9 ms·

> We'd need a economic/cultural revolution at a global scale. Everything has to scale down, no more ICE, not more plastic, no more food imported from the other

> We'd need a economic/cultural revolution at a global scale. Everything has to scale down, no more ICE, not more plastic, no more food imported from the other side of the world, reduce meat consumption, reduce traveling &c. This is a sentiment that rubs me the wrong way. I totally agree that we, at a global scale, need to drastically reduce our carbon footprint. And these reductions will have changes to our society. But many of the suggestions of those currently engaged in the cultural revolution are either focusing on small problems (like not buying food in plastic containers) or have complicated unintended consequences (like buying locally grown foods). Shipping stuff on large boats is incredibly efficient per kg/km. It's not unlikely that I emit more Co2 driving my car to/from the grocery store than the emissions from shipping all the things I purchase to the store itself. We should focus on things like stopping the burning of fossil fule for electricity generation and carbon natural land based transportation long before we almost religiously ban plastic straws. I don't think the best way forward to actually solving this problem is engaging in some almost Protestant self hatred and punishment, trying to make the transition as impactful on our lives as possible.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
That's another thing where I believe "those currently engaged in the cultural revolution" often get confused. Not all stuff bundled together under "problems with environment" is created equal. Container ships are a problem because they usually run on ridiculously dirty fuel, which ends up polluting the ocean. But they're also extremely energy-efficient on a mass/distance basis. A saner world would have them use cleaner fuel[0]. Cars are a problem because at the scale they're used, they're both significant contributor to global warming and inefficient, energy-wise. Electrifying land transportation would fix the inefficiency and significantly reduce the carbon footprint. Powering the new electric fleet with green energy[1] would finally kill the emission issues. Plastic straws, plastic packaging and other consumer disposables are a problem[2] because the plastic ends up in oceans, where it gets broken by UV into microplastics which then end up back in the food chain. Beyond that, it's mostly a sad thing to see. Energy and emissions-wise, plastic disposables are much smaller problem than other uses of fossil fuels, and sometimes they're likely better than the reusable alternatives proposed. But it's still so fucking sad to see so much garbage existing only as vehicle for marketing. IMO people need to stop bundling these problems together. Even though they're all related, energy security != global warming != poisons in food chain != ethical considerations about animals. Those are all separate problems, with separate sets of solutions, and quite honestly, different prioritization. -- [0] - My utopia would have nuclear-powered cargo ships as permanent global infrastructure, essentially treated as virtual conveyor belts. [1] - Renewables or nuclear. [2] - And we aren't even sure yet how big a problem this is. AFAIK this topic is covered mostly out of quite reasonable abundance of caution - we've noticed plastics showing up where they aren't supposed to. Even though there isn't any clear danger identified yet, history teaches us that human-released chemicals showing up in unexpected places generally don't lead to happy outcomes.
- Scarblac 7y ago
  > Container ships are a problem because they usually run on ridiculously dirty fuel, which ends up polluting the ocean. But they're also extremely energy-efficient on a mass/distance basis. A saner world would have them use cleaner fuel[0]. One reason that they burn dirty fuel is because we have that fuel, and the way our economy works, it's going to be burned somewhere. Making large ships with engines that can burn that fuel was intended to be a way of having the air pollution be produced away from inhabited land. Having the ships work with cleaner fuel means the dirty fuel will be burned somewhere else, without further changes. But I agree with your main point -- "sustainability" attracts so much momentum that people try to frame everything under that umbrella. E.g. suffering of animals raised for food production is a problem, but even less related to the things you mention. Still often seen as part of the same agenda as reducing our CO2 output.
  - dwaltrip 7y ago
    I don't know much about the dirty fuel, but if it's so bad we could tax its use such that no one wants to burn it.
    - pas 7y ago
      Bunker fuel, very much the leftover after the crude oil distillation. Full of sulfur and other nasty stuff. Anyway, if there were sufficient political will to do things, taxes would solve this shit overnight.
  - Teever 7y ago
    Can't the fuel be cleaned?
    - Kye 7y ago
      Bunker oil is what's left after producing all the other oil products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil >> "Small molecules like those in propane, naphtha, gasoline for cars, and jet fuel have relatively low boiling points, and they are removed at the start of the fractional distillation process. Heavier petroleum products like diesel fuel and lubricating oil are much less volatile and distill out more slowly, while bunker oil is literally the bottom of the barrel; in oil distilling, the only things denser than bunker fuel are carbon black feedstock and bituminous residue (asphalt), which is used for paving roads and sealing roofs. "
rayiner 7y ago
The problem is that the math doesn’t work out. Here is your carbon footprint in the developed world: http://www.globalstewards.org/images/household-emissions-global-warming.png http://www.globalstewards.org/images/household-emissions-glo... Even if we move to 100% electric cars powered by renewables tomorrow, that’s 43% of CO2 output. After decades, we are not even at the point where we can do that much, by the way. Grid-scale battery storage is an essential part of the equation, and we are not there yet. We are still at the beginning stages of even thinking about the other 57%. Electrifying the national freight rail grid would be massively expensive. (Keeping overheard catenary well maintained is so expensive that Maryland’s commuter rail is moving to diesel locomotives for Baltimore to DC service, even though the corridor was electrified more than a century ago.) There are no commercially available electric trucks yet. That stuff can’t wait for later. To limit temperature increases to 2C, we need to immediately cut global CO2 by three times as much as the US’s total CO2 output. Meanwhile, in the last couple of decades, China has added more than a US worth of CO2 output. If India develops similarly, we’ll add another US and a half. Europe and the US going to zero output won’t cancel out those increases. Even the communist party’s goal in China only calls for 20% electric cars by 2025. The reliable models we have show that if we don’t cut emissions dramatically and immediately, we will need to go to negative emissions in the short term. That’s another generational problem. Carbon recapture is in its infancy. Look how long it took to perfect solar.
- filleokus 7y ago
  For the record I live in Sweden, which has a per capita carbon foot print of around 4.5 ton vs 16.5 for the US. That's a massive difference. We are blessed with rivers which we can destroy for hydro and some rusting nuclear plants. US has a carbon intensity per kWh of ≈ 439 g, and Sweden ≈ 45 g. I'm not sure about how that chart is constructed, but for me it's obvious that we need to lower the carbon intensity of electricity production right now. That would "eliminate" 32% of the chart, and I guess also have a dent in the other pies. I don't see how stopping consuming or fundamentally changing society is a better or even faster way to achieving our goals. I think it's absurd to talk about trying to radically change society before you stop burning fossil fules for electricity. Cutting emissions dramatically and immediately is by deploying nuclear, and by electrifying your rail lines.
drewm1980 7y ago
The thing is, most of the stuff we westerners have does not make us any happier. The straw will not make you happier. The new smartphone will not make you happier. Flying around the world looking at few touristy things will not make you happier. A new car will not make you happier, even if it has a slab of lithium mined from the salt flats of Bolivia or god knows where. Stop buying stuff. Stop doing stuff. Just stop. Stop mowing your lawn. Go outside and watch the birds. Bust up some concrete and plant a tree. You probably have some right in front of your house. If you're lucky enough to have a patch of green space, fill it with food producing plants and flowers for the pollinators. Have one child and lavish more attention on him/her than any family of more than one kid can. None of this stuff is a sacrifice, let alone self punishment, though you are likely surrounded by people who are convinced otherwise. Hunger makes food taste awesome, and riding your bicycle through miserable weather makes sunny days feel like heaven on earth.
- chr1 7y ago
  None of the things you mention would make me happy. Things that would make me happier are: autonomous colony on mars, 1000 year or more life expectancy, huge floating cities in all oceans, faster computers, better batteries, 100 billion people living on earth, resurrection of mammoths, elimination of mosquitoes, ticks, and other pests, having five children who would be more successful than me, better understanding of physics, electric aeroplanes and dirigibles, general ai, artificial womb, crispr therapies to make people smarter, etc... All of this depends on number of people constantly growing, and more of them buying more stuff and doing more stuff.
  - zilian 7y ago
    And it is probably a massive delusion. We can't even manage what we have now. And I am no luddite.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

That's another thing where I believe "those currently engaged in the cultural revolution" often get confused. Not all stuff bundled together under "problems with environment" is created equal. Container ships are a problem because they usually run on ridiculously dirty fuel, which ends up polluting the ocean. But they're also extremely energy-efficient on a mass/distance basis. A saner world would have them use cleaner fuel[0]. Cars are a problem because at the scale they're used, they're both significant contributor to global warming and inefficient, energy-wise. Electrifying land transportation would fix the inefficiency and significantly reduce the carbon footprint. Powering the new electric fleet with green energy[1] would finally kill the emission issues. Plastic straws, plastic packaging and other consumer disposables are a problem[2] because the plastic ends up in oceans, where it gets broken by UV into microplastics which then end up back in the food chain. Beyond that, it's mostly a sad thing to see. Energy and emissions-wise, plastic disposables are much smaller problem than other uses of fossil fuels, and sometimes they're likely better than the reusable alternatives proposed. But it's still so fucking sad to see so much garbage existing only as vehicle for marketing. IMO people need to stop bundling these problems together. Even though they're all related, energy security != global warming != poisons in food chain != ethical considerations about animals. Those are all separate problems, with separate sets of solutions, and quite honestly, different prioritization. -- [0] - My utopia would have nuclear-powered cargo ships as permanent global infrastructure, essentially treated as virtual conveyor belts. [1] - Renewables or nuclear. [2] - And we aren't even sure yet how big a problem this is. AFAIK this topic is covered mostly out of quite reasonable abundance of caution - we've noticed plastics showing up where they aren't supposed to. Even though there isn't any clear danger identified yet, history teaches us that human-released chemicals showing up in unexpected places generally don't lead to happy outcomes.

Scarblac 7y ago
> Container ships are a problem because they usually run on ridiculously dirty fuel, which ends up polluting the ocean. But they're also extremely energy-efficient on a mass/distance basis. A saner world would have them use cleaner fuel[0]. One reason that they burn dirty fuel is because we have that fuel, and the way our economy works, it's going to be burned somewhere. Making large ships with engines that can burn that fuel was intended to be a way of having the air pollution be produced away from inhabited land. Having the ships work with cleaner fuel means the dirty fuel will be burned somewhere else, without further changes. But I agree with your main point -- "sustainability" attracts so much momentum that people try to frame everything under that umbrella. E.g. suffering of animals raised for food production is a problem, but even less related to the things you mention. Still often seen as part of the same agenda as reducing our CO2 output.
- dwaltrip 7y ago
  I don't know much about the dirty fuel, but if it's so bad we could tax its use such that no one wants to burn it.
  - pas 7y ago
    Bunker fuel, very much the leftover after the crude oil distillation. Full of sulfur and other nasty stuff. Anyway, if there were sufficient political will to do things, taxes would solve this shit overnight.
- Teever 7y ago
  Can't the fuel be cleaned?
  - Kye 7y ago
    Bunker oil is what's left after producing all the other oil products. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil >> "Small molecules like those in propane, naphtha, gasoline for cars, and jet fuel have relatively low boiling points, and they are removed at the start of the fractional distillation process. Heavier petroleum products like diesel fuel and lubricating oil are much less volatile and distill out more slowly, while bunker oil is literally the bottom of the barrel; in oil distilling, the only things denser than bunker fuel are carbon black feedstock and bituminous residue (asphalt), which is used for paving roads and sealing roofs. "

rayiner 7y ago

The problem is that the math doesn’t work out. Here is your carbon footprint in the developed world: http://www.globalstewards.org/images/household-emissions-global-warming.png http://www.globalstewards.org/images/household-emissions-glo... Even if we move to 100% electric cars powered by renewables tomorrow, that’s 43% of CO2 output. After decades, we are not even at the point where we can do that much, by the way. Grid-scale battery storage is an essential part of the equation, and we are not there yet. We are still at the beginning stages of even thinking about the other 57%. Electrifying the national freight rail grid would be massively expensive. (Keeping overheard catenary well maintained is so expensive that Maryland’s commuter rail is moving to diesel locomotives for Baltimore to DC service, even though the corridor was electrified more than a century ago.) There are no commercially available electric trucks yet. That stuff can’t wait for later. To limit temperature increases to 2C, we need to immediately cut global CO2 by three times as much as the US’s total CO2 output. Meanwhile, in the last couple of decades, China has added more than a US worth of CO2 output. If India develops similarly, we’ll add another US and a half. Europe and the US going to zero output won’t cancel out those increases. Even the communist party’s goal in China only calls for 20% electric cars by 2025. The reliable models we have show that if we don’t cut emissions dramatically and immediately, we will need to go to negative emissions in the short term. That’s another generational problem. Carbon recapture is in its infancy. Look how long it took to perfect solar.

filleokus 7y ago
For the record I live in Sweden, which has a per capita carbon foot print of around 4.5 ton vs 16.5 for the US. That's a massive difference. We are blessed with rivers which we can destroy for hydro and some rusting nuclear plants. US has a carbon intensity per kWh of ≈ 439 g, and Sweden ≈ 45 g. I'm not sure about how that chart is constructed, but for me it's obvious that we need to lower the carbon intensity of electricity production right now. That would "eliminate" 32% of the chart, and I guess also have a dent in the other pies. I don't see how stopping consuming or fundamentally changing society is a better or even faster way to achieving our goals. I think it's absurd to talk about trying to radically change society before you stop burning fossil fules for electricity. Cutting emissions dramatically and immediately is by deploying nuclear, and by electrifying your rail lines.

drewm1980 7y ago

The thing is, most of the stuff we westerners have does not make us any happier. The straw will not make you happier. The new smartphone will not make you happier. Flying around the world looking at few touristy things will not make you happier. A new car will not make you happier, even if it has a slab of lithium mined from the salt flats of Bolivia or god knows where. Stop buying stuff. Stop doing stuff. Just stop. Stop mowing your lawn. Go outside and watch the birds. Bust up some concrete and plant a tree. You probably have some right in front of your house. If you're lucky enough to have a patch of green space, fill it with food producing plants and flowers for the pollinators. Have one child and lavish more attention on him/her than any family of more than one kid can. None of this stuff is a sacrifice, let alone self punishment, though you are likely surrounded by people who are convinced otherwise. Hunger makes food taste awesome, and riding your bicycle through miserable weather makes sunny days feel like heaven on earth.

chr1 7y ago
None of the things you mention would make me happy. Things that would make me happier are: autonomous colony on mars, 1000 year or more life expectancy, huge floating cities in all oceans, faster computers, better batteries, 100 billion people living on earth, resurrection of mammoths, elimination of mosquitoes, ticks, and other pests, having five children who would be more successful than me, better understanding of physics, electric aeroplanes and dirigibles, general ai, artificial womb, crispr therapies to make people smarter, etc... All of this depends on number of people constantly growing, and more of them buying more stuff and doing more stuff.
- zilian 7y ago
  And it is probably a massive delusion. We can't even manage what we have now. And I am no luddite.