Above all, a means to charge a taxation.Mr Arkadin wrote:Please define 'carbon footprint' for me
What is best for the environment: Plugins or hardware?
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 25849 posts since 20 Jan, 2008 from a star near where you are
But unlike Maggie's community charge (poll tax), you pay by how much you (ab)use it right?do_androids_dream wrote:Above all, a means to charge a taxation.Mr Arkadin wrote:Please define 'carbon footprint' for me
-
Echoes in the Attic Echoes in the Attic https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=180417
- KVRAF
- 12056 posts since 12 May, 2008
I would say that using plug-ins may be slightly (negligibly) more eco-friendly, but that's only assuming you're going to have the computer anyways. So adding a virtual bit of kit, some 0's and 1's into your computer set up, changes pretty much nothing. Whereas a hardware device is obviously made of parts that had to be mined, constructed etc. But that doesn't factor in the energy used byt he developer to make it and what part a single purchase can be considered to contribute to that.
It would also depend on what the energy sources were where the parts for the device were made. It may have been a dirty coal plant in china releasing particulate matter into the air and perhaps even groundwater contamination. Or it may have been an energy source with barely any environmental effect at all. I wouldn't bother to factor in anything about carbon dioxide emissions if you're considering negative environmental effects, since that is the most important molecule to plant life on Earth, and the rise of CO2 over the recent few decades has contributed to increased vegetation for sure, while any possible negative effects are pretty uncertain and very possibly absent entirely from our levels of emissions.
It would also depend on what the energy sources were where the parts for the device were made. It may have been a dirty coal plant in china releasing particulate matter into the air and perhaps even groundwater contamination. Or it may have been an energy source with barely any environmental effect at all. I wouldn't bother to factor in anything about carbon dioxide emissions if you're considering negative environmental effects, since that is the most important molecule to plant life on Earth, and the rise of CO2 over the recent few decades has contributed to increased vegetation for sure, while any possible negative effects are pretty uncertain and very possibly absent entirely from our levels of emissions.
-
do_androids_dream do_androids_dream https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=164034
- KVRAF
- 2908 posts since 26 Oct, 2007 from Kent, UK
I'm not sure of the comparison to poll tax but yes,I think that's how it works.Numanoid wrote:But unlike Maggie's community charge (poll tax), you pay by how much you (ab)use it right?do_androids_dream wrote:Above all, a means to charge a taxation.Mr Arkadin wrote:Please define 'carbon footprint' for me
-
Echoes in the Attic Echoes in the Attic https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=180417
- KVRAF
- 12056 posts since 12 May, 2008
Carbon footprint is simply the total equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted as the result of ones actions (transportation, energy in the home, energy used in the construction of ones possessions or home etc.). It only has relevance at all under the assumption that the earth climate is highly sensitive to increases in CO2. This appeared to be case on basic inspection at the end of the 90's, though many still disagreed. It's a difficult case to make these days though, given there there has been no statistical trend in global temperature over the past 18-19 years, while during that time humans have released a quarter of their total CO2 emissions EVER. The simple temperature knob picture presented by Al Gore doesn't look so convincing any more.
IPCC estimates used to put the sensitivity of doubling CO2 at 5 - 9 degrees C increase (mostly based on fairly extreme models). Now the mainstream is putting it under 2. Even the IPCC is down to the 1.5 - 4 range. So far there is no real observational evidence that's it's above 1. Even 2 degrees of warming is likely net beneficial and we wouldn't double CO2 from pre-industrial times until 2100 probably (we've gone from a bit under 300 ppm to around 400 currently) and by that time we'll likely be far more efficient and using more alternate sources. So there doesn't seem to be any reason for alarm or worrying about carbon footprints.
IPCC estimates used to put the sensitivity of doubling CO2 at 5 - 9 degrees C increase (mostly based on fairly extreme models). Now the mainstream is putting it under 2. Even the IPCC is down to the 1.5 - 4 range. So far there is no real observational evidence that's it's above 1. Even 2 degrees of warming is likely net beneficial and we wouldn't double CO2 from pre-industrial times until 2100 probably (we've gone from a bit under 300 ppm to around 400 currently) and by that time we'll likely be far more efficient and using more alternate sources. So there doesn't seem to be any reason for alarm or worrying about carbon footprints.
-
- KVRAF
- 2317 posts since 11 Mar, 2003
Which, as always, means if you're rich you don't have to actually give a monkey's, you just pay a tax (which does what? Pay to plant a couple of trees in Brazil or something?) and carry on with your private jet/limo/smoke-belching factory etc.Numanoid wrote:But unlike Maggie's community charge (poll tax), you pay by how much you (ab)use it right?do_androids_dream wrote:Above all, a means to charge a taxation.Mr Arkadin wrote:Please define 'carbon footprint' for me
I'm betting most here already have a 'greener' lifestyle than all this politicos that want to tax you. Certainly Gore can go f**k himself.
-
Echoes in the Attic Echoes in the Attic https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=180417
- KVRAF
- 12056 posts since 12 May, 2008
Agreed. Some of the worst sea level rise alarmists buy swanky sea-side mansions in places they claim will be under water.Mr Arkadin wrote: Certainly Gore can go f**k himself.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 25849 posts since 20 Jan, 2008 from a star near where you are