Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5531|eXtreme to the maX
I'm suggesting you use less electricity or stop whining about what other people are doing, ideally both.

South Koreans have per capita CO2 emissions comparable with people in countries with energy intensive primary production.
Seems like people like you use too much electricity, stop it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2877
south korea modernised in the last 40 years. it still does have intensive production, both on large and small scales, from alleyway workshops up to high-tech conglomerates. lol.

what's australia's excuse for their world-beating per capita CO2 emissions, considering, you know, you weren't flattened by war and starting from zero in 1960?

'people like me use too much electricity'? lol try again. you are a very silly little man.

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-23 03:04:00)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5531|eXtreme to the maX
Not so much energy intensive production though.

Australia produces immense quantities of food, iron ore and coal - much of which imported by South Korea.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2877
erm, korea is one of the biggest shipbuilders in the world thanks to companies like hyundai. it has gigantic steelworks. it also has significant domestic petrochemicals production – which is in turn exported to places like china, vietnam, india, etc, as materials. if australia can shift their 'exported' co2 emissions onto the consuming nations' balance sheets, can't korea in turn with their high-emitting petrochemicals sector?

https://images-global.nhst.tech/image/VVJ4a1hENmpyYlJZb0c3Um90anA0ZTl2WmJFM01uSHViMWVKaXRxZGRIbz0=/nhst/binary/6d318e6ffbddcd9527014d17653c6fe1

https://m.hyundai-steel.com/m/en/image/company/img_place02.jpg

https://file.mk.co.kr/meet/neds/2020/05/image_readtop_2020_524957_15901211764209963.jpg

https://m.hanwha.com/content/dam/hanwha/news_and_media/press_release/hanwha-total-petrochemical-readies-new-production-line-for-advanced-plastics/171228_1_M.jpg

Not so much energy intensive production though.
you truly are a fucking berk. i mean, who even are daewoo, hyundai and samsung, anyway?

you have shown time and time again that you don't know anything about the country. you think it's a hermit kingdom in south-east asia which only produces glossy k-pop stars, evidently.

not to mention, again, to repeat at laborious length, that the entire assumption of your argument – that i am responsible for the economic profile of korea, or its energy infrastructure, when i'm a digital nomad skimming along the surface of things here for a mere 18 months – is risibly stupid. my personal responsibility for their steelworks or coal-powered industries is, erm, yeah. what do you get when you shave an iota?

it's funny. for years you promoted the gospel of 'personal responsibility'. but as soon as we scrutinize your actual lifestyle, the things you take for granted, the daily energy uses of your suburban, import-heavy, car-driving, daily commuting ilfestyle ... suddenly the personal responsibility thing vanishes into the ozone layer, and we're talking instead about 'iron ore refining' and 'steelworks'. i guess there's only so far you can parlay the smugness from not eating meat (because you don't like the taste, lmao) whilst ignoring, uh, everything else about your lifestyle that is objectively world-toppingly high on co2/capita costs.

Seems like people like you use too much electricity, stop it.
In 2019, [in Korea] about 54% of electricity consumption came from industries, 26% from commercial and service sector enterprises, 14% from the residential sector, and 7% from other sectors such as transportation and agriculture.
wowsers, me in my studio apartment taking up a giant slice of that '14% residential' electricity consumption profile, i'm sure. lmao.

sorry but you're really going to have to find a different line of attack rather than accusing a digital nomad who lives in tiny studio apartments, out of a suitcase, with only a laptop and a mobile phone to his name, of somehow being a 'high electricity user'.

derp derp derp

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-23 04:15:17)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6196|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Even in America electricity production creates more greenhouse gases than transportation.

But yeah, if people like uziq blame everyone else as they pump out C02 and methane nothing will ever happen.

LMAO
My point is more that it's funny hearing you speak mockingly(?) of Americans' love for cars and big suburban houses, when you use cars and live in a big suburban house. In a country with a massive footprint tallied at the end of the receipt.
uziq
Member
+476|2877
no, no, you don't understand, australia's emissions are basically all methane from cows, and dilbert hates cows, never touches meat, abhors the stuff, therefore he can drive his 4x4 subaru to work every day, import goods from abroad to his heart's content, and enjoy an international diet/cuisine from the comfort of his local supermarket –- none of it counts. you're just selfish and don't want to consider YOUR lifestyle.

oh and lest you succeed in making him feel even a little bit shaky about the wastefulness of his lifestyle: alas, there's too many brown people anyway. it's better that a tiny white minority such as dilbert consume and burn up everything in a model of 'good living', rather than we all get dragged horribly back into a lower standard of living, like those subhumans have to put up with on faraway continents.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6196|USA

I too love buying big suburban houses that cost like $1.2 million or more for 3 bed 2 bath or whatever. A very typical vice of young and middle aged Americans, to be sure. Long commutes? Sign me up, that's definitely why I moved out here. /s
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6196|USA

uziq wrote:

no, no, you don't understand, australia's emissions are basically all methane from cows, and dilbert hates cows, never touches meat, abhors the stuff, therefore he can drive his 4x4 subaru to work every day, import goods from abroad to his heart's content, and enjoy an international diet/cuisine from the comfort of his local supermarket –- none of it counts. you're just selfish and don't want to consider YOUR lifestyle.

oh and lest you succeed in making him feel even a little bit shaky about the wastefulness of his lifestyle: alas, there's too many brown people anyway. it's better that a tiny white minority such as dilbert consume and burn up everything in a model of 'good living', rather than we all get dragged horribly back into a lower standard of living, like those subhumans have to put up with on faraway continents.
"We should all live like this picture of overpopulated India, then." *sage nod, end of argument*
uziq
Member
+476|2877
the funniest thing is that, just for the perverse sake of winning an argument, any argument ... he rushes off to hastily search google images (aka his highly academic method) or whatever for an image about korea's emissions profile, and smugly posts an 'aha!' about the 'problem' being 'people like you using too much electricity'.

it never occurs to him to perform a follow-up, cursory 10 second search to check out just how that electricity consumption breaks down, nationally. instead, in the very next post he says, with perfect smug assurance, that the country can't possibly have that much energy-intensive production. it's like he's never even heard of posco or hyundai steel, lmao. literally 60% of the nation's electricity consumption is on production/manufacturing.

can you believe this guy has an advanced/postgraduate degree? and this is the level of effort he's putting into his 'arguments'. he must be very, very bored in his little bungalow.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+591|3144

uziq wrote:

erm, korea is one of the biggest shipbuilders in the world thanks to companies like hyundai. it has gigantic steelworks. it also has significant domestic petrochemicals production – which is in turn exported to places like china, vietnam, india, etc, as materials. if australia can shift their 'exported' co2 emissions onto the consuming nations' balance sheets, can't korea in turn with their high-emitting petrochemicals sector?

https://images-global.nhst.tech/image/VVJ4a1hENmpyYlJZb0c3Um90anA0ZTl2WmJFM01uSHViMWVKaXRxZGRIbz0=/nhst/binary/6d318e6ffbddcd9527014d17653c6fe1
Why are there so many trees near the buildings?
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6196|USA

Why shouldn't there be? Even cookie cutter warehouse complexes in my state have the usual greenery present. Is NJ really that desolate that landscaping is a foreign concept?
uziq
Member
+476|2877
korea is almost entirely mountainous. their national tree of association is the pine/conifer. it’s good for shoring up all those mountainsides during the monsoon season.

what would you rather they did, deforested the peninsula? the nature here is nice. why would you want to cut down a forest on a mountainside that is too steep or unsuitable for building on?

why does NJ have the pine barrens? why are there trees near to the FBI HQ? are you high?

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-23 15:33:10)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5531|eXtreme to the maX
The point is uziq is living a first world lifestyle in a first world country - and one of the biggest coal burners at that, his environmental footprint is right up there in the top 1% however much he says it isn't.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6196|USA

South Korea is Australia's #3 for imports, isn't it? After China and USA?

Is going on about someone traipsing around a manufacturing country really a thing a person living in a country that imports items of said manufacture should be doing?

Not that zeek needs the defense or anything but I don't think a foot-traffic favoring person living in an urban center has a larger environmental footprint than a person living out in the suburbs taking cars everywhere, and I might add also flying for stuff?

Weren't you saying you were flying to some Asian country for a job thing?
uziq
Member
+476|2877

Dilbert_X wrote:

The point is uziq is living a first world lifestyle in a first world country - and one of the biggest coal burners at that, his environmental footprint is right up there in the top 1% however much he says it isn't.
but so are you? lol. i just don't get it. this whole endless back-and-forth has been about YOU making out that your shit doesn't stink, that you're living in some green paradise because your very local state of 1.6 million people manage, occasionally, to generate power using renewables. meanwhile your federal govt are pressing ahead with one of the most widely criticized programmes of fossil fuels expansions at the entire IPCC. australia were almost  uniquely singled-out for their cynicism.

you have continually on this forum over the years preached a gospel of personal responsibility. even going so far as to say that the oil companies could be brought down or to heel if people only stopped buying petrol from forecourts. i mean, LMAO. turns out your lifestyle is world-toppingly carbon intensive/greenhouse gas-emitting, but you think because *checks notes* you're a vegetarian that you can always cast the first stone. it's ludicrous.

i'm a temporary visitor to korea. i am living a very simple, barebones lifestyle. that's what digital nomadism is. in terms of material comforts, domestic luxuries, day-to-day indulgences, etc, your lifestyle is a league above mine. i don't live in a large and spacious suburban home. i don't drive a personal vehicle everywhere. i am living, by design, in a lightweight manner. you continually trying to call me out for my 'hypocrisy' and, erm, 'electricity use', is just very fucking misguided. lol. you undoubtedly use more units of electricity than i do: in your home life, in your work life, in your hobbies. every aspect of your life, professional and personal, is more carbon-intensive than mine. skipping meats doesn't cut it, buddy.
uziq
Member
+476|2877
anyway. the UK's main climate advisory body released a 600-page report today.

the UK is, of course, on track to miss its 2030 targets in about 6 or 7 different critical ways. mostly to do with targets to sell e-vehicles, reform of the manufacturing and building sectors, and on making much-promised gains in engineering carbon recapture technologies (i.e. deus ex machina stuff).

the one that really stuck out to me, though, was the issue of housing insulation. the UK has some of the most poorly insulated, draughtiest houses in all of europe. building and insulation standards are genuinely shocking. and, the thing is, we don't need cutting-edge green tech or a new engineering breakthrough to fix it: we know how. and, like, it's really cheap. even nationally, it's a cheap scheme compared to many other aspects of the 'green leap forward'.

and people have been advising on this pressing need for years. for multiple governments. there were even nationwide, highly disruptive protests ... about housing insulation ... last year. not exactly asking for world revolution or utopia, is it?

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0f2034117117c8a22f5a527703f20ae59119c0d3/0_200_6000_3600/master/6000.jpg?width=465&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=17b7ca06fac1a7d5733ca0724c3dd040

and the right-wing press whipped up a hateful frenzy against the 'hippy climate change woke leftists', of course. because, as well as cancelling humanities and demonising 'CRT' textbooks and 'leftist gurus' on university campuses, the current conservative culture war involves ... fighting a front about loft insulation.

totally fucking mad. the UK could make a substantial gain/contribution towards its net 2030 targets if it fixed its fucking leaky homes.

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-29 02:14:57)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5531|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The point is uziq is living a first world lifestyle in a first world country - and one of the biggest coal burners at that, his environmental footprint is right up there in the top 1% however much he says it isn't.
but so are you? lol. i just don't get it. this whole endless back-and-forth has been about YOU making out that your shit doesn't stink, that you're living in some green paradise because your very local state of 1.6 million people manage, occasionally, to generate power using renewables. meanwhile your federal govt are pressing ahead with one of the most widely criticized programmes of fossil fuels expansions at the entire IPCC. australia were almost  uniquely singled-out for their cynicism.

you have continually on this forum over the years preached a gospel of personal responsibility. even going so far as to say that the oil companies could be brought down or to heel if people only stopped buying petrol from forecourts. i mean, LMAO. turns out your lifestyle is world-toppingly carbon intensive/greenhouse gas-emitting, but you think because *checks notes* you're a vegetarian that you can always cast the first stone. it's ludicrous.

i'm a temporary visitor to korea. i am living a very simple, barebones lifestyle. that's what digital nomadism is. in terms of material comforts, domestic luxuries, day-to-day indulgences, etc, your lifestyle is a league above mine. i don't live in a large and spacious suburban home. i don't drive a personal vehicle everywhere. i am living, by design, in a lightweight manner. you continually trying to call me out for my 'hypocrisy' and, erm, 'electricity use', is just very fucking misguided. lol. you undoubtedly use more units of electricity than i do: in your home life, in your work life, in your hobbies. every aspect of your life, professional and personal, is more carbon-intensive than mine. skipping meats doesn't cut it, buddy.
Pretty sure you're lapping up plenty of energy, and yes your meat consumption and urban lifestyle is carbon intensive in a country fueled almost entirely by coal which has been shipped half-way round the world. Meat by itself is bad.

Here 60+% of annual electricity consumption is from wind and solar, so really I can, and especially if I pick the time, use as much electricity as I like and the carbon cost is close to zero.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5531|eXtreme to the maX

uziq wrote:

anyway. the UK's main climate advisory body released a 600-page report today.

the UK is, of course, on track to miss its 2030 targets in about 6 or 7 different critical ways. mostly to do with targets to sell e-vehicles, reform of the manufacturing and building sectors, and on making much-promised gains in engineering carbon recapture technologies (i.e. deus ex machina stuff).

the one that really stuck out to me, though, was the issue of housing insulation. the UK has some of the most poorly insulated, draughtiest houses in all of europe. building and insulation standards are genuinely shocking. and, the thing is, we don't need cutting-edge green tech or a new engineering breakthrough to fix it: we know how. and, like, it's really cheap. even nationally, it's a cheap scheme compared to many other aspects of the 'green leap forward'.

and people have been advising on this pressing need for years. for multiple governments. there were even nationwide, highly disruptive protests ... about housing insulation ... last year. not exactly asking for world revolution or utopia, is it?

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0f2034117117c8a22f5a527703f20ae59119c0d3/0_200_6000_3600/master/6000.jpg?width=465&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=17b7ca06fac1a7d5733ca0724c3dd040

and the right-wing press whipped up a hateful frenzy against the 'hippy climate change woke leftists', of course. because, as well as cancelling humanities and demonising 'CRT' textbooks and 'leftist gurus' on university campuses, the current conservative culture war involves ... fighting a front about loft insulation.

totally fucking mad. the UK could make a substantial gain/contribution towards its net 2030 targets if it fixed its fucking leaky homes.
People can insulate their own homes, its really cheap and you can do it yourself.

Many homes are poorly designed, you just need to go back in time about 50 years and rewrite the building codes.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2877

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

The point is uziq is living a first world lifestyle in a first world country - and one of the biggest coal burners at that, his environmental footprint is right up there in the top 1% however much he says it isn't.
but so are you? lol. i just don't get it. this whole endless back-and-forth has been about YOU making out that your shit doesn't stink, that you're living in some green paradise because your very local state of 1.6 million people manage, occasionally, to generate power using renewables. meanwhile your federal govt are pressing ahead with one of the most widely criticized programmes of fossil fuels expansions at the entire IPCC. australia were almost  uniquely singled-out for their cynicism.

you have continually on this forum over the years preached a gospel of personal responsibility. even going so far as to say that the oil companies could be brought down or to heel if people only stopped buying petrol from forecourts. i mean, LMAO. turns out your lifestyle is world-toppingly carbon intensive/greenhouse gas-emitting, but you think because *checks notes* you're a vegetarian that you can always cast the first stone. it's ludicrous.

i'm a temporary visitor to korea. i am living a very simple, barebones lifestyle. that's what digital nomadism is. in terms of material comforts, domestic luxuries, day-to-day indulgences, etc, your lifestyle is a league above mine. i don't live in a large and spacious suburban home. i don't drive a personal vehicle everywhere. i am living, by design, in a lightweight manner. you continually trying to call me out for my 'hypocrisy' and, erm, 'electricity use', is just very fucking misguided. lol. you undoubtedly use more units of electricity than i do: in your home life, in your work life, in your hobbies. every aspect of your life, professional and personal, is more carbon-intensive than mine. skipping meats doesn't cut it, buddy.
Pretty sure you're lapping up plenty of energy, and yes your meat consumption and urban lifestyle is carbon intensive in a country fueled almost entirely by coal which has been shipped half-way round the world. Meat by itself is bad.

Here 60+% of annual electricity consumption is from wind and solar, so really I can, and especially if I pick the time, use as much electricity as I like and the carbon cost is close to zero.
i really don't know how often you need this totally obvious fact pointed out to you, but suburban living, in detached houses, in nuclear family households with multiple cars on the driveway ... is vastly more carbon-intensive than urban living. you keep maligning cities as if they are the problem. high-density living is literally an improvement on the 1950s suburban model in every single way. the fact you misinterpret this point so singularly makes me think you really haven't thought through this gospel of personal responsibility very honestly with yourself.

i eat a portion of meat with a meal maybe 2 times a week, in line with a reasonable and healthy diet. meat is very expensive here, especially if bought as home groceries. the rest of the week i get my proteins from dairy, nuts, tofu, or protein powders. trying to make out that me having pork once a week at a bbq restaurant is as bad for the environment as you driving yourself everywhere for the last 25 years is just all sorts of fucking funny.

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-29 03:26:38)

uziq
Member
+476|2877

Dilbert_X wrote:

People can insulate their own homes. Many homes are poorly designed, you just need to go back in time about 50 years and rewrite the building codes.
yes, and many people's homes were built with shoddy cladding that turns their nice new apartments into giant fire tombs. the developers and govt similarly tried to say to them that they should fork out the cost to replace the original terrible/defective design. 'oh? an engineering company shafted you with dishonest fire safety testing? just pay £40,000 on top of your already onerous mortgage to fix it. your problem'.

nobody is asking for the government to pay for the whole thing, by the way. it's about subsidies and nudging people in that direction. which governments have done with any number of energy-efficiency schemes, such as with gas tanks->immersion boilers, or in promoting more efficient heat pumps, double-glazed windows, etc. these schemes are not exactly radical, dilbert.

not to mention that a huge amount of the housing stock was originally public/social housing, built literally by the government. it's a no brainer investment that contributes massively towards emission reductions at a very low relative cost.

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-29 03:24:35)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,786|5531|eXtreme to the maX
We're talking about insulation, not faulty cladding.

People can literally go to a DIY store and carry insulation back themselves, double-glazed windows pay for themselves in no time.

But most people prefer to spend their spare cash on travel and partying so what can you do.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
uziq
Member
+476|2877
yes, i made the comparison because your rationale sounded awfully similar. 'it's your property, it's your problem: you pay for it'.

and yes, the typical tabloid right-wing line. 'people can't afford homes because they like fancy lattes and partying'. 'climate change could be fixed if only people stopped watching TV and being selfish slobs'.

People can literally go to a DIY store and carry insulation back themselves
erm, i don't know why you think it's practical to encourage every average family or pensioner in the UK, living in old housing stock, to 'DIY' their missing cavity wall insulation or faulty attic space insulation. most people would hire a professional to unblock a kitchen sink, and you're proposing the whole nation achieves this green target by going down to B&Q and buying up reams of insulation material. LOL.

this is precisely the sort of thing that could benefit from government coordination and incentives, i'm sorry.

you're really on a roll today. ask your mum to fix you a sandwich, i think your blood-sugar levels are off.

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-29 03:41:28)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6196|USA

Men under 40 shouldn't have more than a shot glass of beer per day, new study suggests
The researchers called for stronger guidance to warn younger adults of the health dangers posed by drinking and said there should be tailored alcohol guidance to depend on a person's age and where they live in the world.
https://news.sky.com/story/alcohol-is-n … s-12652265

Researchers are calling for stronger guidance to warn younger adults of the health dangers posed by drinking - and say there should be tailored alcohol guidance to depend on a person's age and where they live in the world.

Some 1.34 billion people are estimated to have consumed harmful amounts of alcohol in 2020, according to the analysis of drinking habits in 204 countries around the world.

The study found 59% of those who drank harmful amounts were aged 15 to 39, and three-quarters of harmful drinkers were men.

They said alcohol provides no health benefit in people aged under 40 - and poses risks including injuries relating to drinking or car accidents, suicides and murders.
"Nothing wrong with just a little tipple! Other drugs are what's problematic."
uziq
Member
+476|2877
that advisory board have somewhat revised the conclusion of their last survey, which stated that consumption of any amount of alcohol is harmful. it seems we're back at the 'a glass of red wine every now and then can help with heart health' line, applied to a specific age-group who are beyond the usual categories of alcohol-related injuries and risk factors.

society really needs a better go-to drug. we have advanced knowledge of pharmaceuticals now. we could devise our own soylent.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,998|6196|USA

I honestly despise being around people who have been drinking too much. Sullen drunks are the worst, making everyone around them miserable. They're always the ones who hide liquor and have only had one or two beers, too. It's always a fight telling them to stop so they don't get mean or sick, or mean and sick, and making your life difficult by association. Or telling them that they shouldn't drive anywhere. And then the rest of your day is ruined by having to deal with all that. It would be nice if a lot of the alcoholics I know just switched to the devil's weed.

If studies and surveys and such keep vacillating between it being patently unhealthy, and selectively 'beneficial,' then I don't know why I'd want to start drinking more in old age. Surely there are better ways to improve your heart health, like a good diet and physical activity, and seeing a doctor every now and then. Carrying a bowling ball of a swollen liver is not a good look.

32oz jar of wine, "it's good for your heart!"

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard