what is worse for the environment? consumerism or using older stuff...

[Moonzy]

i think this question can only be answered by a "depends"

 

wasnt there a study that shows "green cotton shopping bags" have equivalent carbon footprint as 2000+ plastic bags or something? so going "greener" isnt always better, carbon footprint wise (there's also other factor like waste and microplastics, but yea)

 

switching from incandescent lights to LED would probably reduce overall carbon footprint in a short period of time, compared to the energy to manufacture the LED bulb due to the magnitude of difference.

 

it also depends on how you measure environment impact, is reducing carbon footprint but increasing microplastics acceptable? where's the balance point?

[straight_stewie]

Power usage seldom goes down with the advancement of technology. In fact, it usually goes up.

We actually use power consumption as one way to classify a civilizations technological advancement through the Kardashev Scale (and other similar scales).

 

Generally speaking, as a society becomes more technologically advanced, the power requirements to run that society also increase.

 

40 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

switching from incandescent lights to LED would probably reduce overall carbon footprint in a short period of time, compared to the energy to manufacture the LED bulb due to the magnitude of difference.

The manufacturing of LED bulbs significantly outweighs the benefit of actually using them. Most simply don't last long enough to overcome the extra cost of getting the super rare and hard to get materials involved in making integrated circuits and PCBs. They also usually have quite a bit of plastic, where a regular lightbulb is, quite literally, aluminum, tungsten, and silica. (electronics also recycle very poorly. Fiberglass is not recyclable, nor is it biodegradable).

Most things work out that way. As it currently stands, electric cars are by far worse for the environment than gas cars are when you include the full production chain in the analysis, because they just don't overcome the environmental cost of getting the absolutely insane amount of lithium required to build them (getting lithium out of the ground and into a usable state is incredibly destructive to the environment. The mining process alone is almost as bad as fracking, and consumes more water than most fracking operations.) Beyond that, properly disposing of all that lithium is nearly impossible and rarely happens.

Running the electric car doesn't overcome that cost because, for the vast majority of owners, the electricity comes from coal or gas fired power plants, which while more efficient than an internal combustion engine, are fairly environmentally costly themselves.



As an aside to that, in most cases, if you include the full production chain and lifecycle of a device, from mineral production to device disposal, quite a few of the more "green" options are by far less green than the traditional option. Many even come with additional human rights or economic concerns (Conflict minerals/goods are still widely used as they are frequently the only option available) that the traditional options don't come with. One of the more recent discoveries is that wind turbines wear out and blades have to get thrown away. These are not recyclable nor are they biodegradable. They literally just get buried in the ground at landfills, to remain there essentially for all eternity.

A lot of things in this world really are poo in one hand and hope in the other.

One that hasn't been mentioned here is the terrible socio-economic disaster that nicotine vaping is. 

[deserttan]

Whatever is cheaper is better, assuming all externalities are reflected in the price.

You think you can harm the "environment" but that is just god-complex.

You can't harm the environment, it will be around long after you expire.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

9 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

*lives in an area where going by bicycle means almost certain chance of getting pancaked by speeding drivers around blind turns, and no appreciable bike lane.*

 

oof. in the netherlands we have bicycle lanes everywhere, all the roads are designed with bicycles in mind and stuff. it's great. at junctions bicycles even get their own lane and traffic lights so we don't go at the same time as the cars. 

[Commodus]

16 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

I have a sub-compact car I bought new in 2005, and I maintain it well so it runs great and has good fuel economy. I will not be replacing it until I cannot get parts for it anymore. It has long since paid back the environmental cost to manufacture it, and not having a car payment is a big plus too. Also, new cars have gotten so much more complex that I cannot really diagnose and fix them myself, so I don't want to wade into that territory.

That sounds like a good plan to me. If you do have to get a new car in the years ahead, I suspect an EV (or at least a plug-in hybrid) is in order. If you're going to get something complex and not-so-serviceable, you might as well get something eco-friendly and with fewer opportunities for things to break.

[Monkey Dust]

32 minutes ago, Commodus said:

That sounds like a good plan to me. If you do have to get a new car in the years ahead, I suspect an EV (or at least a plug-in hybrid) is in order. If you're going to get something complex and not-so-serviceable, you might as well get something eco-friendly and with fewer opportunities for things to break.

I'm not sure a plug in hybrid is less complex, they are more of a so complex you shouldn't touch with 60 foot pole outside of warranty kind of car.

 

EVs should be simpler and more reliable, though the greater weight is probably harder on the suspension than an equivalent ICE car. Maintenance costs overall should still come out in favour of the EV though. Plug in hybrids, all the weight of the EV with the complexity of both an EV and ICE powertrain.

 

Going back to the original question, in most cases probably better to keep using old stuff for as long as it works. Though the consumption of stuff we don't need is what keeps the economy going, we'd be screwed without it.

[Lurick]

3 hours ago, deserttan said:

Whatever is cheaper is better, assuming all externalities are reflected in the price.

You think you can harm the "environment" but that is just god-complex.

You can't harm the environment, it will be around long after you expire.

I really hope you're not saying humans cannot harm the environment because that's beyond false. There might be an environment here long after I'm gone but I'd rather it be one where life can continue, not filled with toxic chemicals and waste abound because I had a "god-complex" thinking I could do no harm to the world.

[Guest]

On 1/13/2021 at 5:15 AM, Ashley xD said:

i genuinly do wonder sometimes what is worse for the planet. the rampant consumerism you see, people upgrading as soon as something new comes out regardless if they need it or not; or using old stuff. 

 

like for example of couse it harms the planet if i build a new computer every year, but my current 11 year old computer also does damage, it's power consumption is a lot higher than a newer computer for example. 

 

same with my tv. you have people who buy a new tv every year, or people like me. i still use a CRT from the 90's which again consumes a lot more power than a modern tv would. 

 

i would like to hear opinions on this, as it's something i think about quite a bit. 

OK I have given this a few days to process in my head. My short opinion here.

 

By the year 2050, expected over 10 billion people. The human NATURAL waste will start becoming a bad problem. (and already is in many places)

PC parts such a tiny fraction of waste, it's almost not worth a discussion by it's self. 

 

Everything we do leads to more and more potent toxic waste. So right now a nuclear reaction is the most efficient way to produce electricity. The waste is so dangerous, that the focus on the computer that helped design it and the consequence that PC has on the environment is nill in comparison to our electric needs, ever growing.

Waste storage is an issue. 

 

If waste remains on earth, the products that have been produced and the ones 50 years from now will still have the same consequences. It's really not about what you use today or yesterday, it's about what you left behind for your great grand children to clean up. And our governments do a horrible job at clean up. Like dumping billions and billions of water into the oceans that's been contaminated by radioactive waste. Let's start the worries there maybe. 

(all in my humble opinion of course)

 

 

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, Ashley xD said:

oof. in the netherlands we have bicycle lanes everywhere, all the roads are designed with bicycles in mind and stuff. it's great. at junctions bicycles even get their own lane and traffic lights so we don't go at the same time as the cars. 

Rural California here seems to be downright hostile to bicyclists. I’d been very nearly hit head-on by drivers swerving into my lane around blind turns to avoid hitting bicyclists that probably took the other driver by surprise. The speed limits are typically 45-55 MPH on the rural main roads, with many drivers on Highway 49 (also occasionally populated by bicyclists) going 65-75 MPH. If you go the speed limit, you quickly get a line of irate drivers lining up behind. To add the cherry, law enforcement is very seldom seen, so speed limits are effectively merely suggestions.  
 

Though it’s kind of normal for me as I commute on these roads daily, breaking it down makes it seem borderline insanity.  

[Blade of Grass]

5 hours ago, deserttan said:

Whatever is cheaper is better, assuming all externalities are reflected in the price.

Big assumption baked in there, very likely not reflective of the real world. 

5 hours ago, deserttan said:

You think you can harm the "environment" but that is just god-complex.

You can't harm the environment, it will be around long after you expire.

Demonstrably false. 

[straight_stewie]

9 minutes ago, Blade of Grass said:

Big assumption baked in there, very likely not reflective of the real world. 

Quote

Well, it is and it isn't reflective of the real world.

The assumption that @deserttan made when he said:

Quote

Whatever is cheaper is better, assuming all externalities are reflected in the price.

Was that the efficient market hypothesis is true outside of the securities markets.

Price tends to go up when most people value an item at a lower rate than alternatives, until such a problem spirals out of control and the seller folds and has to sell the items at any cost, just to get rid of them.

I guess what we can say about the assumption is that it is usually eventually true, but "eventually" isn't well defined enough to say that the efficient market hypothesis applies to goods traded in the real world, at least as far as it pertains to the argument being made. Consumers are rarely well informed until after-the-fact, and pricing tends to follow the rules of supply and demand before it follows the rules of an efficient market.

[Zodiark1593]

12 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Power usage seldom goes down with the advancement of technology. In fact, it usually goes up.

We actually use power consumption as one way to classify a civilizations technological advancement through the Kardashev Scale (and other similar scales).

 

Generally speaking, as a society becomes more technologically advanced, the power requirements to run that society also increase.

 

The manufacturing of LED bulbs significantly outweighs the benefit of actually using them. Most simply don't last long enough to overcome the extra cost of getting the super rare and hard to get materials involved in making integrated circuits and PCBs. They also usually have quite a bit of plastic, where a regular lightbulb is, quite literally, aluminum, tungsten, and silica. (electronics also recycle very poorly. Fiberglass is not recyclable, nor is it biodegradable).

Most things work out that way. As it currently stands, electric cars are by far worse for the environment than gas cars are when you include the full production chain in the analysis, because they just don't overcome the environmental cost of getting the absolutely insane amount of lithium required to build them (getting lithium out of the ground and into a usable state is incredibly destructive to the environment. The mining process alone is almost as bad as fracking, and consumes more water than most fracking operations.) Beyond that, properly disposing of all that lithium is nearly impossible and rarely happens.

Running the electric car doesn't overcome that cost because, for the vast majority of owners, the electricity comes from coal or gas fired power plants, which while more efficient than an internal combustion engine, are fairly environmentally costly themselves.



As an aside to that, in most cases, if you include the full production chain and lifecycle of a device, from mineral production to device disposal, quite a few of the more "green" options are by far less green than the traditional option. Many even come with additional human rights or economic concerns (Conflict minerals/goods are still widely used as they are frequently the only option available) that the traditional options don't come with. One of the more recent discoveries is that wind turbines wear out and blades have to get thrown away. These are not recyclable nor are they biodegradable. They literally just get buried in the ground at landfills, to remain there essentially for all eternity.

A lot of things in this world really are poo in one hand and hope in the other.

One that hasn't been mentioned here is the terrible socio-economic disaster that nicotine vaping is. 

So in short, the crux of the problem is the energy consumption itself, and not necessarily the efficiency. 

[Blade of Grass]

3 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Well, it is and it isn't reflective of the real world.

The assumption that @deserttan made when he said:

Was that the efficient market hypothesis is true outside of the securities markets.

Price tends to go up when most people value an item at a lower rate than alternatives, until such a problem spirals out of control and the seller folds and has to sell the items at any cost, just to get rid of them.

I guess what we can say about the assumption is that it is usually eventually true, but "eventually" isn't well defined enough to say that the efficient market hypothesis applies to goods traded in the real world, at least as far as it pertains to the argument being made. Consumers are rarely well informed until after-the-fact, and pricing tends to follow the rules of supply and demand before it follows the rules of an efficient market.

 

I appreciate the extra detail you’ve added, but ultimately my point stands—we do not correctly price externalities, especially in the prices that consumers see (and notably, barely in the prices that businesses see, we’ve really only started to consider environmental effects in the past few decades, perhaps starting with the ozone hole at the end of the 20th century).
 

Efficient Market doesn’t work well in a subsidized market, which is what we’ve been doing with negative externalities for decades. 
 

We can see these inefficiencies in asset pricing, a lot of activist ESG funds have theses around existing mispricing of negative externalities and have been using them to generate alpha. 
 

Correct pricing on an infinite timeframe kind of makes my exact point  the real world does not work exactly as our (simplified, by necessity) economic models say it does. 

[thrasher_565]

20 hours ago, Moonzy said:

i think this question can only be answered by a "depends"

 

wasnt there a study that shows "green cotton shopping bags" have equivalent carbon footprint as 2000+ plastic bags or something? so going "greener" isnt always better, carbon footprint wise (there's also other factor like waste and microplastics, but yea)

 

switching from incandescent lights to LED would probably reduce overall carbon footprint in a short period of time, compared to the energy to manufacture the LED bulb due to the magnitude of difference.

 

it also depends on how you measure environment impact, is reducing carbon footprint but increasing microplastics acceptable? where's the balance point?

well ya carbord can degrade were plasict takes 1000 years but is it really saving the plant? i mean there are bagless, pacageless stores but there too few of them and the stuff is at a highter cost. so unless your rich and want to save the planet you can but for most of use its not going to happen. it have to be law kinda like in the uk were junk food is 3 times as much as healy food.

 

i watch a small doc on this ashain town were there was like 100 people or something and they started there own recycling at first they hated it but when they got a bit of money back then they started to seem oh ya this is good. but of cores that can only happen at small scale. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by thrasher_565

[thrasher_565]

20 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Power usage seldom goes down with the advancement of technology. In fact, it usually goes up.

We actually use power consumption as one way to classify a civilizations technological advancement through the Kardashev Scale (and other similar scales).

 

Generally speaking, as a society becomes more technologically advanced, the power requirements to run that society also increase.

 

The manufacturing of LED bulbs significantly outweighs the benefit of actually using them. Most simply don't last long enough to overcome the extra cost of getting the super rare and hard to get materials involved in making integrated circuits and PCBs. They also usually have quite a bit of plastic, where a regular lightbulb is, quite literally, aluminum, tungsten, and silica. (electronics also recycle very poorly. Fiberglass is not recyclable, nor is it biodegradable).

Most things work out that way. As it currently stands, electric cars are by far worse for the environment than gas cars are when you include the full production chain in the analysis, because they just don't overcome the environmental cost of getting the absolutely insane amount of lithium required to build them (getting lithium out of the ground and into a usable state is incredibly destructive to the environment. The mining process alone is almost as bad as fracking, and consumes more water than most fracking operations.) Beyond that, properly disposing of all that lithium is nearly impossible and rarely happens.

Running the electric car doesn't overcome that cost because, for the vast majority of owners, the electricity comes from coal or gas fired power plants, which while more efficient than an internal combustion engine, are fairly environmentally costly themselves.



As an aside to that, in most cases, if you include the full production chain and lifecycle of a device, from mineral production to device disposal, quite a few of the more "green" options are by far less green than the traditional option. Many even come with additional human rights or economic concerns (Conflict minerals/goods are still widely used as they are frequently the only option available) that the traditional options don't come with. One of the more recent discoveries is that wind turbines wear out and blades have to get thrown away. These are not recyclable nor are they biodegradable. They literally just get buried in the ground at landfills, to remain there essentially for all eternity.

A lot of things in this world really are poo in one hand and hope in the other.

One that hasn't been mentioned here is the terrible socio-economic disaster that nicotine vaping is. 

hi end led light bulbs cost too mush to get 100w=. yes there are cheap led light  bulbs but they also are crap an get no were near the 100w.

 

ya the windmill was a scam.

 

well as it sits prices are going to keep climbing and at some point you wont own a car you will hop on a electric bus. or bike..

 

its posable to make your dependence on eletricaty alot less just the cost hold you back. there are off grid houses.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2021 by thrasher_565

[thrasher_565]

12 hours ago, Ashley xD said:

oof. in the netherlands we have bicycle lanes everywhere, all the roads are designed with bicycles in mind and stuff. it's great. at junctions bicycles even get their own lane and traffic lights so we don't go at the same time as the cars. 

ya the west has nothing like that...sad to say. well it depends were but some towns you get pulled over for using an e bike... the city i live in there are alot of bikes (i seen some diy even) witch is good but the roads cant handle any more people yet we get more and more each year...

[thrasher_565]

7 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

 

I appreciate the extra detail you’ve added, but ultimately my point stands—we do not correctly price externalities, especially in the prices that consumers see (and notably, barely in the prices that businesses see, we’ve really only started to consider environmental effects in the past few decades, perhaps starting with the ozone hole at the end of the 20th century).
 

Efficient Market doesn’t work well in a subsidized market, which is what we’ve been doing with negative externalities for decades. 
 

We can see these inefficiencies in asset pricing, a lot of activist ESG funds have theses around existing mispricing of negative externalities and have been using them to generate alpha. 
 

Correct pricing on an infinite timeframe kind of makes my exact point  the real world does not work exactly as our (simplified, by necessity) economic models say it does. 

maybe nuking the ozone was a bad idea? who would of thought.

[Mihle]

Best way to limit the impact on the environment:

 

1. Buy less, for example longer time between every time you upgrade your PC. If buying higher end now makes it take longer time before you upgrade, that is better.
2. Reuse, for example use older equipment for something else, or sell or give away to someone else that will.
3. Recycle, of something is broken or too old that anyone want to use it, don't throw it away to just be burned or throw in a landfill, throw it away somewhere you know it will be recycled.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

15 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Rural California here seems to be downright hostile to bicyclists. I’d been very nearly hit head-on by drivers swerving into my lane around blind turns to avoid hitting bicyclists that probably took the other driver by surprise. The speed limits are typically 45-55 MPH on the rural main roads, with many drivers on Highway 49 (also occasionally populated by bicyclists) going 65-75 MPH. If you go the speed limit, you quickly get a line of irate drivers lining up behind. To add the cherry, law enforcement is very seldom seen, so speed limits are effectively merely suggestions.  
 

Though it’s kind of normal for me as I commute on these roads daily, breaking it down makes it seem borderline insanity.  

here you have special bicycle sections along the road in villagees (speed limit in villages never goes above 50km/h (30mph), and on the faster roads where the cars go 80km/h (50mph) there is a section of road entirely seperate from the main road often seperated by a treeline specifically for bicycles. 

[Tan3l6]

There has to be a middle ground.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

6 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

ya the west has nothing like that...sad to say. well it depends were but some towns you get pulled over for using an e bike... the city i live in there are alot of bikes (i seen some diy even) witch is good but the roads cant handle any more people yet we get more and more each year...

define "the west" lmao, last time i checked the netherlands is part of it. we are right next to the UK. 

[papajo]

Nothing humans are able to do is capable of harming the environment in the sense that earth as well as life is going to exist even after a nuclear holocaust admittedly in that particular scenario it may take a couple of centuries for life to flourish again but that's nothing compared to the lifespan of our planet. 

 

The question is if it will affect the current equilibrium we humans got comfortable in all those years. 

 

And the answer is maybe but there are many other things that will harm that on a more noticeable scale than people buying or not recycling computer parts. 

 

It's like if you are an obese person and wonder if you put coco in your milk is bad for your health... well maybe it is a little but you have to cut lots of other stuff and start exercising if you care about your health.. coco in your milk is not important you may keep using it for all it matters and nothing will noticeably change unless you do the other stuff. 

 

If you stop burning fossil fuels for heat and electricity it will impact the environment (concerning climate change) much more than stopping buying PC parts...

 

The damage you do by using fossil fuels for your movement (e.g car) heat and electricity for a year would be equal (in terms of damage) to buying a dozen of datacenters(places with hundreds of computers)  or something like that

 

So do not worry about buying new parts

 

Also dont worry about your consumption which in it self is negligible (an incandescent light bulp will consume more power over a year compared to your computer given that you dont use your computer all day every day and that you light up the bulp every night) 

 

on top of that older computers may be less efficient than newer ones but that doesn't necessarily mean they consume more! 

 

It only means that they consume more for the same work per second. 

 

But usually older computers consume less power simply because they were designed that way (in the 90s e.g most computers had PSUs rated at less than 250watts nowadays a 500watt power supply is practically a must) 

 

So they are slower not more power hungry (they are more power hungry in the sense that e.g a P4 at 100% uses e.g 54 watts and an i7 at 100% uses 90 watts.. but for you to make the same calculations per second with P4s you need for example 30 of them (so 30* 54watt)  but if we look just at the CPU and its consumption ignoring its speed then a p4 consumes less power than a i7 ) 

[thrasher_565]

3 hours ago, Ashley xD said:

define "the west" lmao, last time i checked the netherlands is part of it. we are right next to the UK. 

Canada and the us

[Mihle]

39 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

Canada and the us

Something I have noticed, is that for US people, "the west" seem to mean US and Canada, while for Europeans, everything in central and west Europe (and US and Canada), is "the west" too.

 

Wonder what an Japanese or Turkish person would call "the west".

 

For some people "the west" might just mean countries that use languages based on the Latin alphabet for what I know.

[Blade of Grass]

1 hour ago, Mihle said:

Something I have noticed, is that for US people, "the west" seem to mean US and Canada, while for Europeans, everything in central and west Europe (and US and Canada), is "the west" too.

 

Wonder what an Japanese or Turkish person would call "the west".

 

For some people "the west" might just mean countries that use languages based on the Latin alphabet for what I know.

“The West” is a pretty well understood term in political science. It generally refers to what we’d say are the developed English speaking world + it’s close allies. Think AUS, Canada, UK, US, NZ, EU members.