Author Topic: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?  (Read 39213 times)

Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #100 on: October 28, 2015, 10:10:06 AM »
I thought planes were pretty good for environment...

you can transport 100s of people in one container for a shorter duration... much better than 100s cars (driven solo/double) taking 4-5x the amount of time. Setting in traffic also burns a lot of gas too.

I mean, its always better to cram more people into single containers... we wouldn't have made it across the oceans on if everyone went on a raft by themselves...

If people are going to compare planes, they should compare it to the number of cars that the passengers would be using if not for plane

the empty seat argument from last page also isn't really that much of an argument to me either... we waste, it's just how it is. We waste food, electricity, kids, etc... it's always bad for environment. When we toss food away, it still had to be grown/processed/sold/delivered... same with making electricity, we don't have the battery capacity to actually store it all so we pollute to keep it going. And kids... we don't need that many, and they keep popping out >.>, the waste from everyday living probably out weighs your choice of flying for damage to environment...
« Last Edit: October 28, 2015, 10:36:02 AM by eyem »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5938
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #101 on: October 28, 2015, 10:35:57 AM »
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps.  i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more.  no way.

The US uses almost 19% of the world's energy. The EU uses another 14%. A major change in how 33% of the world's energy (+ Japan and Australia and Canada) is created (or reduced) would seem to be a pretty big change.

The worldwide CFC ban actually worked. CFCs were banned and the Ozone hole stopped increasing and actually started decreasing.

There's still hope.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #102 on: October 28, 2015, 11:07:06 AM »
Other people's choices sometimes suck, so I shouldn't have to care about the results of my own.
FTFY.

If you want to make sure your life never becomes a force for good... go around telling yourself and others that nothing you do matters.
If you choose to believe otherwise, you may be surprised by the results.

Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #103 on: October 28, 2015, 11:14:06 AM »
Other people's choices sometimes suck, so I shouldn't have to care about the results of my own.
FTFY.

If you want to make sure your life never becomes a force for good... go around telling yourself and others that nothing you do matters.
If you choose to believe otherwise, you may be surprised by the results.
we wouldn't be on MMM if we did things the way the majority of the world works... I mean retire at 65 :D

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #104 on: October 28, 2015, 11:15:32 AM »
we wouldn't be on MMM if we did things the way the majority of the world works... I mean retire at 65 :D
Purely a rhetorical device there, of course...

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #105 on: October 28, 2015, 08:13:41 PM »
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.

just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine.  elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.

The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.


not just Hollywood celeb elites.  anyone with a boat load of money willing to spend it without concern for the environment i'm pointing my finger at. 

the elites in washington, hollywood, silicon valley, nyc, leaders of ivy league colleges - all of them maintain a "do as i say not as i do" attitude.  they don't mind asking the laborers to take some pain while they relax on a private jet if they can afford it and if not, recline to full flat bed position in first class. 

if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps.  i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more.  no way.  in many of these places there are still diesel vehicles spewing black smoke.  if the vehicles haven't yet been tackled, what about the power generators? 

in puerto rico, just a tiny island, 7 of 14 power plants are heavy oil/diesel, 1 is coal, just 1 of the majors is natural gas.   the remainder are solar but they are so tiny they are hardly worth mentioning.  imagine how much of the rest of the world is burning the heavy oil that puerto rico is burning.  i think the world will survive my plane ride.

this is what you get when you are isolated within the US - you think everything is neatly controlled world wide.  it is not.  there is a world wide mess out there. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Electric_Power_Authority#Power_plants

<your mom>If all the other idiots in the world were jumping off bridges, does that mean you think it would be a good idea too?</your mom>

FenderBender

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #106 on: October 28, 2015, 11:45:00 PM »
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.

just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine.  elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.

The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.


not just Hollywood celeb elites.  anyone with a boat load of money willing to spend it without concern for the environment i'm pointing my finger at. 

the elites in washington, hollywood, silicon valley, nyc, leaders of ivy league colleges - all of them maintain a "do as i say not as i do" attitude.  they don't mind asking the laborers to take some pain while they relax on a private jet if they can afford it and if not, recline to full flat bed position in first class. 

if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps.  i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more.  no way.  in many of these places there are still diesel vehicles spewing black smoke.  if the vehicles haven't yet been tackled, what about the power generators? 

in puerto rico, just a tiny island, 7 of 14 power plants are heavy oil/diesel, 1 is coal, just 1 of the majors is natural gas.   the remainder are solar but they are so tiny they are hardly worth mentioning.  imagine how much of the rest of the world is burning the heavy oil that puerto rico is burning.  i think the world will survive my plane ride.

this is what you get when you are isolated within the US - you think everything is neatly controlled world wide.  it is not.  there is a world wide mess out there. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Electric_Power_Authority#Power_plants

<your mom>If all the other idiots in the world were jumping off bridges, does that mean you think it would be a good idea too?</your mom>

lol it goes both ways, i could say you are the one following the herd after all the debate isn't settled.  sierra club president having to be coached by council to answer very basic questions (embarrassing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4baOeuRDK8

just by living MMM lifestyle, i conserve.  still, i will not anytime soon because i think it is just that "too soon" to say climate change alarmists are right. i tend to think money has corrupted the alarmists - there is a lot of it at stake.   




FenderBender

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #107 on: October 29, 2015, 12:27:30 AM »
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps.  i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more.  no way.

The US uses almost 19% of the world's energy. The EU uses another 14%. A major change in how 33% of the world's energy (+ Japan and Australia and Canada) is created (or reduced) would seem to be a pretty big change.

The worldwide CFC ban actually worked. CFCs were banned and the Ozone hole stopped increasing and actually started decreasing.

There's still hope.

if cc is real, population growth in the places i mentioned will kill us is what i'm thinking.  that is a lot of people and with people living longer the Earth will need a lot of hope.


rtrnow

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #108 on: October 29, 2015, 06:58:10 AM »
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.

just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine.  elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.

The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.


not just Hollywood celeb elites.  anyone with a boat load of money willing to spend it without concern for the environment i'm pointing my finger at. 

the elites in washington, hollywood, silicon valley, nyc, leaders of ivy league colleges - all of them maintain a "do as i say not as i do" attitude.  they don't mind asking the laborers to take some pain while they relax on a private jet if they can afford it and if not, recline to full flat bed position in first class. 

if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps.  i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more.  no way.  in many of these places there are still diesel vehicles spewing black smoke.  if the vehicles haven't yet been tackled, what about the power generators? 

in puerto rico, just a tiny island, 7 of 14 power plants are heavy oil/diesel, 1 is coal, just 1 of the majors is natural gas.   the remainder are solar but they are so tiny they are hardly worth mentioning.  imagine how much of the rest of the world is burning the heavy oil that puerto rico is burning.  i think the world will survive my plane ride.

this is what you get when you are isolated within the US - you think everything is neatly controlled world wide.  it is not.  there is a world wide mess out there. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_Electric_Power_Authority#Power_plants

<your mom>If all the other idiots in the world were jumping off bridges, does that mean you think it would be a good idea too?</your mom>

lol it goes both ways, i could say you are the one following the herd after all the debate isn't settled.  sierra club president having to be coached by council to answer very basic questions (embarrassing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4baOeuRDK8

just by living MMM lifestyle, i conserve.  still, i will not anytime soon because i think it is just that "too soon" to say climate change alarmists are right. i tend to think money has corrupted the alarmists - there is a lot of it at stake.

There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #109 on: October 29, 2015, 07:31:49 AM »
if you see how people in the developing world are living - china, india, philippines, pakistan, most of south america, africa, just to name a few high population centers, if you see how they are treating the earth, you would realize that the tiny izzy bitty things a few people do here in america (and parts of asia/europe) isn't going to make a huge difference to global temps.  i mean if time is of the essence like climate change alarmist say, there is not enough time to reform china, india, philippines, pakistan and more.  no way.

The US uses almost 19% of the world's energy. The EU uses another 14%. A major change in how 33% of the world's energy (+ Japan and Australia and Canada) is created (or reduced) would seem to be a pretty big change.

The worldwide CFC ban actually worked. CFCs were banned and the Ozone hole stopped increasing and actually started decreasing.

There's still hope.

if cc is real, population growth in the places i mentioned will kill us is what i'm thinking.  that is a lot of people and with people living longer the Earth will need a lot of hope.

FenderBender: Are you making the assumption that the 3rd world will continue in its current pollution heavy manner as the population increases?  Things do not happen in a vacuum, technological advances and economic efficineces in green tech done for a US/Europe market will go into the developing world too, things like http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall will become cheaper in the US then move on and replace as existing infrastructure ages or become the first instillation of power abroad.  CC aside it seems the Chinese are becoming (have become?) very aware of the down sides of air pollution on normal every day life, and I have to assume will move to cleaner tech as they are able for very practical "we like to breath the air outside" reasons. 

I think CFC's need more press, the world had a problem, we worked out what we needed to do.  People wined about why should I bother-those poor people are still going to be polluting!!!  But we made changes anyway and 20 odd years down the line are past the crises. 

NoraLenderbee

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #110 on: October 29, 2015, 12:11:41 PM »
I fly 2-3 times a year for family events. That will drop to 1 when the older generation is gone. I haven't flown on a vacation in years. I don't worry about the impact of something I do so rarely.

just before oscar night the number of private flights into LAX is off the charts - when the elites change their behavior i will change mine.  elites to the masses - do as i say not as i do.

The whims of a bunch of Hollywood celebs don't have a lot to do with my decisions about the environment or my own behavior.


not just Hollywood celeb elites.  anyone with a boat load of money willing to spend it without concern for the environment i'm pointing my finger at. 

the elites in washington, hollywood, silicon valley, nyc, leaders of ivy league colleges - all of them maintain a "do as i say not as i do" attitude.  they don't mind asking the laborers to take some pain while they relax on a private jet if they can afford it and if not, recline to full flat bed position in first class. 


I agree with you. However, "Bill Gates/Meryl Streep/Larry Ellison does it, too" is not a justification. "I won't change until they do" just means nothing will ever change. If you choose to waste resources (just an example, not saying you are)--that doesn't strike a blow against the elites.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #111 on: October 29, 2015, 12:53:08 PM »
CC aside...
Nothing aside.
Quote
...it seems the Chinese are becoming (have become?) very aware of the down sides of air pollution on normal every day life, and I have to assume will move to cleaner tech as they are able for very practical "we like to breath the air outside" reasons.
Yep, their approach seems to be improving by the day. (posted less than one hour ago)
They also installed more solar panels last year than the US has ever installed. Yes, since the day they were invented.
Yes, they're still adding coal-burners too. But they get the endgame, maybe better than we do.
Quote
I think CFC's need more press, the world had a problem, we worked out what we needed to do.  People wined about why should I bother-those poor people are still going to be polluting!!!  But we made changes anyway and 20 odd years down the line are past the crises.
You may have a point about success stories. I'm gonna go off and ponder that now.

AlanStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Age: 42
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #112 on: October 29, 2015, 02:50:13 PM »
CC aside...
Nothing aside.
Quote
...it seems the Chinese are becoming (have become?) very aware of the down sides of air pollution on normal every day life, and I have to assume will move to cleaner tech as they are able for very practical "we like to breath the air outside" reasons.
Yep, their approach seems to be improving by the day. (posted less than one hour ago)
They also installed more solar panels last year than the US has ever installed. Yes, since the day they were invented.
Yes, they're still adding coal-burners too. But they get the endgame, maybe better than we do.
Quote
I think CFC's need more press, the world had a problem, we worked out what we needed to do.  People wined about why should I bother-those poor people are still going to be polluting!!!  But we made changes anyway and 20 odd years down the line are past the crises.
You may have a point about success stories. I'm gonna go off and ponder that now.

I for one am glad a leading presidential candidate, Mr Trump, is advocating we start following the Chinese example beginning with the building of a wall along our boarder. 

Could not read all of seakingAlpha's article without registering, but China seems to be saying all the right things.  Hopefully the stated goals will be meet.

I like individual freedom but you can get a lot done with top town commands especially when those in control understand math/science (LOTs of China's leadership are trained as engineers (it was a preposterous and safe major under Mao-etc (he did not really encourage Political Science, Law, Business or Finance as subjects for higher education...))). 


zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #113 on: October 29, 2015, 02:57:19 PM »
Also relevant to the discussion: the recent liberal wins in Canada and Australia - two of the Western world's largest producers and users of fossil fuels, and until recently among the most vocal defenders of status-quo energy policy - are likely to substantially alter those nations' stances on these issues, especially when it comes to international negotiations on carbon emissions etc.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #114 on: October 29, 2015, 04:33:41 PM »
There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.

The money spent on climate change by the government far surpasses any private funding. It's not even close.

There is also plenty of reputable science that shows that man is not causing a problem, or that the problem is highly overstated. The alarmists simply dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't fit their agenda/religion.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3046
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #115 on: October 29, 2015, 04:52:04 PM »
There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.

The money spent on climate change by the government far surpasses any private funding. It's not even close.


I don't think the reference was to money spent on climate *research.* For example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

$125 million isn't exactly chump change.

Quote
There is also plenty of reputable science that shows that man is not causing a problem, or that the problem is highly overstated. The alarmists simply dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't fit their agenda/religion.

Except that this is not true. Yes, there are a handful of scientists who question the human  influence on climate change (Freeman Dyson is a well known example). However, they tend not to be specialists in the field and the few papers I've seen held up to supposedly show the gaping hole in the human-CO2-climate linkage tend to not actually be that strong, or do not say that in context when you actually dig in and read the literature.

Personally, I keep looking for this and am very open to finding science that supports the conclusion that human CO2 (among other GH gasses) isn't a problem for our climate. My life would be considerably cheaper and more convenient if I could use petroleum products with reckless abandon. Unfortunately, I have not seen it yet and the case for AGW is increasingly robust. It is unfortunate, but here we are. Now we get to deal with it or leave things much, much worse for future generations.

Also, saying decisions based on a huge volume of scientific studies is religion does not help your case. If you want to argue science, show the science... and not a link from some partisan shill page. There's another thread in Off Topic that is already beating that dead horse.

powskier

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #116 on: October 29, 2015, 11:33:59 PM »
Cycle to work and most importantly do not have kids, so do not think about my flying a couple of times a year.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #117 on: October 30, 2015, 06:08:43 AM »
There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.

The money spent on climate change by the government far surpasses any private funding. It's not even close.


I don't think the reference was to money spent on climate *research.* For example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

$125 million isn't exactly chump change.


Actually, it is when compared to government climate funding.

"by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments.

In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #118 on: October 30, 2015, 09:42:43 AM »
I'm still waiting for the evidence that countries being concerned about climate change, and spending money to research and/or mitigate it, directly leads to the distortion of scientific data.

Does the existence of the CDC mean the US government is wilfully inflating the threat of epidemics?

On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3046
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #119 on: October 30, 2015, 09:52:51 AM »
There's a hell of a lot more money following from the other direction. There is no reputable science discrediting climate change. You're using weak arguments to justify not giving a shit about your own decisions. Even if climate change were not an issue, everything suggested to help fix it would be good for us anyway. Thousands of people die early every year from pollution in cities for example. We could fix that locally by making decisions you're saying don't matter.

The money spent on climate change by the government far surpasses any private funding. It's not even close.


I don't think the reference was to money spent on climate *research.* For example:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/09/secretive-donors-gave-us-climate-denial-groups-125m-over-three-years

$125 million isn't exactly chump change.


Actually, it is when compared to government climate funding.

"by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments.

In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

Fair enough. $125 million spent on targeted information campaigns is less than billions spent on research and other programs.

A. Taking the numbers in your link at face value (their numbers are not too far from the CBO estimates, though lack some of the nuance such as the preceding spending on renewable energies starting in at least the 1970s: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/03-26-climatechange.pdf): less than half of the total amount is attributed to "climate change" while  the rest went to tax breaks, technology and foreign assistance. The last three are a mixed bag as they have other possible benefits and parsing that out is a waste of all of out time and a tangent one more degree removed. Interestingly, according to that chart, the highest rate of spending appears to have occurred under GHW Bush, who publicly said that climate change was something we better figure out. An oil man Republican president pushing for climate research and action- my how times have changed with the notable exception of Pataki, perhaps.
B. We have a potential problem that has been identified that has potentially major global implications. What is the appropriate level of funding to figure that out? Some of these expenses ran through agencies like NASA to do satellite work (unless congress changes their mission statement to hamstring them from doing so). Those types of projects are expensive. Many the climate change research field data collection requires work in logistically challenging places like Antarctica or the middle of the ocean. It is wise to understand this and yes that will take money. On the flip side of impacts: here in Washington State our water supply is vulnerable to the effects of climate change through the observed and projected changes in snowpack. It is going to take some relatively large/expensive infrastructure to protect agriculture that is worth hundreds of millions per year in addition to municipal supplies. That does not include any of the other projected impacts in Washington state. There are many other impacts to be sifted through by region be it drought, flooding, melting permafrost (a royal engineering PITA), storm surge effects, sea level rise, etc.  The cost of the impacts out strip the research dollars by a long shot. In summary, the research dollars are big, but commensurate with the scale of the problem. It should also be noted that those are not all "new" research dollars spent and some of that total is due to reallocation within agencies like NSF. 
C. There is a difference between putting money into research, etc and putting money into what are effectively advertising campaigns. With some notable exceptions (Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson), scientists tend not to be the best communicators to the general public.
D. As a practical matter, those who have long-term skin in the game such as planners, insurance companies and even the oil industry are moving forward with the best available science.
E. Please be as skeptical of the "science for dissident thinkers" pages as you are of the other science information out there. I wouldn't take medical advice from a webpage that inflammatory (ie, the anti-vaccine movement pages, Dr Oz, Dr Mercola, etc), and I think that applies across the board as a prudent measure- especially if you are not trained in that exact field adequately to independently assess the information presented. 

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3046
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #120 on: October 30, 2015, 09:54:30 AM »
On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.

Shhh! Stop stating the well-documented and obvious! People might find out!

mikefixac

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Location: Brea
    • Uncommonly Brilliant
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #121 on: October 30, 2015, 10:09:59 AM »
I don't do much of it and don't think about it. I fly a few times a year and usually for work. Rail takes so much more time my employer wouldn't go for it and I don't want to waste vacation time. If we had better rail service I would prefer it. I hate long car trips the most.


I agree.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #122 on: October 30, 2015, 10:15:37 AM »
On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.

Shhh! Stop stating the well-documented and obvious! People might find out!

NOAA is also hiding information. Are they worried what people might find out, or are they worried about a funding cut if their unproven claims don't hold up under scrutiny? They have just refused to submit information ordered under a subpoena regarding their (unproven) claim that the 18+ pause did not happen:

"In a statement released to Nature, Smith accused NOAA of falsifying temperature records, stating, “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda.”

"Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information," Smith told the Examiner. "When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it's crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made. This action has broad national and policy implications."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/1028/NOAA-refuses-to-comply-with-House-science-committee-subpoena-video


A mom

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 91
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #123 on: October 30, 2015, 10:24:18 AM »
On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.

Shhh! Stop stating the well-documented and obvious! People might find out!

NOAA is also hiding information. Are they worried what people might find out, or are they worried about a funding cut if their unproven claims don't hold up under scrutiny? They have just refused to submit information ordered under a subpoena regarding their (unproven) claim that the 18+ pause did not happen:

"In a statement released to Nature, Smith accused NOAA of falsifying temperature records, stating, “NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda.”

"Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information," Smith told the Examiner. "When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it's crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made. This action has broad national and policy implications."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/1028/NOAA-refuses-to-comply-with-House-science-committee-subpoena-video

I find it sad that we can't discuss issues like this without resorting to arguing about whether AGW exists. The OP states in his first post: "Obviously, if you are a person who thinks that CO2 emissions are not an issue, this question is moot." I personally believe AGW is a very big threat. I would like to be able to discuss solutions. So if you want to discuss the validity of the science behind climate change, maybe go to another thread.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #124 on: October 30, 2015, 10:34:24 AM »
Seriously, even the oil companies don't question it. They've been researching how to mitigate (and benefit from) warming and other related effects for decades.

DoJ is actually considering charges against Exxon now that the disparity between its internally documented research and public statements has come to light.

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #125 on: October 30, 2015, 10:58:59 AM »
Seriously, even the oil companies don't question it. They've been researching how to mitigate (and benefit from) warming and other related effects for decades.

DoJ is actually considering charges against Exxon now that the disparity between its internally documented research and public statements has come to light.

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

What disparity? The article specifically states that Exxon used publicly available data for an internal report on future development. What exactly did they "hide"?

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #126 on: October 31, 2015, 05:35:38 PM »
lol it goes both ways, i could say you are the one following the herd after all the debate isn't settled.  sierra club president having to be coached by council to answer very basic questions (embarrassing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4baOeuRDK8

The "debate" (to the extent the Scientific Method can be characterized as such) is settled, at least among the people competent enough to matter. I don't give a shit what the Sierra Club says.

i think it is just that "too soon" to say climate change alarmists are right. i tend to think money has corrupted the alarmists - there is a lot of it at stake.

LOL, what? You think the people warning about climate change are expressing that belief because it's somehow profitable to think that way? How the fuck does that work?!

No, profit is in denialism -- which is exactly why we should be extremely skeptical of that.

There is also plenty of reputable science that shows that man is not causing a problem, or that the problem is highly overstated. The alarmists simply dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't fit their agenda/religion.

Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #127 on: November 01, 2015, 08:08:19 AM »
Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.

I call bullshit on you. Government funding for climate change is no more special or free of bias than any other funding, and it DWARFS oil company funding. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer reviewed non-government funded studies in reputable journals that aren't funded by left wing interests and share them with us.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5747
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #128 on: November 01, 2015, 10:14:47 AM »

Maximum number of pages of semi-reasonable discourse on climate change before someone is called a fucking liar:  3.

I am pretty sure this is an internet constant.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3046
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #129 on: November 01, 2015, 10:29:34 AM »
Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.

I call bullshit on you. Government funding for climate change is no more special or free of bias than any other funding, and it DWARFS oil company funding. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer reviewed non-government funded studies in reputable journals that aren't funded by left wing interests and share them with us.

I would go back and pull up the research efforts funded by the Koch brothers that are referenced earlier in this very thread and that concluded that human inputs are influencing climate, or maybe the research conducted by oil company labs (no, they did not just use publicly available data), but your post clearly indicates that this would be a pointless endeavor. If your starting premise is that research funded by the government is fundamentally biased, or that there is in fact a conspiracy among thousands to tens of thousands of scientists, then there is absolutely no point to arguing based on the data. If you do not admit the possibility that industrial interests who have a clear and compelling (and documented) reason to put out disinformation on climate change, and yet believe that scientists who have less economic incentive to do so, then we can't even argue about the bias. What does that leave us with? We can't have a reasonable discussion of the science, and we can't have a reasonable discussion of possible bias. That leaves us with name calling, and echo chambers. No thanks.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #130 on: November 01, 2015, 11:20:50 AM »
Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.

I call bullshit on you. Government funding for climate change is no more special or free of bias than any other funding, and it DWARFS oil company funding. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer reviewed non-government funded studies in reputable journals that aren't funded by left wing interests and share them with us.

I asked you first. Consequently, you are non-responsive and therefore lose.

Maximum number of pages of semi-reasonable discourse on climate change before someone is called a fucking liar:  3.

This discourse quit being semi-reasonable when GetItRight wrote this on page 2:

Considering all this the ebst I can figure is the environmentalists hate the poor, minorities, and those in third world countries. Given environmentalists tend to be liberals this is no surprise.

The idiotic arguments (a) that celebrities don't care, therefore neither should we, or (b) that anybody but the fossil fuel industry had a profit motive to lie, are just more trolls piling on.

More to the point, "semi-reasonable discourse" requires that all parties be both competent and arguing in good faith, which is not happening here. The university professor and the village idiot arguing about whether 2 + 2 = 4* or not does not constitute "discourse" -- one is right, the other is wrong, and that's the end of it! Treating people like GetItRight and music lover as if they had valid points of view is itself the fallacy of argument to moderation. It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely or they win anyway! Being a reasonable person, I refuse to continue putting up with denialists' FUD and bullshit.

To that end, I will write this: Denialism is literally a threat to human civilization, and is not an acceptable point of view. If you think global warming isn't happening, that it isn't being caused by humans, or that it isn't a big fucking problem, then you are wrong and should STFU.

(* in base 10, you pedants!)

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #131 on: November 01, 2015, 12:00:08 PM »
It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely or they win anyway! Being a reasonable person, I refuse to continue putting up with denialists' FUD and bullshit.

Yup...shut those up who disagree. And, you actually dare to call yourself reasonable? You are nothing but a clueless fool if you believe in censoring those who have a different opinion. That type thinking belongs on a communist country and has no place in a free and democratic society.

I'm done.

Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #132 on: November 01, 2015, 12:03:25 PM »
does global warming even matter if someone just wants their environment to be clean?

do you walk by trash on the street because someone missed the dumpster? or do you just take a minute to toss it in? air pollution is same thing to me, regardless of climate change or not... do you take the effort to make sure you breath in cleaner air? do you you just walk by and ignore it?

its why most first world countries have public sanitation standards... and why people choose to live here than 3rd world where you cant drink tap water

edit, im not pushing for carbon emission control or anything, i do my fair share of polluting, but i wont stand in their way either for people who are because i do agree with the goal, im just too lazy to do it without someone prodding me. ie i would love to not drive my car to work, but there are no car pools for me nor public transportation that works well enough... before they tell me to cut out my driving, they need to provide me an alternative. same with airplanes, give me those speedy trains and i will take them instead
« Last Edit: November 01, 2015, 12:07:15 PM by eyem »

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4725
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #133 on: November 01, 2015, 12:23:15 PM »
It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely or they win anyway! Being a reasonable person, I refuse to continue putting up with denialists' FUD and bullshit.

Yup...shut those up who disagree. And, you actually dare to call yourself reasonable? You are nothing but a clueless fool if you believe in censoring those who have a different opinion. That type thinking belongs on a communist country and has no place in a free and democratic society.

I'm done.

I'm not censoring you; I'm ridiculing you. The distinction is important. If a moderator came in and deleted your posts (i.e., actual censorship) then everybody else wouldn't be able to see for themselves how you're wrong.

Besides, you are entitled to your difference of opinion, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts. Thank you for ceasing to do so.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7179
  • Location: Avalon
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #134 on: November 01, 2015, 02:40:00 PM »
i would love to not drive my car to work, but there are no car pools for me nor public transportation that works well enough... before they tell me to cut out my driving, they need to provide me an alternative.
You have plenty of alternatives which you can implement without relying on anyone else to provide them for you.  Off the top of my head -

1. Change where you work.
2. Change where you live.
3. Use pedal power to get to work.
4. Look again at making existing public transport work "well enough", or join/create a campaign for better public transport.

Currently you have probably optimised your work and housing options for things other than the external environmental costs of your commute.  You may have a bigger/cheaper/more convenient for education/family/leisure house than you could have closer to work, or you may have higher paid work than you would have closer to home.  You have probably made your calculations on your optimum house/work combination without fully accounting for the environmental costs incurred in commuting by car - typically these "external costs" which you are not currently required to pay or not required to pay in full include issues such as air pollution, climate change pollution, road repairs and traffic congestion.  Not being required to pay these costs isn't your fault, it's just the way the system is set up at the moment.  But it is something we should all be aware of and take note of in making one's personal calculations.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #135 on: November 01, 2015, 11:17:16 PM »
I'm not censoring you; I'm ridiculing you. The distinction is important.

Yes, the distinction is important. You specifically stated: "It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely." If your intent in that statement wasn't clear, please correct us.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #136 on: November 02, 2015, 10:10:27 AM »
before they tell me to cut out my driving, they need to provide me an alternative. same with airplanes, give me those speedy trains and i will take them instead
Here's an alternative.



In order to preemptively silence the "coal car" trolls, I offset my charging with solar panels, which don't return quite the ROI of the stock market, but don't lose money either.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2015, 10:26:22 AM by zephyr911 »

cube.37

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #137 on: November 03, 2015, 10:02:16 AM »
Bullshit. The denialists like to claim that, but it's a complete fucking lie.

Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, written by scientists without a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.

I call bullshit on you. Government funding for climate change is no more special or free of bias than any other funding, and it DWARFS oil company funding. Feel free to prove me wrong by citing peer reviewed non-government funded studies in reputable journals that aren't funded by left wing interests and share them with us.

I asked you first. Consequently, you are non-responsive and therefore lose.

Maximum number of pages of semi-reasonable discourse on climate change before someone is called a fucking liar:  3.

This discourse quit being semi-reasonable when GetItRight wrote this on page 2:

Considering all this the ebst I can figure is the environmentalists hate the poor, minorities, and those in third world countries. Given environmentalists tend to be liberals this is no surprise.

The idiotic arguments (a) that celebrities don't care, therefore neither should we, or (b) that anybody but the fossil fuel industry had a profit motive to lie, are just more trolls piling on.

More to the point, "semi-reasonable discourse" requires that all parties be both competent and arguing in good faith, which is not happening here. The university professor and the village idiot arguing about whether 2 + 2 = 4* or not does not constitute "discourse" -- one is right, the other is wrong, and that's the end of it! Treating people like GetItRight and music lover as if they had valid points of view is itself the fallacy of argument to moderation. It's not enough to merely disagree with extremists; they must be shut out of the discussion entirely or they win anyway! Being a reasonable person, I refuse to continue putting up with denialists' FUD and bullshit.

To that end, I will write this: Denialism is literally a threat to human civilization, and is not an acceptable point of view. If you think global warming isn't happening, that it isn't being caused by humans, or that it isn't a big fucking problem, then you are wrong and should STFU.

(* in base 10, you pedants!)

Oh boy, do you sound like a treat...Can you tone it down...

Earlier you state "No, profit is in denialism -- which is exactly why we should be extremely skeptical of that." My view is that you should be extremely skeptical of everything you read and see. Probably not likely, but there is always the chance that government funded scientists are as biased as oil company funded scientists.

If you do have any of the papers that music lover requested, I'd love to read up on one or two. I will be the first to admit that I don't know as much as I should about global warming. As I stated earlier this thread, my un-enlightened/un-read initial outlook is that man-made global warming is minimally significant relative to the earth's natural warming and cooling trends. I'd love to learn and read up on why I'm completely wrong.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6876
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #138 on: November 03, 2015, 10:12:34 AM »
Until there's another way to get me from one coast to the other in under 6 hours, I'll continue to fly.

before they tell me to cut out my driving, they need to provide me an alternative. same with airplanes, give me those speedy trains and i will take them instead
Here's an alternative.



In order to preemptively silence the "coal car" trolls, I offset my charging with solar panels, which don't return quite the ROI of the stock market, but don't lose money either.

My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #139 on: November 03, 2015, 10:21:50 AM »
My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.
What's your per-kWh rate? At my local $0.10, gas would have to be about 70 cents a gallon to compete, and that's assuming I assign no value to the time and hassle of driving to a gas station to get the gas.

Fueling up at home is the shit.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6876
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #140 on: November 03, 2015, 10:23:21 AM »
My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.
What's your per-kWh rate? At my local $0.10, gas would have to be about 70 cents a gallon to compete, and that's assuming I assign no value to the time and hassle of driving to a gas station to get the gas.

Fueling up at home is the shit.

No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3046
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #141 on: November 03, 2015, 10:23:57 AM »
If you do have any of the papers that music lover requested, I'd love to read up on one or two. I will be the first to admit that I don't know as much as I should about global warming. As I stated earlier this thread, my un-enlightened/un-read initial outlook is that man-made global warming is minimally significant relative to the earth's natural warming and cooling trends. I'd love to learn and read up on why I'm completely wrong.

I don't remember what music lover requested, but here is the summary for policy makers from the IPCC. It is a good place to start because it is a high level, broad summary. There is a huge amount of detail in the specifics and lots of rabbit holes to go down, and it is best to start with a broad framework and go down the rabbit holes later if you want (but please be discriminating with your sources as there is a lot of BS out there that can be confusing some times intentionally and sometimes just because of jargon and poor writing). There are parts of the report that directly address the magnitude of natural variation vs anthropogenic forcing.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #142 on: November 03, 2015, 10:29:47 AM »
No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.
I charge mine for about $20/mo, and I use anywhere from a half to a full charge every day. So, either you have exorbitant rates or the LL is full of shit.  Definitely worth getting to the bottom of it.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5938
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #143 on: November 03, 2015, 10:39:26 AM »
My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.
What's your per-kWh rate? At my local $0.10, gas would have to be about 70 cents a gallon to compete, and that's assuming I assign no value to the time and hassle of driving to a gas station to get the gas.

Fueling up at home is the shit.

No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.

Do you live in Hawaii?

If it's 120v, hook up a kill-a-watt. That's a shit-ton of electricity or a very high rate.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6876
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #144 on: November 03, 2015, 10:46:14 AM »
No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.
I charge mine for about $20/mo, and I use anywhere from a half to a full charge every day. So, either you have exorbitant rates or the LL is full of shit.  Definitely worth getting to the bottom of it.

Yeah, the garage is on a separate account and there's discussion about moving it out of the LL's name so my roommate will have direct visibility/control.

We're in NJ. Rates here are absurd, but probably not as bad as HI.  Kill-o-watts don't have a good reputation for holding up to extended high current loads (from what I'm told), so we haven't done that.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3046
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #145 on: November 03, 2015, 10:49:02 AM »
My roommate has a plug-in hybrid and he's paying more to charge it than he would be paying to just put gas in and run it in hybrid mode all the time.
What's your per-kWh rate? At my local $0.10, gas would have to be about 70 cents a gallon to compete, and that's assuming I assign no value to the time and hassle of driving to a gas station to get the gas.

Fueling up at home is the shit.

No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.
You can also take a look at the kW/hr reading on your building electrical meter to track total electricity usage. Recording that value at points in time covering charging/not-charging should allow you to estimate the change in usage associated with charging at least roughly.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5938
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #146 on: November 03, 2015, 10:55:18 AM »
No idea. The landlord is claiming an $100/mo increase in electric use but we don't (yet) have visibility to that particular bill. It is possible that it's set up for a time-of-use plan with peak hours and that the car is charging during peak periods -- they're working on sorting that out.
I charge mine for about $20/mo, and I use anywhere from a half to a full charge every day. So, either you have exorbitant rates or the LL is full of shit.  Definitely worth getting to the bottom of it.

Yeah, the garage is on a separate account and there's discussion about moving it out of the LL's name so my roommate will have direct visibility/control.

We're in NJ. Rates here are absurd, but probably not as bad as HI.  Kill-o-watts don't have a good reputation for holding up to extended high current loads (from what I'm told), so we haven't done that.

At $100/month, it might be worth it to install a sub-meter.


Edit: Figure out how much a full charge takes (~30 kw/100 miles?). Figure out how much $100 in electricity represents. (It does look like you're on an hourly pricing scheme if more than 1000 kwh is used.) You'll then know generally how many miles you can drive on $100 of electricity.

I see $0.16/kwh in NJ. That's about 20 full charges, or nearly 2000 miles/month. That's some serious commuting.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2015, 11:09:46 AM by bacchi »

Tetsuya Hondo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Location: 1960's Tokyo on the Bad Side of Town
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #147 on: November 03, 2015, 11:12:39 AM »
I'm still waiting for the evidence that countries being concerned about climate change, and spending money to research and/or mitigate it, directly leads to the distortion of scientific data.

Does the existence of the CDC mean the US government is wilfully inflating the threat of epidemics?

On the other hand, companies with FF-intensive profit centers are known to have concealed and misrepresented data that could lead to unwanted policy changes, and to have specifically paid researchers for that purpose. If big numbers were a basis for truth determinations, the trillions in revenue at stake would be enough to settle the issue.

Just to follow up on this and put it in a little perspective for everyone accusing the various professors of climatology, meteorology, atmospheric scientists, geologists, hydroclimatologists, geophysicists, etc. etc. toiling away at their various universities around the world of being in some global conspiracy to generate revenue for a handful of American green energy companies, the revenues of oil companies are simply staggering. Don't you think they might be a teensy bit motivated to sow some confusion on this issue? Isn't it odd that they have some of the same PR firms on their payroll that the tobacco industry used to convince us that cigarettes aren't bad for you? Wouldn't they be a little bit more motivated to protect their revenues than a professor that is hoping to...what exactly? Get a grant to buy some lab equipment or pay for a few grad student RAs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

If you combine the revenues of the world's oil companies, it would equal around $5.3 TRILLION dollars. That's enough to qualify as the world's third largest GDP right behind the US and China.

But yeah, they don't have a dog in this fight. It's the evil professors driving Priuses to class that we need to keep an eye on.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5938
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #148 on: November 03, 2015, 11:19:05 AM »
But yeah, they don't have a dog in this fight. It's the evil professors driving Priuses to class that we need to keep an eye on.

They're all communicating on their secret "green internet" as they silently scoop up 100 shares of SCTY at a time.

Tetsuya Hondo

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Location: 1960's Tokyo on the Bad Side of Town
Re: How many of you weight the environmental impact of flying?
« Reply #149 on: November 03, 2015, 11:25:45 AM »
But yeah, they don't have a dog in this fight. It's the evil professors driving Priuses to class that we need to keep an eye on.

They're all communicating on their secret "green internet" as they silently scoop up 100 shares of SCTY at a time.

No doubt. Btw, I thought you wrote SCTV at first. I would totally buy shares in that.