5 ms·

Nitpicking the 25000 metric tons of CO2 quoted in glass manufacturing is essentially inconsequential. Whereas according to [1] aviation produced 915 million met

Nitpicking the 25000 metric tons of CO2 quoted in glass manufacturing is essentially inconsequential. Whereas according to [1] aviation produced 915 million metric tonnes of CO2 in 2019 and estimates globally 43 billion tonnes of CO2 produced. Basically, the carbon offset from glass manufacturing by using transparent wood is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things and doesn't even mention the carbon cost of the procedure to create transparent wood, which likely negates the aforementioned offset. Smells like a classic academic attempt to hype the importance of their research. The far more compelling case for this transparent wood seems like the improved insulation. What kind of carbon savings would we see in terms of heating / cooling if we weatherized homes using it? Now you're talking about year after year carbon savings! That's the kind of numbers I would have liked to see in this article, not some paltry appeal to 0.00005% emission savings in glass manufacturing. [1] https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html

reaperducer 6y ago
So because glass manufacturing isn't the biggest source of pollution, we shouldn't do anything about it? That's like saying we shouldn't bother doing anything about the toxic waste in your local lake because the oceans are still a mess. And let's not save endangered wildflowers until we get the pandas sorted out. To quote an internet cliché: Why not both?
- sushisource 6y ago
  This is a less-than-compelling retort. The point isn't "don't do it", the point is "well, why?". OP even admits the more compelling thing here would be to talk about how it's an improvement on glass thermally. The pollution savings are indeed unimportant, but make for good clickbait. That's the annoying part.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Premature optimization is the root of all evil. —Donald Knuth
- hnracer 6y ago
  It's a waste of time and mental bandwidth to even think about this. The impact is just too small. Better to focus finite energy, attention and political capital on things that actually move the dial.
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    Exactly, and this is just pragmatism at work. Sometimes I think people who blindly continue their enviro-rituals are somehow worshipping — it’s more about what it costs them than how much it actually moves the needle. Caring for the environment is not a religion, and the earth is not a god who demands sacrifice. But it is a precious resource worth protecting.
    - hnracer 6y ago
      Pragmatism is a weak point of the left leaning personality (that's why many are in the arts), in the same way that low openness to experience is a weakness of the right leaning personality (that's why many work traditional administrative jobs). Jonathan Haidt brings up another reason for this. On the left and right certain things become sacred and must be treated with purity. On the left, the environment is one of the examples he talks about, so pragmatic solutions get thrown out because they're impure. This is of course a generalization but it does capture some truth.
  - caterama 6y ago
    I was tempted to say this, but am conflicted because I still think it's important for individuals to be conscientious about their actions. Individual actions accumulate to potentially large impacts. However, in general, I agree with you. A large scale, wide impact change motivated by a 0.00005% emissions reduction that is potentially negated by the oxidizing bath and synthetic polymer is simply a distraction. Essentially, emissions from the manufacturing are a red herring and the article almost completely missed the big picture impact this could have.
  - soperj 6y ago
    It's 5 times more thermally efficient than glass. So while the process of making glass may not produce much C02. The process of heating and cooling does.

reaperducer 6y ago

So because glass manufacturing isn't the biggest source of pollution, we shouldn't do anything about it? That's like saying we shouldn't bother doing anything about the toxic waste in your local lake because the oceans are still a mess. And let's not save endangered wildflowers until we get the pandas sorted out. To quote an internet cliché: Why not both?

sushisource 6y ago
This is a less-than-compelling retort. The point isn't "don't do it", the point is "well, why?". OP even admits the more compelling thing here would be to talk about how it's an improvement on glass thermally. The pollution savings are indeed unimportant, but make for good clickbait. That's the annoying part.
TimTheTinker 6y ago
Premature optimization is the root of all evil. —Donald Knuth
hnracer 6y ago
It's a waste of time and mental bandwidth to even think about this. The impact is just too small. Better to focus finite energy, attention and political capital on things that actually move the dial.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Exactly, and this is just pragmatism at work. Sometimes I think people who blindly continue their enviro-rituals are somehow worshipping — it’s more about what it costs them than how much it actually moves the needle. Caring for the environment is not a religion, and the earth is not a god who demands sacrifice. But it is a precious resource worth protecting.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    Pragmatism is a weak point of the left leaning personality (that's why many are in the arts), in the same way that low openness to experience is a weakness of the right leaning personality (that's why many work traditional administrative jobs). Jonathan Haidt brings up another reason for this. On the left and right certain things become sacred and must be treated with purity. On the left, the environment is one of the examples he talks about, so pragmatic solutions get thrown out because they're impure. This is of course a generalization but it does capture some truth.
- caterama 6y ago
  I was tempted to say this, but am conflicted because I still think it's important for individuals to be conscientious about their actions. Individual actions accumulate to potentially large impacts. However, in general, I agree with you. A large scale, wide impact change motivated by a 0.00005% emissions reduction that is potentially negated by the oxidizing bath and synthetic polymer is simply a distraction. Essentially, emissions from the manufacturing are a red herring and the article almost completely missed the big picture impact this could have.
- soperj 6y ago
  It's 5 times more thermally efficient than glass. So while the process of making glass may not produce much C02. The process of heating and cooling does.