Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
It doesn't matter if they can't pay more now, physics doesn't care what people are capable of, and if the physics works out that that they either pay more now or pay a LOT more later then that's the way it is. I wasn't arguing that that specific example was true, just that that's the nature of decision that should be made.
As a species and society we aren't there though (i.e. we don't think of those terms, we think of the next few days or weeks or years if we're really lucky), and we might pay a large price as a result.
|
You will never be able to use that argument to convince budget type families to pay more for one of their biggest expenses. I'm not saying I disagree, because locally grown produce is to me EXTREMELY important, and absolutely worth paying more for, but most families won't go for it.
Quote:
Could be hugely significant I think. If the coal plant has to produce 50% of the electricity it used to due to increased efficiency of the loads, that's the same as retrofitting it with NG to make it produce the same electricity with 50% of emissions. Both would be even better!
In 2007 in the US using CFLs instead of incandescent saved enough electricity to power Washington, DC for 30 years. Or taking 2 million cars off the road, or like planting 2.85 million trees (in terms if GHG absorption).
So I think doing things on a country wide or global scale can have a big impact. But I agree we still have to think about generation as well as consumption.
|
Well you're talking about a complete city making a change overnight. Won't happen. Over 20 years? Absolutely. Time is apparently something we don't have according to Tinordi. I say we do. So hopefully in 20 years everyone will be using LEDs.
Converting to NG is going to make a huge difference. Canada will also see a noticeable reduction in GHG emissions because we're switching from coal to NG in huge numbers as well.