I'm happy to pay the extra cost to heat the room I'm in with a space heater in the winter time.
I'm happy to pay the extra cost
As an aside, we've got the externalities of climate change all wrong. Oil is a non renewable resource. We can't just give the planet a bunch of money and have it produce more oil for us to burn when we're uncomfortable. This cost is not really borne by you; it'll be borne by future generations.
It goes against common sense but is human nature.
I don't fault them for it, I'm guilty of it in some situations.
If you care about climate change, you should be advocating for completely green electricity generation, and carbon-neutral synthetic fuels. That would completely solve the fundamental problem.
Our society is fundamentally based on energy, and people like to use energy towards things that give them comfort. Taking away comfort is going to be a "nope" for most people.
It's unfortunate, but it does appear to have the opposite effect on some section of the populace. They just get pissed off and consume more out of spite. One thing to temper that is to massively tax (over-) consumption. Use taxes tend to be regressive, so to avoid targeting the poor, there needs to be some thought put into the tax structure.
If politics is the issue, let's not start about politics and partisanship? I don't know much about USA politics but it seems to me that this automatically turns your comment into something to ignore and dismiss for precisely half your population, as they're part of the party you're blaming as a whole (which might or might not be a fair thing to do).
Clean energy production is an everyone problem. I'd encourage not letting politicians pit you against other parts of the population, which is just an emotionally satisfying substitute to actually addressing fundamental problems.
You can both work with the current reality, where energy produced by non-renewable means should be used with more thought while advocating for a better solution for the future so you can have your luxury of heating the house to 25C if you so wish and can afford to...
I agree on not letting politicians pit one against other parts of the population, I also believe that people should take responsibility and be mindful of the luxuries they want and what's the cost to the general society, not only that you can afford to do it even though it's detrimental to others.
Although I agree that it isn't, in practicality most people do actually think that way, and have room in their heads for only one approach to a given problem.
And many people, for whatever reason, tend to prefer "solutions" that involve hating on some other part of the population. Politicians use this to great effect to avoid actually addressing problems.
This is the reason I so strongly advocate for focusing on fundamentals instead of the limited-return shame-based approaches.
And thus create a Veblen good, or a political status good.
Big trucks are a status symbol in part because they are gas guzzlers.
> completely green electricity generation
The problem with green electricity is that there is no such thing as green electricity.
The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan?
The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with.
I don't think green means complete equilibrium with the environment. It just means it is from renewable resources.
Maybe you mean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy
> The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan?
These are all things that can be recycled given the correct application of energy. Not profitably as a standalone enterprise of course, but energetically positive in comparison to what a given installation produces in its lifetime. Therefore the added cost can be baked into the final cost of the energy produced.
> The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with.
Most of us don't care for your extreme version of "green", so I'll point back to my original comment. You're not going to be able to convince people to willingly give up comfort, so focus on reducing the impacts of people deciding to live that way. "Much better" is worse than "perfect", but "much better" is still better than what we're doing today. You're not going to get "perfect" unless humanity is wiped out completely.
Thing is with wind and solar, that’s the total harm done. When averaged out over the MWh they produce, you realise that in comparison to coal, oil or gas based power their CO2 impact is utterly negligible.
Is there more that can be done to reduce it further? Sure.
But saying because there is some lifecycle CO2 in their usage means they should be considered harmful is like saying cycling to work is harmful just like taking a helicopter, because rubber tyres aren’t entirely environmentally friendly. It’s honestly that absurd a comparison.
I'm in no way advocating for burning coal/oil/gas. I'm advocating for reduction.
If we were looking for an alternative, how is total (incl build/destruction) CO2 impact of wind/solar/etc compared to nuclear energy?
You know without any energy generation limitations, I once calculated that we could grow enough food to feed the world in less than 10000 skyscraper farms and return all those millions of hectares of cropland, pastures and plantations that we have terraformed over thousands of years to nature.
Yes, but we can try to do something about those "Green" activists who prevent the proliferation of the cleanest power on Earth: nuclear energy. Look at what did they do to Germany!
"Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?" (2022) [0]
"Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking" (2017) [1]
"German green group branded a Russian ‘puppet’ over Nord Stream II gas pipeline" (2021) [2]
[0]: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-envi...
[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredi...
[2]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/german-green-group-brande...
Increased low carbon energy by more than the first twelve years of the messmer plan in spite of being betrayed by the SDR immediately and then having the conservatives cut funding further?
"The anti-nuclear movement was one of the key driving factors behind the foundation of the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) in 1980." [0]
[0]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
It's not customer's duty to pay more then they are asked, either in money or in inconvenience.
Bad actors in the economy tend to exploit such mix ups to shift the burden away from them.
Read up on introduction and promotion of the concept of individual carbon footprint. Or the reality of recycling which was promoted as alternative to producers of plastic being directly responsible for introducing plastic into the environment.
What's the point of resources if they're not consumed? If we follow your advice to its logical conclusion, then we'd have oils that are consumed by nobody, because every generation doesn't want to consume it for fear of "cost [...] borne by future generations".
Just to add some nuance, this seems to imply everyone has the same environmental psychology. There are lots of (often competing) perspectives. If you have a utilitarian environmental psychology, you may think resources are there to be consumed for human benefit. If you instead have a stewardship environmental psychology, you may feel its your duty to protect those resources from being pilfered.
Stephen Kellert has a good description of these different perspectives in "The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature". Some of his categories include: utilitarian, naturalistic, ecologistic-scientific, aesthetic, symbolic, humanistic, moralistic, dominionistic, and negativistic. Other researchers define the human-environment interactions differently. For example, [1] defines them in terms of master, apathy, steward, partner, participant, and user. So it's not hard to see why people's thoughts differ on this issue. Like with most human value systems, it's not likely that there is a singular "right" perspective.
[1] https://www.academia.edu/download/53480185/Yoshida_et_al._20...
That's not really the logical conclusion of my advice. In actuality, there's a lot of possibilities between "I'm the one buying it, so I'm the only one dealing with the consequences" and "Not use any oil at all". But I get it, it's easier to argue against strawmen.
It's also easier to feel smug and accuse people of strawmanning when you're engaging in motte and bailey :^)
Accusations of fallacy aside, what is your actual argument then? That there's some non-zero harm inflicted on future generations when we consume fossil fuels, because they won't be able to use them anymore? That would seem like the motte argument, because it's trivially true, but what does this translate in terms of how we should behave? A cost of $0.000001 would be trivially easy to defend, but also means I can turn my thermostat to 78F guilt free.
You also argue that we've "we've got the externalities of climate change all wrong", implying that the future generations not being able to use fossil fuels is somehow worse than people being displaced by climate change today. What is your basis for that?
(Using oil for heating is outrageous, of course; as Mendeleev have said, it is exactly the same as heating your fireplace with money bills).
this is because we don't use very much nuclear power. There is currently enough known uranium reserves to provide 2 years of global energy production at current rates.
Moving the blame from corporations to the individual is how companies have avoided doing anything to combat climate change and only serves to make the individuals who do the blaming self righteous and the ones being blamed bad.
In fact, the person trying to shift blame here is you: by downplaying the smaller yet still significant role of individuals in a sustainable future.
We could easily have abundant nuclear energy so that “home heating” would be a non-issue and trivial cost.
Everyone's all "we must care about the environment" but then you ask them why Germany isn't reforesting (after razing the cities they built on old forests) and why Europe is deforesting at an accelerated rate and it's all this and that.
My favorite t-shirt is now a lightweight filson 100% wool shirt that is just as comfortable by itself at 80 deg as it is under a button up shirt at 30 deg.
And doesn't get cold when wet like cotton does.
It really does fit the "life changing" topic if you've never tried it.
https://www.filson.com/tops/210g-merino-wool-short-sleeve-cr...
> Merino wool is able to ditch the itch thanks to its fiber's smaller diameter, or being “finer”. These fibers are more flexible and softly bend when pressed against the skin and, therefore, don't itch like other wool.
https://www.smartwool.com/discover/why-merino-wool/merino-wo...
There are other wools like possum wool with similar properties that are less ambiguous in terms of ethics. Merino can be ethically sourced.
If usage of animal products is a concern, that seems hardly relevent to a question of the feel of the material. I applaud the concern, just find the "could be" to be glib and/or ignorant
Plus, y’know, winter clothes are the best clothes. Tweeds, woolens, gloves, coats, scarves, hats: all these are great!
I was amazed to find out that even in this air conditioned age we spend far more heating buildings than air conditioning them (four times as much, according to the first Google hit I just found). That means that it makes a lot more sense to dress warmly in the winter than lightly in the summer.
"radiant IR" (red glowing elements) type heaters are wonderful tools for heating the body instead of the air.
(But if you've got some kind of super-insulated house, then never mind.)
If anyone her wants to pay the postage from NZ, I'll happily send them around the world for no cost :)
Alternatively, keep some fingerless gloves around - or learn to knit/crochet/sew and make some (they aren't all that complicated for something basic). For around the house, you could honestly convert some socks if you aren't worried about how they might look. I'd get some of the no-fray glue they sell at craft stores if you go this route. These are great when you are idle.
What can the doctor do about it?
Yes, doctor said I have poor circulation in my extremities. Except she said that using Latin, so that was super helpful. /s
From what I've read, the body primarily measures core temp around the chest, so wearing lots of layers on the body can cause the extremities to get cold since the body goes "everything is warm enough, no need to even try and warm things up with extra blood flow!"
So paradoxically, wearing less clothes can help.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2022/01/the-revenge-of-the-h...
(HN discussion from 2022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30023681)
Also, I'm not sure if there is an easy way to actually increase humidity without reducing the temperature. From my experience, increasing humidity while keeping the overall temperature at the same time requires additional energy.
Also, less humid air may allow you to actually wear less cloths as it is more difficult for the air to get energy off your body.
So, in that environment adding moisture makes the air warmer. (with proper heating of course)
I learned from a swimming teacher "water transmits heat/cold 10 times faster than air", therefore a logical conclusion is that dry air is insulating more than moist air.
Heat and cold transfer in air happens, just take your shirt off, you feel the temperature change immediately. Go to a very, very cold climate with dry air, if there is no wind, it truly doesn't affect you that badly. Same with Arizona in the summer ("it's a dry heat" is a state motto, IIRC)
In my experience 60 is cold no matter what. But feeling cold at 70 degrees stinks.
In England or Ireland? Ya, damp all the time all winter. It just depends on the environment. (don't want anymore moisture in the air)
You simply need layers and good enough deodorant. A bit of experience helps as well - you learn how warm to keep your base layer after some time. If you sweat in non-standard places (like under breasts), spray deodorant might be your friend.
I personally deal with this because of hormones - I'm a female in my mid-40s, so I get to have hot flashes and night sweats during part of my cycle right now.
For instance, I've finally learned to embrace "long-john" style long underwear under my pants, but it's only possible because I'm working from home. They are amazing layers for warmth, but unlike additional shirts, hoodies, jackets, scarves, hats, long underwear can't be casually removed. You have to take off your shoes and your pants! So if (when) I was going into an office, I always made the choice to have cold legs during the commute but comfortable legs all day. Now I can wear them in the morning, take them off if the day warms up, and put them back on whenever the temp. drops again.
But overall I'll echo a few comments in here that some of the more expensive gear, even as base layers, really is better technology. And getting to know my body and my situational habits, it's been possible to figure out layering clothing that worked for me, but only because I was working in tech and felt like I had enough money to get it wrong a couple times... If I were still living on a student or even "average" budget, I would've been much shyer about trying some new $30 shirt just to see if it agreed with me.
It's extremely worth over-insulating by default because it's so easy to fix: unzip a little. An extra $50-100 on something that'll last a decade is an excellent cost/benefit ratio, and if you're somewhere that gets truly cold it can literally be a safety issue.
But what do you do when you're spread-eagle naked in the shade and still sweating like a pig? That's not a place for humans =)
There is a saying where I live that wind is when the sheep don’t have curly hair anymore. And rain when the fish are swimming on your eye level.
In all seriousness though, it’s of course true.
something like these https://www.primark.com/en-gb/p/thinsulate-knitted-gloves-bl.... The particular ones I have also seem to work somewhat on touchscreens which is useful for the commute home
My main issue in the winter is my feet. (And I hate slippers.) Maybe I'll get one of these and put it under my desk.
[0] https://www.birkenstock.com/us/arizona-essentials/arizona-ev...
[1] - https://www.thenorthface.com/en-us/sale-c829803/mens-thermob...
Sigh, wish I could design my own.
This works even when my hands are the only part of my body that feel cold. The body is effectively prioritizing keeping my core warm instead of the extremities, so adding insulation to the body has the trickle-down effect of warming the hands. On the other hand, trying to warm just the hands never feels like enough.
The scarf goes on the inside of the coat.
If you put the scarf on the outside, like you think you've seen in TV and movies, it's just decoration. Put it on the inside and it's an insulation layer and it blocks the cold air from blowing down your front. Absolutely game-changing. (Also, have a good coat, but that one seems more obvious to people.)
Hollywood doesn't know what winter is :P
I can tie a scarf to be just slightly looser than the gaiter, and the extra space decreases the dampness massively, while still retaining almost all of the warmth.
It does get a bit moist after prolonged biking, but not badly, and that's not really against my skin.
The main effect is that there's a little pocket of exhaled warm air, just enough to mix with the next inhalation and help warm it a bit.
I don't know what happened but it is as if this was never a problem at all. And it is not "getting used to the bad thing" I just don't feel bad at all.
Breathing through the nose only helps.
At my local college there are a lot of people from the Bahamas. They often wear hoodies and sandals with socks in the winter! It can get to -20C here and hoodies just won't cut it and sandals with socks could very quickly mean frost bite.
Yes scarfs are great since necks are a prime spot to loose heat during winter. A scarf or even a hood both together are even better. Long coats too none of these waits level ones get a coat at least past your waist preferably past your butt.
Layers are important more for temperature control. Even a hoodies and some sweaters can be warm if you have enough and one outside with wind protection.
Boots not sneakers to keep warm and the grip. So many people wear sneakers all winter now it blows me away. They're slippery, cold, and they probably cost more than winter boots these days.
But for a few years I lived in a very well insulated (smallish) apartment in a moderate climate. When it would get cold, I would turn the heat on. My bill would go up by a few dollars.
Then, I changed jobs and started working in a colder building. I spent more on warm clothes than I usually spent on heat! (And I had baseboard resistive heating, and I payed extra for wind power.)
A sweater and warm socks are game changers, as is a warm winter jacket and a good scarf. Add some tea and candles and the winter isn't half bad anymore. It's much easier to get through the cold months if you don't dread being outside.
So most likely you still need to keep heating on but it might not need to be super high - just enough to have convection from heater moving air at home and having some ventilation letting in a bit of outside air in and warm one getting moisture out.
I wish floor heating was more widespread where I live.
Just silly not to focus the heat where the need is. Do you light up the whole house to illuminate your desk?
I'm not guessing or imagining anything, I know it's much worse.
I focus the heat where the need is - the air around me. Otherwise, everything you touch is cold, the air you breath is cold, exposed skin gets cold. Sex only under blankets? No thanks.
To be clear, I'm not talking about freezing, everything under 18 degrees C is really cold for me, and under 23 degrees C is somewhat cold.
People talk about wearing fingerless gloves at home - yeah I did that as a kid because we were poor, never doing it again unless I go broke.
That's what happens when central planning makes the above observation.
I just moved and now renting a place with electric water heater with pump moving that heated water around via radiators. It is quite large apartment with shitty, to be honest, insulation. The difference between "I put several layers of clothes on" and "I am wearing a t-shirt" is about 600 kWh per month. The same amount of energy is needed to prodice 30 kg of aluminium or run a single rack in a datacenter for just 2 days.
Never in your life your energy consumption can be compared with industrial usage. Likewise, never in you life your water consuption can reach a visible fraction of agricultural irrigation. Stop listening to coprorate PR.
If every home ran a server rack for two days a month, or produced 30kg of aluminum, that would obviously add up extremely quickly.
In the winter, I used to stay warm by turning up the thermostat. Then I discovered (via HN) the Low-Tech Magazine article, "Insulation: first the body, then the home." [0] The article argued that it's much more efficient to focus on heating yourself rather than your whole living space.
I invested in high-quality wool clothes that I wear in layers and warm slippers. Now, I keep my home about 5 degrees F cooler than I used to for the same comfort, and it's a big reduction in oil and wood consumption for home heat.
[0] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/02/body-insulation-ther...