2 ms·

Not everything can be measured with carbon emissions. For example, assuming the paper industry emits as much CO2 as the computing industry, does it mean they're

Not everything can be measured with carbon emissions. For example, assuming the paper industry emits as much CO2 as the computing industry, does it mean they're equally polluting? Micro-electronics require hundreds of different chemicals/ore which means polluting many more extraction sites and using their local water supplies... then comes all of the ore refinement processes which itself requires considerable amounts of water pollution. Then of course, there's waste disposal which incurs even more pollution because to this day electronics aren't being recycled (because they're designed for performance/miniatureness not recyclability). Overall, the IT industry has a much higher ecological impact.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
The paper industry has its share of other environmental issues as well. I'm not sure which is worse. None the lest 4% of CO2 is a big problem of its own.
- southerntofu 5y ago
  It is, but it's worth making the trade-off explicit. In a day and age where 1/3 of the world population drinks water polluted with lead, and a recent study was published this week on HN claiming out of over 1000 water streams studied only 2 were unpolluted by medicine, the chemical treatments and quantity of water required for some production are key metrics to consider. I mean it's not that i'm not worried about CO2 emissions. But tackling this problem is super easy and it's just no politician/businessman is interested in the answer (degrowth and low-tech). Forever-chemicals and polluted water sources on the other hand is a much harder and yet mostly-undiscussed problem beyond collapsologist circles. +2°C is worrisome and will have significant damage on many species. Polluted water sources challenges the very idea of humanoid life in much of the world. It's interesting to note that both problems have the very same origin (industrial capitalism) and the same solution: don't produce shit we don't need, don't produce un-durable stuff, don't produce stuff from cheapest imported/synthetic materials.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

The paper industry has its share of other environmental issues as well. I'm not sure which is worse. None the lest 4% of CO2 is a big problem of its own.

southerntofu 5y ago
It is, but it's worth making the trade-off explicit. In a day and age where 1/3 of the world population drinks water polluted with lead, and a recent study was published this week on HN claiming out of over 1000 water streams studied only 2 were unpolluted by medicine, the chemical treatments and quantity of water required for some production are key metrics to consider. I mean it's not that i'm not worried about CO2 emissions. But tackling this problem is super easy and it's just no politician/businessman is interested in the answer (degrowth and low-tech). Forever-chemicals and polluted water sources on the other hand is a much harder and yet mostly-undiscussed problem beyond collapsologist circles. +2°C is worrisome and will have significant damage on many species. Polluted water sources challenges the very idea of humanoid life in much of the world. It's interesting to note that both problems have the very same origin (industrial capitalism) and the same solution: don't produce shit we don't need, don't produce un-durable stuff, don't produce stuff from cheapest imported/synthetic materials.