I mean, plenty of us live off-grid. Do as much as you can on solar, and take advantage of excess power during the day so you don't have to burn fossil fuel or buy excessive amounts of battery.
We should probably all be lobbying our federal representatives for solar panels and lithium battery recycling facilities, to make that cleaner and more sustainable. Or locally for utility level storage based on gravity or heat storage.
06-25-2024, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 06-25-2024, 06:10 AM by HiloJulie.)
(06-24-2024, 05:30 PM)ironyak Wrote: HiloJulie - So what would be your answer to that? Cut air travel 25% - 50% - 75%? That is not a feasible answer.
Why is that not a feasible answer? You make quite a bold assertion without any given support that goes directly against what has been shown to be needed by the IPCC - "It is still possible to limit future warming with strong, rapid and sustained cuts to greenhouse gas emissions."
It does not matter to the physics of climate change whether you read An Inconvenient Truth, or The Art of the Deal, or Liberty Defined on your KOA to LAX flight, nor if you paid someone that promised you (and 100 other people), nor how were created, nor that your flight is 50% more efficient than 30 years ago (even as there are 400% more of them). All that matters is the tons of greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere by that activity. Rapid, sustained greenhouse gas emissions means cutting activities that add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, not just paying lip service to the concept.
HiloJulie - I personally think spraying plumes of colored corn dust at golfing tournaments, or at Stonehenge, or throwing cans of tomato soup at the Mona Lisa in protest are just as equally ignorant as the ones denying climate change and climate science altogether
I don't know, while these actions may be small potatoes, more Tyre Extinguishers than How to Blow Up a Pipeline, you can be sure they are not ignorant of the issue and are at least doing something? Seems far better than being entirely aware of the problem but still defending massive polluting industries and frivolous consumption? (Won't someone please think of the professional golf tournaments?
Admittedly so, curbing greenhouse gas emissions is paramount. Going about it in illogical ways and means does not solve ANYTHING, it pisses people off, and fuels the anti climate change science deniers even more.
Flattening tires of Range Rovers in NYC accomplishes nothing. Further, according to your link, these “eco saviors” flattened the tires of over 50 SUV’s. 50 times 4 tires each = 200 tires. Surprisingly enough, not ONE NYC Range Rover owner came out of their house when the “eco saviors” where placing their lentil beans in the air valves of each tire and just blew their brains out with a 9MM glock or heck, even an AR-15, but what these “eco saviors” did manage to do is require 50 plus Range Rover owners to call auto service companies who dispatch huge fossil fuel guzzling service trucks, equipped with huge fossil fuel burning air compressors to air up their tires! That sure showed them “MFers” not to drive those huge gas guzzling SUV’s!
I can’t even speak to the insanity of suggesting that blowing up fossil fuel pipelines as a means of protest. Let’s save that type of sheer ignorance to the dictators of the Middle East when faced with losing a war they started and their leader being deposed. They are really great at that!
Is that what’s next to curb aviation? Blow a few jets out of the air?
Aviation has been estimated to contribute about 4% to overall climate change. And while aviation efficiency has doubled of the last 30 years, the number of people flying has quadrupled.
But let’s look at this a different way.
Back in early 1990, Boeing, then run by engineering and quality disciplines, developed the 777. At a cost of 5 billion. In today’s dollars – 12 billion.
Then Boeing got rid of senior management who knew engineering and how to design and make planes, with Wall Street darlings who knew nothing about making quality jets, but knew how to slash costs horrendously, make the balance sheet and profit and loss look stellar, make the shareholders giddy with 15% - 20% - 25% returns which allowed those new senior management teams to be paid salaries of 20 to 50 million a year plus multi-million dollar bonus plus stock grants that as long as the stock grew and grew and grew, they got even more richer and richer.
The cost of that was when the 787 was developed, all those cost cuts employed earlier resulted in massive cost overruns which the led to the 787 costing 35 billion to develop. And shortly after launch, had to be grounded due to battery fires.
Then the entire 737 MAX debacle. The 2 crashes alone directly cost Boeing 20 billion, plus another 60 billion in indirect costs.
Now – what if – just what if – Boeing after they rolled out the 777 had taken a few hundred highly skilled engineers and gave them say 10 billion to redesign the jet engine to be 50% - 75% - 95% more efficient? Develop fuels that burn with significantly less CO2 emissions? What if Boeing had committed say another 20 billion to first admit and recognize climate change, but to do something effective and state of the art?
But no, in the sole name of greed, a stalwart American company shit all over itself, possibly eventually destroying itself and for what? So a few thousand mega rich people could become uber rich. And didn’t really do a damn thing to curtail climate change.
Then, what if a few hundred huge major industrialized American companies had done the same thing?
As for fossil fuel power, which is responsible for about 40% of greenhouse gas emission, what if HECO, instead of ignoring fallow grasslands and instead of now being responsible for billions of dollars of costs to rebuild Maui, had spent say maybe a few hundred million and cleared those lands? Invested another few hundred million and turned some into huge solar panel fields? Potentially adding wind power as well?
And then there is the whole issue with – in the short term – converting HECO’s oil fired boilers to LNG as your other post discusses. Now that’s a change – for the better – until another even better change can be developed and/or implemented, but no, for political and other issues of just pure ignorance, that idea was shut down by people with their heads up their ass really far. And now – 10 plus years have elapsed and NOTING WAS DONE.
What if Range Rover invested a few hundred million into developing and making their monstrous beasts hydrogen powered, thus eliminating any greenhouse gas emission instead of making them with gasoline powered engines STILL in the 12 to 15 MPG range and selling them to – get this – those uber rich Boeing stockholders that allows Range Rover to reap huge profits to pay its senior management team tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonus?
As far as golf courses are concerned, imagine if someone suggested turning Pebble Beach into a massive “off grid” solar/wind powered mecca of affordable housing for low income people? Yeh – good luck trying that, we could probably see TMT built first!
Climate change only gets corrected when it’s done intelligently and methodically where it makes real sense.
Right down that dead center middle of the denying far right wing and the blow up pipelines far left wing.
And while the consumer will most definitely have to sacrifice for all of this – but the ones who need to really sacrifice a bit and belly up to the bar – just aren’t. They are too busy looking for the next CEO role that allows them to be paid tens of millions in salary while destroying the company and doing nothing to solve climate change. Maybe even drive a few whistleblowers to kill themselves.
(06-24-2024, 08:27 PM)Punatang Wrote: If anyone here on PW can share what you have personally sacrificed to reduce CO2 or climate change, and make suggestions on how others can emulate your example, that might be a positive and worthy direction for this thread.
For both my husband and myself, I’d have to say the “sacrifice” was purely money.
We have gone solar and have a plug-in hybrid car. (Yes, we still have older gas-powered vehicles as well)
At the time we bought our 2020 Ford Fusion Energi, it had a sticker price of about $3,000 over that of its identically equipped gasoline counterpart. However, with the incentives from Ford, as well as Federal and State tax breaks, the overall cost of that car was in total $17,600 less than its gasoline counterpart. It’s 4 years old and has just under 8,000 miles and has only been to Ford for routine maintenance.
As for the solar power for the house – (actually we have our main house and a small 1-bedroom guest house) we “over” sized it – and it’s very very rare we have to have HE power to supplement. That includes us having an electric stove, hot water and dryer.
But all of this required a lot of money up front. Our solar costs – if amortized over 8 years, would have us saving around $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 over the 8 years versus just HE power.
With the hybrid – I can go to Kona and back – with 3 other people, air conditioned all the way and use less than 3 gallons of gas. And even less if I plug it in when in Kona somewhere.
06-25-2024, 05:51 PM (This post was last modified: 06-26-2024, 06:52 AM by ironyak.)
HiloJulie - it pisses people off, and fuels the anti climate change science deniers even more.
Oh no, the SUV owners will be angry and will get back at those do-gooder hippies by driving a large polluting vehicle in a city with some of the most extensive public transport in the world. Oh wait, they were already doing that. Setting the acceptable limits of protest to only what doesn't piss people off has clearly worked so well in the past, right? Sorry folks, I'd like for you to have equal rights, but that'd make some racists angry, and we can't have that, so best get off the bus and leave the lunch counters and go on home wait for those bad actors to find enlightenment...
HiloJulie - I can’t even speak to the insanity of suggesting that blowing up fossil fuel pipelines as a means of protest.
It may be unpopular, but it usually helps to read a book before opining on it, or at least maybe peruse an extensive review? Notably, while some pipelines have already been blown-up in "Iraq, South Africa, Israel/Palestine and Nigeria ... as part of political campaigns of resistance to governments and corporations" the review's suggested alternative title "Manifesto for Political Violence in the Service of Humanity’s Survival on Earth" better captures the focus of the book. The New Yorker's interview with the author offers a quick distillation as well, but yes, violence against property is increasingly likely as time goes on.
HiloJulie - Is that what’s next to curb aviation? Blow a few jets out of the air?
You said it, not me. ;) For some interesting fiction exploring some near-future scenarios, both The Ministry for the Future, and The Deluge, are compelling IMHO and explore the issue of climate-related conflict, including those pesky highly-polluting airplanes, and possible reactions / solutions.
HiloJulie - what if – Boeing after they rolled out the 777 had taken a few hundred highly skilled engineers and gave them say 10 billion to redesign the jet engine to be 50% - 75% - 95% more efficient?
Again with the magical thinking. You may want to really spend some time understanding Jevon's paradox, as history has shown over and over again that gains in efficiency using a resource leads to more of it being used overall, not less. That's true of cars (better gas mileage allows for more driving), planes (50% more efficient allow for 400% more of them), electricity (more fossil fuels are being burned today than ever before, even as most new projects are renewable energy), etc... It's a fundamental aspect of the situation that undermines the notion that we can "efficiency" our way out.
The only way systemic way to curtail fossil fuel use is to ban it or make it prohibitively expensive, usually done through a carbon tax or rationing. Or you could get 100% efficiency today in reducing your CO2 emissions from air travel by not doing it - requires no magical engineering at all.
HiloJulie - converting HECO’s oil fired boilers to LNG as your other post discusses. Now that’s a change – for the better – until another even better change can be developed and/or implemented
The better solution is already here in the form of renewables that are cheaper to deploy at utility scale than all fossil fuels, including LNG. Twenty years ago a bridge fuel may have made sense, but that too is living in the past.
HiloJulie - What if Range Rover invested a few hundred million into developing and making their monstrous beasts hydrogen powered, thus eliminating any greenhouse gas emission Hydrogen isn't an energy source, only a carrier fuel. That is, unlike oil/wind/sunlight, you can't extract hydrogen from the environment, but have to make it using actual energy sources. This process is less efficient than just using the the energy directly instead of cracking water into H2 and O2. When fossil fuels are used to create that electricity, as is the case in almost all electrical grids, hydrogen is just an inefficient way to generate even more carbon emissions.
HiloJulie - As far as golf courses are concerned, imagine if someone suggested turning Pebble Beach into a massive “off grid” solar/wind powered mecca of affordable housing for low income people? Yeh – good luck trying that, we could probably see TMT built first! ... Right down that dead center middle of the denying far right wing and the blow up pipelines far left wing.
Ah the Middle Ground Fallacy - constant refrain of "enlightened" centrists. When business as usual is causing the 6th mass extinction, saying that we should do less to prevent it because changes may hurt some people's feelings and impede their extravagant entertainments, is a pretty timid and insufficient response. You may not be around for some of the worse outcomes in the near future, but many of us will be, and destroying wildlife habitat and pumping out aquifers so the idle rich can chase a ball around is nothing short of ecological insanity.
Perhaps try doing more to reduce your contributions to the situation, instead of being an apologist for the worse actors and pushing off on future generations to clean up the mess? It does make an actual difference and may improve how you're viewed by current and future generations.
06-25-2024, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 06-25-2024, 07:57 PM by ironyak.)
Punatang - I commend the youths on this endeavor. I would be more impressed if they also, each personally committed exclusively to walking, biking, and/or riding public transportation, cajoling and helping their family and friends to transition from dependence on the CO2 monster tourism industry, buying only locally produced food and clothing, etc. (emphasis mine)
This sort of all-or-nothing expectation is often used to in claims of hypocracy (well, your underwear elastic has plastic in it so who are you to point out the damages from my thrice yearly flights to the mainland to golf, drive SUVs, and eat steak every day) or in creating impossible demands (are there even any sources for clothing made entirely locally? Honestly interested if anyone knows of a "Fiber-to-Aloha-Fridaywear" option :)
But carbon emissions aren't a black or white, once you've crossed the line there is no going back situation (well, I've hit one biker on the way to work, what's a few more matter? Well we've made a few species extinct, what's a few thousand more?). Rather it's tied to many separate choices that each have quantifiable harms, and some actions far outweigh others.
Changes in this area have to both be systemic and personal. For systemic changes, longtime local climate advocate Jeff Mikulina, who was quoted in the SA article on the silliness of choosing LNG, had an interview last year that looks at systems change, and also interviewed one of the youth plaintiffs and their lawyer involved in the Decarbonization Settlement. Worth a listen IMHO.
As for personal choice, as pointed out earlier, there are key lifestyle choices that greatly reduce your contributions to climate change (and yes, I personally engage in these to various degrees, as if that makes any difference)
1) Eating a plant-based diet/reducing meat consumption, especially beef (~0.8 tons CO2). Thankfully, Puna life provides lots of options here, from local and backyard fruits and veggies, to back-jungle smoke meat / kalua pork. Health benefits here as well.
2) Avoiding air travel (~1.2 tons CO2 Hawaii to mainland west coast, round trip): Of course this is not always possible (flying to HNL for medical care is often hard to avoid and indicative of the money-cheap, pollution-heavy math commonly used in determining "efficient" systems), but even after decades there are dozens of new beaches, trails, dining, and entertainment options still remaining to be explored for me. Haven't been to the mainland for several years, probably won't for several more, if ever.
3) Living car free (~2.4 tons CO2, more for the F150, Tacomas, and lifted truck folks ;) - Harder to do in Puna, but consolidating/limiting trips (once a week or less to town is plenty for me, thanks), parking and walking (bayfront & the mall area easy), and carpooling helps. EVs/hybrids help as well, but during the energy transition, if you're charging off the grid, there is still a lot of emissions involved, especially with the inefficiencies of electricity distribution. Some punatics probably do the best here with da Bus and hitching/ride sharing. Again there are 100% gains in emissions reductions by not engaging in polluting activities whenever possible.
4) Having fewer children (~50 tons CO2, but total is highly dependent on future fossil fuel infrastructure) - Antinatalism/Child-free is a fraught subject, but the fact that every life has an impact is inescapable. For our part, when we were making plans decades ago we choose settled on two kids as a conscious effort towards zero population growth. While we could afford to have more, it's hard to justify when so many people's basic needs are going unmet in this highly unsustainable system. Note that the CO2 estimate is based on future fossil fuel use, so rapidly de-carbonizing the infrastructure reduces this cost, along with allowing for a more habitable planet, which hopefully is in everyone's interest.
Other options like adding solar (easy in Puna, even DIY in many cases) and small kine changes such as (hand) washing clothes in cold water & line drying (easy in summer, requires patience for a sunny day in rainy season), buying used (my outdoor work clothes, which is most of them, are from Redemption), changing lightbulbs (helps with the solar), yard care animals (goats - challenging but "fun"? sheep - maybe easier, or just a different flavor of "fun" - anyone have both?), gardening (easy, year round options), recycling (down to metal, aluminum, & cardboard now, but the paperboard boxes make a good weedblock with trimmings as mulch), etc are all part of the mix as well. Basically, Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle, in that order of importance. Lots of ways to make an difference, some more impactful than others. Just requires caring enough to make the choice to do so. Punatang - Right. Someone else has to do something.
Nah, we all have to do many somethings which takes time and effort (even just to post about and provide links ;) It's an all-hands-on-deck situation, anyone who says otherwise is just protecting their own short-term interests. Plenty of "Fuck you, got mine" to go around.
MyManoa - Yep, it would all be so easy but... But no.. freedom and all that.
On paper at least, it is easy. The Hawaii State Constitution says: ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS: Section 9. Each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment...
This legal right isn't served by promoting LNG or any other fossil fuel development. These state laws are the backbone for many lawsuits against the oil majors like the one filed yesterday by Chicago with many more are coming down the pike. The history of Big Tobacco and its takedown is the model for understanding these events.
MyManoa - all for some sick MAGA BS.
I wish it was confined to one political stance or another, but many centrist democrats are also deeply attached to business as usual. Normalcy Bias is a hell of a drug, and as you pointed out, greatly reduces our ability to respond to crises of all sorts, of which there are many on the horizon.
But at the end of the day, reality bats last and climate change is just beginning to curb stomp our human-made systems, like insurance, the economy, and our systems of governance. We can choose to adapt or we can suffer the consequences, but it'd be great if some weren't so committed to continuing their highly polluting lifestyles and taking as many of us with them on their way out.
Admittedly, each and every person doing something to lessen their carbon footprint is a help.
But when does “Corporate America” and politics start to contribute?
My long time neighbor has been suffering with a medical condition and I have been helping her with her doctors appointments etc. A few months ago, she was referred by her Oahu based Primary Care Provider to THREE separate specialists.
So what does “The Insurance Company” (not going to name names, it’s irrelevant) as well as the medical organization do?
They schedule her to see specialist number 1 on Monday. In Oahu.
Then specialist number 2 on Wednesday. In Oahu.
And finally, specialist number 3 on Friday. In Oahu.
They booked us 3 round trip tickets each from Hilo to Oahu for each appointment.
I ask if there is any possibility to schedule these appointments all for 1 day or even a second day and we just stay in Oahu overnight.
One and only response is just no. Can’t be done.
I offer then to have them fly us there on Monday and return on Friday. Their response is they won’t pay for the hotel. I said that’s ok, I’ll take care of the hotel. Their next response was that they can’t issue an airline ticket to leave one day and return a different day without a hotel booking, but her appointments don’t qualify for a hotel stay.
Even with me offering to pay for the hotel for the two of us, it’s against “Corporate” policy.
So, where do I go “spray” my orange died corn dust in protest? At the insurance company office? Hilo airport? Honolulu airport? Her Primary Care Doctor’s office? Each specialist doctor’s office?
At least each day we went that week, I drove my plug in hybrid car and was able to recharge it the next day with solar power and made 3 separate trips to the Hilo airport and back home without burning a drop of gasoline.
But I think my environmental concise was wasted entirely dealing with such an absurd policy the insurance company operates under, which really translates to the fact the “The Insurance Company” doesn’t give two shits about climate change.
