4 ms·

My understanding is this is extremely difficult short of killing myself. Using a car, the internet, a smartphone, electricity...You're tied into industries that

My understanding is this is extremely difficult short of killing myself. Using a car, the internet, a smartphone, electricity...You're tied into industries that are simply not carbon neutral. How much electricity is used when you browse the internet loading the 15,000 JS files and ad networks/trackers everywhere? How much energy (i.e battery % on a phone) is wasted per human, per day for absolutely pointless nonsense? I think I need to be forced into changes, such as having to buy an electric car, or being made to walk due to driving being made illegal. If I can enhance my life whilst I get the chance to do so during my time on earth I will, unless I am prevented from doing so. I always opt for what is beneficial to me (and, judging by the sheer number of cars on the road, I am not alone in this). Otherwise, I freely admit I have little desire to put effort into pretending I can somehow help the planet - that's the job of governments to set the policies society needs to accept, we either do it together or not at all. I want to be as anti-carbon-neutrality as possible until it's illegal for me to cause pollution in any way (due to a shift in opinion and generating harmful emissions being 100% illegal and punishable by jail).

astrange 6y ago
Forcing you to do in particular to do either of these things wouldn’t help. The reason you’re using a car and not walking is cities aren’t built densely enough because California’s land use rules are made to keep the state looking like a 50s sitcom set. Electric cars are better for families (even in Japan), but having car-shaped cars is still pretty polluting due to road and tire dust, so encouraging micromobility + mass transit would be a better move for the individual.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  "Carbon neutral" isn't the same as "non-polluting". "All" you need to be carbon neutral is to not burn fossil fuels for your energy.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Yeah, but we don’t know if this kelp thing is because of CO2 emissions, and tire runoff actually does kill marine life in nearby rivers.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      Certainly, I mean that carbon emissions are generally a bigger problem than pollution, so we should probably prioritize that first.
      - sitkack 6y ago
        You can't ignore local pollution while attempting to drive down global emissions.
      - astrange 6y ago
        Pollution is really bad. Like, it’s way worse than you’d think it is. Air pollution seems to have driven the entire country crazy for most of the 20th century, and if cities are as violent as they were in 1990 then nobody is going to be interested in saving energy by living in them.
  - croutonwagon 6y ago
    So. From a supply chain perspective. Let’s say you go buy a Tesla or Volt. The cost to charge it at a station or even your house isn’t carbon neutral. It depends on how your local power is generated. In my gas that’s primarily natural gas. Is the $0.11/kWh truly, not to mention the cost of the battery and all the lithium/magnesium/nickel mining it requires, more “carbon neutral” than a 35 mpg petrol vehicle with all the catalytic converters and whatnot. In reality the combustion engine pollutants contributors seem to be more shipping related. Diesel boats, diesel trains, diesel 18 wheelers etc.
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      > Is the $0.11/kWh truly, not to mention the cost of the battery and all the lithium/magnesium/nickel mining it requires, more “carbon neutral” than a 35 mpg petrol vehicle Yes. My power company gives me a green energy certificate, which means that all the money I pay for energy goes to green producers. > the catalytic converters and whatnot. You're conflating pollution with carbon emissions. The only thing that matters to carbon emissions is mass of fuel burnt. > In reality the combustion engine pollutants contributors seem to be more shipping related. Diesel boats, diesel trains, diesel 18 wheelers etc. Same here.
    - astrange 6y ago
      Burning hydrocarbons can be (more) carbon-neutral if we synthesize them. The reason it's not is that we dig them out of the ground and then don't put them back in the ground afterwards. Of course we seem to be going for using batteries instead, but this will likely be needed for energy-dense uses like heating and aircraft.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Amen to that, the sooner people realize some above and below ground trains can solve a number of issues and create much more prosperity, the better.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    It would help if the people who realized that also realized that cost is one reason we can't have more. There is no reason that stations have to be large instead of utilitarian (10x the price). There is no reason trains need any operators, much less then 3 often required by law and union contract. There is no reason it takes 24 people to run a TBM (12 is the number in other countries). There is no reason why trains can't run more often. There is no reason "turf wars" mean that two different divisions of the same agency fight each other for limited budget instead of working together for the city. The above is but a short list of things to attack if you in favor of trains. Note that the above cuts at a lot of things that Democrats - who claim to be in favor of trains hold dear. You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective)
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      Why hello, fellow reader of https://transitcosts.com https://transitcosts.com > You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective) And where is train hush money being handed out in the last four years? Pretty sure that's out of the frying pan into the fire.
    - darksaints 6y ago
      > You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective) This is perfectly exemplified by UTA Trax, which had a humble start in slightly blue SLC, but has expanded outward at an incredibly rapid pace, with approval votes coming from some of the reddest counties in the nation. Building efficiently and cost effectively is quite possibly the best vote-switcher on transit that we could make.
s1artibartfast 6y ago
> freely admit I have little desire to put effort into pretending I can somehow help the planet - that's the job of governments to set the policies society needs to accept, we either do it together or not at all. Offsetting ones carbon footprint is cheap and easy. The fact that few people want to take any action individually undermines collective action. The obvious path forward is for the most passionate people to lead by example. The idea that somehow government will serve to overrule the self interest of the majority isn’t realistic. If the majority doesn’t want change, the government can’t help.
- bluGill 6y ago
  The obvious thing is to install solar on your roof. I'm hoping my system goes live this week (I've been hoping that for 4 months, but snow meant they couldn't get on the roof to finish that last bit)
panny 6y ago
>My understanding is this is extremely difficult short of killing myself. That's not really how it works. The only way humanity is at 7 billion and counting is due to advances in engineering, farming, etc. Look for example at two extremes, starting with the CHAZ farm. You remember, the cardboard boxes with potting soil thrown on top by kids who had no idea what they were doing? Imagine if the entire planet was full of these sort of primitive smooth brains. You'd be back to hunter gatherers and a global population of ~20,000 or so rather quickly. Now look at the opposite end of the spectrum, Hokkaido rice farmers. https://www.hokkaido-kome.gr.jp/english/about/ https://www.hokkaido-kome.gr.jp/english/about/ Despite having a less favorable climate for rice growing, Hokkaido farmers of the frozen north produce some of the highest yields and highest quality rice in Japan. When you look outside of Japan, it's even more impressive as Hokkaido consistently has higher yields than SE Asian countries with warmer humid climates more suited for rice growing. This is a small number of people in Hokkaido, with power to change their entire world around them. They do so through science and engineering. Access to irrigation, farm equipment, and fertilizer is far more important than climate. People who want laws to restrict CO2 would choose to destroy Hokkaido farmers. Farm equipment after all releases CO2. So does fertilizer production and transportation. So does tillage. These people seek to make us all hunter gatherers again. Solving problems is not about squeezing yourself into the limits of your current system, it is about changing the limits of the system with science and engineering. Said more eloquently, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw
ctdonath 6y ago
I want to be as anti-carbon-neutrality as possible until it's illegal for me to cause pollution in any way That's ... bizarre. Upshot is I'm doing way more to improve the environment than you are, because I'm an adult who doesn't need be compelled to be perfect before doing anything positive.

astrange 6y ago

Forcing you to do in particular to do either of these things wouldn’t help. The reason you’re using a car and not walking is cities aren’t built densely enough because California’s land use rules are made to keep the state looking like a 50s sitcom set. Electric cars are better for families (even in Japan), but having car-shaped cars is still pretty polluting due to road and tire dust, so encouraging micromobility + mass transit would be a better move for the individual.

StavrosK 6y ago
"Carbon neutral" isn't the same as "non-polluting". "All" you need to be carbon neutral is to not burn fossil fuels for your energy.
- astrange 6y ago
  Yeah, but we don’t know if this kelp thing is because of CO2 emissions, and tire runoff actually does kill marine life in nearby rivers.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    Certainly, I mean that carbon emissions are generally a bigger problem than pollution, so we should probably prioritize that first.
    - sitkack 6y ago
      You can't ignore local pollution while attempting to drive down global emissions.
    - astrange 6y ago
      Pollution is really bad. Like, it’s way worse than you’d think it is. Air pollution seems to have driven the entire country crazy for most of the 20th century, and if cities are as violent as they were in 1990 then nobody is going to be interested in saving energy by living in them.
- croutonwagon 6y ago
  So. From a supply chain perspective. Let’s say you go buy a Tesla or Volt. The cost to charge it at a station or even your house isn’t carbon neutral. It depends on how your local power is generated. In my gas that’s primarily natural gas. Is the $0.11/kWh truly, not to mention the cost of the battery and all the lithium/magnesium/nickel mining it requires, more “carbon neutral” than a 35 mpg petrol vehicle with all the catalytic converters and whatnot. In reality the combustion engine pollutants contributors seem to be more shipping related. Diesel boats, diesel trains, diesel 18 wheelers etc.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    > Is the $0.11/kWh truly, not to mention the cost of the battery and all the lithium/magnesium/nickel mining it requires, more “carbon neutral” than a 35 mpg petrol vehicle Yes. My power company gives me a green energy certificate, which means that all the money I pay for energy goes to green producers. > the catalytic converters and whatnot. You're conflating pollution with carbon emissions. The only thing that matters to carbon emissions is mass of fuel burnt. > In reality the combustion engine pollutants contributors seem to be more shipping related. Diesel boats, diesel trains, diesel 18 wheelers etc. Same here.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Burning hydrocarbons can be (more) carbon-neutral if we synthesize them. The reason it's not is that we dig them out of the ground and then don't put them back in the ground afterwards. Of course we seem to be going for using batteries instead, but this will likely be needed for energy-dense uses like heating and aircraft.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Amen to that, the sooner people realize some above and below ground trains can solve a number of issues and create much more prosperity, the better.
- bluGill 6y ago
  It would help if the people who realized that also realized that cost is one reason we can't have more. There is no reason that stations have to be large instead of utilitarian (10x the price). There is no reason trains need any operators, much less then 3 often required by law and union contract. There is no reason it takes 24 people to run a TBM (12 is the number in other countries). There is no reason why trains can't run more often. There is no reason "turf wars" mean that two different divisions of the same agency fight each other for limited budget instead of working together for the city. The above is but a short list of things to attack if you in favor of trains. Note that the above cuts at a lot of things that Democrats - who claim to be in favor of trains hold dear. You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective)
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Why hello, fellow reader of https://transitcosts.com https://transitcosts.com > You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective) And where is train hush money being handed out in the last four years? Pretty sure that's out of the frying pan into the fire.
  - darksaints 6y ago
    > You will discover that fighting to make trains a better option than cars is harder as a democrat where everyone agrees but wants to put their finger in the pie, than as a republican where everyone isn't interested in trains but might let you get by with a small amount just to keep you quiet (this won't be enough to build a useful system, but it might be enough to prove it can be cost effective) This is perfectly exemplified by UTA Trax, which had a humble start in slightly blue SLC, but has expanded outward at an incredibly rapid pace, with approval votes coming from some of the reddest counties in the nation. Building efficiently and cost effectively is quite possibly the best vote-switcher on transit that we could make.

s1artibartfast 6y ago

> freely admit I have little desire to put effort into pretending I can somehow help the planet - that's the job of governments to set the policies society needs to accept, we either do it together or not at all. Offsetting ones carbon footprint is cheap and easy. The fact that few people want to take any action individually undermines collective action. The obvious path forward is for the most passionate people to lead by example. The idea that somehow government will serve to overrule the self interest of the majority isn’t realistic. If the majority doesn’t want change, the government can’t help.

bluGill 6y ago
The obvious thing is to install solar on your roof. I'm hoping my system goes live this week (I've been hoping that for 4 months, but snow meant they couldn't get on the roof to finish that last bit)

panny 6y ago

>My understanding is this is extremely difficult short of killing myself. That's not really how it works. The only way humanity is at 7 billion and counting is due to advances in engineering, farming, etc. Look for example at two extremes, starting with the CHAZ farm. You remember, the cardboard boxes with potting soil thrown on top by kids who had no idea what they were doing? Imagine if the entire planet was full of these sort of primitive smooth brains. You'd be back to hunter gatherers and a global population of ~20,000 or so rather quickly. Now look at the opposite end of the spectrum, Hokkaido rice farmers. https://www.hokkaido-kome.gr.jp/english/about/ https://www.hokkaido-kome.gr.jp/english/about/ Despite having a less favorable climate for rice growing, Hokkaido farmers of the frozen north produce some of the highest yields and highest quality rice in Japan. When you look outside of Japan, it's even more impressive as Hokkaido consistently has higher yields than SE Asian countries with warmer humid climates more suited for rice growing. This is a small number of people in Hokkaido, with power to change their entire world around them. They do so through science and engineering. Access to irrigation, farm equipment, and fertilizer is far more important than climate. People who want laws to restrict CO2 would choose to destroy Hokkaido farmers. Farm equipment after all releases CO2. So does fertilizer production and transportation. So does tillage. These people seek to make us all hunter gatherers again. Solving problems is not about squeezing yourself into the limits of your current system, it is about changing the limits of the system with science and engineering. Said more eloquently, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

ctdonath 6y ago

I want to be as anti-carbon-neutrality as possible until it's illegal for me to cause pollution in any way That's ... bizarre. Upshot is I'm doing way more to improve the environment than you are, because I'm an adult who doesn't need be compelled to be perfect before doing anything positive.