The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

[Confused]

6 hours ago, semente said:

Since the Greens have now taken over the thread, why don't we talk about the Carbon fooprint of streaming?

 

Climate change: Is your Netflix habit bad for the environment?
The entire information technology (IT) sector - from powering internet servers to charging smartphones - is already estimated to have the same carbon footprint as the aviation industry's fuel emissions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45798523

 

Music consumption has unintended economic and environmental costs

https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_643297_en.html

At least streaming produces a usable product that provides much pleasure.  This seams relatively unnecessary to me:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/bitcoin-big-oil-environment-energy

 

[Confused]

15 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Just for fun ... It could be against ethics, but what if you'd change the title of this thread ...

What if title change turns out to be far more dangerous than climate change?

[Confused]

11 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 If the level of Methane is high enough to be collected, then surely it must also adversely affect the cattle ? 

And the farmer too, especially if he happens to be a smoker.....

[Confused]

Rather than being phased out or generally replaced, there are still companies building brand new MTBE production units.

[Confused]

Some serious doom:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-end-human-civilisation-research-a8943531.html

 

 

[Confused]

5 hours ago, elcorso said:

A brand new answer:

 

"Global warming is due to the excess of sinful souls being burned in hell, since being flat earth and hell being under it, there is a pan effect." 😉

 

 

Roch

Wouldn't that be diskal warming? 

[Confused]

Who would have thought it?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/18/cows-seaweed-methane-emissions-scientists?fbclid=IwAR1JgUMRZpCeR7D5HJHo1q9OT0jTeVfCe59CERDn_PO6aqISnsDlUgTvgSc

[Confused]

17 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

2. Would seaweed work in the same way in case of other species and how much methane do other animals (including homo sapiens, why not ) 'emit'?

This would have been of use for this guy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-52577485

[Confused]

On 3/21/2021 at 8:14 PM, sphinxsix said:

 

I also read this a couple of days ago and I admit I was in shock. My sympathy for bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies had abruptly decreased.

 

 

 

The carbon footprint for Bitcoin is truly shocking.   The carbon footprint for gold mining is over 30,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, but this figure is dwarfed by the 23 megatonnes of CO2 emissions of bit coin.  Plus gold is useful of course, for example the plug at the end of cable I am using for listening to headphones at the moment is plated with it.  It connects well, does not corrode, and it looks nice.

 

It does not stop there.  Look at the carbon footprint of a Cristiano Tweet.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/climate-risk-20-selfie-cristiano-ronaldo-dancing-despacito-assab

 

https://www.rt.com/sport/506960-cristiano-ronaldo-instagram-energy/

 

I guess that a Tweet might serve some kind of purpose in terms of providing information or entertainment, so in that regard it arguably trumps Bitcoin.  

 

Although there is a awful lot posted on-line that serves no purpose or indeed a negative purpose.  

 

This post has a carbon footprint, which will increase every time time someone reads it.  Maybe we should all be a bit more thoughtful regarding the value of what we do on-line.

 

 

 

 

[Confused]

8 minutes ago, Iving said:

Burning - The Sweet (1973)

 

 

Apologies for the off-topic, but this recording is very dear to my heart. It happens to be the B side of the first record I bought. It cost 45 pence, which was a lit of money back then, I would have been 7 years old with about twelve and a half pence a week pocket money. I can recall the lady in the shop saying that it was 45 pence and thinking it can't be that much money, she's got the price mixed up with the record speed. (£0.45p equates to about £3.29 in todays money)

 

My much older brother who was then 17 used to like playing this to his mates and asking them to guess who the band was., Nobody knew the track as it was a B side. Much fun we had when people said, umm, don't know, is it Zeppelin? Deep Purple maybe?

 

A long time ago, but happy memories.

 

Back on topic, how times change. I can remember back then that we had science programmes on TV warning about the growing evidence for how were were progressing into the next ice age. It was also predicted that global oil supplies would run out in about ten years. I can remember worrying that by the time I would be old enough to drive, there would be no petrol left.....

[Confused]

9 minutes ago, Iving said:

 

Beautiful

 

My first record is an embarrassing story. My father was posted in Malta. The only shop was the NAAFI. Folks joked it stood for "Never Aff Any Fing In". I wanted ELO's "Roll Over Beethoven" or Status Quo "Paper Plane". All they had was Neil Diamond "Song Sung Blue". And I bought it anyway.

 

P.S. If you don't know it already, try The Sweet's "Turn It Down". Same vibe. Even better!

Coincidentally, I was listening to some very old Status Quo material recently, and some from when they were the Spectres. Some good stuff there, and what was interesting is that some of it sounds absolutely nothing like Status Quo.

[Confused]

3 hours ago, Confused said:

Apologies for the off-topic, but this recording is very dear to my heart. It happens to be the B side of the first record I bought. It cost 45 pence, which was a lit of money back then, I would have been 7 years old with about twelve and a half pence a week pocket money. I can recall the lady in the shop saying that it was 45 pence and thinking it can't be that much money, she's got the price mixed up with the record speed. (£0.45p equates to about £3.29 in todays money)

 

My much older brother who was then 17 used to like playing this to his mates and asking them to guess who the band was., Nobody knew the track as it was a B side. Much fun we had when people said, umm, don't know, is it Zeppelin? Deep Purple maybe?

 

A long time ago, but happy memories.

 

Back on topic, how times change. I can remember back then that we had science programmes on TV warning about the growing evidence for how were were progressing into the next ice age. It was also predicted that global oil supplies would run out in about ten years. I can remember worrying that by the time I would be old enough to drive, there would be no petrol left.....

EDIT: I have just realised that I made a mistake in the above post. 45p in 1973 would actually be £5.56 today. (for a 45rpm single record) Gosh ....  Makes the 99p downloads from iTunes look very cheap

[Confused]

There was mention of protest songs in the now closed not to be mentioned thread.

 

This is recent protest song, and on topic here:

 

 

The quote at the end is somewhat profound: (and 500 years old, we'll get there one day, maybe)

 

"There is never any shortage of horrible creatures who prey on human beings, snatch away their food, or devour whole populations; but examples of wise social planning are not so easy to find.”
― Thomas More, Utopia - 1516

[Confused]

4 hours ago, sphinxsix said:

An interesting point of view.

 

After Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, America turned its industrial prowess to building tanks, bombers and destroyers. Now, we must respond with renewables

 

"Imagine a Europe that ran on solar and wind power: whose cars ran on locally provided electricity, and whose homes were heated by electric air-source heat pumps. That Europe would not be funding Putin’s Russia, and it would be far less scared of Putin’s Russia – it could impose every kind of sanction, and keep them in place until the country buckled. Imagine an America where the cost of gas was not a political tripwire, because if people had to have a pickup to make them feel sufficiently manly, that pickup would run on electricity that came from the sun and wind. It would take an evil-er genius than Vladimir Putin to figure out how to embargo the sun."

I was actually thinking about all of this. I reckon that Russia's invasion of Ukraine might turn out to provide a far greater influence towards energy transition than COP26  or any of it's predecessors ever could. If nothing else, higher conventional energy prices makes investing in the alternatives more attractive. Time will tell. 

[Confused]

15 hours ago, PYP said:

In the meantime, the confluence of global warming (= severe drought) and war will result in a huge number of people starving or at the point of starvation.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/business/ukraine-russia-wheat-prices.html?searchResultPosition=1

 

Ukraine Invasion Threatens Global Wheat Supply

 

Russia and Ukraine together produce nearly a quarter of the world’s wheat, and coming disruptions could fuel higher food prices and social unrest.

Yes, I was being optimistic in my earlier post, thinking that the desire for regions to have energy security together with the increased costs of conventional energy would actually make green energy truly desirable and politically palatable for many countries and regions, thus enabling the investment it needs.

 

A more pessimistic view would be future wars over water, food and habitable climates .

 

I suspect the future will include elements of both.

 

Regarding water, I last year I watched the documentary "H2O: The Molecule that Made Us". A good watch and included some very interesting material.

 

 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/molecule-that-made-us/home/watch/

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000zgd9/h2o-the-molecule-that-made-us-series-1-3-crisis