kublikhan wrote:REAL Green wrote:You are selling the religion of modern man and that is techno optimism. It is firmly in control and will not be dethroned except by collpase.
I'm not selling anything. I'm pointing out the path you have chosen will actually make things worse, not better. I understand your intentions come from a good place, to make things better. Yet good intentions are not enough. You have to properly evaluate the medicine you are prescribing actually works. Otherwise you are just doing the equivalent of bloodletting. .
You don’t even know my path. You are assuming what REAL Green is and saying it is a localism that disregards centralization and maximization of efficiency. This is the typical problem with techno optimistic solution of the modern green who I call FAKE Green. This is part of the carbon trap and the path of dependency on past ways of life. Your way has hit diminishing returns both physical and economic. It has come a long way but the journey is almost over.
My way is a hybrid way of lowering energy consumption primarily by limiting travel and use of distant monocultures for food. This is done by growing your own food where you can. It is done by heating your own place with wood produced next to your home which is an example for some. A very good heat pump with energy efficient design and features of passive and active strategies works too becuase I am not saying don't use "best" tech just adapt it with local low carbon capture too. Solar system with batteries for increased resilience is of high value for more than power but you refuse to consider overall value. It is about limiting consumerism to the best things that can help low carbon capture be more manageable. Many people can not afford all this but the point is relative change with what the individual can do. All you talk about is the macro. You also fail to understand resilience that requires redundancy and less efficiency where that efficiency is not resilient.
Most of all REAL Green is about behavior changes of acceptance of human failure. The reason for the behavioral aspect is because you will be in a surreal world of growth orientation when the planet is forcing degrowth from limits of growth. The individual is conned into growth world REAL Green behavior seeks to limits this not end it becuase this is a trap. It is about avoiding the dopamine desires of the status quo. I am not talking about leaving the FAKE Green world I am talking about adapting it. The world of the Brown is even worse at least your world is greener
REAL Green wrote:The point is localism is the better way for those who can. It is properly scaled and is where the individual can impact his trap the best. He can help the planet the best locally.
kublikhan wrote: I disagree. If behavioral or technological changes reduce the consumption of the global herd by 1% or even .1%, that is orders of magnitude better for the planet the a few reducing their footprint. .
Reducing consumption is reducing the footprint. Except it hasn’t happen in your world. You are talking about “ifs”. I am talking about real action for the individual or small group. You are talking the macro which is lost and I am talking the micro for the individual who can make things better. You are also talking about what is usually the case with behavioral and technological changes of the techno optimist and that is more risk from less resilience. You all want more complicated centralized systems with people living in denser arrangements for efficiency. That is clearly not resillient to shocks as Covid has shown. Plus a 1% reduction in consumption is not going to save us so you are pissing in the wind.
REAL Green wrote:You are talking about a world undefined. You can’t define such a world in a few lines. Please try to tell me a third world subsistence farmer uses more resources than you do. You may be able to make a point of a wealthy person who can afford to power up off the grid and play green. Yea, they use more resources but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about low carbon capture and remining in one place as best one can manage and do this as a life system. This person will use less I guarantee it. His comfort level will go down for sure but for many their experience of meaning goes up.
kublikhan wrote:You are talking here about degrowth. This can happen in a global system with economies of scale or with a local system. Yet if it happened in the global system you have resources savings of degrowth plus economies of scale savings. If you did in in the latter system, you would have resources savings of degrowth minus the added cost of doing everything locally without economies of scale. Just look at one example, electricity.
Degrowth is not either or it can happen in both places but you are not talking degrowth. You don’t understand degrowth and economies of scale. Degrowth is a negative force to economies of scale. Degrowth is about more poverty not more development and development is what you are really calling for. Degrowth locally is about less things but also smarter things. Triage and prioritization will limit everything becuase degrowth is less. Localized smarter is only efficiency to a point then it becomes smarter behavioral changes of less things and activities. You are mixing up strategies that don’t go together. I am saying less travel and consumption is concrete. You are talking abstractly about the greater system.
kublikhan wrote:About 1.5 billion people around the world live day-to-day with “broken” electricity grids and experience blackouts for hundreds and sometimes thousands of hours a year. For this population, reliance on distributed diesel and gasoline backup generators, or BUGS, is a common stopgap measure. Major Findings
Except your world is not affordable. You want to fix this world for the poor when more poor are on the way. You want to do this at the same time you want to build a new developed world of techno infrastructure. Your dream world is physically and economically limited now. I am not saying don’t do your greener development. Do it, my localism is not going to stop that. BTW, if these 1.5BIL people where to embrace your techno optimistic behavior less then that would be less things needed to support them. It is all the other crap that goes along with your techno life that gets in the way of savings. You want things to solve problems and talk vaguely about behaviors.
REAL Green wrote:Electricity is only part of it. And I wonder where you got your 50% figure??
kublikhan wrote:From here:
The study found that the cost of generating energy from 300 MW of utility-scale PV solar is roughly one-half the cost per kWh of electricity produced from an equivalent 300 MW of 5kW residential-scale systems]
Except you miss my point. Your point is purely technical about one small aspect of the issue of electricity. I talk about a hybrid of grid and off grid. Residential solar has a place for some and utility scale for others. I do both except my grid is very little renewable. You don’t understand what I am talking about but instead are preaching your centralized is better than decentralized strictly from an electricity point of view. I am talking about leaving your resource intensive world though footprint reducing behavior. You are talking more development of what has got humans into trouble and occasionally throwing out degrowth which you are not going to do any of.
REAL Green wrote:You are losing me on the 30 times more fossil fuel figure.
kublikhan wrote: It was from frankthetank doing the math to ship veggies from China to his town vs the local gasoline consumption of driving to the farmer's market. The huge amount of goods cargo ships, semi trucks, rail cars, etc can ship makes the amount of fuel consumed per pound of goods shipped miniscule in comparison to hopping into your pickup truck to drive to the local farmer's market. This applies to the farmer driving to the market as well as the consumer. The last leg of the food delivery journey(to and from the local market) consumes an order of magnitude more fuel than shipping your veggies across country. It's all in the economies of scale. ]
My God that is crap. First you conveniently chip in the part about driving for the local food guy as if your monoculture guy is not. I am saying growing your own in communities that are close together also as in no or little driving. You are mixing this up and fail to realize that your fossil fuel drenched monoculture food from China then has to be driven to also. You leave out your last mile of consumption and add it on to your local food guy. That is dishonest or intellectual negligence. Plus you fail to understand just how drenched industrial agriculture is to begin with. WTF, do you think that China veggie is dropping straight into your house? No, you are driving to the store to get it in your pickup. Your economy of scale thing is fossil fuel drenched then you add your trip to the store that is no different than a trip to the farmers market.
kublikhan wrote: frankthetank wrote:
If i did my math correct"
I have followed your comments in the past and you do way too much math that then is applied in a sloppy way to a complex system. This is the problem with the techno optimist of significantly theory and math but not very well applied. I am talking hands on things an individual can do you are vaguely talking about the big picture with sloppy comparisons.
kublikhan wrote: think it shows you that hauling large amounts is a heck of a lot more efficient then small amounts
Sure but the problem is hauling huge amounts in the first place that is hugely fossil fuel drenched. And then you try to say that is more efficient than small amounts locally. Nope you are just delusional and make your attack by making your assumptions of the end mile when your fossil fuel drenched China veggie has to go that last mile too.
If you really understood my REAL Green localism then you would understand I am under no illusion we can leave mono-cultures and economies of scale. I am about adapting that with the reality of decline and limits to growth. It is behavioral about accepting failure of the human narrative of more for less. I am saying diminishing returns has hit and the planet is in abrupt change that will be even more limiting. Adapting locally builds up an individuals place not our way of further delocalizing it. Your way is subject to hot wars and trade wars. It is subject to fuel shocks and that inconvenient part of JIT that does not come on time or at all then the whole value chain paralyzes. Then tell me all about your efficient large amount stuck in port and you are hungry
kublikhan wrote: In fact, local food currently uses much more fossil fuel, especially in distribution, on a per pound basis. This is so painfully the case that one example will suffice, my own.
BS, I just proved you wrong. You forgot your last mile of your fossil fuel drenched monoculture and you did not even take into account how much fossil fuels were used to grow the stuff or what it did to the planet in intensive agriculture of vast sterilized fields of one food type.
...
kublikhan wrote: [b]I would have to sell 750 pounds of meat every week to match the gallons per pound efficiency of industrial distribution. That is fifteen times more than I currently sell.
More talking out your ass