Guardian: Carbon myths
Faubillaud
Carbon myths
Recycling and banning plastic bags are all very well, but they won't save
the planet. Instead, we should fly less, go vegan and insulate the loft,
says Chris Goodall
* Chris Goodall
* The Guardian,
* Thursday December 13 2007
The global warming consequences of our personal actions are usually
invisible to us. We have no easy means of knowing how our way of life
generates carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases. It is far from
obvious that it takes more energy to produce a paper bag than its plastic
equivalent, or that extra loft insulation usually reduces gas consumption
more than solar panels. Unsurprisingly, this means that most of us are
ignorant about what really matters, which makes us vulnerable to comforting
half-truths. These myths are a problem in themselves because they discourage
us from addressing the important sources of emissions. But our ignorance
also encourages businesses to promote goods and services that offer little
or no carbon-saving.
So, for example, when British people are asked in surveys about the actions
they can take to be more responsible about global warming, domestic
recycling always comes top. Reducing air travel comes far down the list. But
the global warming impact of our Mediterranean holidays is hundreds of times
more than the toll from not recycling. We see the plastics going into the
dustbin every week, but pollutants from jet engines are hidden. So people
who carefully sort their recycling every week continue to fly. And
businesses that are trying to be ethical devote more effort to reducing
packaging than getting their employees to travel less.
We like our myths. Suggesting that British league football isn't the best in
the world or that Monty Python wasn't always funny is a quick way to start
an argument and lose friends. But some of our cherished carbon myths are
dangerously counterproductive. Here is my list of the most common:
I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local farmers'
market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a householder replaces
all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly electricity consumption is
likely to be no more than about 400 units (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma
TV bought at the same time will outweigh any energy savings. The government
talks about banning old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive
impact on energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games
consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their manufacturers
and the online brochures usually omit all details of electricity use. I
couldn't find a single retailer that dares to list the power consumption of
plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting home electricity consumption? Keep
your old TV. If you still feel the need to buy something, get a new
super-efficient fridge.
Nothing arouses fury like the disposable plastic supermarket bag. Gordon
Brown singled them out in his first speech on climate change as prime
minister. The widespread hatred now extends to almost all plastic food
packaging. But although plastic bags are detestable, they are almost
irrelevant to climate change. Each of us uses about 2kg a year of shopping
bags, and they perform multiple useful functions in the home after they have
carried our shopping from the supermarket. Food packaging of all types is no
more than 5% of the weight of our groceries. Wasted food, which rots in
landfill and generates methane, is a far more serious cause of global
warming. Rather than getting our retailers to strip the 3g of protective
polythene from our cucumbers, we need to concentrate on reducing the 30% of
food that goes to waste every week.
There is nothing wrong with hybrid petrol/electric cars. But they are an
extraordinarily expensive way of avoiding emissions. The Toyota Prius may be
lovely, but its emissions are no better than the latest generation of small
diesels, which cost little more than half the price. Buy a small car instead
and spend the savings on insulating your walls. It will have far more
effect. Worried about the effect on your status of driving a small car? Buy
an electric vehicle and people will simply think of you as eccentric.
It makes sense to avoid unnecessary transport of food. Local food is fresher
and probably healthier, and your purchase contributes to the local economy.
But food transport, unless it is by air, is usually a relatively small part
of a meal's carbon impact. Reducing the amount of meat you eat has far more
effect than deciding to buy locally. A kilo of beef from the farm next door
will have 50 times the global warming effect of a can of beans shipped from
Canada. Taking a few steps towards a vegan diet will reduce carbon emissions
far more than local purchasing. Avoiding meat and also buying locally is
better still.
Politicians extol the virtues of domestic generation of electricity. The
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to paying us
45p a unit for electricity from the solar panels on our roof, about 10 times
the wholesale price paid to the large, coal-fired Drax power station, in
North Yorkshire. Microgeneration may be fashionable, but it is an
astonishingly expensive way of reducing emissions. Less glamorous, but more
effective, would be a plan to put a £20 note in the centre of every roll of
loft insulation. British houses are the worst insulated in northern Europe
and subsidised insulation would cut emissions far more cheaply than
encouraging wind turbines or solar photovoltaic panels
Myth 1 Eco lightbulbs are the best way to save electricity at home
Myth 2 Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions
Myth 3 All packaging is wicked
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
Myth 5 Avoid food miles
Myth 6 Microgeneration is a good way for Britain to cut emissions
· Chris Goodall is the author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life (Earthscan)
and founder of carboncommentary.com
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/13/ethicalliving.carbonfootpr
ints
AllEmailDeletedImmediately
"Faubillaud" <faubi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C386FBC5.E9E1%faubi...@hotmail.com...
> Ethical living
> Carbon myths
the big one is that humans are causing global warming.
it's the sun. it's surface is getting more active. this
planet has been warmer in the past.
global warming: just another way to scare you into submission.
Rod Speed
> Ethical living
> Carbon myths
> Recycling and banning plastic bags are all very well, but they won't
> save the planet. Instead, we should fly less, go vegan and insulate
> the loft, says Chris Goodall
And you could just cut to the chase and kill yourself thoughtfully too.
Dont make a mess.
Don Klipstein
>I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local farmers'
>market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a householder replaces
>all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly electricity consumption is
>likely to be no more than about 400 units (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma
>TV bought at the same time will outweigh any energy savings. The government
>talks about banning old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive
>impact on energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games
>consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their manufacturers
>and the online brochures usually omit all details of electricity use. I
>couldn't find a single retailer that dares to list the power consumption of
>plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting home electricity consumption? Keep
>your old TV. If you still feel the need to buy something, get a new
>super-efficient fridge.
Most flat-screen TVs are LCD ones, which consume about 1/2-2/3 as much
power as CRT ones of the same size when the size is a common CRT size,
75-80% or so for larger sizes such as 32 inches. Plasma TVs consume only
slightly more power than LCD ones of the same size.
This link shows some sampling results indicating that plasma has about
the same power consumption per unit screen area as a CRT, for larger
sizes. Power consumption per unit screen area for CRT is greater in
smaller sizes.
The big factor explaining why plasma TVs consume more power is the fact
that they tend to be big. Size matters!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
> In <C386FBC5.E9E1%faubi...@hotmail.com>, Faubillaud wrote in part:
>
>> I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local
>> farmers' market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a
>> householder replaces all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly
>> electricity consumption is likely to be no more than about 400 units
>> (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma TV bought at the same time will
>> outweigh any energy savings. The government talks about banning
>> old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive impact on
>> energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games
>> consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their
>> manufacturers and the online brochures usually omit all details of
>> electricity use. I couldn't find a single retailer that dares to
>> list the power consumption of plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting
>> home electricity consumption? Keep your old TV. If you still feel
>> the need to buy something, get a new super-efficient fridge.
> Most flat-screen TVs are LCD ones,
Wrong, and you say the opposite below.
> which consume about 1/2-2/3 as much power as CRT ones of the same size when
> the size is a common CRT size, 75-80% or so for larger sizes such as 32 inches.
> Plasma TVs
Which are flat screen TVs.
> consume only slightly more power than LCD ones of the same size.
You say the opposite below.
> This link shows some sampling results indicating that plasma has about the
> same power consumption per unit screen area as a CRT, for larger sizes.
So much for the previous claim.
> Power consumption per unit screen area for CRT is greater in smaller sizes.
> The big factor explaining why plasma TVs consume more
> power is the fact that they tend to be big. Size matters!
There are plenty of LCDs that big too.
Siskuwihane
> Faubillaud <faubill...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Ethical living
> > Carbon myths
> > Recycling and banning plastic bags are all very well, but they won't
> > save the planet. Instead, we should fly less, go vegan and insulate
> > the loft, says Chris Goodall
>
> And you could just cut to the chase and kill yourself thoughtfully too.
>
> Dont make a mess.
Rod's saving the earth by living in a cardboard box.
Bill Rider
I didn't see your link. Here's one:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=arw
There are 9 42" plasmas. They range from 188 to 464 Watts and average 286.
There are 4 42" LCDs. They range from 202 to 236 Watts and average 215.
I run my LCD computer monitor well below the maximum brightness unless
the room is full of sunlight. Maybe the power consumption of big TVs is
normally lower than the published figures.
Jeff
I have some memory of discussing this a few months back. Most LCD TVs
consumed far more than a similar sized LCD monitor, the reason being
that TVs generally had higher brightness.
But of note was that reducing the "brightness" on an LCD had little
effect on power consumption. Apparently this is because the illuminating
source does not change in value, but rather the LCD opens up more or
closes off more light. That seems about right and I believe projectors
have the same fixed number of lumens at the source itself, regardless of
brightness setting. For some light sources (incandescent in
particular) color temperature changes depend on output.
I have no idea how plasma TVs operate but I would think it to be very
different. I know that you can reduce power consumption in a tube by
rolling back the brightness or turning on the energy saver feature.
The point is still valid though about the exploding size of TV's (not
to be confused with exploding TVs) in general. At least in the US, where
I am, consumption rules.
Jeff
Bill Rider
Now I'm curious about my monitor. When I get a chance I'll measure the
watts dim and bright. One energy-saving design scheme for handheld
devices is to sense the ambient light and adjust the backlight accordingly.
This document says some LCD TVs allow an adjustment of of the backlight,
which can save 25%:
I must have been wrong assuming they all did it.
Anthony Matonak
> Now I'm curious about my monitor. When I get a chance I'll measure the
> watts dim and bright. One energy-saving design scheme for handheld
> devices is to sense the ambient light and adjust the backlight accordingly.
>
> This document says some LCD TVs allow an adjustment of of the backlight,
> which can save 25%:
>
> http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/tv_vcr/Ecos_Presentation.pdf
It would depend on the source of the light. Big LCD displays typically
use cold cathode fluorescent lights that can't be dimmed. Small LCD,
like cell phones and PDAs, use LED backlights. LED backlights have
started to surface in some high end LCD monitors because they produce
better colors.
Anthony
Bill Rider
I hadn't thought about it so I looked it up. This page says
cold-cathode fluorescents are ideal for dimming. It takes a ballast
that can be adjusted to skip pulses.
http://www.sailboatstuff.com/lt_cold_cathode_linear.html
Don Klipstein
Cold cathode fluorescents can be dimmed, and actually do well with
dimming. The usual fluorescent problem with dimming is with the
more-usual (and more-efficient) hot cathode types.
If you have a monitor whose backlight is actually dimmable, then you can
get energy savings from the dimming. Problem is presence of means to dim
the backlight - a bit easier for LED, a bit more difficult for cold
cathode fluorescent, and a bit more difficult still with hot cathode
fluorescent.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)