Liberals: Why do You Use Electricity for Recreation?

Dear liberals,

If you believe that carbon emissions from energy consumption are killing the planet, why do you continue to consume energy for recreational purposes? Isn't the sacrifice of going without the TV and the XBox or the gaming computer worth it to extend the life of the planet?

The above argument is one of the things that started my slow but inevitable switch over to conservatism. Back when I was a Greenpeace minion, the hypocrisy of most of the left on this issue boggled my mind. Some of them will answer "it's not my fault, there's a con conspiracy to keep us from having unlimited renewable energy" as if they know something about energy needs, the nature of scientific research or the state of the technologies (if they said the preceding, it means they know nothing about any of that). That said, even if it were true and there was some kind of conspiracy afoot, it wouldn't justify recreational energy consumption in a context where one believes that energy consumption is killing the planet.

I'm just curious if any of the liberals on this forum have an honest answer to this question. It was a long journey, but I quit gaming, I quit watching television, I access the internet with low power consuming computers running Xubuntu, and I picked up a wide variety of hobbies sourced in the real world to replace all of those things. I think I have become a better person because of it all. This is all I really ask, that some other liberal on PF put their money where their mouth is and attempt the same thing before you start bullying other people over a scientific consensus that you probably aren't scientifically literate enough to fully understand to begin with.

 

I am also concerned about the environment and pollution. However, we operate under an economic system which is bent on exploiting and consuming every natural resource as fully and as fast as possible. What this means is that if I buy a Geo Metro that gets 50 MPG, then I free up resources for someone else to buy a larger Hummer which only gets 7 MPG. If I put a high efficiency furnace in my home, someone else will just install a couple more radiant heaters on the exterior deck of their home (where 90% of the heat is lost immediately to the atmosphere). So, on a personal level, trying to conserve energy for the sake of the environment is a total joke. All you will accomplish is creating an opportunity for others to be even more wasteful.

 

No! Don't take away my recreation it's all I have left to live for! Because there really is no way for energy consumption to also be energy efficient!

I need to keep every light on in my house all the time, the original old Edison bulbs mind you! Bare wire, straight from the museum, none of that manufactured crap!

I need to play my Xbox and leave it running while I switch between my TV shows and my DVD movies... And my Play Station, and my whatever else... Nintendo something.

I want a gas guzzling car with low fuel efficiency!

I want my local power plant to be next door to me, and be an old, dirty coal plant, so I have tangy flavors coating my tongue, lungs, and throat.

I want to work in a big factory like they have in China, with big smoke stacks billowing toxic fumes into my air and blocking out the sun.

I love the sound of asthma!

I just wish I could club the baby seals in my off time! And drill for oil in a wildlife preserve!

 

Indeed. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama tells us that the most effective thing you can do is give other people your money. Nothing you do personally matters, just give us your money!

 

Oh I know! I'm on their mailing list...

Wish Obama a happy birthday... Where's your donation? If you really care where's the money?

See pictures of the Obamas gardening healthy plants... Show some donations!

Biden stopped by the club today? Where's the donation?

We won the election... Where's the donation?

Do you like women's health issues? If you REALLY cared you'd make a donation!

A rich donor's party isn't complete without the ... donations!

Michelle's on Sesame street... You know what kids? When you grow up don't forget to make some donations! (Oh, I'm kidding with this one... sort of) Michelle WAS on Sesame Street showing some kids how to garden...

 

First and foremost, it's not energy consumption in and of itself that is a problem; instead, it's how the energy is generated (read coal).
Coal is not an element; instead, its a mixed bag of elements. So everything from carbon to uranium (yes the radioactive kind) can be found in coal. The heavier elements get left over in the ash, and they pollute our waterways and land areas. Other parts pollute the air. To make matters worse, coal burning generates a great deal of CO2 which causes a rise in the earth's energy budget aka global warming.

Secondly, power generation is geared towards peak production and not current demand. In addition, power plants don't work like light switches that can be flipped on and off. So while you might feel good about refraining form your xbox, your not having any real impact on coal usage. In fact, the vast majority of energy generated is wasted especially off of peak hours.

And lastly, cooperative models fail in the face of uncooperative elements. For example, we have security because there are uncooperative elements in our society; otherwise, we'd just leave our doors unlocked and bank vaults open. So yes, there has to be changes at the government level.

 

That's idiotic, you can't rationally separate energy generation from energy consumption. Even though a single person may not make a tangible difference, a widespread movement certainly would make a difference because generation is definitely predicated upon consumption trends. There is no widespread movement because people's values are in the wrong place.

It sounds as if you are one of those "uncooperative elements." Do you live your life by the moniker "they did it, so I'm going to do it too?" What are you, five years old? This lack of integrity is why most "environmentalists" are such insufferable people.

At least conservatives who live the modern lifestyle don't believe in AGW. Liberals believe that their way of life is destroying the planet, and then they continue that same way of life, believing that they are destroying the planet in doing so. They have the ethical maturity of tiny children which isn't surprising since government and liberal society have conspired to keep them from ever having to grow up.

 

The main problem is that we don't have massive energy storage systems to handle a constantly changing load. So we end up with excess generation by design.

Cooperative models that ignore uncooperative elements don't work. In other words, people's values cannot be relied upon to solve these types of issues. It takes policy to solve them.

And aside from the above, a lot of this boils down to engineering problems and the will to invest in solutions.

 

Speaking of "uncooperative elements," who is going to let blatant hypocrites design policy?

And please tell us what engineering solutions just need more investment to make them work. It obviously isn't solar voltaic, as evidenced by Obama's Solyndra debacle.

No, the entire "we just need more investment [get rid of conservatives!]" argument is merely a method for pointing the finger as modern energy needs can't be met with existing or imminently foreseeable renewable energy technologies. You can generalize about how we just need more investment all day, it doesn't make it true.

 

They can be things as simple as:
http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/cool-roofs

And we need pretty heavy investments in massive energy storage systems. It would solve problems in our existing infrastructure as well as a renewable infrastructure.

And on a side note, our energy problems have nothing at all to do with politics.

 

Painting a roof white, that is the best link you have? You're still generalizing too-- what's a "massive energy storage system" and how do we know that such a thing can be invented and meet its goals? This is why environmentalists always lose, they presume that they can lead from behind. Lead from the front by changing your lifestyle first instead of pretending that this kind of slop you posted is going to make a difference.

 

Painting a roof white may not seem like a big deal, but it can save a lot of money on energy bills during the summer. It's a simple fix that doesn't require people to do a whole lot, but it can have a big impact if its required by law.

An example of massive storage systems is pumping water up hill to store energy. Once extra energy is needed, simply release the water and use turbines to reclaim power.

There are several types of massive storage systems being explored right now. Here is another example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

 

And then it will cost energy during the winter.

I don't think I have to explain why this is a stupid idea.

Flywheels are not going to replace batteries any time soon, not unless we invent a frictionless material (and we won't). From your wikipedia link:

So what do we have so far... painting your roof white, pumping water up a hill and then pouring it down the hill again and a wikipedia link that explains why flywheels aren't a solution. Is it really so hard to just say "yeah, maybe I should be doing something myself?"

 

But the effect is very minimum for a lot of physical reasons. In winter time, the angle of the sun is much greater so the light is more diffused, and the days are shorter due to the tilt of the earth. Then there is the thermodynamics and convection involved. Most importantly, the geographical location matters. Southern states are going to use more electricity in the summer than winter.

Why is using potential energy in the form of gravity as a storage mechanism a stupid idea?

There are physical limitations preventing the creation of frictionless materials; otherwise, we'd be able to create perpetual motion. And in addition, batteries aren't perpetual machines and have losses. And they too have limited lifespans.

 

To get elected. WOW!

Sadly, her message wasn't about personal responsibility...........it was about how to win elections. She's smart and sees that to compete with the noise machine on the right and their big super PACs and mega donors, the best you can do "to get them elected" is to write big fat checks. You know, like the ones the Koch brothers write so they can elect the president they want.

Or should I assume that the Koch brothers mean that nothing you do personally matters, just give him your money. Yes that MUST be true according to your logic.

 

Here's an answer, I am a FAR LEFTIST, a SOCIALIST but not really a liberal, I am for leftist economics, I believe there is something to Global Warming, but I'd destroy the planet by using fossil fuels to GET MINE, just like the Koch Brothers. Not ALL people fall in line with EVERYTHING marked liberal or conservative. Like I wouldn't care if gay marriage was legalized, it wouldn't bother me if gays could marry, but I wouldn't fight for it or care in the slightest if it was never legalized.

 

I suppose you could say that, but it sounds similar to when companies like Hobby Lobby refuse to cover emergency contraception because it amounts to abortion while still having 95% of their products come from China -- a nation that aborts far more often than we do.

 

So someone with Colbert as their avatar is saying "conservatives aren't any better," I'm sure that will inspire a lot of people. Just a suggestion, maybe you shouldn't get your politics from comedy central.

 

Wow.... that was completely irrelevant to what I posted.

 

Hydrogen is getting there

http://www.nectarpower.com/

 

LED's are getting there too

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BXFP0SS/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

 

I'm just meeting your irrelevant "they aren't any better" with more irrelevance I guess

 

Because a liberal perfected electricity to allow you fake conservatives to survive.

 

That's because they are idiots in denial about pretty much anything they don't agree with.

 

Don't have kids.