It's funny how people don't associate the endless stream of shiny gadgets they own, that are stuffed full with the latest and greatest in rare minerals, with the destruction of the ecosystem.
Buying a smartphone every year or two absolutely pales in comparison with having to rent a poorly insulated flat that is heated with oil in a city that forces you to own a car to get to work in a country that mostly burns coal and gas for electricity. Individual choices can only save a small part of your emissions. Blaming individuals for problems that need state policy is an effective tool of fossil fuel interest groups.
Ah so I'm a shill for the fossil fuel industry, because I believe in the power of individual choices? Fantastic. FWIW I had made no mention of emissions - I was talking purely about destruction of the ecosystem (which was the phrase used in the parent comment). I believe that (in some cases, deliberately) ignoring those impacts of our consumer habits makes us in the West the greatest force for planetary destruction. It won't matter if the planet is a few degrees warmer in a few decades, if there are no trees left.
The embodied energy of a person's collection of tech absolutely does sit in the same ballpark as heating and transportation energy costs. Once you've added up your smartwatch, phone, laptop, tv, monitors, etc, I wouldn't be surprised if it was about the same energy as that required to heat your home for a year.
"because I believe in the power of individual choices? "
"The embodied energy of a person's collection of tech absolutely does sit in the same ballpark as heating and transportation energy costs."
You believe in silly ideas like this because you never bothered tp grab a calculator. If you did, you would know that embodied energy of all you electronics in a couple 1000 megajoules. Thats the same as two tanks of petrol, and all you life choices add up to nothing.
We've been at this 'individual responsebility' crap for 50 years. They've got you right where they want tou.
>If you did, you would know that embodied energy of all you electronics in a couple 1000 megajoules.
A very quick Google will tell you that a laptop alone is 4500MJ, or about 4 tanks of petrol (although I'm not too sure about that source, as it claims that a refrigerator is even more than that).
Once again, I'll point out that I started out discussing the overall environmental impacts. CO2 emissions and energy usage are only part of that - how do you justify the mineral extraction techniques that are necessary for all of the nice shiny things we own?
Using your argument back at you, who benefits from claiming that it's ok to continue consuming as we are because the government isn't forcing us to behave better? They've got you right where they want you - a righteous eco warrior with all the gadgets.
Yes, the embodied energy of our gadgets and toys isn't everything (and is not the only "life choice" I make). However, it's significant, especially coupled with the other environmental harms. If it's so essential to save the planet that we must all switch to EVs (and for about a 50% reduction in CO2 output over the lifetime of the car), where's the argument that we need half the number of TVs?
Edit:
>a couple 1000 megajoules. Thats the same as two tanks of petrol
Yes, hydrocarbons are unreasonably energy-dense and cheap. I hope you're ready for them becoming very expensive/unavailable.
> a laptop alone is 4500MJ, or about 4 tanks of petrol
Doesnt matter, make it 10. My laptop is 5 years old. So, how it even close to the amount tou spend on transport or heating in 3 months. You claim is preposterous! They are small objects, they don't add up to much!
"how do you justify the mineral extraction techniques that are necessary for all of the nice shiny things we own?"
The younger generatuon owns less stuff than the generstion before. Car ownership is down, home ownership is down, tb owneship, fancy camera owneship. How many hundreds of smartphones do you think it takes to make up the resources consumed by one car?
>How many hundreds of smartphones do you think it takes to make up the resources consumed by one car?
Interesting question. According to this source[1], a car, weighing 20,000 times more than a mobile phone, takes 400 times the energy to manufacture. Alternatively, one car is 22 laptops, or 100 tablets. As we seem to get through electronics at maybe 5-10x the rate of cars, those numbers start to look pretty close. Hopefully, you don't have a desktop too, as there are about 10 of those to one car. Nor one of those fancy new ultrawidescreen TVs, as there are less than a handful of those to one car[2]
From that same paper, an obsession with just the energy cost of items completely misses the point. Eg:
"There is significant concern regarding the uncertainty around GHG emissions abatement for integrated circuit and LCD screen fabrication—particularly for perfluorinated compounds (PFC). PFCs range between 7,000 and 17,000 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide (CO2) based on 100-year Global Warming Potential GWP5. And while CO2 has atmospheric lifetimes between 30 and 95 years, PFCs can last 740 to 50,000 years (Pew Climate 2010)."
I'm not really sure why I'm complaining. Thanks to investments in the company my partner works for (a mining company), this renewables and tech boom is doing great things for our finances. Do you have any interests in mining?