Why are some people so afraid of climate change?

[Purple]

purple, are you cooking with your lightbulbs? 100W is more then I'd use for my painting desk, that's like a small searchlight (unless we're talking really inefficient bulbs - do you happen to know the lumen output?)

Not really. I mean, it's just the standard 100W bulb that you get in a store. Says 230V, 100W on the glass. Not even a brand name.

[madd0ct0r]

purely for my own curiosity, I've been folowing this up.

1000W on a 230V bulb throws out about 1,160 lumens (under american 120V they're surprisingly more efficient. It's an important thing since most of the online charts are for the american voltage.)

500 lumens/m2 is the minimum for desk work in an office. 300 lumens/m2 for corridors and such. I would personally go far above 500 if I'm miniature painting or such. I would also go for 300 if I'm just chilling on the sofa. I'm guessing your 1160 lumen bulb is lighting up the entire room?

rough conversion chart.




a casual look around ikea finds http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/20249226/
which has the output closest to what you'd like.
I've never bought a 100W incandescent, but let's go with a cheap chinese option at 99p.

100W at British gas prices of 11.3p/kWh = 1.13p per hour of use (incandescent)
and 0.18758p per hour of use (LED)

inital cost difference = £9. Hours of use until the LED saves £9 is 955 hours.
LED lightbulb lasts 25,000 hours.

[Purple]

purely for my own curiosity, I've been folowing this up.

1000W on a 230V bulb throws out about 1,160 lumens (under american 120V they're surprisingly more efficient. It's an important thing since most of the online charts are for the american voltage.)

That should be 100W is that a typo on your part or did it propagate into the calculation? I know the table is right but am a bit confused. And better safe than sorry.

500 lumens/m2 is the minimum for desk work in an office. 300 lumens/m2 for corridors and such. I would personally go far above 500 if I'm miniature painting or such. I would also go for 300 if I'm just chilling on the sofa. I'm guessing your 1160 lumen bulb is lighting up the entire room?

Well yes and no. I use it as this backlight for when I want to have light in my room but can't be bothered to turn the other lights on. And it works well enough for when I am on my PC or such. Which admittedly means 95% of the time. But basically I do have several more for a total of 4 for when I need serious light. It does not happen often but I thought I should mention it none the less.

I just really like proper lighting.

a casual look around ikea finds http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/20249226/
which has the output closest to what you'd like.
I've never bought a 100W incandescent, but let's go with a cheap chinese option at 99p.

100W at British gas prices of 11.3p/kWh = 1.13p per hour of use (incandescent)
and 0.18758p per hour of use (LED)

inital cost difference = £9. Hours of use until the LED saves £9 is 955 hours.
LED lightbulb lasts 25,000 hours.

That's interesting. But I am generally more into up front costs than costs over time simply because I find it easier to pay for stuff off over time than up front. It's something to think about to be sure though.

[madd0ct0r]

1000W was a typo0

I'm totally with you on the wanting proper lighting, I once spliced 7 cfl lightbulbs together in desperation with my poky little victorian terrace


I followed it up purely because I've just spent a fortnight looking at domestic energy usage in Bangladesh, and doing stuff like this has flags up things I might need to project into future use. It's still not a huge segment of the total energy demand, but it is one of few where substantial work has already been done.

[Broomstick]

LED lighting can have a huge impact in rural, third-world areas with no large power stations or transmission lines. The low power demands means it can be practical to light up a residence after dark using a simple system of solar power + battery. This can greatly improve quality of life for reasons ranging from a reduction of accidents (it's hazardous to move around after dark when it's really dark, pre-industrial age dark) to improved schooling (people can study into the night and not have study interfere with necessary day chores).

Yes, the upfront cost is very much an issue there, too, but without the convenience of power grid it starts to make much more sense, as putting in a power grid/generator/etc could be even more expensive for a remote village.

Or, for us first-worlders - last power failure I yanked some of the edging lights out the driveway and used them in the building so we weren't crashing into things when we moved around, it was a lot easier than juggling the flashlights, which, by the way, are are LED these days.

[bilateralrope]

That's interesting. But I am generally more into up front costs than costs over time simply because I find it easier to pay for stuff off over time than up front. It's something to think about to be sure though.

How much do LED bulbs cost wherever you live that buying them as your incandescent bulbs fail is difficult on your budget ?

[Broomstick]

Especially since they've come down so much in price. I mean, I'm dirt poor by my country's standards yet I managed to afford LED bulbs in my home.

[Borgholio]

That's interesting. But I am generally more into up front costs than costs over time simply because I find it easier to pay for stuff off over time than up front. It's something to think about to be sure though.

How much do LED bulbs cost wherever you live that buying them as your incandescent bulbs fail is difficult on your budget ?

People who are on a strict budget learn to do what's best for the long term overall savings rather than short-term. Paying more for an LED bulb that saves hundreds of dollars overall compared to using incandescent bulbs is a smart investment even if it costs more up front. In my area (Southern CA), LED bulbs cost in the $15 - $20 range. Incandescents (where they can still be found), cost about 50 cents. But the LED bulbs use less than 1/4 the power for the same amount of light, and they are warrantied for 15 - 20 years. Yes, they have a warranty. Not like CFL bulbs where they are rated for 5 years but could burn out sooner...the LED companies will replace the bulb if they don't last a minimum of 15 years. So just on bulb cost alone, each LED bulb costs a bit more than 1 dollar per year. That's 2 incandescents per year...and it's not likely you can go 6 full months on an incandescent bulb unless you hardly ever use it.

Then if you factor in the energy savings over those 15 years, it's no contest. My new house came with CFL bulbs and a few incandescent dimmers. As they burn out we will replace them with LEDs. There's just no good reason not to.

[bilateralrope]

Borgholio, that is exactly my point. Purple says that he somehow can't afford the cost of the bulbs up front. I'd really like to know how that's can be true without him having serious problems with budgeting.

Of if he is even telling the truth about being unable to afford them. Since the discussion on energy saving bulbs started with him using bans on incandescent bulbs as an example of "meaningless or worse yet harmful legislation" to fight climate change and "I can't afford them" is the only reason he has left.

[Borgholio]

For Purple it's probably simple sticker shock. The cost of an LED bulb being 40 times higher than an incandescent and 4 times higher than a CFL seems to be excessive to most people. You actually have to go into the details like I did to realize it's a good idea. Most hardware stores in my area are pushing LEDs very hard and are creating large advertising diagrams and endcaps that clearly show how much better LEDs are than other bulb types. It just takes time for people to get used to it, that's all. My next-door neighbor still refuses to even buy CFLs so some people are just never going to be convinced.

[Purple]

For Purple it's probably simple sticker shock. The cost of an LED bulb being 40 times higher than an incandescent and 4 times higher than a CFL seems to be excessive to most people. You actually have to go into the details like I did to realize it's a good idea. Most hardware stores in my area are pushing LEDs very hard and are creating large advertising diagrams and endcaps that clearly show how much better LEDs are than other bulb types. It just takes time for people to get used to it, that's all. My next-door neighbor still refuses to even buy CFLs so some people are just never going to be convinced.

I was going to write a really long rant about this but yea. Pretty much this. With the addendum that a lot of people, me included flat out do not even want (and feel that we should not have to) "get into the details" of something that should be a very simple no brainier thing to pick up at your local supermarket.

I mean no offense by this. But from my perspective you people have pretty much inflated a problem that is on the level of picking which brand of toilet paper or toothpicks to buy (the answer being which ever is cheapest at the nearest store) to a complex economic calculation. I mean sure, it's an interesting intellectual problem to think about. But the end result is that you have to implement some complicated economic plan that takes more effort than it's worth.

... Also, it's kind of very late. So if I sound confusing or unclear that's the cause.

[Borgholio]

I mean no offense by this. But from my perspective you people have pretty much inflated a problem that is on the level of picking which brand of toilet paper or toothpicks to buy (the answer being which ever is cheapest at the nearest store) to a complex economic calculation.

No offense taken. I look at it in this way:

"Holy shit that bulb is expensive. Why would I want to buy that? Oh, it's guaranteed for 15+ years and uses less power even than a CFL and has far less mercury too? Do the numbers add up to savings in the long term? Yes they do. Sweet...I'll take one."

I think it just boils down to actually demonstrating to people why LEDs are superior and give them time to become comfortable with it. I recall people said the same things about CFLs when they were first introduced and now they're everywhere. You go to the supermarket and the only incandescents you find are the little decorative bulbs. In time, LEDs will be the same way.

[bilateralrope]

I was going to write a really long rant about this but yea. Pretty much this. With the addendum that a lot of people, me included flat out do not even want (and feel that we should not have to) "get into the details" of something that should be a very simple no brainier thing to pick up at your local supermarket.

If you don't understand an issue, and don't have the time to investigate it yourself, then ask someone who does understand it for their advise. In this case, their advise would be very simple: Use the energy saving bulbs as they will cost you less in the long run.

If you care about the environment, buy the energy saving bulbs to reduce energy usage. Every little bit helps.
If you're being selfish, buy energy saving bulbs because they save you money in the long run.

I mean no offense by this. But from my perspective you people have pretty much inflated a problem that is on the level of picking which brand of toilet paper or toothpicks to buy (the answer being which ever is cheapest at the nearest store) to a complex economic calculation. I mean sure, it's an interesting intellectual problem to think about. But the end result is that you have to implement some complicated economic plan that takes more effort than it's worth.

It's people like you who are why laws are needed to stop people using incandescent bulbs. People who insist on doing things their way, even when all the evidence says that they are wrong.

[Block]

So Pat Sajak made a proclamation the other day that those who support the idea of Global Warming are unpatriotic racists.

Add another celebrity onto my "Used to enjoy watching" list. But worse, on FB there are more people coming out in support of him than criticizing him. The pro-Sajak crowd use all the usual arguments that liberals are in it for the money, that "enough" scientists doubt climate change to make it a hoax, that Greenland used to be fully green, that the world overall has been cooling down over the last century, etc...

I wonder, why are so many people against climate change? Why do they feel threatened by it? It's very easy to trot out a graph showing the progress of the industrial revolution, the steady increase of greenhouse gases, and the overall gradual rise in global temperature, and find that they match very closely. Why is this such a mind-blower for these people?

I'm just going to point out that Sajak was kidding, and said so in a tweet about a day later, after it became clear that people thought he was serious.

[Borgholio]

I did not know that. Sounds like something a climate denyer would say though.

[Block]

That was apparently the point.

[Purple]

If you don't understand an issue, and don't have the time to investigate it yourself, then ask someone who does understand it for their advise. In this case, their advise would be very simple: Use the energy saving bulbs as they will cost you less in the long run.

It's not about the time but about the fact that someone would even consider to investigating and calculating about something that for me is basically muscle memory. It's just... new to me as a concept.

It's people like you who are why laws are needed to stop people using incandescent bulbs. People who insist on doing things their way, even when all the evidence says that they are wrong.

And that is why we have laws forbidding religious people from not accepting blood donations and other practices which all evidence says is wrong...

Seriously. If you are going to write laws to force me to do things I do not want that sounds mighty undemocratic of you.
So we are right back where we started except that now I know a little bit more about why I feel the way I do.

[AniThyng]

It's not about the time but about the fact that someone would even consider to investigating and calculating about something that for me is basically muscle memory. It's just... new to me as a concept.

Aren't you the guy who enjoys games that force you to run a spreadsheet on a seperate screen? That is the last thing I would have expected you to say

[Purple]

Aren't you the guy who enjoys games that force you to run a spreadsheet on a seperate screen? That is the last thing I would have expected you to say

I enjoy games that make me do that. And in order to have the free time and energy to play them I must by relation have easy and by relation thinking free access to basic utilities like toilet paper and light bulbs.

[bilateralrope]

It's not about the time but about the fact that someone would even consider to investigating and calculating about something that for me is basically muscle memory. It's just... new to me as a concept.

If you can't be bothered to do the calculations yourself, trust the word of the people who do the calculations in front of you. Borgholio did the calculations.
If he used numbers that are wrong for you, give us the correct numbers. We will do the math for you. The calculations are simple:
{cost of electircty for hour of operation} + ({price of bulb}/{expected lifetime in hours})
If you want, I can put that in a spreadsheet for you.

Seriously. If you are going to write laws to force me to do things I do not want that sounds mighty undemocratic of you.

So it's undemocratic to force people to pay taxes if those people don't want to pay them ?

So we are right back where we started except that now I know a little bit more about why I feel the way I do.

We also know a bit more about you. You're a lazy fuckwit who insists on doing the same thing you always have, even when all the evidence says that everyone, including you, will be better off if you make a small change.

[Purple]

If you can't be bothered to do the calculations yourself, trust the word of the people who do the calculations in front of you. Borgholio did the calculations.
If he used numbers that are wrong for you, give us the correct numbers. We will do the math for you. The calculations are simple:
{cost of electircty for hour of operation} + ({price of bulb}/{expected lifetime in hours})
If you want, I can put that in a spreadsheet for you.

I am simply quite surprised that anyone would even want to calculate these things. And whilst the numbers check out the bottom line is that I simply remain unconvinced that it's worth the up front price. Sure it pays off over time. But what worth is "over time" to me today when I am standing in the store with my wallet? For all I know I might not be alive by the time that thing burns out. Life is like that.

So it's undemocratic to force people to pay taxes if those people don't want to pay them ?

I am going to say this now so you can remember. If you campaign to enact laws which force me to change my life in ways I dislike I have the right to fight you every step of the way. And I will use that right to my fullest ability. If you do not like that, blame democracy and not me.

We also know a bit more about you. You're a lazy fuckwit who insists on doing the same thing you always have, even when all the evidence says that everyone, including you, will be better off if you make a small change.

Maybe true. But it is within my rights to do so.

[madd0ct0r]

If you can't be bothered to do the calculations yourself, trust the word of the people who do the calculations in front of you. Borgholio did the calculations.
If he used numbers that are wrong for you, give us the correct numbers. We will do the math for you. The calculations are simple:
{cost of electircty for hour of operation} + ({price of bulb}/{expected lifetime in hours})
If you want, I can put that in a spreadsheet for you.

I am simply quite surprised that anyone would even want to calculate these things. And whilst the numbers check out the bottom line is that I simply remain unconvinced that it's worth the up front price. Sure it pays off over time. But what worth is "over time" to me today when I am standing in the store with my wallet? For all I know I might not be alive by the time that thing burns out. Life is like that.

That's quite easy to take account of. Money in the future is worth less then money now, but you can account for that by using the interest rate discount (ie, how much money would I need to put into a bank account NOW to cover all the future bills.) The probability of you still being alive at each time step can be done demographically, or more accurately from actuary tables based on lifestyle. Strictly speaking, the same would also need to be done for the incandescents too, including the occasional costs of buying new incandescents since they have a shorter life.

This is way more work then I'd do for a light bulb, although I've done similar work on the cost options for railway bridges. Given the original OP, I think Purple is making a convincing case for why some people are so resistant to the idea of climate change - behaviour change has a HUGE cost in their minds, and so there is a large incentive to find counter arguments. Efficiency legislation is one way around this, but they'll resent it and that can be damaging in a democracy. Education can only get you so far too.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I am simply quite surprised that anyone would even want to calculate these things. And whilst the numbers check out the bottom line is that I simply remain unconvinced that it's worth the up front price. Sure it pays off over time. But what worth is "over time" to me today when I am standing in the store with my wallet? For all I know I might not be alive by the time that thing burns out. Life is like that.

Dude, did you even read the post that worked through the math? It will pay off after about 39 days of use. We're not talking 15 years of slow savings, here. Are you really going to sit there and say with a straight face that 39 days is so far in the future as to be too abstract to be worth planning over? Or are you really that fucking stupid? How can you even manage to function as an adult if you are too stubborn to think a head a mere month? Do you not have a savings account or IRA because, hey, you might die before they mature?

[Terralthra]

Purple, I'm confused. When you say you buy the cheapest thing in the store, Purple...when you buy (let's say) milk, do you just buy a half-litre of milk because it's the cheapest? Or do you estimate how much you'll need in the time the milk will stay unspoilt and buy so as to minimize your per-unit-volume cost (e.g., buy a litre jug, two-litre, whatever suits your consumption level)? Do you buy a package of four rolls of toilet paper, because 4 rolls is the cheapest sticker price, or do you buy the larger package because the per-roll cost is lower? This is an important question.

If you're really just buying whatever the lowest price tag is, then you're completely unwilling (or unable) to do the sorts of arithmetic operations to support long-term economic decision-making. In such case, arguing with you is pointless.

If, on the other hand, you can stand there for a couple seconds and divide price by volume, or price by number of rolls - with the numbers right there on the package - and buy whichever item maximizes your purchasing power, then you can clearly do the same thing with light bulbs and buy so as to maximize your luminous-exposure-per-dollar, with numbers also printed right there on the package. In this case, pointing out to you that these different price-comparing arithmetic operations are equivalent is possibly pointful.

If you are capable of doing that and actively refusing, because you can't have nuclear power plants right now, you're just being obstreporous. In that case, arguing with you is pointless.

[Purple]

Purple, I'm confused. When you say you buy the cheapest thing in the store, Purple...when you buy (let's say) milk, do you just buy a half-litre of milk because it's the cheapest? Or do you estimate how much you'll need in the time the milk will stay unspoilt and buy so as to minimize your per-unit-volume cost (e.g., buy a litre jug, two-litre, whatever suits your consumption level)?

Food is different. Food is one of the few things where I actually care to spend money on quality. So when it comes to food I break my usual rules and buy the kind of milk I like best. Costs be damned. Even if that means I have to go without toilet paper. (Figuratively speaking of course. I don't have the desire or budget to buy stupid expensive stuff for eating.)

Do you buy a package of four rolls of toilet paper, because 4 rolls is the cheapest sticker price, or do you buy the larger package because the per-roll cost is lower? This is an important question.

I just buy this one brand I have always been buying since like years ago. I think I started buying it ages ago because it was cheap. But basically by now it's just inertia. I don't think I am the only one in the world that just buys the same brand of everything that they have been buying since forever.

If you're really just buying whatever the lowest price tag is, then you're completely unwilling (or unable) to do the sorts of arithmetic operations to support long-term economic decision-making. In such case, arguing with you is pointless.

It's a combination of that and buying by inertia. Since as I have said before, I am unwilling to turn my life into a cost-benifit spreadsheet.

If, on the other hand, you can stand there for a couple seconds and divide price by volume, or price by number of rolls - with the numbers right there on the package - and buy whichever item maximizes your purchasing power, then you can clearly do the same thing with light bulbs and buy so as to maximize your luminous-exposure-per-dollar, with numbers also printed right there on the package. In this case, pointing out to you that these different price-comparing arithmetic operations are equivalent is possibly pointful.

Why should I waste time standing and calculating things in a grocery store? It's not like a few euros here or there is going to ruin me. Especially given my spending habits. I don't go out regularly, don't buy many luxuries, don't drive, don't buy expensive items, don't partake in expensive hobbies... Food and utilities are my only real major expenditures. I mean sure, I might waste some money on a long term worse deal here and there. But you know what. I think it's better to let that go to waste than burden my self with extra work just to pinch any penny that I can.

If you are capable of doing that and actively refusing, because you can't have nuclear power plants right now, you're just being obstreporous. In that case, arguing with you is pointless.

There is this too, in no small amount. But it does not account for more than say 30% of my thought process on the subject.