U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-26-2014, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Northern Maine
9,766 posts, read 14,894,747 times
Reputation: 9563

Advertisements

Illegal aliens are not carbon based. They are silicon based. Everybody knows that, right? ;-)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-26-2014, 10:53 AM
 
7,281 posts, read 8,832,318 times
Reputation: 11419
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Where is the link to where these figures are coming from?

For starters California imports a lot of electric, has that been taken into consideration?

Along the same lines a few years ago NJ and some other New England states most whom are net importers of electric were suing PA and other net exporters of electric. Seems to me the easy fix would have been to cut the cord to those states. See how fast they drop the lawsuit when the lights in Atlantic City go out. Matter of fact if anyone should be suing anyone it should be be PA suing NJ for all the environmental damage their electric usage is causing in the state of PA.
I prefer that individuals look up the info themselves, that way they can't say too much about the source. There are many sources for the information and almost all of it a little dated.

The carbon footprint is based upon consumption, not imports of anything. The measurement/calculations are made at the point of use.

Following that, if the import of electricity were included, California would look much better. Once you go down that road, states like Texas (the worst) would look much better since they produce a lot but don't consume all of it.

The ideas of cutting cords with non-energy producing states is as old as politics. PA has a choice, don't sell the energy and cut back on production. That is a double edged sword though as are all ideas about states withholding goods or services from one another. It often comes up when talk of secession is a topic.

You bring up a good point, that entire North East corridor and the effects of power production is a mess. It goes back to the heavy industry days when all that mattered was production. Instead of planning and creating the manufacturing and industrial capacities to be competitive and environmentally conscious, we simply shipped the manufacturing to other countries as if somehow the pollution got shipped with it. As a country, we look at things like this the wrong way. We applaud politicians who come up with things like banning this and that all the while deals are made to exempt certain industries or companies from adhering to common good efforts when it comes to managing waste and reducing pollution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,536,189 times
Reputation: 10573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
California has about 3 times the military population as Hawaii.
California has 27 times the population of Hawai'i. As a percentage of population, California's military presence is actually well below average for the country.

Quote:
Fact is, Hawaii doesn't even make the top 10 list for military populations.
Fact is Hawai'i is #40 for total population, while California is #1. As a percentage of population - or per capita, if you prefer - Hawai'i has nearly 11X the military presence that California does.

Quote:
But lets not let facts get in the way.
But let's not let statistical honesty get in the way. If you're going to try to make a point about per capita carbon emissions, then you have to stay with per capita figures for the rest of the comparison.

Quote:
Besides, what does North Carolina have to do with California? Nice try with distraction though.
No distraction, simply a quick comparison with the largest military base in the country, with roughly the same size military population as Hawai'i... and same size carbon footprint for the state... but Hawai'i only has 1/7th the total population that NC does. The point being that military operations are a huge factor in total emissions in the US, and the DOD is at the top of the list for total carbon footprint.

Quote:
As for the comparison, opposite ends of the spectrum are always good comparisons. Likewise when so much boasting about Hawaii goes on and on and on... It seems not a thread goes by without Hawaii being cited as some example of green greatness, a little reality check can't hurt.
This paragraph betrays the error of your way of thinking. This is not a competition, not a game to make points in, and I mention Hawai'i, when I do, simply because it is where I live and it's what I know first hand. We're way behind the curve in many important ways that I freely admit... for instance the Big Island must be near the bottom for internet connectivity and reliability, our road and water infrastructure is terrible, and our state school system is at the bottom. Plus our electricity rate is very near the highest in the country.

Which is precisely WHY there is so much proactivity here about developing alternate energy resources. In Hawai'i County alone, which has a smaller total land area than Los Angeles county, you can find electricity feeding into the grid from virtually every practical renewable resource... solar PV, solar concentrator, wind turbine, hydro, geothermal, hydrothermal, biomass, etc. And you could literally reach every single one in a single day's drive. If there is a more concentrated example of more kinds of Green Energy in use anywhere, I'm not aware of it.

Quote:
The whole picture is this, Hawaii is anything but a poster state for managing it's carbon footprint.
No, because we can't control what the military does. But for Green Energy exploration and utilization, per capita, we're fully engaged, which is all I've ever said. Plus, with our palm trees and beaches and surf and sun, we definitely have the prettiest poster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:16 AM
 
39,190 posts, read 40,571,673 times
Reputation: 16071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
I prefer that individuals look up the info themselves,
If you are going to use specific figures for an argument you should cite the source.


Quote:
Following that, if the import of electricity were included, California would look much better.
It's not going to look better if they are including imports of energy. If California is importing X amount of electricity from Texas that is generated from fossil fuels that's going to increase their total and decrease Texas.


Quote:
The ideas of cutting cords with non-energy producing states is as old as politics. PA has a choice, don't sell the energy and cut back on production. That is a double edged sword though as are all ideas about states withholding goods or services from one another. It often comes up when talk of secession is a topic.
It will never happen but the point is it's maddening. I brought this up in another discussion and someone from NJ chimed in that NJ is putting in all these gas plants and won't need electric from PA in the future... where do you think the gas is coming from?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:19 AM
Zot
 
Location: 3rd rock from a nearby star
468 posts, read 579,310 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplcr0331 View Post
How do we measure the carbon footprint of illegal aliens? Are they factored into the picture?
It's a reasonable question for a green thread. Those who immigrate to the U.S. create larger carbon footprints than they would in 2nd and 3rd world nations. Per capita energy consumption isn't up in the U.S. for almost a generation, indigenous birth is below replacement most years for a generation, our population only increases as a result of immigration. Thus our energy consumption increases due to immigration (legal and not).

When we discuss immigration or amnesty, we should consider the carbon load.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,536,189 times
Reputation: 10573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zot View Post
It's a reasonable question for a green thread. Those who immigrate to the U.S. create larger carbon footprints than they would in 2nd and 3rd world nations. Per capita energy consumption isn't up in the U.S. for almost a generation, indigenous birth is below replacement most years for a generation, our population only increases as a result of immigration. Thus our energy consumption increases due to immigration (legal and not). When we discuss immigration or amnesty, we should consider the carbon load.
Ummmmm... Zot.... you previously mentioned being somewhat humor impaired. This is one of those times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:31 AM
 
Location: DC
6,507 posts, read 6,426,164 times
Reputation: 3107
What's the carbon footprint of a red herring?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,536,189 times
Reputation: 10573
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
It will never happen but the point is it's maddening. I brought this up in another discussion and someone from NJ chimed in that NJ is putting in all these gas plants and won't need electric from PA in the future... where do you think the gas is coming from?
They should pay attention to the situation with Russia providing all the natural gas to the Ukaraine. I'd hate to see Pennsylvania invade New Jersey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Volcano
12,971 posts, read 23,536,189 times
Reputation: 10573
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Where is the link to where these figures are coming from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife View Post
I prefer that individuals look up the info themselves, that way they can't say too much about the source. There are many sources for the information and almost all of it a little dated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
If you are going to use specific figures for an argument you should cite the source.
^^^ Exactly right. It's entirely on the person making the assertion of fact to provide the source they are referring to. Gee, I learned that in high school, didn't everyone?

I almost called this one out at the top, but it only took a moment to find the Wikipedia page he was referring to, so I didn't bother, since the far bigger sin was misinterpreting the facts to fit a fixed agenda.

I'm usually proactive about providing citations for what I post as factual material, such as the electricity tiered rate card I just posted in another thread, but in any case I can always provide references for what I say.

For example, the following underlines what I said earlier about the huge presence of the Military and Department of Defense in Hawai'i, along with my source, a Honolulu based news source:

Quote:
According to a 2011 report by the RAND Corporation's National Security Research Division, Hawaii was home to 75,473 Department of Defense personnel in 2009, representing about 10 percent of the state's employment that year. That included 47,677 active personnel, 9,427 National Guard and Reserve personnel, and 18,369 civilian personnel.

In 2010, Hawaii was home to 47,410 active duty personnel, almost half of them serving in the Army.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that Hawaii ranked No. 1 for per capita defense spending in 2010, and the federal government spent $10 billion on defense in Hawaii in 2010.

Military in Hawaii - Honolulu Civil Beat
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2014, 01:14 PM
Zot
 
Location: 3rd rock from a nearby star
468 posts, read 579,310 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
Ummmmm... Zot.... you previously mentioned being somewhat humor impaired. This is one of those times.
No, I didn't mention being humor impaired. I cited a sense of humor, mostly leaning toward the ironic.

This isn't humor. Here is a link to energy use per capita compiled by our government - http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/...df/sec1_13.pdf it lists energy consumption per capita in BTU starting in 1949.

In 1949 we consumed 214 million BTU per person, by 1970 consumption was at 331 million BTU per person. The BTU per person peak was in 1978 and 1979 at 359 million BTU per person. In 2011, the latest date for information about consumption, it's 311 million BTU per person. Our net energy consumption per person has been decreasing since the 70's. We use less energy per person today than we did a generation go.

Our aggregate energy use has increased, but only due to an increase in population. Over here - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_09.pdf you can read about historical birth rates in the U.S. On .pdf page 8 of this report, find the following -

Quote:
The 2012 U.S. TFR remained below “replacement” — the level at which a given generation can exactly replace itself (generally considered to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women). The TFR has been generally below replacement since 1971. With the exception of Hispanic women (reflecting mainly, rates for Mexican and other Hispanic women), the TFRs for all other groups were below replacement (Tables 8 and 14).
Race isn't important per se, but the definition of TFR is, to replace our population we need a TFR of over 2,100 per the CDC.

Table 8, on .pdf page 60 indicates national TFR was below replacement rate since the start of historical data in that table as of 1989. Our population should be in decline at least since 1989, we do not create enough humans to replace those who die.

Table 9 on .pdf page 63 shows us birth rates have been in decline since 1980. Our census department tells us the number of people in the United States was 226.5 million people - http://www.census.gov/popest/data/na.../nat-total.txt in 2012 it is 310.3 million people - http://www.census.gov/popest/data/st...EST2012-01.csv as of December 1.

Thus we have an ever declining energy consumption curve per capita (it goes up and down, but mostly has been stable or down since 1979), and a birth rate which is below replacement, YET our population has increased forcing our aggregate energy consumption and related national carbon footprint to increase as well.

It is only through immigration that our population has increased, not through birth. Note the government (and I) make no distinctions between children born to legal or non-legal immigrant parents, the birth rates are the rates of people born here in the U.S.

The conclusion I draw, based on per capita BTU is we would be able to attain any green request proposed by any eco friendly treaty if immigration were to cease, or to be controlled subject to carbon footprint requirements of any treaty we agree to.

If we did NOTHING to increase our energy efficiency, no higher MPG, no greener energy, we would reduce energy consumption due to declining population. Our carbon footprint naturally would decline with no government limitations on personal liberty. It isn't necessarily an SUV that is warming the earth, it's an immigrant working in fields, as a nanny or gardener. Yet we do not seem as a culture capable of considering the impact of people on our national carbon footprint the way we do vehicles for reasons I do not understand.

As such, my suggestion is we consider carbon footprint when considering immigration.

Last edited by Zot; 03-26-2014 at 01:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:45 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top