not know what that means.

This is faulty reasoning. Regardless of whether they have a moral system that considers it wrong, they do have both consensual and non-consensual sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sexual_behavior#Coercive_sex

Dolphins, elephants, ducks and geese have been documented doing this.

http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262201259

Rape carries a reproductive advantage, allowing the rapist to pass on their genes, while not investing any effort in caring for the offspring, and bypassing the female's selection process which would normally let her pick the most suitable male.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape

Stating that meat eating is natural is not an ethical justification. It's a behavior which has significant negative consequences, and is not necessary to living a healthy and rewarding life. It's a luxury done to satisfy a preferred taste.

He is author of a book called "6 Degrees" which I think has been basically well received. Amazon UK link + reviews:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261572715&sr=8-1

eating animals by jonathan safran foer

Only someone who is too young to remember Rachel Carson's Silent Spring would say something so ignorant as to compare being anti-pesticide to being like an anti-vaxxer.

I mean... that would totally ignore 50+ years of empirical evidence.

DBCP, for example, shrinks testicles and causes infertility. No question.

Monsanto's Roundup is now considered a probable carcinogen.

And California is taking action to label Roundup (glyphosate) under Prop 65.

But back in 1962, when Silent Spring came out, it was mainly about DDT. And when we think back to those old pesticides or herbicides like Agent Orange (yes, I'd conflate the two for purposes of most discussions about them, but we can take them separately if you'd like) we see how many of them were considered safe and then later... whoops, not so safe.

So, I guess I don't get what you're saying. Are you trying to say that pesticides and herbicides haven't caused 10s or 100,000s of thousands of birth defects?

If so, I'd like to see if you'd be willing to start drinking and bathing in water with say, 10 ppb of Atrazine in it from now on. How do you think that'd work out for you?

____

P.S., if you're going to be a paid shill for Monsanto, maybe you shouldn't admit it online?

The Camorra crime syndicate is responsible for this stuff. The book Gommorah goes into this and much more. The Camorra's dumping business is huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camorra

http://www.amazon.com/Gomorrah-Personal-Journey-International-Organized/dp/0312427794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291892624&sr=8-1

> 1/3 for feeding horses?? In today’s ages? Do you mean cattle in general?

No, generally the last two thousand years, one third went for horses and pulling cattle - which now is done by Diesel. Practically all forests were either
a) not inhabited or uninhabitable (like Thüringer forest or large parts of Eastern Europe) or
b) more groves than woodlands or forests as we think of it today where the lower classes were allowed to herd their swine and other lower class stuff through. Switzerland introduced a insanely fierce forest law in the 19th century and today nobody uses the woods anymore. There is just a growing acreage growing for district heating but all forests in our country would not even cover all heating demand...

> With local sourced products and materials

Switzerland has only some gravels left and wood for about 500k to 1mio. inhabitants (see above). No mining, no oil, no nothing. Just mountains and some soil left where cities didn't grow yet. Classical environmentalism has no solutions for this problem. Waste is a nonce. A cycle economy uses almost as much energy as we are using today, if only because we'll have 12 million inhabitants by the ethereal point in the future were this kind of economy is implemented.
It's transport, energy and just raw nutrition. If we would close off Switzerland for three months it would be without humans afterwards.

btw, you can substitute any city and its 50 to 100km surroundings with our country and vice versa. Works from a systematic view about the same.

I recommend this for a rigorous and plain explanation of the problem without any precepts whatsoever. He writes like "those were the mouths, this is how they fed them".

>I'll be honest, this is the least sense anyone has made in a comment in this thread yet.

I'd say just the opposite. I'm sick and tired of overpopulation extremists and fanatics, and I'm happy to point out the logical flaws and consequences of their asinine positions.

>Where in the fuck do you see me proposing we kill people?

As I said, it's a consequence of your article of faith. In order to reduce the population to what you call 'sustainable levels' people have to die - through inaction, through action. Either way, you're killing them. (It's important to note that the logical case for your suicide doesn't require murder of others in your proposal, but it's a nice bonus).

>How in the fuck would logarithmic growth be irrelevant to the issue of a population explosion?

Funny, I didn't hear an explosion.

>How in the fuck do you see this as me trying to change peoples lifestyles for my own personal gain?

This entire thread is based on the idea that overpopulation is bad and should be stopped. Your premise starts with getting other people to not have children. You want other people to change their lifestyle. The vehemence with which you are rejecting an extreme personal sacrifice indicates to me that you reject the notion of self-sacrifice to bring about your goal.

>You put more spin on my conversation trigger than the entire team at Fox news could ever dream of.

I don't know what a 'conversation trigger' is - but no, deductive reasoning is not 'spin.'

>You've got to tell me what you're on, so I can stay the fuck away from it.

I'm not surprised to see you're interested in [this](http://www.amazon.com/Symbolic-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0023249803/ref=sr_1_5?.