|
|
|
|
|
|
by ClumsyPilot
1511 days ago
|
|
|
Why do you keep trying to prove your original point which is impossible to prove because it contradicts laws of physics? Your claim was that consumption of physical goods, and electric gargets in particular, is a bigger source of emissions than transportation and heating -> that is physically impossible because transportation and heating account for 65% of global energy use! All of industry is 20%, and only a tiny fraction of that is the smartphoens and gadgets. You are railing against 5% of global emissions and are trying to convince me that this is where the problem lies. Also all of your 'individual choices' add up to nothing - residential energy use is 6%, less than half of industry is consumer goods, so add another 6%. So that's 12%, that's about all you can affect. |
|
|
>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.
You and others have insisted on making this a discussion about energy use, despite me repeatedly steering us back to the topic. Electronic gadgets are terrible for the ecosystem, and in more ways than just raw manufacturing energy usage (which is very high, considering the size of the units, and how many of them we get through).
>Your claim was that consumption of physical goods, and electric gargets in particular, is a bigger source of emissions than transportation and heating
In the places where I did make such comparisons, I was talking about domestic transportation and heating, as I hope was clear. As your above figures also show, they are quite comparable.
Does your 6% figure for domestic energy usage include domestic heating? If so, it seems that a lot of your 65% figure for "global transportation and heating" will consist of transportation.
What do you propose we do (or at least, get mandated)?