Tommy Siegel | Bluesky | website

Transcript

Comic in 4 Panels:

Header: It’s That Easy!

Panel 1: The year is 1994. A dad with short black hair, in a blue shirt, red shorts, and white sneakers with calf high white socks, kneels with one arm resting on a knee and the other raised demonstratingly in front of a kid in a green ball cap, yellow shirt, blue pants, and green sneakers. There is a round metal trash can behind them.

Dad: Pick up your litter and save the Earth!

Panel 2: The year is 2004. Same dad, but in brown cargo shorts, brown shoes, and ankle high white socks speaking to the same kid. There is a green recycle bucket behind them.

Dad: Recycle and you can save the Earth!

Panel 3: The year is 2014. Same dad, but wearing a bike helmet, black athletic pants, and black sneakers to the same kid. A bike is behind them.

Dad: Reduce your carbon footprint and you can save the Earth!

Panel 4: The year is 2024. Same dad, but he’s in the same outfit from panel 1. There is a massive fire behind them.

Dad: Completely restructure global economic systems and you may be able to save a remnant of humanity!

  • FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish
    1·
    17 hours ago

    So in other words, the unnecessary actions of a very, very limited few alone consume nearly a third of the entire country’s use of a pretty basic comfort.

    I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting “nearly a third” from.

    No, the fact is reducing a portion of 7% of energy use (because again, we’re excluding health reasons and such which are ever more relevant in 40+C summers) will not have any noticeable impact on climate change. It just won’t.

    What is a sector that we should concentrate on? Presumably not private jets (100× less effective than AC) or aviation in general (commensurable, with AC perhaps somewhat less). You suggest meat, but livestock is about 4.2% of US emissions.

    Every time the topic of emissions come up, I’ll be right there with you saying we should be reducing our consumption of meat! But could you agree that the implication of this is that sectors which contribute 5 or so percent to emissions are actually important?

    I wanted to get more data about air conditioning usage in the US. From what I could find, AC is responsible for 8.6% of US energy demand, and that energy generation constitutes about 60% of US emissions, making AC responsible for 4.9% of US emissions.

    So, to me it looks like you’re saying that from an environmental standpoint we absolutely should criticise people for eating meat, but absolutely shouldn’t criticise people for using AC, when meat consumption is in the same ballpark in terms of how much it contributes, at least in the US.

    That doesn’t make sense to me given that, where I live (not in the US), AC is definitely not necessary for most people at home.

    • huey_m@piefed.socialEnglish
      1·
      14 hours ago

      I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting “nearly a third” from.

      Private aviation is 2% you said. Air conditioning is 7%. That’s between 1/3 and 1/4. And that’s for a frivolity vs a thing that measurably reduces deaths.

      You suggest meat, but livestock is about 4.2% of US emissions.

      This number doesn’t cover the actual impact though as it doesn’t account for imports, opportunity cost of land, or the amount of agriculture necessary to support that livestock. As I recall from my ecology days, only about ~10% of energy makes it to the next step in the food chain. So you need a much larger amount of land, energy, and water to grow crops in addition to direct emissions from livestock industry for the same calories.

      we absolutely should criticise people for eating meat

      Minor point of contention, but no; I’m suggesting we should encourage people to eat less meat.

      but absolutely shouldn’t criticise people for using AC

      The difference being very, very few people need meat to live, certainly not more than one a week or so barring some specific medical conditions. Much of the US experiences summers where 40C is normal and 45+C isn’t abnormal. It is literally a necessity in much of the US unless you’re just willing to accept a lot of extra deaths due to heat.

      And even where it isn’t strictly necessary for health reasons, we’re talking hot enough to be extremely uncomfortable; I’m not going to browbeat people for using AC in that kind of heat while we’re literally building data centers that are using diesel generators and allowing various much more frivolous use of electricity.

      It’s not like this is purely Americans Americanning with overconsumption either; southern Europe sees almost ubiquitous use of AC for the same reasons. It varies from actually dangerous to bloody miserable without it.

      Do we expect northerners to not use any heating until wearing their parka indoors is no longer effective? Or can we afford some degree of comfort to the unwashed masses?

      That doesn’t make sense to me given that, where I live (not in the US), AC is definitely not necessary for most people at home.

      With respect, this may be why you’re not treating this with the seriousness it deserves and see it as “not willing to be a bit sweaty”. I come from a place where, even before the kind of climate change we’re seeing today, a week or more of 45C weather wasn’t unusual, 40C was very normal, and deaths from heat stroke happened every year. That’s a big chunk of the US. Obviously, in places like San Francisco, air conditioning is much less ubiquitous and it isn’t unusual at all to have as home without it.

      Look, I’m starting to be over this conversation if I’m being honest, so I’ll sum it up as such: AC use is less frivolous than you seemed to be implying and is a necessity in many places, witnessed by Europe going through a bit of a crisis with heat deaths as we catch up and change our culture to adapt to a new climate reality. Even where it isn’t strictly necessary, it is often required for any level of comfort. Considering that, the portion of energy it uses is relatively small; the other things I’ve listed are almost purely frivolities. They simply aren’t necessary in all but the rarest circumstances (remote Alaskans needing private planes, some medical conditions requiring more meat consumption, etc). If the energy use of AC was much higher, I might be with you, but telling people they need to live in misery when there are bigger fish to fry… no.

      Remember, my whole premise here is mass cultural changes are relatively ineffective… I cited meat eating culture changing as one of the few that are somewhat, not as a keystone or anything (and again, there are reasons that 7% isn’t comparable to 4.5%… the latter isn’t accounting for a lot of factors that hide its true impact and the former has at least some % of truly necessary use baked into it). It would be far more effective to push systemic change like eliminating fossil fuels for energy production entirely, as electricity production is still one of the biggest emitters. It would be far more effective to work to reduce private auto use, especially for solo trips, and more conversion into electric vehicles powered by non emitting sources. We have better solutions that don’t require misery or death from the masses.