Energy consumption of household objects?
He says that although he tries to do these things, he does not believe that these particular things should be the focus of the 'global warming' solution because the main culprits are cars and air planes and industry. To back his view up, he states that in order to turn on and off a light, it uses more energy than keeping the light on and the same with the computer, to turn it off and then reboot later, uses more energy than keeping it on standby. Is this true? Does anyone have details of how much energy household items use?
thanks
Answer:
While it is good to shut things off when not in use it's better to have the facts about this whole issue. Don't let politics rule your life with false information.
Starting with the truth would help! Here is an even better movie it has many of the scientists who have their names on the ipcc but actually dropped out and requested their names be removed due to the false information it shares as truth! Check it out and really pay attention it's 73 minutes long and loaded with the truth about the whole matter!
http://stage6.divx.com/user/krahosk/vide...
list of appliances etc
Keep up the good work, tell your boyfriend that no one snowflake is responsible for an avelanche, but if we ALL try to do the right thing, we have nothing and no one to blame.
You will know you have given it your best, and if nothing else your electricity bill will reflect your efforts.
u donot need any details 4 ur bf ..
tell him .. drop by drop makes a bucket full .. whatever energy he saves will help in reducing global warming ..
You are right, keep turning everything off and conserving energy because you are saving money so you have it to spend on the things you really want to.
Will it help with Global Warming? Of course not, we all know that Global Warming is a Hoax. It's a cyclical event that nature goes through naturally. Nature releases more CO2 than man, so aside from destroying all of nature there isn't much you can do to help the environment.
However, doing what you described saves energy, so you can approach it from that aspect.
Continually rebooting PC's is NOT really the preferred method. The initial power surge is normally what will fry a component.
I use the CFL ONLY because they use a LOT less wattage and they save me a TON of money. They also produce less heat, so in the summer they don't add to the cooling costs of the home.
If we all do something it all helps I guess but the main contributers are the US and China, they need to get their acts together as pollution in both counties is dire and causes a major impact on GW or so we are led to believe.
Print this out and read it to your boyfriend. Household usage plays a major role in consumption. If millions of people just use devices more efficiently it will already help. Your boyfriend is just trying to shift the blame to the corporate world and take away the individuals role. We are a world of individuals with individual choices. We can change the world.
http://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/...
http://www.climateark.org/
Heat: How we can stop the planet burning
George Monbiot
Penguin UK: 2006 304 pp. £17.99
With the recent release of the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the science of climate change has become firmer: warming of the climate system is 'unequivocal', and most of the temperature increase since the mid-twentieth century is 'very likely' owing to the rise in greenhouse gases. Climate sensitivity — the response of the system to a doubling of CO2 — is now "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C". Yet despite the formal coming-into-force of the Kyoto Protocol, the question of what to actually do about climate change in practice remains open. In Heat: How we can stop the planet burning, Monbiot lays out a clear proposition of what we need to do: cut fossil fuel use by about 90% in the developed world. Most of what follows is an attempt to make this practical, or at least to present options that might be believable, without ending up as "a very poor third world country".
Even so, he is forced to propose changes in society that would cause major upheavals. There is confusion at the heart of this, in that the emissions scenarios that cause us to worry about future warming assume as their basis a world that gets much richer, even allowing for damages from climate change. We could argue (I would) that this is richer in a merely material sense. Nonetheless, people show a considerable appetite for increasing affluence and it is hard to see how large-scale policy changes can be founded against such opposition. To convert such opposition, Monbiot refuses to consider a cost-benefit analysis: to him, it is a moral issue, to be decided on how much we value people and places as such, rather than figures in a ledger. In a popular book aimed at a mass audience this is an attractive approach — we can sweep away all the tedious, difficult and uncertain calculations and simply decide to do what is 'right'. In the real world, this is fraught with difficulties.
The bulk of Heat is a discussion of policies designed to reduce 'our' CO2 emissions down to a sustainable level, to achieve a 'safe' level of climate change. Monbiot settles on 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, or 1.4°C above present. As it happens, this is also the European Union's target. It is somewhat arbitrary, but for the purposes of exposition a target is needed, and the 2°C value is not unreasonable. However, what comes next is unreasonable: Monbiot decides that, if emissions are not lowered from today's values, we are likely to reach this temperature limit by about 2030. Even with increasing emissions, the IPCC mid range estimates are about 0.3°C per decade, giving us an extra 20 years before we hit Monbiot's limit. The confusion gets worse as Monbiot argues that we need a limit of 440 p.p.m.v. of CO2 equivalent to limit temperature rises to 2°C, and that we are already at this 'safe CO2' limit. He then neglects the extra CO2 we will emit between now and 2030.
GETTY
Having decided on a 'safe' atmospheric CO2 level not too much different from today's, Monbiot is nearly at his goal of finding a 'safe' level of emissions. Taking carbon cycle feedbacks into consideration, he then argues that the biosphere will absorb only 2.7 billion tonnes of carbon per year by 2030, down from 4 billion tonnes now, requiring a 60% cut in current global CO2 emissions to achieve stability. Carbon cycle feedbacks are a source of great uncertainty; basing all your numbers on one paper from 2003 (C. D. Joneset al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1479 (2007)) neglects this; and yet in a popular exposition some collapsing of uncertainty is required. Finally, by deciding that equity requires everyone to have the same per capita limit, he arrives at a carbon ration of 0.33 tonnes per person per year, a cut of 90% for an average UK citizen. The last is a big step. By framing it in terms of equity, Monbiot avoids having to spend much effort justifying it, arguing that countries may not like it, but they cannot deny that it is even handed. This seems unlikely to provide a killer argument at international negotiations.
Given all the uncertainties involved, and big practical political obstacles to overcome, Heat is perhaps best regarded as a 'what if': if we did decide to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% within 30 years, what options are available to us to do this? This constitutes the main part of the book, and is a sweep through a large fraction of the carbon emissions of our society, as Monbiot boldly attempts to identify 90% savings in each area, starting with housing. This proves problematic: although new houses can be built to be far more energy efficient, the low turnover of housing stock precludes any great savings by 2030, and he concludes that only 30% cuts are possible. This leads to the energy supply industry, where the first option is carbon capture and storage (CCS): continuing to burn fossil fuels as normal, but burying the resultant CO2 perhaps in old oil or gas reservoirs, with the advantage of helping extract a little more fuel in the process. Many environmentalists dislike CCS, as for them the whole point is to use less energy, but Monbiot surprised me by judging it favourably. He concludes that CCS could supply half our electricity by 2030, which seems optimistic as the International Energy Agency judges it will only start to become usable by 2030. Nuclear power he considers with trepidation and dismisses. The prescriptions for these sectors are relatively uncontroversial, requiring few changes to behaviour. His prescriptions for transport are more radical: a complete re-vamp with a switch to hypercars, lower speeds and standards of performance, car-free shopping and a major expansion of the bus network. Even this is mild in comparison to the fate of most airplane journeys, which cannot be done within the CO2 budget he imposes.
How does the book fare overall? Monbiot manages, with a degree of optimism, to find probably technologically feasible solutions to most of our CO2 emissions. Where he is far less convincing — especially measured against the recent past and current situation — is in making these changes seem politically feasible.
William Connolley is a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK. e-mail: wmc@bas.ac.uk
I think that putting aside global warming, Conservation of energy and resources put is humans in a competitive advantage. We have to change the mentality of consumerism, and encourage savings and conservation.
I used the carbon footprint calculator on the http://www.carbonfootprint.com/... it was really infomative!
As far as lights go your boyfriend is partially correct. A fluorescent tube unless you are leaving the room for an hour or more would consume more power than were it left on. Normal household bulbs save energy when turned off even if only for a few minutes. Even one light turned off in each house multiplied by say 15,000,000 homes is a massive saving, so it does make a difference.
You are right and your friend is wrong. However.
It is certain that the global warming has a natural cause, the sun.
A second fact is that the most performing computers are still unable to calculate what is the real effect of the present worldwide emission of CO2 on global warming.
So the opinions of the scientists are very divergent about the reasons of the global warming and the consequences of our emissions of CO2.
Another fact is that the preachers of coming catastrophes and disasters due to CO2 earn a lot of money. Al GORE gets 150.000 dollars for every conference and has earned till now 50 million dollars for his film. The lobbies for alternative energies have already earned at the money markets enormous amounts of money and get richer and richer.
Fact is that the liquid fossil energies become to be rare. So we must try to spare fuel and to look for other energies, which are not too expensive.
I think that we must reduce our consummation of fossil energy anyway. Perhaps is it necessary to tell people terrific stories about coming catastrophes to persuade them to spare fuel and to use, if possible, more and more clean alternative energies.
However there is another important point, we have to take in consideration. Actually 6,2 billion people live on earth. In 2050 we will probably be 9 billion. Might our governments not search for middles and ways, and these middles are known, to make people avoid to put more children to earth as they can keep? It would solve most of our problems worldwide. Are our governments not doing actually the contrary with our money?
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: