Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Power Technology

Americans Are Saving Energy Because Fewer People Go Outside (theverge.com) 202

Posted by BeauHD from the sign-of-the-times dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Americans are saving energy because they don't go outside as much anymore, researchers say. It's a plus for the environment, though in another light (no pun intended), it's just sad. In 2012, Americans spent an extra eight days at home compared to 2003, according to the American Time Use Surveys. Being at home means using more energy by keeping the lights on and watching TV. But it also means less travel, and it means that fewer people are outside operating offices and stores. So overall in 2012, we saved 1,700 trillion British thermal units (BTU) of heat, or 1.8 percent of the national total, according to an analysis published today in the journal Joule. That's about how much energy Kentucky produced in all of 2015. Specifically in 2012, Americans spent one day less traveling and one week less in buildings other than their homes when compared to a decade earlier. The trend of staying indoors is especially strong for those ages 18 to 24: the youths spent 70 percent more time at home than the general population. At the other end of the age spectrum, those 65 and older were the only group that spent more time outside the home compared to 2003. Next, the researchers want to look at energy consumption changes in other countries as a result of lifestyle changes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Americans Are Saving Energy Because Fewer People Go Outside More

Americans Are Saving Energy Because Fewer People Go Outside

Comments Filter:

  • Money (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Those demographics also coincide with who has the most money (65+ baby boomers) and the least (18-24 year olds). When you have no money, you can't afford to go places and do interesting things.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skids ( 119237 )

      those 65 and older were the only group that spent more time outside

      ...simpler explanation: to get away from the smell of mothballs and ben gay.

    • Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @12:39AM (#56031173)
      Utter nonsense. Get a cheap bicycle and rid down to a local park. Drop by some basketball courts and meet some new people and get some exercise. Go down to the city library and find some interesting books to read. Go to some wacky community event involving art or music. There's all manner of things that can be done for free and even more on top of that which can be done for $10 or less if you're willing to look around a bit.

      I think the real truth is that the 18-24 crowd is too absorbed in Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to want to get outside. If John Calhoun were still alive he'd be yelling about behavioral sink right about now.

      • Utter nonsense. Get a cheap bicycle and rid down to a local park. Drop by some basketball courts and meet some new people and get some exercise. Go down to the city library and find some interesting books to read. Go to some wacky community event involving art or music. There's all manner of things that can be done for free and even more on top of that which can be done for $10 or less if you're willing to look around a bit.

        I think the real truth is that the 18-24 crowd is too absorbed in Facebook, Twitter, and other social media to want to get outside. If John Calhoun were still alive he'd be yelling about behavioral sink right about now.

        Interestingly, most of those inexpensive methods of getting out to have fun use little to no energy, particularly if you use a bicycle to get there.

      • you can't just ride down to your local park. Cops will nail you for riding on the side walk and there's no bike paths. Drivers are generally hostile to bicyclists. I'm a roadie and I ride a lot, but I also make decent money and live away from the center of town without a 90 minute commute. I got incredibly lucky that way.

        Going down to the city library isn't exactly getting out. It's a drive, followed by being inside for a bit, followed by another drive. Thanks to urban sprawl Most of the community events

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by King_TJ ( 85913 )

        I disagree, at least to an extent. Sure, there are always free activities out there people can attend. But quite frankly, a vast majority of them I see on a regular basis don't interest me much or at all. The small city I live in tries to do a number of events each year to promote some tourism and stimulate the local economy, and I participate whenever it's appealing. (For example, they do a big Veterans's Day parade each year. As a Jeep owner, I always volunteer to be part of the parade along with a whol

  • Web surfing is now green.

  • Outdoors sucks which is why we invented the great indoors! ;)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skids ( 119237 )

      Pretty much. Bugs, skin cancer, and sneezy tree spooge. (Not that there aren't plenty of indoor air quality hazards, but it's much easier to clean a house.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dcw3 ( 649211 )

        Bunch of sissies. Get on a bicycle, motorcycle, boat, snow or waterskis, snowmobile, jet ski, basketball court, hiking trail, the side of a mountain, swimming pool, ice rink, Buy some suntan lotion, deet bugspray and a hat to address the issues you raised.

        It still boggles the mind that someone above claimed VR is better than real life, and got modded +5. If you guys really believe that crap, we're all fucked in the future.

    • Re:As I say... (Score:5, Funny)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @12:41AM (#56031177)

      Just to clarify, when they say "outdoors" they are referring to the big blue room with the trees, right?

    • Right now, it's too cold to go out. In 6 months, it will be too hot. In between, it will be too rainy.

  • The reality is.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blahplusplus ( 757119 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @12:05AM (#56031087)

    ... the internet opened the doors to endless entertainment and curiousity, you can really never get bored because you're interacting with other people. Despite all the trolling and awfulness of internet comments the reality is humanity likes a train wreck, even amongst the most intelligent it's hard for those curious primates NOT to look.

  • from 2008. There where promotions that got delayed and at least one that just plain went poof. I couldn't get far enough ahead career wise to get ahead of the cost of my kid's college, so any gains I made in the 8 years immediately got eaten up by that. By the time she graduates and the debt I'm taking on (not much for scholarships & 2008 wiped out my savings, and there's limits to how much she can borrow) It'll be time to desperately save for 'retirement' (e.g. when I'm laid off in my 60s and nobody'll

    • and there's limits to how much she can borrow

      I hit those limits as a student. My parents took on the loans - but in name only. I'm the only one who has ever made payments on them.

    • Perhaps if you lived in an enlightened country with free college, you wouldnâ(TM)t be in your current situation.

      • Perhaps if you lived in an enlightened country with free college, you wouldn't be in your current situation.

        There is no such thing as an enlightened country with free college.

        The people still pay for it through their taxes, and an enlightened country would not shackle their educational system with government mandates. I've read some history books. Government controlled schools are not where people get educated, they get indoctrinated. Schools know where they get their money, they will not bite the hand that feeds them and allow their students to think freely on matters that the government has already decided f

        • Of course itâ(TM)s paid for with taxes. An enlightened country realizes that an educated population is a good thing for everyone. Just like you pay taxes for your local police and fire department.

      • Is that one of those enlightened countries that jails people for being offensive?

    • So, why are you still in this position? You've had a decade to change your skills, change jobs, careers, and location. If you're not happy, fix your life!

      In the same time period I moved a thousand miles away, went through 3 different jobs doing different things, and doubled my income in the process. My current job isn't similar to the one I had back then, but tangentially relies on some of those skills. I'm in an area with a reasonable cost of living and unemployment in my general field that often hovers un

  • We may as well just be digital.

  • There seems to be a lot of confusion. Staying home doesn't necessarily mean staying indoors. I telecommute and I hate the mall, but I like to go outside when I make a phone call and when the evenings are nice I go for a walk around the neighborhood.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by E-Rock ( 84950 )

      Right? I'm not sure where they got to staying indoors more from data that says people travel less.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Correlation vs. causation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lucas123 ( 935744 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @12:43AM (#56031181) Homepage

    Being at home means using more energy by keeping the lights on and watching TV. But it also means less travel, and it means that fewer people are outside operating offices and stores.

    The logic here appears flawed. Fewer people aren't "outside operating offices and stores?" What does that mean? Offices and stores don't shut down because fewer people are in them. There aren't fewer office buildings or stores, and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    • I'm not so sure. Big retailers like ToysRUs and Sam's Club are shuttering many of their properties. Whether there's been a net reduction since 2003, I can't say, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. I for one would rather browse Amazon than go to the mall.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      Huh?

      Offices and stores don't shut down because fewer people are in them.

      An office or business with limited foot traffic may reduce their hours so they aren't paying for staffing when people aren't coming in often enough.

      There aren't fewer office buildings or stores...

      There most certainly will be "fewer office buildings and stores" when businesses are closing from lack of customers (who are doing their business online while they are staying closed up at home).

      ...and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.

      Yeah, that's why when I'm driving around at 4am in the commercial district all the businesses have their road signs on and interiors fully lit. ...Oh wait. No, they

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hawguy ( 1600213 )

      There aren't fewer office buildings or stores, and they don't use less power on HVAC and lights because someone isn't there.

      Correlation does not imply causation.

      My office turns off the lights when people aren't there (and you have to stand up and wave your arms every hour so the motion sensor keeps the lights on). Just last year our building announced that they weren't going to turn on HVAC on weekends due to lack of use. And they already turned off HVAC off from 9pm-6am. For a fee, after hours HVAC can be arranged, but as far as I know, no one has asked for it.

    • Poor example but still a good conclusion. Sitting at home and watching TV is still far better for the environment than sitting in the car and watching traffic, even when the latter activity takes up a fraction of the time.

      Also you're implying that everything is fixed on the other end. It's not. We just closed down an office and merged it with another due to a rise in working from home. This reduces travel, well reduces the amount of energy spent lighting (why the hell are there so many fluros over my head?)

    • If your lights use more energy than driving around in a car, just WTF do you light your house with? 1000W halogens? Do you use them for heating too?

      Whoever modded you informative apparently doesn't math at all.

      Gas has about 33 kWh/gallon.

      Modern LED lights will draw around 0.01 kWh, and even hungry plasma screens are in the ballpark of 0.1 kWh.

      Moving our fat asses around is ridiculously energy intensive.

  • thank you . very useful text

  • Wouldn't the energy cost of the portion of the obesity epidemic attributable to the sedimentary lifestyle subtract from this? I didn't see any consideration of that though it would be tough to untangle.

    Perhaps you could start by estimating what portion of the million plus deaths directly and indirectly attributable to obesity could be prevented with a less sedimentary lifestyle, total up the entire health industry's energy bill, figure out what fraction of the health industry's business is attributable to t

    • Wouldn't the energy cost of the portion of the obesity epidemic attributable to the sedimentary lifestyle subtract from this? I didn't see any consideration of that though it would be tough to untangle.

      Perhaps you could start by estimating what portion of the million plus deaths directly and indirectly attributable to obesity could be prevented with a less sedimentary lifestyle, total up the entire health industry's energy bill, figure out what fraction of the health industry's business is attributable to those illnesses, and multiply the energy bill by that fraction.

      If we weighed the impact of one of our largest health issues against damn near anything, the end result would likely invalidate the original study. How many of "those" illnesses are you going to attribute to a sedimentary lifestyle? Heart disease? Diabetes? Cancer? There are a number of our top killers in society that are certainly exacerbated by sitting on your ass all day every day.

      When I was allowed to work from home, it saved me two hours every day in commute time. I took one hour of that time and

  • It was kind of amusing to see this article about people staying indoors shortly after the one about an indoor rainforest environment being built in Seattle. I suppose it's not a temperate rainforest like the Hoh, and they don't have the actual rainfall one frequently encounters just outside the doors. But, still, nothing says "we're avoiding the outdoors" like creating an indoor rainforest in a rainy city.

  • Ultimately (Score:3)

    by thePsychologist ( 1062886 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @03:30AM (#56031481) Journal

    I see this as bad for the environment. The fewer that appreciate the natural beauty of the outdoors, the fewer people there will be to protect it when humans inevitably carelessly expand to more regions.

    • Nope.... That concern isn't that valid, IMO. We know from our history that we tend to congregate together in densely packed groups. Half of the U.S. population exists in something like a dozen big cities.

      The people who really get into "the great outdoors" tend to be the ones motivated to sacrifice a lot of conveniences and even better job prospects to live in more rural areas. But they're also the ones more likely to take care of the place they're moving to!

    • I disagree. There's plenty of people willing to stand up and protest destruction of the environment. They are pretty much crushed under the boot of the market. Decreasing demand of energy is key.

      Also, I'm very suspicious of a particular type of "environmentalist"--the kind that appreciates the natural beauty of the outdoors, but wants it all for themself. The kind that drives around national parks in big RVs, perhaps owning a large amount of land where they hunt and camp, while feeling smug about themselves

    • The summary is totally confused. It defines "outside" as "buildings other than their homes". So specifically not including being outdoors. Probably it just means more people shop online and telecommute, so they spend less time in stores and offices. Hopefully that leaves them more time to spend enjoying the outdoors.

  • So, what's important here? When it comes right down to it I don't care much about saving energy. Energy costs money, and money is something I care about, so I'll reduce my energy use if that means saving money. If I can find cheaper sources of energy then that means saving money too.

    If the concern is carbon output then I still don't care much about how much energy I use so long as it's from carbon free sources. Going for a drive takes energy. So does running power tools in my shed to make something. I

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hipp5 ( 1635263 )

      Not all energy is equal on environmental impact.

      I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?

      Because right now, most everyday residents don't have control over where their energy comes from; "energy used" is the best proxy you and I have for environmental impact.

      Plus, in many areas, low-impact energy is a limited resource. So even if the electrons YOU are using are from the wind turbines down the road, by using them you are preventing* someone else from using them and potentially offsetting higher-impact sources.

      *Yes, I know grid dynamics are a little more complicated than this. But again, this is

      • That's fine if we assume the continued use of coal and natural gas, and people don't have control on where their energy comes from. If the Democrats had not held up nuclear power then we'd have energy that is "green", cheap, and safe.

        Oh, and nuclear power is effectively unlimited. There's enough uranium and thorium in the crust of the Earth to last humanity beyond when the sun consumes the planet.

        Democrats holding us back from nuclear power goes back to the Carter administration. If the Democrats don't c

    • Well, not solved exactly but the concerns over global warming should stop any day now

      Only if you take a very long term view of "any day now". Most energy infrastructure (power plants and the like) is built to last around 40 years. Even if we completely stopped building non-renewable energy sources today (and we're not there yet, though the majority of new capacity is now renewable), existing power plants would keep producing greenhouse gases for decades. To prevent that, we need to accelerate the process and shut them down ahead of schedule. That's a lot easier (less expensive) to do if

      • To prevent that, we need to accelerate the process and shut them down ahead of schedule. That's a lot easier (less expensive) to do if overall energy use is decreasing than if it's increasing.

        If we use the same amount of electricity year after year then those existing plants will still be producing energy from burning carbon. If usage increases then new power plants must be built to meet demand. Those new plants would presumably be using new technology. This can be carbon free sources like solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear. Or at least "greener" energy like natural gas, "clean coal", or something. The per joule carbon output would be lowered. The funds for these new plants would be from peopl

        • The per joule carbon output would be lowered.

          It's the total emissions that matter, not the per joule emissions. If we cut the emissions per unit energy in half but double the amount of energy we produce, the effect on the climate is the same.

          It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for an electric utility to see this growing demand and decide that instead of buying new land and running new wires that they could instead put these funds from new electricity demand into upgrading existing power plants.

          Sure, that could happen if they have a financial incentive to do it. A carbon tax for example. But it's not going to magically happen on its own. Most power plants are in places where land is cheap, and anyway solar takes more land than coal, not less. (Actually that's only true if you don't count the land us

          • A carbon tax for example.

            Why would I vote for a carbon tax? Why would anyone vote for a carbon tax? I'm assuming we are discussing nations where people get to vote. A government can get addicted to taxes, creating a carbon tax means the government will never want to see coal go away. If the government honestly thought electric cars would dominate the roads then they'd be taxing electric cars right now instead of gasoline to pay for highway construction. If anyone thinks that there is an "addiction" to petroleum then that appli

            • I have no clue what point you're trying to make. You made the assertion that "concerns over global warming should stop any day now". I explained all the reasons that's not true. We are currently emitting large amounts of CO2, we are currently on a path to keep doing so for decades (worldwide emissions actually increased last year), and even if we stopped today the planet would continue getting warmer for the next century. This has nothing to do with ideology. They're just facts. We can discuss the bes

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rakarra ( 112805 )

      I'm trying to understand this concern over energy use. If the real concern is on carbon then measure the carbon. If the concern is on the money spent then measure the money spent. Perhaps I'm missing something? Why should I care about energy used?

      Because nothing is free. Everything has a cost. The more energy you save in one area, then that's energy that can be applied for other work instead. Or it's less effort and cost to serve 100k people, money that can be applied to other tasks. We're still an energy-starved society. Need a desalination plant in a state with a drought? Sorry, desalination takes a huge amount of electricity. Etc.

  • Am I understanding correctly that this is yet something else that is having more of a positive effect than daylight savings time is?
    Has anyone thought about getting rid of that yet?

  • Bullshit! (Score:3)

    by BlueStrat ( 756137 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2018 @01:21PM (#56033921)

    People are not using as much energy because they're too damned broke to go anywhere or do anything that costs money, so they stay home.

    This ain't rocket surgery.

    Strat

  • We can either cut down the population drastically, or, we can go full matrix and never leave the internet.

  • I thought that we just had a Slashdot story a few days ago about our energy consumption going up because of cryptocurrency mining. Which story is right?

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close