I think another great move would be to start dealing with excessive energy consumption. Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units, vertical-drum washing machines (!!!), poorly designed gas stoves, oversized cars, monstrous gas-guzzling trucks, energy waste is all over the place. People behave just as if energy were free.
> Compared to what I'm used to in Europe, California is wasting crazy amounts of energy. Poorly insulated homes, old and inefficient AC/heating units,
Are you living in a particularly new region?
Every time I've seen this come up, the data actually says the opposite: the median US home is better insulated, more recently built and more efficiently climate-controlled. Which is unsurprising, because they're newer, basically. Home technology over the last half century has made huge improvements in energy consumption.
It's true that the median US home is much larger than what you probably see where you are. And obviously that goes to total consumption. But it's not an issue with housing technology at all.
What fraction of apartment buildings in California have double-pane windows? What fraction of commercial buildings in SF/East Bay have operable windows to take advantage of natural ventilation?
Most houses in the bay area do not even have AC, and may turn on the heater for 3 months of the year. It's climate alone is a big household energy saver.
Indeed. The Bay Area is one of the most environmentally friendly areas to live for this reason.
Economist Ed Glazer makes the argument that by not allowing more housing to be built there, more people have to live in more energy consumptive locations (Houston, for example). Housing development policy of the Bay Area has a big environmental impact.
Coastal regions tend to have more stable temperatures than inland regions in general due to closer proximity to the ocean (large bodies of water tend to be slow to heat up and slow to cool down). The Bay Area is no exception.
> What fraction of apartment buildings in California have double-pane windows?
One thing that amazed me when moving to California a couple of years ago was reading ads for apartments where the text would gush about the apartment having double glazing!!!1!!
Meanwhile, in Sweden, triple glazing has been the required minimum since the 90s, and older buildings were forced to install a third pane or retrofit new windows or somehow bring it up to code.
These days you can get quadruple glazed windows, but they offer only a very small improvements to triple glazed, so there's not much use.
For some years I lived in a rowhouse in the Maryland suburbs of DC, built about 1983. The units there had double glazing. Maryland does not have an especially cold climate.
Where I live now we have single panes, but behind storm windows.
On the other hand, we know a family near Boston who live in a big old house. The husband, a mathematician, calculated that they would never recover the cost of replacing the windows. I don't know how far out he calculated, but I expect it was about 20 years.
Double glazing is common for all new installs. And people will tend to use them for retrofits unless they are trying to cheap out. As for California, it doesn't get cold enough here to pay the premium for triple glazing.
My apartment in SF has operable windows, as do most older buildings I've been in. I don't have an air conditioner, and I rarely use the steam heater thingy (radiator?).
That's not correct. California's housing stock falls into something closer to the US median. The oldest housing stock in the US is in the North East and Midwest (which tends to be well insulated for Winter purposes). Those regions saw large waves of high population expansion and housing development previously (50+ years ago), which put down an unsurprisingly large base of housing stock.
California's development by contrast has overwhelmingly occurred in the last 50-60 years (their population has increased four fold since 1950, from ~10m to ~40m today). Compare that to Ohio, which has seen a nearly flat population for coming up on 50 years. New York State's population has only slightly increased in 50 years.
The newest housing stock is in the Idaho/Nevada/Arizona region, Texas and the South East (Florida to North Carolina).
The US generally - and much of California - also aggressively uses air conditioning (central or otherwise) and has for a long time, which has further spurred efforts toward maximizing insulation.
Ok, perhaps it's not exceptionally old. But the point is, while the codes are pretty good now, much of the stock was built decades ago, long before the energy efficiency codes tightened up. When many of the houses in Silicon Valley were put up, attic insulation wasn't even used, period.
I've pulled up a random "YouTube star" "building my dream house in california" video and that looks all the world like a single glazed window, in 2018:
It also seems to be a wooden construction.. so frankly I don't know what to think. I'm sorry if this seems like very unconventional evidence but then going from building codes to what people are actually building out there is a whole different story, and then you didn't actually provide any data, either.
Though you are spot on with the ridiculously oversized buildings, like a 3 door garage that is so intimately integrated into the structure you're climate controlling it year round.
The wall between the garage and the house is considered an exterior wall, and is insulated the same as the other ones.
Wooden construction does not inhibit insulation. Probably the opposite. It's easier to insulate the voids between studs than it is to insulate a masonry structure. Plus, "stick" building is almost a requirement for seismic reasons in California.
As far as the windows are concerned, I can't tell from the video if they're single glazed or not. Seems crazy to me to do any new construction with those.
Around here, they build a stone wall, then add a layer of insulation against it, then build a brick wall against that.
That layer of insulation had been mandatory since at least mid-80s, and requirements for thickness have increased a few times since.
It's true that they're are houses with low energy labels, but from mid-80s on houses already have a C level - and that's default, with further improvements possible by owners. Currently, minimum allowed label for new buildings is A. But we're already slowly moving to "zero-rated": solar panels supply needed energy (on average, over a year).
Having a stone wall on the inside of the insulated barrier is great for adding thermal mass to the inside. Having all that masonry inside probably helps regulate the temperature nicely. I suspect it's more expensive to do it that way than to use wood studs and batting between them. (Of course it depends on the region you're building in. Wood is cheap in North America, maybe not so much in other parts of the world?)
And because earthquakes are also plentiful in California, we don't want our walls to be too heavy. Tensile strength is more important, as well as flexibility.
modern wooden frame houses with good insulation are very efficient at keeping heat/moisture where it needs to be kept. I am in the process of building new house and recently had same research - build like we used to build house where I am from (eastern europe, brick and mortar) or use something everybody is doing. turned out that this stick frame structure with foam insulation is actually much more efficient.
Attached garages are typically is separated from the rest of the house conditioning space. I do insulation of the garage, but only because I plan to work there. Plus water heater I am installing is actually heat pump, so it should cool garage down a bit.
There are a number of issues with front-loading washers. While they use less water, they are also worse at cleaning clothes and much worse at sanitizing them. There was a recent post here on HN where a biologist did several experiments in her own washer to show how poorly they sanitized things compared to her older one. They also tend to trap water in the bottom and it gets musty and moldy, which with my spouses allergies is a non-starter.
But I whole-heartedly agree with your other issues. Moving from the Midwest, I can't believe how poorly insulated things are in CA. Our first apartment in Santa Monica had windows that didn't even seal properly when closed. You could very easily stick a sheet of paper through the gap between the window and the frame when it was supposedly closed. Some people even have glass louvres instead of windows in their bathrooms here!
> Moving from the Midwest, I can't believe how poorly insulated things are in CA. Our first apartment in Santa Monica had windows that didn't even seal properly when closed.
... yeah. Because it's in Santa Monica. Without even bothering to ask details about your personal temperature preference or the size or construction date of the homes, I can 100% guarantee you you're using less energy on climate control in SoCal than in "the midwest".
Trying to fix energy consumption by improving construction and code regulation in the major city least in need of climate control, like, worldwide is just a silly waste of resources.
LA is wasteful in many ways. But a city that sits at a 60-70F average basically year-round is just not in need of attention here.
My apartment in Westwood last year had a heater but no AC, used the heater a grand total of zero times. Makes you wonder why they ever installed it in the first place...
a heater, but not a/c, is part of the building code in LA.
my apartment has a heater and no a/c, but has a flow-through design that naturally keeps it cool in the summer. my heater and my portable a/c unit each get used about 2 weeks a year. the weather is really that great here.
That's another reason why California's housing policy is so egregious. Ceteris paribus living in California is more environment-friendly than living in the Midwest, so it's a shame that local governments' policy severely limits new construction.
This sort of thing is why I sort of hate energy star everything. Take dishwashers, for example. You can regulate the energy and water usage all you want, but it long ago got to the point where dishwashers that meet regulations basically fail to clean the dishes. Which is fine, it just causes the consumer to wash the dishes by hand either instead of or in addition to using the dishwasher. So now the dishwasher uses less energy/water, but the whole process uses net more water and takes more time.
my experience with going from a late-90s model dishwasher to a relatively fancy brand new one last year is that it cleans better, but is slower and simply doesn't dry the dishes at all, and the standing water can leave residues on the dishes if I don't take them all out and towel dry them right away
Ok, as a data point: I have a (new) Bosch dishwasher here in CA. The "Auto" wash cycle takes 2h20 and I can hear the unit flush the water down the drain after initial rinse.
My Bosch dishwasher in Europe does the Auto cycle in less than 90 minutes on a single change of water.
I think it's about different consumer expectations: it the US it seems people don't care so much about energy/water consumption, so other things matter.
BTW, both dishwashers get things done, the dishes do come out clean.
Im doing my washing today. Run it once with detergent, then again without. The first cycle doesnt use enough water to rinse out the soap. I am running off a solar-powered well. I have a literally unlimited green water supply, but must still suffer a watersaving washing machine. Im tempted to crack it open and disable the relevant sensor.
I don't see what about front-loading washers would make them especially prone to standing water or mold. I would expect that vertical washers could just as easily have standing water. Worse, it's probably out of sight behind the drum where you can't clean it.
Because the door is below water level, it needs to be sealed. There is a rubber gasket submerged in water that molds. Top-loaders don't need a rubber gasket.
I've owned both, and the brand-new front loader I just got is definitely worse in several areas with regard to collecting water.
The door gasket is pretty bad (not sloped well enough for water to completely drain away from it), but it's also got a pull-out tray for detergent which also collects quite a bit of water each time.
I did have a top-loader that got a bit musty smelling, though that was largely my own fault- living alone as a bachelor at the time (infrequent use) and habitually starting a load late at night only to fall asleep before I took it out.
I'm not entirely sure what it is. But it's actually a common problem with front-loaders. If we're not extremely diligent in hand drying the washer and leaving the door open, our clothes will smell REALLY musty. It's really bad. The internet is full of anecdotes.
I've never had the same problem with top-loaders. My next machine will most definitely be a top-loader.
I can confirm having owned 2 front loads. We leave the washer door open all the time while idle - sometimes blowing a fan inside to force-dry it out. Otherwise, mold city. It doesn't matter which make/model you buy, they all exhibit the same problem.
You still [probably] need to hand-dry the gasket, but according to my research it's what manufacturers recommend when pushed. I order a box on eBay every 1-2 years, approximately.
Yeah, I have yet to see a side loading washing without the moldy ring on the side of the door. I'm unsure how this is in any way a net improvement, as whatever action people take to fix the mold problem is likely to more than make up for the energy saved processing the water.
20 seconds with a damp cloth every few months, which is all our washer requires to keep the door seal crud-free, doesn't seem likely to raise energy requirements much.
They make high-efficiency top loader washing machines that use the same amount of power of frontloaders. I have one, it's much slower(45 to 90 minute wash times) than traditional top loader but is almost completely silent.
I was told that the washing machine should run at max temp about once a month - specifically to sanitise the machine. Can be an empty load (but not required).
If you didn't try that before, give it a shot. Hopefully it'll help.
Compared to the rest of the USA (low bar), California is a saint. They started doing Energy Efficiency in the 70s, currently spend $1Bn / year on EE. Energy consumption as a whole in the state has flatlined since they started doing EE (1). All that to say, they're trying. It's crazy how much of a difference culture makes.
California's appliance efficiency regulations (Title 20) are much stricter than to anywhere else in the US, as far as I know. http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/
The effects are felt elsewhere, too. Most manufacturers aren't going to design two versions of a model for two regions, the energy efficient one, and the less energy efficient one. They'll just work to make one that fits the more stringent one. California has been one of the biggest drivers of EE nationwide because of that.
It's interesting to see it in practice too; if you move to California and bring a car, part of the registration process is to check the car and make sure it indicates it meets California requirements in design and build (not just smog testing; they do that too, but the actual registration/titling will involve them popping the hood and checking the car has the right markings). And basically every modern car does.
CARB is basically the EPA now. They're the ones that prosecuted Dieselgate, as they're the only regulator who put the screws to VW once they realized what was going on.
The federal government is trying to take away California's right to set their own vehicle standards. Is anything similar happening with these other energy efficiency standards? I believe there were moves to roll these back too at a federal level, eg trying to kill Energy Star:
Title 24 itself is broken into 16 climate zones [1], each comes with its' own table of acceptable parameters. The deviation in parameters allows for a wide range of equipment at varying standards.
On the topic of large cars, what is the solution here?
I can imagine forcing people to replace A/C units won’t be so objectionable, especially if it’s free to do so, but there may be some real opposition to requiring people to drive different cars. Nobody gets attached to an A/C.
I don’t drive right now - I take public transport everywhere - but I’d love a large car (a Dodge RAM). If I try to buy something small to be conscious of my carbon footprint and energy usage, I think I will end up buying the large car a few years later.
Is there anything at-all I can do to drive a large car while not being part of the problem? I’m looking into carbon offsetting, but that’s all I am aware of for the time being.
I wish Dodge would make an electric RAM 1500, that could make this much easier.
All I can really say is I want one because from the moment I saw one on the road, I just knew I had to drive it. I really love the appearance. I've never been interested in cars, but I can't help myself looking at pickups on the road driving by -- especially RAMs. Maybe I'm just a big kid, I've always liked big stuff.
Still... I know they aren't good for the environment, which means I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I just drove one without greatly reducing or eliminating it's impact.
Rent one every few months, drive it for the weekend. Cheaper on every front, scratches that itch, and minimal effect on the environment.
I do that with my wife for convertibles. She loves them, so any time we're on vacation and need a car I try to get one. It's just a couple hundred more for a week's vacation, at the time we'd get the most enjoyment out of it.
You can also check whether your area has carsharing. I have access to lots of standard cars of different sizes (some hybrids too), a convertible, an upper-standard BMW and a couple of vans all within walking distance.
Kinda interesting. Could you see this desire being rooted in the advertising of the truck you've been shown for years upon years? Ads for these types of vehicles show dirty, hard-working men doing hyper-masculine things[0]
That's a good guess -- and may explain it for a number of people, but in my case it's extremely unlikely. I live in the UK, where RAM doesn't really sell vehicles here, so I've never seen any of their adverts before, and had never even heard of the brand until I saw a few on the road. When I have seen them in person, they've always been left hand drive (rather than the usual right hand drive), so pretty much always imported.
I do think love at first sight is a better explanation.
I totally agree. I got my truck when I had a ranch with livestock, a tractor and all the work that goes with all that stuff. I'm now living in town about two miles from work and really don't need the truck but they're more easily acquired than gotten rid of. Most days I leave the truck in the driveway and drive the wife's Subaru.
As far as grid operations, it's not really that exciting to see in person. Access is tightly controlled and it's pretty much like any other enterprise application shop.
Hybrid cars are a great answer - you can get a 3500lb car (like the Camry Hybrid) that gets 40 MPG highway, and often 50 MPG in city/country driving. This is because the car usually shuts the engine off below ~46 MPH. Until you've driven a hybrid, you won't realize how often the engine isn't needed, and just 40 horsepower is enough to propel the car. Often, the engine will run for just a few seconds as you accelerate, then will turn off for the next several minutes, as you coast or maintain speed to the next stop light on battery alone.
Another benefit of hybridization is that AC and other power-hungry accessories can be powered during heavy acceleration without putting any more strain on the engine. It's fun to go for a drive during a hot day, use AC the entire time, and still get (for example) 42.3 MPG.
Plus, you get the instant torque of an electric car. Maybe not quite as much as a Tesla, but you'll still beat an F-150 off the line.
I'm being serious -- I would be willing to do something to reduce or eliminate my environmental impact. Would carbon offsetting be enough, or is there something else I can do?
Carbon offsets are tricky. In the current world, that's probably the best you can do, but it's hard to be sure that you're genuinely displacing as much carbon as you want to be. And it certainly won't work for everyone in the world to burn lots of fuel and then make up for it buying offsets.
Anyway, I'm talking about legislative action, rather than individual action -
[Note: I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) that you're in the USA. If you're not, please pretend for a few minutes that you are.]
What I (and many others) want is, in effect, for it to be mandatory that everyone reimburse everyone else for the harmful effects of their carbon emissions, and for the IRS to mediate all of this.
If the policy is implemented intelligently then you as an individual, don't need to do anything, but as a consumer of goods and services will pay increased prices (the price difference being the amount that you owe society for the harm that your carbon footprint is imposing).
Adapted from [1]:
- A fee is levied on fuels at their point of origin into the economy,
such as the well, mine, or port of entry. The fee is based upon the
carbon content of a given fuel, with a commonly-proposed starting
point being $10–$16 per ton of carbon that would be emitted once the
fuel is burned.
- A border tax adjustment is levied on imports from nations that lack
their own equivalent fee on carbon, increasing the cost of the goods
by an amount corresponding to the (estimated)carbon emitted in their
manufacture. This ensures that American manufacturers remain competitive
in spite of their increased energy costs, and incentivizes nations who
want to sell goods into the USA to put a price on carbon as well.
- The fees collected each month are returned to households as an energy
dividend (eg every resident over 18 years of age gets an equal share).
Returning 100% of net fees results in a revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-
dividend system.
Advocates of this policy tend focus entirely on the teleology of it - the incentive it provides for people and businesses to emit less. The arguments I hear in support of the carbon-neutral aspect of the policy mainly point out that this allows us to tax carbon without upsetting fiscal conservatives who don't want to increase the size of the federal government.
But I think they're all ignoring a more important point. It doesn't need to be about changing people's behavior. To me, it's more about justice. I'm not about to tell wealthy businessmen that they can't fly across the country on a private jet every single week. But if their travels are 10% of the reason that my daughter has to live in a world where food is 10x more expensive because the oceans are dead and agricultural yields have been decimated, shouldn't they have to compensate her? It seems to me that, as long as the size of the fee is set properly, a policy like the one described above would be the fairest and most direct way to achieve that.
BTW, an organization un the USA whose sole mission is to lobby for a policy like this is the "Citizen's Climate Lobby" (CCL)[2]. To me, it seems so sensible that I can't understand why it isn't more widely discussed. It could turn out, I suppose, that implementation of the policy is difficult or impractical, but the discussion never even gets that far. Even the CCL's legislative proposal is, in my opinion, woefully lacking in implementation details.
Those smaller, turbocharged engines are designed to game the fuel efficiency tests. Real world experience has shown that they often burn more fuel than larger naturally-aspirated engines of equal power. They are also likely to break sooner due to higher complexity and tighter tolerances, which isn't good from a total life carbon emissions standpoint.
I own two <1 year old VW Polos - one with a 1.2L TSI(small turbo) "Bluemotion" engine, another with a 1.0L MPI(naturally aspirated) engine. The 1.2TSI is much more efficient on paper, but guess which one gets far better milage in real life? Bingo - the 1.0L MPI unit. I frequently get >50mpg on longer journeys in that car, while the 1.2TSI is more like 35-40mpg.
Sure - but on paper it's better in every regard than the 1.0L, better mileage, better CO2 emissions, and it's the one that gets the "Bluemotion" badge which traditionally was only given to particularly efficient vehicles. Yet the smaller 3 cylinder engine is the one that is far more efficient here.
Of all the major issues, this one is the simplest - EVs. In fact, the best EVs in the world are made right in California. It helps that EVs aren't just better for the environment, but better cars overall.
Of large cars, Tesla makes a 7 seat SUV and will make a giant truck in about 2 years. Other manufacturers will follow them 2-3 years after that.
Minivans have terrible cargo capacity in terms of weight and the cargo area is really easy to get dirty and hard to clean (does anyone even offer a vinyl carpet option?). If someone still made a RWD van with an interior actually meant to haul cargo and barn doors (because it's hard to use a forklift to load things if you've got a hatch) I'd be in the market. The Aerostar and Astro used to fill this niche but they're long gone. The Transit Connect and HHR are a little on the small side.
Only because Californians have outsourced most of their manufacturing and other heavy industry to other states and countries. If we factor in the total energy or carbon emissions cost of stuff we import then California doesn't look nearly as good.
Yep. And I salute them for their results. According to the US EIA,
"California's total energy consumption ranks among the highest in the nation, but, in 2015, the state's per capita energy consumption ranked 49th, due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs."
That per-capita figure results from action. Instead of just talking the talk, they've been actively building green capacity for decades.
"In 2016, California ranked ... first as a producer of electricity from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources."
I'm not against energy efficiency, however, conservation is fundamentally the wrong approach. What is the future going to look like?
- Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it
- These people, if we don't screw up and start another war, will want a house, air conditioning, a car, air travel, lots of kids, and more
- Human will inhabit more parts of the Earth that are uninhabitable (Antarctica, Siberia, Canada, Australia), which will require an order of magnitude increase in energy for heating/cooling
- Industry and manufacturing will need to provide for the leisure spending of billions of additional humans (iPhones, Televisions, etc)
- New technologies will require orders of magnitude more energy, such as flying cars, space travel, etc.
The solution to these things isn't to crawl in a hole and try to shave a few % efficiencies out of a washing machine or a pickup truck. Energy isn't a limited resource. It's one of the most abundant things in the universe. With today's technology (Nuclear Fission and one day, Fusion) you could make energy more cheaply and abundantly than the air we breathe.
People should expect to behave as if energy is free. And energy should be free. The problem is that society at large (and NIMBYs and Anti-Nuclear activists) don't have any imagination and therefore set back our civilization and post-scarcity society 50-100 years.
Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it
Luckily, we're looking at a very real possibility that we peak at 9 billion and then start to shrink from there. Which creates a whole host of other social issues, but at least gross overpopulation isn't one of them.
The shifts in the average age and ratio of workers to retirees in Japan and America are absolutely sudden on societal level. 10-20 years is very long for an individual, but it's lightning quick otherwise.
That's at least a 30-40 year trend that everyone who studies demographics was aware of, not a 10 or 20 year trend that suddenly came out of nowhere. Japan's population stopped increasing meaningfully 30 years ago. There's no surprise or sudden jolt to their population declining over the coming decades. They'll have had a half century warning on the problem by the time meaningful decline sets in.
As a recent example, by the time China's population begins flat-lining on growth and or declining in an estimated six years or so at the current trend, we'll have known for 35-40 years that China was set to age rapidly.
30-40 years is sudden for societies. Just because individuals can predict in advance doesn’t mean that the society at large will successfully absorb the enormity of a change and then adapt to it. Hence, sudden.
For what it’s worth I think we’re still dealing with the destabilizing shock of the baby boomers outnumbering other generations, and have been dealing with that since the late 1960s.
> - Earth will have another 10,20,30 Billion people living on it
Unlikely.
> - These people, ... lots of kids, and more
Also unlikely.
> - Human will inhabit more parts of the Earth that are uninhabitable
Unlikely
> spending of billions of additional humans (iPhones, Televisions, etc)
Unlikely
> - New technologies will require orders of magnitude more energy, such as flying cars, space travel, etc.
Yes, likely.
World population is set to decrease. Birth rates in the US, UK, Japan, South Korea, China are all below replacement. This seems to be a general trend that happens when countries reach a certain level of development.
I think most models should show world population peaking, and then declining.
I agree that nuclear is probably our best bet. The high profile screw ups (like Fukushima) are annoying and decrease public trust. But we need to get better at creating/regulating safe nuclear solutions.
You underestimate how much efficiency we've gained. Have you looked up what old fridges used to use? Or compared a 56% AFUE furnace against a 96% unit? Trucks used to get like 6-8mpg, now some get 30mpg.
Not sure if you realize it — using more energy means releasing more of it as heat into the environment. You are literally heating the planet. So even if your energy is produced cleanly (say, nuclear), you still don't want to use crazy amounts of it.
Compared to Europe the US is doing better on carbon reduction seeing as the US went down and Europe went up. I'm not disagreeing that everyone should try to improve and the items you mentioned can be looked at, but comparing to Europe the US looks pretty good.
Do you have a cite for that? It's common in lobbying circles but they studiously avoid mentioning that the US was starting from a substantially higher baseline so EU consumption was still considerably lower. See for example the chart through 2014 here:
That’s exactly the dynamic I was talking about: the US percentage dropped more but that only made us less far behind the EU than we used to be. That’s not how almost anyone is going to interpret a statement that the US is doing better than the EU.
Again, you have to look at the actual data to avoid being mislead by that statement since it doesn’t have any context to let you know that the US is still significantly further behind. A single year which is within the range of normal year to year variation doesn’t invalidate a long-term trend.
Total output is what really matters, not just the per capita. The earth has a carrying limit for total emissions.
The EU has nearly 200 million more people than the US, roughly 60% more, squeezed into an area less than half the size of the US. Whose fault is that population density? The total EU emissions are ~80% as high as the US in ~45% of the land area (a drastically worse rate of emissions per km2), due to that population density. How do you think that emissions concentration impacts the local environment? Population matters, it's why we wouldn't have to care much if Iceland had 2x the per capita emission output of the US.
If your nation has three billion people - ie vast over-population - you shouldn't have the same per capita emissions considerations or concerns as a nation with three million. I understand that sounds unfair. The earth sets the real limitations and it doesn't care about perceived fairness.
If a country like Nigeria or Indonesia somehow rapidly expanded to five billion people, would it be acceptable for them to have the same per capita emission output of the EU? Obviously not. It'd be an environmental disaster for the planet due to the overall output. Population is the other critical factor in emissions (eg in China's case their emissions would be catastrophic at US per capita levels with 1.4b people in that small of an area).
Only means to decrease total CO2 output is increasing efficiency per capita CO2 output captures this very well. Population will not shrink anytime soon and moving people around at scale is not feasible.
Besides, doing that will most certainly inflate the number, considering US has many small rural states with much worse emission (per capita) than large, less carbon-intensive states like NY or CA.
Low population, but exporting coal-based power to the rest of the country? The top emissions are Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia, Alaska, and Louisiana, which are all big energy producers, and energy producers tend to have naturally high emissions.
The US is producing crazy amounts of natural gas, that probably leads to some reduction in the use of coal. I don't see much policy driving towards sustainable technology.
First way is called demand response, and entails the operator asking some users “how much is the next MW worth to you?” If no one can supply that MW at that price or less, the customer can agree to not consume that MW. It is significant for some operators, but by design of the market, is only an option for industrial customers, really.
Some utilities also offer a limited form of this, where you can allow them to shut off your AC, receiving a discount on your bill, generally.
Both work, in their way. Would have a much larger effect if they were more universal, and of the price signal were felt more strongly by consumers. Which I think was your point.
Europe was built (re-built after WW II) to be energy-efficient. Cars have diesel motors that make half the power of the same model in the USA. Air conditioning in the home is almost unheard-of. Nobody I know there has a clothes dryer that roasts your clothes with gas or electricity - the unit I had when I lived there was a washer/dryer combo with a really powerful spin cycle and then a mild heater coupled with a condensing unit (basically a dehumidifier) - clothes come out damp, so you have to hang them up to get to final dry-ness. All light bulbs are fluorescent, if not LED, and all lights in public buildings are on motion sensors or timer switches.
California skates by because the big population centers need almost zero heating or cooling, relatively speaking. Other than that, our power use would make a German Green Party member see red.
Homes are very poorly insulated here because it's not necessary. The climate is so nice, the heater only runs a month or two out of the year, and not even the whole day. It maybe brings up the inside temperature 5 degrees C. We could get by without air conditioning entirely, but I have it and it gets used perhaps for a total of two weeks in the summer.
Compare that to northern Europe where the outside temperature is below 0C for a lot of the winter, the payoff for properly insulating a house, installing new windows, etc, just isn't there. If you really wanted to save energy, move somewhere where you don't require so much energy to not freeze to death.
IMO California suffers from pride/nationalism on a state level. I grew up there, and everybody took it for granted we were the best at the environment. The most efficient, the most conservation minded, the works. But I left ten years ago and as I travel the states, I realize CA is not always the best. Not even most of the time. But due to this mindset, CA is never challenged to up their game by the good work other states do.
That may well happen. Keep in mind California doesn't have full control as a regulatory state: consider the special EPA waiver that came in, along with EPA itself, during the Nixon era. Many regulations one is accustomed to from the Federal government require such special permission to act. We might see a bevy of tax credits or the like over time to do the lifting.
As someone who lived in 3 Chicago apartments heated by radiator heat and had visible gaps in every single window, I'd be inclined to disagree with this assessment.
What would be the numerical impact of those efficiency gains (accounting for the cost of manufacturing new units to replace less efficient ones that may work just fine)
