11 ms·

For context, humanity produces about 50 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. This estimate of 100 billion tons is between now and 2100, so about 1.2 billion

For context, humanity produces about 50 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. This estimate of 100 billion tons is between now and 2100, so about 1.2 billion tons per year savings. That's not nothing, but it's not that impressive either. And if it turns out the assumptions in the estimate are a bit optimistic, then it becomes more or less a rounding error.

ido 4y ago
2.4% savings in emissions is massive. It obviously not on its own the only measure we need to take.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the other changes we need. Of course we can do things in parallel, and I’m not saying this isn’t worth doing, but this is one of the least important things we could do to curb emissions.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    Two hundredth is far from a drop in the bucket. It's huge. You would just need fifty things of a similar magnitude to be done with the issue. A lot of actions which are definitely worth taking (all of them are anyway) have a far smaller impact.
  - hugh-avherald 4y ago
    More like 5000 drops of water in the bucket.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  The impact of cutting a military budget worldwide to half of today's spending would bring up to 8% percent. If we still need to have wars worldwide, why not take a look at the current China India conflict as an example. There they agreed to fight only with sticks and clubs, and it's working great for both sides.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    But that's the beauty of the Military Industrial Complex. It's not about war(s). It's about enriching the few at the top of the MIC food chain. In theory, I agree with you. The reality is, we'll likely be seeing the MIC(s) be enlarged. The argument will be that more power and more force are necessary as resources become limited, "interests" need to be maintained, etc.
nextaccountic 4y ago
> That's not nothing, but it's not that impressive either. Almost all initiatives fighting carbon emissions are on the low % percentages. That's just the nature of the problem. If humanity wants to stand a chance, we need to catch ALL the low hanging fruits
- qeternity 4y ago
  The problem with decarbonization is that there isn’t any low hanging fruit. At its core, hydrocarbons are the best source of energy at this moment, ignoring emissions. And the emissions problem is a massive tragedy of the commons. So you have a need to drive behavior towards something suboptimal with incentives that benefit those who don’t change behavior.
  - VintageCool 4y ago
    The low hanging fruit is to decarbonize the grid with solar, wind, and a batteries (and nuclear). Meanwhile, switch automobiles from ICE to EVs. And replace natural gas heating for homes with electric heat pumps. There are other challenges, but that is a big chunk of the job that is doable / already being done with current technology.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      >Meanwhile, switch automobiles from ICE to EVs. Better yet, redesign cities so they're walkable and bikable and have good public transit (running on electricity of course), so people don't need cars. Cars are bad in many many ways: emissions are only a small part of the problem with cars. Crashes kill tens of thousands of people in America alone every year, they cause people to be obese because they don't walk anywhere, I could go on and on. >And replace natural gas heating for homes with electric heat pumps. Electric heat pumps actually don't work in very cold weather.
      - mmaurizi 4y ago
        How cold is "very cold" to you? There are air-source heat pumps that work all the way down to -15F now.
BurningFrog 4y ago
"This one trip to the gym is not going to make me super fit, so going is pointless!"
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  Consider how common it is for a person to treat themself to a 300cal donut because they burnt 200cal on a run the previous day.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - stdbrouw 4y ago
    Not so common that it makes people less fit on average.
AstralStorm 4y ago
The better question is how long will these buildings survive before major structural rework (razing them and rebuilding from scratch). Some of ye olde concrete prefabs are standing now for over a century. As are brick buildings. It could be fixed by turning wood into polymer reinforced wood, but that is an entirely different building method, closer to brick.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  I had a civil engineering friend who worked for a firm that specialized in wooden buildings (the proper name escapes me, but think office buildings made of wood?). According to him it’s very in demand, and it can rival traditional building methods.
- herbst 4y ago
  I live in an old wood house that was built 200-400 years ago. I only know because my neighbor's house looks identical and is built around 1640. No structural things have been changed, only internal renovations and addons. I was surprised myself. Even more so when you hear that most old concrete or brick town houses have been either destroyed and rebuilt or structurally renovated in the last 40 years or so.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    It should be noted that old growth wood is significantly higher quality wood than what you'd get from most stores these days. The fast-growing wood is flimsier and less rot resistant, but it can also be replanted and replaced quite easy. Only using old growth as a source of wood would cause quick deforestation of the remaining old growth forests and nature reserves only for the trees to be replaced with the worse trees we use today. It would only work once, the next generations would still get the crappy quick lumber we use today or be stuck without wood while waiting for forests to regrow, so it's not really an option. If we go for wooden houses everywhere, we're going to need to use the "industrial" wood.
    - herbst 4y ago
fyvhbhn 4y ago
8 billion per year could be saved just by eating less meat: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7 Imagine what could be saved being vegan

ido 4y ago

2.4% savings in emissions is massive. It obviously not on its own the only measure we need to take.

shepherdjerred 4y ago
It’s a drop in the bucket compared to the other changes we need. Of course we can do things in parallel, and I’m not saying this isn’t worth doing, but this is one of the least important things we could do to curb emissions.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  Two hundredth is far from a drop in the bucket. It's huge. You would just need fifty things of a similar magnitude to be done with the issue. A lot of actions which are definitely worth taking (all of them are anyway) have a far smaller impact.
- hugh-avherald 4y ago
  More like 5000 drops of water in the bucket.
tut-urut-utut 4y ago
The impact of cutting a military budget worldwide to half of today's spending would bring up to 8% percent. If we still need to have wars worldwide, why not take a look at the current China India conflict as an example. There they agreed to fight only with sticks and clubs, and it's working great for both sides.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  But that's the beauty of the Military Industrial Complex. It's not about war(s). It's about enriching the few at the top of the MIC food chain. In theory, I agree with you. The reality is, we'll likely be seeing the MIC(s) be enlarged. The argument will be that more power and more force are necessary as resources become limited, "interests" need to be maintained, etc.

nextaccountic 4y ago

> That's not nothing, but it's not that impressive either. Almost all initiatives fighting carbon emissions are on the low % percentages. That's just the nature of the problem. If humanity wants to stand a chance, we need to catch ALL the low hanging fruits

qeternity 4y ago
The problem with decarbonization is that there isn’t any low hanging fruit. At its core, hydrocarbons are the best source of energy at this moment, ignoring emissions. And the emissions problem is a massive tragedy of the commons. So you have a need to drive behavior towards something suboptimal with incentives that benefit those who don’t change behavior.
- VintageCool 4y ago
  The low hanging fruit is to decarbonize the grid with solar, wind, and a batteries (and nuclear). Meanwhile, switch automobiles from ICE to EVs. And replace natural gas heating for homes with electric heat pumps. There are other challenges, but that is a big chunk of the job that is doable / already being done with current technology.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    >Meanwhile, switch automobiles from ICE to EVs. Better yet, redesign cities so they're walkable and bikable and have good public transit (running on electricity of course), so people don't need cars. Cars are bad in many many ways: emissions are only a small part of the problem with cars. Crashes kill tens of thousands of people in America alone every year, they cause people to be obese because they don't walk anywhere, I could go on and on. >And replace natural gas heating for homes with electric heat pumps. Electric heat pumps actually don't work in very cold weather.
    - mmaurizi 4y ago
      How cold is "very cold" to you? There are air-source heat pumps that work all the way down to -15F now.

BurningFrog 4y ago

"This one trip to the gym is not going to make me super fit, so going is pointless!"

shepherdjerred 4y ago
Consider how common it is for a person to treat themself to a 300cal donut because they burnt 200cal on a run the previous day.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- stdbrouw 4y ago
  Not so common that it makes people less fit on average.

AstralStorm 4y ago

The better question is how long will these buildings survive before major structural rework (razing them and rebuilding from scratch). Some of ye olde concrete prefabs are standing now for over a century. As are brick buildings. It could be fixed by turning wood into polymer reinforced wood, but that is an entirely different building method, closer to brick.

shepherdjerred 4y ago
I had a civil engineering friend who worked for a firm that specialized in wooden buildings (the proper name escapes me, but think office buildings made of wood?). According to him it’s very in demand, and it can rival traditional building methods.
herbst 4y ago
I live in an old wood house that was built 200-400 years ago. I only know because my neighbor's house looks identical and is built around 1640. No structural things have been changed, only internal renovations and addons. I was surprised myself. Even more so when you hear that most old concrete or brick town houses have been either destroyed and rebuilt or structurally renovated in the last 40 years or so.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  It should be noted that old growth wood is significantly higher quality wood than what you'd get from most stores these days. The fast-growing wood is flimsier and less rot resistant, but it can also be replanted and replaced quite easy. Only using old growth as a source of wood would cause quick deforestation of the remaining old growth forests and nature reserves only for the trees to be replaced with the worse trees we use today. It would only work once, the next generations would still get the crappy quick lumber we use today or be stuck without wood while waiting for forests to regrow, so it's not really an option. If we go for wooden houses everywhere, we're going to need to use the "industrial" wood.
  - herbst 4y ago

fyvhbhn 4y ago

8 billion per year could be saved just by eating less meat: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7 Imagine what could be saved being vegan