4 ms·

I disagree, its a percentage of roughly 10% according to the EPA in 2019. Here are the EPA statistics. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-e

I disagree, its a percentage of roughly 10% according to the EPA in 2019. Here are the EPA statistics. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... I am all for replacing them with native buffalo, but this is overemphasis on minute percentages, this information presented is much too technology based and not practical, it relies on assumptions about plant based foods and lab meat (farming crops is the backbone of civilization, it is not a new idea, meat replacements like tofu, seitan, and even quorn of more reasonable price exists but we should ignore it for the fantasies of lab grown meat) the problem is that nobody will do it, and even with existing solutions you can't force people to eat the way the author wants them to. Electricty (such as that used for cooling), and transportation make up the most carbon emissions. This truck is one such solution for transportation and lower emmission, it uses compression rather than combustion for the engine, and "waste" is cold, so its used to cool the internals. The adoption of this would have a much better effect overall without human habits as resistance. https://atlasofthefuture.org/project/the-dearman-engine/ https://atlasofthefuture.org/project/the-dearman-engine/ Improved infrastructure and improvements in efficiency in larger sector should be focused on rather than a nudged suggestion to change eating habits, the title is a pie in the sky, noit interested in practical applications.

wumpus 5y ago
> interested in virute signaling rather than practical applications. Love the insult, I'm sure it helps the conversation along to a good conclusion.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Ill omit that then, I am getting used to using HN. Objectively, we should look at the largest percentages that are causing carbon emissions if the goal was to lower it.
  - wumpus 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure that insulting people for virtue signaling isn't an objective thing.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      Objectively, we should look at the largest percentages that are causing carbon emissions if the goal was to lower it.
      - wumpus 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure that you could talk about carbon emissions without accusing people of virtue signaling. Try it, maybe it will work better than your current approach?
adrianN 5y ago
We have to simultaneously lower emissions in all sectors if we want to prevent catastrophic warming. 10% is massive.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  How much resistance and effort for 100% of beef, which is a part of 10% are you willing to expend to push for elimination versus transportation at 29% and electicity usage at 25%? To put it into perspective, how would you focus energy on lowering output out of 100% of your personal energy? https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/ https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/
  - adrianN 5y ago
    I'd implement a high price on carbon(-equivalents) and let the market figure out where it is cheapest to reduce emissions first. I'd probably also get rid of many subsidies.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      The question was about your personal energy expended on changing public opinion and making a greener environment, not if you are in power and have dictatorship powers, unless you have a path to that point. What do you think is the most efficient usage of your time to lower emissions? The Dominican Republic had a very green dictatorship who was sadly assassinated but his trees have protected the country on there and island where Haiti was decimated.
      - adrianN 5y ago
        The most efficient usage of my time to lower emissions is donating part of my income to lobby groups that try to convince politicians to enact meaningful policies wrt climate change.
        GhettoComputers 5y ago
elihu 5y ago
10% is a smaller part of total emissions than transportation or electricity generation, but it's still pretty significant chunk. If we can reduce emissions related to beef somehow that would be a step forward. I'm skeptical of that Dearman engine article. It doesn't really explain where the energy comes from. We already know how to do carbon neutral energy and transportation: use solar/wind/hydroelectric/nuclear and battery-electric vehicles. It's just that the infrastructure is expensive and takes time to build. It's also not treated as an urgent priority in many countries. Some because they can't afford it, and some (i.e. the United States) our political system makes it very easy for a minority to block things.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  The energy is from compression, there are videos of it. Rather than small hot explosions that move pistons, the cold will pull rather than push the pistons as it does in combustion engines. Its main enemy will be cheap used diesel.

wumpus 5y ago

> interested in virute signaling rather than practical applications. Love the insult, I'm sure it helps the conversation along to a good conclusion.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Ill omit that then, I am getting used to using HN. Objectively, we should look at the largest percentages that are causing carbon emissions if the goal was to lower it.
- wumpus 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure that insulting people for virtue signaling isn't an objective thing.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    Objectively, we should look at the largest percentages that are causing carbon emissions if the goal was to lower it.
    - wumpus 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure that you could talk about carbon emissions without accusing people of virtue signaling. Try it, maybe it will work better than your current approach?

adrianN 5y ago

We have to simultaneously lower emissions in all sectors if we want to prevent catastrophic warming. 10% is massive.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
How much resistance and effort for 100% of beef, which is a part of 10% are you willing to expend to push for elimination versus transportation at 29% and electicity usage at 25%? To put it into perspective, how would you focus energy on lowering output out of 100% of your personal energy? https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/ https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/
- adrianN 5y ago
  I'd implement a high price on carbon(-equivalents) and let the market figure out where it is cheapest to reduce emissions first. I'd probably also get rid of many subsidies.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    The question was about your personal energy expended on changing public opinion and making a greener environment, not if you are in power and have dictatorship powers, unless you have a path to that point. What do you think is the most efficient usage of your time to lower emissions? The Dominican Republic had a very green dictatorship who was sadly assassinated but his trees have protected the country on there and island where Haiti was decimated.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      The most efficient usage of my time to lower emissions is donating part of my income to lobby groups that try to convince politicians to enact meaningful policies wrt climate change.
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago

elihu 5y ago

10% is a smaller part of total emissions than transportation or electricity generation, but it's still pretty significant chunk. If we can reduce emissions related to beef somehow that would be a step forward. I'm skeptical of that Dearman engine article. It doesn't really explain where the energy comes from. We already know how to do carbon neutral energy and transportation: use solar/wind/hydroelectric/nuclear and battery-electric vehicles. It's just that the infrastructure is expensive and takes time to build. It's also not treated as an urgent priority in many countries. Some because they can't afford it, and some (i.e. the United States) our political system makes it very easy for a minority to block things.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
The energy is from compression, there are videos of it. Rather than small hot explosions that move pistons, the cold will pull rather than push the pistons as it does in combustion engines. Its main enemy will be cheap used diesel.