[pct-l] How We Learn Stuff

[bluebrain at bluebrain.ca (bluebrain@bluebrain.ca)]

> Driving more energy efficient cars helps.

Unfortunately, Jevons Paradox applies.  Switching to a more energy
efficient vehicle doesn't help when the complete energy equation is
calculated.  A vehicle takes, on average, ninety barrels of oil to
produce.  Switching to more efficient vehicle actually results in an
increase in energy consumption and pollution output.  The benefits of the
long term energy and pollution cost savings won't be realized until long
after the environmental impacts of the initial production have occurred.

If you're thinking about alternatives like hydrogen, that's a further
complicated equation that needs to factor in the fact that hydrogen is a
form of energy storage, not an energy source, and is subject to a lower
energy output than energy investment.  What are the energy impacts of the
production of the hydrogen?  What about the construction of the new
production facilities, fueling stations, vehicle factories, etc?  That's
all on top of the significant environmental cost of the production of the
vehicles.

How about factoring in the environmental (not to mention social/cultural)
damage from wars that are waged to secure the resources required to
continue all this production and consumption?  Moving those armies around,
producing and fueling and firing all those weapons - there's a big
energy/environmental cost there.  Not to mention the direct environmental
effect on the land itself.  The US has rendered much of Iraq radio-active
with the use of depleted uranium in it's munitions.  The soil and
groundwater have been significantly polluted, effectively forever.

It may seem off topic, but if you really want to calculate the
energy/environmental cost impact of the choices we make, these are the
things that need to be included in the equation.  But, I digress.

Now, switching from a car to a bike, THERE'S a solution that makes a
positive impact.  :-)  How sad it is that the roads in China, formerly
occupied primarily by bicycles, have, in the past few years, been rapidly
filling with cars.  :-(

> So does using the telephone
> and internet instead of traveling helps.

Again, Jevons Paradox applies.  As we increase our use of the internet we
support business and technology development and production resulting in
sweeping impacts on energy consumption and pollution output.

"24-kilogram computer and 27-centimetre monitor requires at least 240
kilograms of fossil fuel, 22 kilograms of chemicals and 1,500 kilograms of
water ? or 1.8 tons in total"

> Reducing our consumption of materials helps as most materials require
> energy to produce and distribute.

Incidentally, I'm agreeing with your points, but pointing out that what we
perceive as a solution, though it may be well intended, often compounds
the problem, specifically because we typically are not aware of the bigger
picture.

The only real solution is large scale lifestyle simplification.  Not a
SWITCH to different energy consumption practices, but a significant
reduction of energy consumption practices towards a more realistically
sustainable lifestyle.

Off topic from the PCT though, so I apologize.

Unless, of course, we consider that distance hiking may be an excellent
way to practice a lifestyle of reduced energy consumption.  ;-)

Cheers,
Paul