3 ms·

"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.

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.