Last edited by uziq (2022-06-23 03:04:00)
you truly are a fucking berk. i mean, who even are daewoo, hyundai and samsung, anyway?Not so much energy intensive production though.
Seems like people like you use too much electricity, stop it.
wowsers, me in my studio apartment taking up a giant slice of that '14% residential' electricity consumption profile, i'm sure. lmao.In 2019, [in Korea] about 54% of electricity consumption came from industries, 26% from commercial and service sector enterprises, 14% from the residential sector, and 7% from other sectors such as transportation and agriculture.
Last edited by uziq (2022-06-23 04:15:17)
My point is more that it's funny hearing you speak mockingly(?) of Americans' love for cars and big suburban houses, when you use cars and live in a big suburban house. In a country with a massive footprint tallied at the end of the receipt.Dilbert_X wrote:
Even in America electricity production creates more greenhouse gases than transportation.
But yeah, if people like uziq blame everyone else as they pump out C02 and methane nothing will ever happen.
LMAO
"We should all live like this picture of overpopulated India, then." *sage nod, end of argument*uziq wrote:
no, no, you don't understand, australia's emissions are basically all methane from cows, and dilbert hates cows, never touches meat, abhors the stuff, therefore he can drive his 4x4 subaru to work every day, import goods from abroad to his heart's content, and enjoy an international diet/cuisine from the comfort of his local supermarket –- none of it counts. you're just selfish and don't want to consider YOUR lifestyle.
oh and lest you succeed in making him feel even a little bit shaky about the wastefulness of his lifestyle: alas, there's too many brown people anyway. it's better that a tiny white minority such as dilbert consume and burn up everything in a model of 'good living', rather than we all get dragged horribly back into a lower standard of living, like those subhumans have to put up with on faraway continents.
Why are there so many trees near the buildings?uziq wrote:
erm, korea is one of the biggest shipbuilders in the world thanks to companies like hyundai. it has gigantic steelworks. it also has significant domestic petrochemicals production – which is in turn exported to places like china, vietnam, india, etc, as materials. if australia can shift their 'exported' co2 emissions onto the consuming nations' balance sheets, can't korea in turn with their high-emitting petrochemicals sector?
Last edited by uziq (2022-06-23 15:33:10)
but so are you? lol. i just don't get it. this whole endless back-and-forth has been about YOU making out that your shit doesn't stink, that you're living in some green paradise because your very local state of 1.6 million people manage, occasionally, to generate power using renewables. meanwhile your federal govt are pressing ahead with one of the most widely criticized programmes of fossil fuels expansions at the entire IPCC. australia were almost uniquely singled-out for their cynicism.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is uziq is living a first world lifestyle in a first world country - and one of the biggest coal burners at that, his environmental footprint is right up there in the top 1% however much he says it isn't.
Last edited by uziq (2022-06-29 02:14:57)
Pretty sure you're lapping up plenty of energy, and yes your meat consumption and urban lifestyle is carbon intensive in a country fueled almost entirely by coal which has been shipped half-way round the world. Meat by itself is bad.uziq wrote:
but so are you? lol. i just don't get it. this whole endless back-and-forth has been about YOU making out that your shit doesn't stink, that you're living in some green paradise because your very local state of 1.6 million people manage, occasionally, to generate power using renewables. meanwhile your federal govt are pressing ahead with one of the most widely criticized programmes of fossil fuels expansions at the entire IPCC. australia were almost uniquely singled-out for their cynicism.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is uziq is living a first world lifestyle in a first world country - and one of the biggest coal burners at that, his environmental footprint is right up there in the top 1% however much he says it isn't.
you have continually on this forum over the years preached a gospel of personal responsibility. even going so far as to say that the oil companies could be brought down or to heel if people only stopped buying petrol from forecourts. i mean, LMAO. turns out your lifestyle is world-toppingly carbon intensive/greenhouse gas-emitting, but you think because *checks notes* you're a vegetarian that you can always cast the first stone. it's ludicrous.
i'm a temporary visitor to korea. i am living a very simple, barebones lifestyle. that's what digital nomadism is. in terms of material comforts, domestic luxuries, day-to-day indulgences, etc, your lifestyle is a league above mine. i don't live in a large and spacious suburban home. i don't drive a personal vehicle everywhere. i am living, by design, in a lightweight manner. you continually trying to call me out for my 'hypocrisy' and, erm, 'electricity use', is just very fucking misguided. lol. you undoubtedly use more units of electricity than i do: in your home life, in your work life, in your hobbies. every aspect of your life, professional and personal, is more carbon-intensive than mine. skipping meats doesn't cut it, buddy.
People can insulate their own homes, its really cheap and you can do it yourself.uziq wrote:
anyway. the UK's main climate advisory body released a 600-page report today.
the UK is, of course, on track to miss its 2030 targets in about 6 or 7 different critical ways. mostly to do with targets to sell e-vehicles, reform of the manufacturing and building sectors, and on making much-promised gains in engineering carbon recapture technologies (i.e. deus ex machina stuff).
the one that really stuck out to me, though, was the issue of housing insulation. the UK has some of the most poorly insulated, draughtiest houses in all of europe. building and insulation standards are genuinely shocking. and, the thing is, we don't need cutting-edge green tech or a new engineering breakthrough to fix it: we know how. and, like, it's really cheap. even nationally, it's a cheap scheme compared to many other aspects of the 'green leap forward'.
and people have been advising on this pressing need for years. for multiple governments. there were even nationwide, highly disruptive protests ... about housing insulation ... last year. not exactly asking for world revolution or utopia, is it?
and the right-wing press whipped up a hateful frenzy against the 'hippy climate change woke leftists', of course. because, as well as cancelling humanities and demonising 'CRT' textbooks and 'leftist gurus' on university campuses, the current conservative culture war involves ... fighting a front about loft insulation.
totally fucking mad. the UK could make a substantial gain/contribution towards its net 2030 targets if it fixed its fucking leaky homes.
i really don't know how often you need this totally obvious fact pointed out to you, but suburban living, in detached houses, in nuclear family households with multiple cars on the driveway ... is vastly more carbon-intensive than urban living. you keep maligning cities as if they are the problem. high-density living is literally an improvement on the 1950s suburban model in every single way. the fact you misinterpret this point so singularly makes me think you really haven't thought through this gospel of personal responsibility very honestly with yourself.Dilbert_X wrote:
Pretty sure you're lapping up plenty of energy, and yes your meat consumption and urban lifestyle is carbon intensive in a country fueled almost entirely by coal which has been shipped half-way round the world. Meat by itself is bad.uziq wrote:
but so are you? lol. i just don't get it. this whole endless back-and-forth has been about YOU making out that your shit doesn't stink, that you're living in some green paradise because your very local state of 1.6 million people manage, occasionally, to generate power using renewables. meanwhile your federal govt are pressing ahead with one of the most widely criticized programmes of fossil fuels expansions at the entire IPCC. australia were almost uniquely singled-out for their cynicism.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is uziq is living a first world lifestyle in a first world country - and one of the biggest coal burners at that, his environmental footprint is right up there in the top 1% however much he says it isn't.
you have continually on this forum over the years preached a gospel of personal responsibility. even going so far as to say that the oil companies could be brought down or to heel if people only stopped buying petrol from forecourts. i mean, LMAO. turns out your lifestyle is world-toppingly carbon intensive/greenhouse gas-emitting, but you think because *checks notes* you're a vegetarian that you can always cast the first stone. it's ludicrous.
i'm a temporary visitor to korea. i am living a very simple, barebones lifestyle. that's what digital nomadism is. in terms of material comforts, domestic luxuries, day-to-day indulgences, etc, your lifestyle is a league above mine. i don't live in a large and spacious suburban home. i don't drive a personal vehicle everywhere. i am living, by design, in a lightweight manner. you continually trying to call me out for my 'hypocrisy' and, erm, 'electricity use', is just very fucking misguided. lol. you undoubtedly use more units of electricity than i do: in your home life, in your work life, in your hobbies. every aspect of your life, professional and personal, is more carbon-intensive than mine. skipping meats doesn't cut it, buddy.
Here 60+% of annual electricity consumption is from wind and solar, so really I can, and especially if I pick the time, use as much electricity as I like and the carbon cost is close to zero.
Last edited by uziq (2022-06-29 03:26:38)
yes, and many people's homes were built with shoddy cladding that turns their nice new apartments into giant fire tombs. the developers and govt similarly tried to say to them that they should fork out the cost to replace the original terrible/defective design. 'oh? an engineering company shafted you with dishonest fire safety testing? just pay £40,000 on top of your already onerous mortgage to fix it. your problem'.Dilbert_X wrote:
People can insulate their own homes. Many homes are poorly designed, you just need to go back in time about 50 years and rewrite the building codes.
Last edited by uziq (2022-06-29 03:24:35)
erm, i don't know why you think it's practical to encourage every average family or pensioner in the UK, living in old housing stock, to 'DIY' their missing cavity wall insulation or faulty attic space insulation. most people would hire a professional to unblock a kitchen sink, and you're proposing the whole nation achieves this green target by going down to B&Q and buying up reams of insulation material. LOL.People can literally go to a DIY store and carry insulation back themselves
Last edited by uziq (2022-06-29 03:41:28)
"Nothing wrong with just a little tipple! Other drugs are what's problematic."Researchers are calling for stronger guidance to warn younger adults of the health dangers posed by drinking - and say there should be tailored alcohol guidance to depend on a person's age and where they live in the world.
Some 1.34 billion people are estimated to have consumed harmful amounts of alcohol in 2020, according to the analysis of drinking habits in 204 countries around the world.
The study found 59% of those who drank harmful amounts were aged 15 to 39, and three-quarters of harmful drinkers were men.
They said alcohol provides no health benefit in people aged under 40 - and poses risks including injuries relating to drinking or car accidents, suicides and murders.
