4 ms·

> I doubt a vision of growth is compatible with "sustainability". In fact, I find it highly unlikely. This is a backwards viewpoint. A future of sustainable is

> I doubt a vision of growth is compatible with "sustainability". In fact, I find it highly unlikely. This is a backwards viewpoint. A future of sustainable is a future of more consumption, but green consumption. Standard of living has a strong correlation with energy use. We'll only use more energy in the future. We're still a ways off from a Type 1 civilization.

ciconia 4y ago
> A future of sustainable is a future of more consumption, but green consumption. This is a common trope among the HN crowd. There's no such thing as green consumption. Consuming resources means pollution, whether it be CO2, toxic substances or other refuse from industrial processes. Manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines still means resource extraction which is polluting by definition. Oh, and by the way, we don't know how to mine for metals without using fossil fuels. What you call "green consumption" simply does not exist.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  “Sustainable”: to “sustain”. It means that something is viable over a long period of time. Current practices in various industries and nations are unsustainable because they depend on conditions which are only possible over the short term. For example, cheap fossil fuels. Some other practices are unsustainable in the grand scheme of things, because they are partly responsible for an environment which is itself unsustainable. For example, costs externalised to the environment which has a delayed reaction of several decades. “Polluting” is not unsustainable by itself as long as you have a way to counterbalance it. You can have a sustainable system which extracts resources and exhausts co2. “Green” is worthless as an environmental adjective because it has whichever definition you want to apply to it. If you say “sustainable consumption”, though, there’s no problem creating that. Nature itself is a closed system of sustainable consumption.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  > we don't know how to mine for metals without using fossil fuels. What magical property of fossil fuels is needed to mine? Large mining corporations seem to be on the leading edge of decarbonisation. After all, who wants to ship fuel miles out into the desert and then burn it in an enclosed underground space when you can use solar panels and electric motors? If you're extra clever, you can actually generate electricity as you bring the heavy ore down to sea level.
  - ciconia 4y ago
    > What magical property of fossil fuels is needed to mine? Energy density. You need large amounts of energy throughout the mining and refining process. Digging, grinding, washing, refining, transporting - all done with petrol and gas. The energy density of solar & wind is just not there. > Large mining corporations seem to be on the leading edge of decarbonisation. Source? > After all, who wants to ship fuel miles out into the desert and then burn it in an enclosed underground space when you can use solar panels and electric motors? 1. Most mining operations today are open mines. 2. Petrol is burned in ICE digging and grinding machines. 3. If you want to mine in the desert you also need large amounts of water in order to wash the ores. Just look at what's happening in Chile [1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1123564599/chile-lithium-mining-atacama-desert https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1123564599/chile-lithium-mini...
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      https://www.riotinto.com/news/stories/pilbara-renewables https://www.riotinto.com/news/stories/pilbara-renewables
- mlindner 3y ago
  Taken to the limit with infinite energy there's zero reason to cause any pollution at all. You can incinerate into pure molecular material anything and then convert it back into any product you want. Consumption does not mean pollution.

ciconia 4y ago

> A future of sustainable is a future of more consumption, but green consumption. This is a common trope among the HN crowd. There's no such thing as green consumption. Consuming resources means pollution, whether it be CO2, toxic substances or other refuse from industrial processes. Manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines still means resource extraction which is polluting by definition. Oh, and by the way, we don't know how to mine for metals without using fossil fuels. What you call "green consumption" simply does not exist.

scrollaway 4y ago
“Sustainable”: to “sustain”. It means that something is viable over a long period of time. Current practices in various industries and nations are unsustainable because they depend on conditions which are only possible over the short term. For example, cheap fossil fuels. Some other practices are unsustainable in the grand scheme of things, because they are partly responsible for an environment which is itself unsustainable. For example, costs externalised to the environment which has a delayed reaction of several decades. “Polluting” is not unsustainable by itself as long as you have a way to counterbalance it. You can have a sustainable system which extracts resources and exhausts co2. “Green” is worthless as an environmental adjective because it has whichever definition you want to apply to it. If you say “sustainable consumption”, though, there’s no problem creating that. Nature itself is a closed system of sustainable consumption.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> we don't know how to mine for metals without using fossil fuels. What magical property of fossil fuels is needed to mine? Large mining corporations seem to be on the leading edge of decarbonisation. After all, who wants to ship fuel miles out into the desert and then burn it in an enclosed underground space when you can use solar panels and electric motors? If you're extra clever, you can actually generate electricity as you bring the heavy ore down to sea level.
- ciconia 4y ago
  > What magical property of fossil fuels is needed to mine? Energy density. You need large amounts of energy throughout the mining and refining process. Digging, grinding, washing, refining, transporting - all done with petrol and gas. The energy density of solar & wind is just not there. > Large mining corporations seem to be on the leading edge of decarbonisation. Source? > After all, who wants to ship fuel miles out into the desert and then burn it in an enclosed underground space when you can use solar panels and electric motors? 1. Most mining operations today are open mines. 2. Petrol is burned in ICE digging and grinding machines. 3. If you want to mine in the desert you also need large amounts of water in order to wash the ores. Just look at what's happening in Chile [1]. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1123564599/chile-lithium-mining-atacama-desert https://www.npr.org/2022/09/24/1123564599/chile-lithium-mini...
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    https://www.riotinto.com/news/stories/pilbara-renewables https://www.riotinto.com/news/stories/pilbara-renewables
mlindner 3y ago
Taken to the limit with infinite energy there's zero reason to cause any pollution at all. You can incinerate into pure molecular material anything and then convert it back into any product you want. Consumption does not mean pollution.