Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power Stats United Kingdom

People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use 710

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the just-build-a-few-nuclear-reactors dept.
schwit1 (797399) writes with news that a UK study has found that folks concerned about climate change don't do much to conserve power at home. From the article: Those who say they are concerned about the prospect of climate change consume more energy than those who say it is "too far into the future to worry about," the study commissioned by the Department for Energy and climate change found. That is in part due to age, as people over 65 are more frugal with electricity but much less concerned about global warming. However, even when pensioners are discounted, there is only a "weak trend" to show that people who profess to care about climate change do much to cut their energy use. The findings were based on the Household Electricity Survey, which closely monitored the electricity use and views of 250 families over a year. The report (PDF), by experts from Loughborough University and Cambridge Architectural Research, was commissioned and published by DECC. High power use doesn't have to be dirty: Replace coal, methane, and petroleum with nuclear, wind, solar, etc.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use

Comments Filter:
  • Re:No real surprise (Score:5, Informative)

    by I'm New Around Here (1154723) on Monday July 14, 2014 @11:19PM (#47453983)

    While I don't disagree with that, this report is the wrong one to trumpet about. The asked 250 people a question that is quite ambiguous, and then monitored them for a year. I read the article earlier today on some other site, and it sounded like rubbish for those reasons and others.

  • by Pentium100 (1240090) on Monday July 14, 2014 @11:33PM (#47454051)

    Not everybody started putting computers in cars in 1975. For example, my W123, built in 1982 does not have computers in it (the MCUs in a much newer tape deck do not count, as they are not required for the operation of the car).

    The car in the link uses fuel injection and that usually requires an analog (or digital) computer. However, a carburetor does not require a computer and my car uses a carburetor. Neither does vacuum ignition advance. Or a manual transmission.

  • Re:Wind? Solar? (Score:4, Informative)

    by AK Marc (707885) on Monday July 14, 2014 @11:56PM (#47454177)
    Where I live, more than 50% of electricity is from renewals, wind being one of the larger sources.

    Solar doesn't need density. For a small increase in cost, it can be built into roofs. The amount of building space in the US is sufficient to power the grid. No need for central industrial generation.
  • Re:user error (Score:4, Informative)

    by phantomfive (622387) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @01:49AM (#47454661) Journal

    And by the way, modern cars are so low emission that some of them actually clean up the air around them. The 2011 Ford F150 Raptor is one of them.

    Note that this isn't talking about CO2 output, only pollutants like sulfur and carbon monoxide.

  • Re: No real surprise (Score:2, Informative)

    by itzly (3699663) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @02:49AM (#47454901)
    So, what ? Al Gore is a self centered hypocrite who doesn't care about the climate, but just wants to use the climate story to live a life of luxury. Maybe, yes, but it doesn't change one iota about the validity of the AGW theory.
  • Re: user error (Score:5, Informative)

    by squizzar (1031726) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @04:41AM (#47455275)

    They do have smaller gallons though: 31 US MPG is actually 37 UK MPG, which is not too bad for a 525 - beats my 99 2.8 A4 which does 30 most of the time (but then I use it very rarely, so I accept the cost of fuel as the trade off for having a very nice car for very little money as most people don't want something that thirsty).

    The 320d is a wonderful machine - my partners 05 one does around 47 with some relatively leaden-footed motorway driving - could get it to 50+ with some caution.

  • Re:user error (Score:4, Informative)

    by munch117 (214551) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @04:50AM (#47455311)

    I do leave my computer on 24/7. However, being I moved to an area that is predominantly powered with clean energy ...

    Which they sell to other areas when there's a surplus, and then that other area can cut fossil fuel use.

    The world's marginal fuel is lignite. No matter where you live, if you spend more energy, you're gonna burn lignite. If you spend less energy, less lignite will be burnt. Shut down you damn computer!

  • by mark_reh (2015546) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @05:37AM (#47455471) Journal

    At this point, considering the inability of congress to get anything done, maybe all those people who believe the scientists about AGW have come to the conclusion that it's too late to do anything about it and have given up. Or maybe they realize that changing their personal lifestyle is nothing compared to the size of the problem.

    I lived in Phoenix for a while. Golf courses everywhere. No water anywhere. Billboards reminding me to use less water everywhere. The message I got was that I should feel guilty about every drop of water I used so a bunch of rich a-holes who spend their winters in Phoenix could have more water to dump onto their golf courses. AGW is a lot like that.

    The change has to start with the most visible and egregious offenders. Then people will see that there's something going on that they should be concerned about and will modify life style en masse. The only way to deal with the most visible and egregious offenders is via the law. Unfortunately, those offenders have money and use it to keep congress in a perpetual state of suspended animation, because it is through their offense that they make their money.

  • Re: user error (Score:5, Informative)

    by N1AK (864906) on Tuesday July 15, 2014 @06:55AM (#47455737) Homepage

    Visit List of countries by traffic-related death rate [wikipedia.org] and sort by "Road fatalities per 100 000 motor vehicles"... The EU Econobox is a deathtrap by American standards.

    I'm not sure how you've managed to so completely contradict your own data source. America 11.6 Road fatalities per 100 000 motor vehicles and the list of countries you've given is basically the best countries. For example, the UK's figure is 3.5 (less than 1/3rd the death rate in america). Even using the more useful deaths per km travelled figures the US has almost twice the fatality rate of the UK with our 'small EU deathtraps'.

Science and religion are in full accord but science and faith are in complete discord.

Working...