Sorry for not being clearer earlier...I meant all electricity usage by companies/businesses vs all electricity used by individual consumers in their "residential lives"(so more than just computers and handheld devices).

Yeah, we might be in for a rough ride.....but if we must do anything about such things, I feel it should be methods other than bans/restrictions tried first, and more focus should be put on "offenders" in the business/corporate sphere.

what warming?
if you use larger and more fans the pc wont warm up that much

The whole thing seems ridiculous to me. The United States (and I guess elsewhere but I'm in the USA so I can't comment) has been hooked on energy for centuries. We used to send crews of men on multi-year voyages to go hunt whales for oil. We engaged in pulling oil out of the ground in often dangerous situations. The list goes on.
I can't even afford a high end rig but if I could you know what energy I would use? Whatever comes out of the wall socket. So if the infrastructure is built to generate electricity from hydro I guess I'll use hydro. Wind? Guess I'll use wind. Fossil fuels? Then that's what gets used.

I believe in taking care of the environment in the sense of "don't shit where you eat" and where we all live is this planet. I throw my plastic and paper out in different bins because the powers that be said that would help. I did my part. Nobody asked me if we should put unrecyclable Styrofoam in every shipping box. Nobody consulted me about the chemicals used to "sink" the oil spill when the Deep Water Horizon spewed oil for over 4 months. If I throw my plastic straws in the proper place but you morons cram a kilo of plastic straw waste down a seagulls throat that means you're disposing of things incorrectly, not me.

It's laughable that consumers would be held responsible for energy issues. We've consumed what's been provided. When companies have cut corners to help their bottom line and it's negative for the environment in some way, that's a choice they made. Often it's a choice the consumer isn't even aware of. There's also been no shortage of people trying to sell me more and more devices requiring electricity. So Americans probably do have an energy consumption problem but it's difficult to see how consumers are the ones to blame when infrastructure and decisions are out of our hands. If I go live as a monk in a cave GM isn't going to lower output. Not for one person. If ten thousand people do it they won't either. Their marketing department will just start trying to figure out how they can market rugged outdoor Jeeps to the "ascetic monk" market segment. There are consumer level problems to be sure but the problems higher up the food chain are the ones that would make a meaningful difference. They're also the ones nobody wants to address.

Also, if we all suddenly reduced our energy consumption by say 25% does anyone believe businesses would change? Or just increase their consumption when rates make it profitable?

I am usually not a person to just post youtube links, but if you are one of the few people in the world like me who are not from the US of A and wondering what is going on, here is a very good explanation -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5fc5ZX6Kzk

For Canada: https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/trends/2017/totalsectors.cfm
https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/trends/2017/commercial.cfm
https://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/trends/2017/index.cfm Correct. A lot of Canadian plastic waste use to go to China until they stopped accepting it. Now it goes to SE Asia like Malaysia and the Philippines.

Plastic waste-to-energy would be interesting to consider on a per-province basis. An engineering consulting company looked at the feasibility of a MSW (city garbage) incineration plant in Whitehorse and estimated costs of $0.15-0.40/kWh (2011) based on European plants. Today is about $0.19/kWh for Yukon electricity costs. So anywhere from at cost to double. Very difficult to compete at a cost level with hydro in Ontario for example, ranging from $0.08-0.17/kWh.

Correct. Here's a US-based sankey diagram of energy distribution (2020): https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/flow/total_energy_2020.pdf

Industry + commercial = 48% for end-use compared to residential 17%. If you look at just the commercial only, then it's 12%.

The article isn't particularly well written, but the gist is that Dell/Alienware is choosing not to ship, not that the state has "banned" it.

The phrasing is:

"For the time being, Dell is no longer shipping certain Alienware Aurora R12 and R10 gaming PC configurations to half a dozen US states because those product lines potentially fall out of bounds of newly adopted energy efficiency requirements."

Does the policy need re-assessing? Maybe. Does Alienware need to work on its engineering? Maybe?

The jump from here to citing "authoritarianism" is mind-boggling. I mean, public policy is often contentious, but there are very real real world issues that do need to be hammered out. We may not all agree on every constraint, but constraints are a fact of life (speed limits, seat belts, noise ordinance, though shalt not eat shellfish, etc. etc.) in every society ever whether derived from religious law, cultural practice, or civil law.

You...do understand that, right?

Anyone remember the Tobacco industry [TI], before the health issues became obvious? Now we have warnings at every turn and pictures of cadavers on the packaging. Do you think the TI welcomed these changes with open arms?

Of course not. They got together and arranged to spend huge amounts of money on a campaign of disinformation, and tried desperately to fight change at every turn. Even today, the situation is almost laughable. What other product can you freely buy at every corner shop that is covered completely with warnings about how 'this product will kill you'?

Big oil has known about climate change for decades, and their response? Exactly the same as the TI. To paraphrase a 1979 film, 'Protect profits, priority one, all other priorities rescinded.'

Many people still believe their lies and insist that man-made climate change is a myth. The world is burning before our eyes, yet as long as profits keep rolling in, the campaign will be well funded and people will resist the changes necessary to address the problem.

Too many people for too long have been saying; Meh, I'll be long dead before it affects anyone, so it's not my problem. Look around. People a being killed and displaced right now as a direct result of what could have been avoided if we had acted sooner. And it can only get worse.

When the power went out in Texas last year, the petrochemical industry quickly responded by blaming failed wind turbines. The fact is that many wind turbines did indeed fail, and so did a lot of other infrastructure, as a result of unprecedented freezing around that whole region of the country. It was an extreme weather event that effected about a quarter of North America, and it fits perfectly with climate change models that have been public knowledge for decades.

One of the most significant recent developments was under-reported, and you may have missed it. The permafrost in Northern Europe / Siberia is currently storing enough methane to raise global temperatures by more than enough to make it irreversible for the foreseeable future. And it's melting at a rate unprecedented in human history. Not tomorrow or next generation. Right now.

If tomorrow, carbon emissions were reduced to half of today's volume, it could still be too little too late.

Any move to improve efficiency of electrical consumer goods is a move in the right direction, and the same applies to any carbon contributor. But the damage done by the petrochemical propaganda machine is too big to fight with such small measures.

Even if it's possible, reversing man-made climate change will be tough, expensive, and it will affect everyone. And each day that goes by without drastic change, just means the changes will need to be more drastic, more expensive, and less appealing.

In the words of Ash. '"I can't lie to you about your chances. But, you have my sympathies."

And there is a bigger problem nobody wants to talk about. Overpopulation. Not only humanity is burning the planet. Humanity is also, literally, consuming it: Overexploitation of aquifers, lakes and rivers; overfishing; forests and rainforests being burned to create cultivation lands; the soil being poluted (and the aquifers) with chemicals to increase the farming production to the max; etc.

The maths are simple, the more people on the planet, the more resources are going to be needed: Fresh water, food, raw minerals, plastics, electricity, etc.

It is absolutely necessary to be more eco-friendly and efficient. But it is not the solution because it won´t be enough if the population of the planet is increased by several thousand of million people during the next decades.

If there is not enough water and food for everybody in the present, what will happen in the future when there will be thousands of millions of more people to be fed?

https://www.un.org/sites/www.un.org/files/2016/07/28/world-population.jpg

https://i.insider.com/55d38ec0dd089595388b46c6

That was a great video, thank you for that link.

I will disagree with the major point he made, which was that they are not targeting gamers specifically, only power glutton abusers. Why single out high end computers if the goal is to reduce overall power consumption? The utility companies know how much power each household uses and what is considered average.

Orkhepaj correctly identified the commonality of these states, which is that they are governed by liberals. You would never see this type of regulation in a red state. A red state would simply increase the capacity of the power grid and let people who want to use more electricity pay for it. That of course means burning more fossil fuels which these liberal states don't want to do because green energy alone cannot meet the demand required.

Ok no problem, each state can choose what works for them and the people will voice their approval or disapproval at the ballot box and relocate if necessary. But in order to be truly equitable and serious about reducing power consumption, wouldn't you simply punish households that use far more power than the norm through a higher tax or fee? Why is it ok to leave air conditioning on all day while you are away but when someone wants to use their awesome gaming computer, that is evil?

Well guess which households are power gluttons. The elites living in mansions in Silicon Valley and Hollyweird.
Can't punish them or tell them to reduce their energy consumption. Can only push around the working class.

More information, should you be interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbR-5mHI6bo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipVxxxqwBQw

(Yes, population growth and air conditioning are mentioned.)

Is Eco-Anxiety a Medical Condition?
Not usually. It isn’t an officially recognised physical or mental disorder, so it can’t be diagnosed as one. Eco-anxiety is on a spectrum, with some people more effected than others. Reasonable levels of eco-anxiety are rational, so they can’t be considered as a ‘disorder’. But eco-anxiety could sometimes be excessive, and it could combine with and exacerbate other pre-existing medical conditions.

As a normal rational fear, eco-anxiety is different from some other types of anxiety which require medical treatment. For example, Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) involves a disruption of the brain signals which identify danger and which trigger avoidance actions. With GAD, danger signals can be experienced when there’s no danger. This can lead to excessive worry, distress, and problems at school or at work, and in relationships. Distress can be accompanied by headaches, pains, nausea, shaking or sweating.

If symptoms of eco-anxiety become similar to those of GAD, or if eco-anxiety is seriously impacting normal daily life, then a doctor should be consulted. Treatment could include simple Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) where thoughts and beliefs about climate change and environment are discussed, and personal coping strategies developed. But this would be different from treatment of other types of anxiety, because it would recognise that eco-anxiety is real and justified. Most levels of eco-anxiety can be addressed through personal action and lifestyle adjustments.
Is Eco-Anxiety a Medical Condition?
Not usually. It isn’t an officially recognised physical or mental disorder, so it can’t be diagnosed as one. Eco-anxiety is on a spectrum, with some people more effected than others. Reasonable levels of eco-anxiety are rational, so they can’t be considered as a ‘disorder’. But eco-anxiety could sometimes be excessive, and it could combine with and exacerbate other pre-existing medical conditions.

As a normal rational fear, eco-anxiety is different from some other types of anxiety which require medical treatment. For example, Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) involves a disruption of the brain signals which identify danger and which trigger avoidance actions. With GAD, danger signals can be experienced when there’s no danger. This can lead to excessive worry, distress, and problems at school or at work, and in relationships. Distress can be accompanied by headaches, pains, nausea, shaking or sweating.

If symptoms of eco-anxiety become similar to those of GAD, or if eco-anxiety is seriously impacting normal daily life, then a doctor should be consulted. Treatment could include simple Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) where thoughts and beliefs about climate change and environment are discussed, and personal coping strategies developed. But this would be different from treatment of other types of anxiety, because it would recognise that eco-anxiety is real and justified. Most levels of eco-anxiety can be addressed through personal action and lifestyle adjustments.

This entire post, including the above bit: *slow clap* well said

And some of us do want to(or actually do, irl and online) address such things, but officials still don't listen much(if at all).

-

This is where the 2nd R comes into play(which sadly many don't seem to do as much of)....i.e. re-using things. I try to use whatever plastic items I can over and over again(mainly as storage containers for various items), instead of tossing them to the curb.

As for plastic recycling: shipping plastic to be recycled in Asia seems a waste....companies should perhaps be required to process the recycled plastic content they use themselves, and/or such recycling should be done locally(to avoid fuel/etc waste in shipping).

And if we take into account commercial/industrial transportation usage(if it's not already included in the industry/commercial parts of that chart), it's possibly even higher.....yet they keep pushing the regulations/etc onto us.

Well said

On this subject(which is ontopic[in case any staff are reading], as it ties into the OP post topic): whether the state of the planet is humanity's fault or not, there's likely little we could do to change it......well perhaps short of all living like the amish, that is.
(i.e. no gaming/phones/cars/etc.....which many likely wouldn't want to do)

I can't wait until space based industry/commerce (hopefully) becomes a thing: we could do like dead space(albeit maybe not to the extent of ripping chunks out of planets till they fall apart, and with 101% less necromorphs) and just harvest planets/moons/etc for a good chunk of what we need(while also practicing the 3 Rs, of course, to help maintain the eco-system as much as we can).

Ah, the old 'You don't agree with me, so you must be mentally ill.' argument. Is that still a thing?

A beautiful example of what a successful campaign of misinformation can do, even to otherwise rational people. Thank you for demonstrating my point so convincingly, while offering no actual rebuttal.