6 ms·

Without commenting on Ferrock's merits, I want to say I'm glad every time I hear concrete/cement's CO2 impact addressed. I feel that should be a MUCH bigger par

Without commenting on Ferrock's merits, I want to say I'm glad every time I hear concrete/cement's CO2 impact addressed. I feel that should be a MUCH bigger part of the conversation about any kind of construction as we look towards very sharply curbing emissions over the next decade. For example, "the wall". Obviously advocates of the wall for the most part don't give a crap about the environmental impact. But even on the Left I don't hear this cited often as a reason to oppose it (amongst many). The CO2 emissions from constructing a several hundred mile long concrete or steel border would be enormous. (Steel is also a major emissions source.) Even urbanists, who generally talk a lot about denser construction as having environmental benefits and are kind of "lefty", don't generally talk about the counterposing cost of concrete & steel emissions. I'm not saying it doesn't pencil out, but let's please always talk about it.

lazyjones 8y ago
> The CO2 emissions from constructing a several hundred mile long concrete or steel border would be enormous. (Steel is also a major emissions source.) This might still be worth if it prevents illegal migration of 1 million people per year from countries with much lower CO2 emissions per capita (e.g. Venezuela 6t/year) to the USA (16.5 tons/year). http://greennews.ie/carbon-footprint-of-trumps-proposed-us-mexico-border-wall-equivalent-to-annual-co2-emmissions-of-smaller-countries/ http://greennews.ie/carbon-footprint-of-trumps-proposed-us-m... estimates the carbon footprint of the „Wall“ as 48m tons - once. With my simplistic numbers above it saves up to 10.5m additional tons per year (i.e. N times that amount in N years). So its carbon footprint is amortized in less than 3 years. That said, I have no political opinion about the „Wall“ (being in Europe), I just like analyzing both sides‘ arguments.
- abraae 8y ago
  I love this counter-intuitive thinking. A while ago at dinner a friend said she was trying to do the right thing environmentally, but it was just too complex. (The case in point was her wanting an EV but hearing that while the car would be clean, there would still be emissions back at the power plant producing the electricity - true in many places but not in my country which has around 78% renewable grid energy). Your comment clarifies just how very complex it is understanding the overall impact on the environment of our actions. (No comment on whether a wall would actually prevent 1M illegal migrants a year).
- weliketocode 8y ago
  I just read this as "The trump border wall will be good for the environment because individuals from a low pollution country will not start polluting at the same rate as Americans." Interesting.
  - abalone 8y ago
    Not quite. They said if it prevents 1M immigrants.. a pure hypothetical to explore the math of discouraging American lifestyles. They definitely did not say the wall would succeed in preventing 1M/year from entering. That is absolutely absurd as only 190K/year cross that border illegally to begin with.[1] Most undocumented immigrants in the US enter legally and just overstay their visas. [1] https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cross-the-border-with-mexico/ https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cros...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- abalone 8y ago
  Specious argument. 1. It assumes that each immigrant’s carbon footprint will suddenly leap to typical American consumer levels. But desperately poor immigrants are likely the lowest producers of emissions. Thus, admitting more would actually lower America’s per capita carbon footprint. 2. Addendum: This "1M/year kept from entering" hypothetical is utterly ridiculous to begin with. Even if the wall was 100% effective -- which is absurd given it can be climbed over with a ladder or tunneled under -- only 190K/year cross that border illegally to begin with.[1] [1] https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cross-the-border-with-mexico/ https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cros...
  - nkurz 8y ago
    Responding down here so as not to derail your otherwise strong comment, but I was bothered by the part that read "Obviously advocates of the wall for the most part don't give a crap about the environmental impact." This might be true on average, but not universally, and I don't think "obviously". I'm not personally an advocate for a wall, but I have pro-Trump relatives who would respect the environmental argument, particularly regarding animal habitat. I think it's a matter of weighting different priorities, rather than "not giving a crap". If all else was equal, I think many advocates would be happy using environmental impact to decide between designs.
    - abalone 8y ago
      Didn't say it was universal.
  - lazyjones 8y ago
    In other words, according to your data/assumptions the amortization time is just longer by a constant factor (unless you mean to claim that the wall would be completely ineffective, which is absurd and needs more proof than „I believe it can be climbed over using a ladder“). I don’t disagree strongly. The point that a single, large CO2 emission „investment“ may be worth it, still stands.
    - 8y ago
- toomuchtuna 8y ago
  That assumes that once anyone enters the US, they will, on average, produce the same amount of CO2 emissions as present US residents. That seemed dubious to me... so turned up this: https://cis.org/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-0 https://cis.org/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Gree... > The estimated CO2 emissions of the average immigrant (legal or illegal) in the United States are 18 percent less than those of the average native-born American. > However, immigrants in the United States produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. So I suppose the overall logic still holds, just slightly adjusts the math.
  - synaesthesisx 8y ago
    The thing is, at the end of the day emissions are global - We all share the same Earth.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
glangdale 8y ago
I'm confused by your last point. Are we to assume that people living in denser constructions would otherwise have lived in grass huts? Or, less ridiculously, only pre-existing buildings? I would imagine that the alternative between people living in new apartments in a dense area would be sprawl, where they would instead live in new houses, which are going to (per person) have much higher amounts of concrete and steel used.
- abalone 8y ago
  Dense urban construction typically uses more concrete and steel. New homes in low rise areas can be built mostly out of wood, for example. Not saying sprawl doesn’t have its own impacts, just that we should properly account for the footprint of concrete and steel construction.
  - josho 8y ago
    That’s easy then. Add a carbon tax and the market will adjust accordingly to the costs. Unfortunately politically it’s not so easy.
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    As an “urbanist”, the kind of “dense urban construction” I would like to see is (some proportion of the) suburbs currently full of single family detached homes on large lots replaced by 3–6 story timber-framed apartment buildings / condos near transit and zoned to allow ground-floor retail. Ideally with narrower roads, fewer parking lots, more public green space, and more land outside of cities left as forest. Many of the densest neighborhoods in the world have no buildings taller than 5 or 6 stories. But I would be surprised if a 40-story apartment building and the infrastructure to service it required more concrete than housing the same number of people in a low-density suburb. Consider all of the sidewalks, sewers, parking lots, concrete foundations, elevated highways, bridges, .... involved in building and servicing a low-density car-commuter neighborhood.
    - abalone 8y ago
      The “one plus five” buildings you’re talking about typically have concrete first floors.[1] You make good points about sidewalks etc. but at the same time that stuff needs to be built bigger and stronger and renewed more in dense urban areas. All I’m arguing for is let’s run the numbers. Don’t just assume city living is more ecological because it’s denser. [1] http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-five-is-shaping-american_27.html http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-f...
XorNot 8y ago
Bringing up the wall here is a weird argument. It's sufficiently awful on so many levels that emissions are the least of our concerns.
darkpuma 8y ago
> " The CO2 emissions from constructing a several hundred mile long concrete or steel border would be enormous. (Steel is also a major emissions source.)" You probably don't hear this approach taken very often because most people won't consider it persuasive when they remember that we have nearly 50,000 miles of interstate highway and many many times more miles of lesser highways and roads. The concrete and steel needed for a couple hundred miles of wall would be a drop in the bucket of infrastructural concrete and steel across the country. You can of course argue that every drop counts, but that sort of argument isn't going to impress many people, which explains why you don't hear it very often. Arguments against the necessity of the wall have more bite.

lazyjones 8y ago

> The CO2 emissions from constructing a several hundred mile long concrete or steel border would be enormous. (Steel is also a major emissions source.) This might still be worth if it prevents illegal migration of 1 million people per year from countries with much lower CO2 emissions per capita (e.g. Venezuela 6t/year) to the USA (16.5 tons/year). http://greennews.ie/carbon-footprint-of-trumps-proposed-us-mexico-border-wall-equivalent-to-annual-co2-emmissions-of-smaller-countries/ http://greennews.ie/carbon-footprint-of-trumps-proposed-us-m... estimates the carbon footprint of the „Wall“ as 48m tons - once. With my simplistic numbers above it saves up to 10.5m additional tons per year (i.e. N times that amount in N years). So its carbon footprint is amortized in less than 3 years. That said, I have no political opinion about the „Wall“ (being in Europe), I just like analyzing both sides‘ arguments.

abraae 8y ago
I love this counter-intuitive thinking. A while ago at dinner a friend said she was trying to do the right thing environmentally, but it was just too complex. (The case in point was her wanting an EV but hearing that while the car would be clean, there would still be emissions back at the power plant producing the electricity - true in many places but not in my country which has around 78% renewable grid energy). Your comment clarifies just how very complex it is understanding the overall impact on the environment of our actions. (No comment on whether a wall would actually prevent 1M illegal migrants a year).
weliketocode 8y ago
I just read this as "The trump border wall will be good for the environment because individuals from a low pollution country will not start polluting at the same rate as Americans." Interesting.
- abalone 8y ago
  Not quite. They said if it prevents 1M immigrants.. a pure hypothetical to explore the math of discouraging American lifestyles. They definitely did not say the wall would succeed in preventing 1M/year from entering. That is absolutely absurd as only 190K/year cross that border illegally to begin with.[1] Most undocumented immigrants in the US enter legally and just overstay their visas. [1] https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cross-the-border-with-mexico/ https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cros...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
abalone 8y ago
Specious argument. 1. It assumes that each immigrant’s carbon footprint will suddenly leap to typical American consumer levels. But desperately poor immigrants are likely the lowest producers of emissions. Thus, admitting more would actually lower America’s per capita carbon footprint. 2. Addendum: This "1M/year kept from entering" hypothetical is utterly ridiculous to begin with. Even if the wall was 100% effective -- which is absurd given it can be climbed over with a ladder or tunneled under -- only 190K/year cross that border illegally to begin with.[1] [1] https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cross-the-border-with-mexico/ https://qz.com/1525779/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-cros...
- nkurz 8y ago
  Responding down here so as not to derail your otherwise strong comment, but I was bothered by the part that read "Obviously advocates of the wall for the most part don't give a crap about the environmental impact." This might be true on average, but not universally, and I don't think "obviously". I'm not personally an advocate for a wall, but I have pro-Trump relatives who would respect the environmental argument, particularly regarding animal habitat. I think it's a matter of weighting different priorities, rather than "not giving a crap". If all else was equal, I think many advocates would be happy using environmental impact to decide between designs.
  - abalone 8y ago
    Didn't say it was universal.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  In other words, according to your data/assumptions the amortization time is just longer by a constant factor (unless you mean to claim that the wall would be completely ineffective, which is absurd and needs more proof than „I believe it can be climbed over using a ladder“). I don’t disagree strongly. The point that a single, large CO2 emission „investment“ may be worth it, still stands.
  - 8y ago
toomuchtuna 8y ago
That assumes that once anyone enters the US, they will, on average, produce the same amount of CO2 emissions as present US residents. That seemed dubious to me... so turned up this: https://cis.org/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Greenhouse-Gas-Emissions-0 https://cis.org/Immigration-United-States-and-WorldWide-Gree... > The estimated CO2 emissions of the average immigrant (legal or illegal) in the United States are 18 percent less than those of the average native-born American. > However, immigrants in the United States produce an estimated four times more CO2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. So I suppose the overall logic still holds, just slightly adjusts the math.
- synaesthesisx 8y ago
  The thing is, at the end of the day emissions are global - We all share the same Earth.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

glangdale 8y ago

I'm confused by your last point. Are we to assume that people living in denser constructions would otherwise have lived in grass huts? Or, less ridiculously, only pre-existing buildings? I would imagine that the alternative between people living in new apartments in a dense area would be sprawl, where they would instead live in new houses, which are going to (per person) have much higher amounts of concrete and steel used.

abalone 8y ago
Dense urban construction typically uses more concrete and steel. New homes in low rise areas can be built mostly out of wood, for example. Not saying sprawl doesn’t have its own impacts, just that we should properly account for the footprint of concrete and steel construction.
- josho 8y ago
  That’s easy then. Add a carbon tax and the market will adjust accordingly to the costs. Unfortunately politically it’s not so easy.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  As an “urbanist”, the kind of “dense urban construction” I would like to see is (some proportion of the) suburbs currently full of single family detached homes on large lots replaced by 3–6 story timber-framed apartment buildings / condos near transit and zoned to allow ground-floor retail. Ideally with narrower roads, fewer parking lots, more public green space, and more land outside of cities left as forest. Many of the densest neighborhoods in the world have no buildings taller than 5 or 6 stories. But I would be surprised if a 40-story apartment building and the infrastructure to service it required more concrete than housing the same number of people in a low-density suburb. Consider all of the sidewalks, sewers, parking lots, concrete foundations, elevated highways, bridges, .... involved in building and servicing a low-density car-commuter neighborhood.
  - abalone 8y ago
    The “one plus five” buildings you’re talking about typically have concrete first floors.[1] You make good points about sidewalks etc. but at the same time that stuff needs to be built bigger and stronger and renewed more in dense urban areas. All I’m arguing for is let’s run the numbers. Don’t just assume city living is more ecological because it’s denser. [1] http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-five-is-shaping-american_27.html http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-f...

XorNot 8y ago

Bringing up the wall here is a weird argument. It's sufficiently awful on so many levels that emissions are the least of our concerns.

darkpuma 8y ago

> " The CO2 emissions from constructing a several hundred mile long concrete or steel border would be enormous. (Steel is also a major emissions source.)" You probably don't hear this approach taken very often because most people won't consider it persuasive when they remember that we have nearly 50,000 miles of interstate highway and many many times more miles of lesser highways and roads. The concrete and steel needed for a couple hundred miles of wall would be a drop in the bucket of infrastructural concrete and steel across the country. You can of course argue that every drop counts, but that sort of argument isn't going to impress many people, which explains why you don't hear it very often. Arguments against the necessity of the wall have more bite.