Don't get me wrong: avoiding animal products, long-haul flights, plastic shampoo bottles are all worthwhile, but not for the reasons stated. They do not even begin to address the large systemic problem of climate change and ecological harm. They make us feel good, like we're "doing something" - and perhaps that's by design while the real perpetrators of our own extinction go unpunished and even unrecognized. It is "bumper sticker" activism while what's actually needed is a radical shift in collective consciousness. How do we organize such global action for effect?
So if you take that perspective, it's not just what works for you, but what can you come up with that might appeal to others? Can you document what works and what doesn't?
Well. One suggestion would be to stop feeling bad about evangelising and start talking about lifestyle choices with friends, family, and co-workers.
Arguably encouraging others to do these things is even harmful, because they then think they're "doing something" and consider their job done, instead of working on influencing society to change its rules.
We can work on renewables, but the main source our renewable power today is hydroelectric and I have read that very little growth in hydroelectric power can be expected because the vast majority of exploitable topology in the USA is already in use for hydroelectric.
Its hard to imagine enough wind turbines being built to eliminate oil, coal, and gas very soon. I've probably made a mistake in my calculations so I welcome some help here. Maybe someone can correct this if I'm wrong.
total_usa_power_MWH = 3,808,000,000
fraction_non_renewable = 0.78
replacement_needed_MWH = total_usa_power_MWH * fraction_non_renewable
// replacement_needed_MWH == 2,970,240,000
turbine_capacity_factor = 0.32
nameplate_needed_MWH = replacement_needed_MWH / turbine_capacity_factor
// nameplate_needed_MWH = 9,282,000,000
cost_per_nameplate_MWH = 2,000,000
total_cost = nameplate_needed_MWH * cost_per_nameplate_MWH
// total_cost == 1.86e+16
cost_trillions = 18,600
Even if we pursue this course of action will it affect global temperatures. Other countries will continue to emit GHGs.
If it is megawatts hours, it should be MWh (lower h), and over which period of time, day, month, year?
If it is megawatts, it should be MW, not MWh.
It astounds me that the field of climate science is taken so seriously when it appears to actually mostly just be full of hangers-on, also-rans, and wannabes. And I can think of a few big names in it who have little to no scientific training at all.