4 ms·

Is this satire? With the username, I’m unsure. I don’t know why anyone would mention GPUs and AI in the same context as electric vehicles. Mining isn’t a huge

Is this satire? With the username, I’m unsure. I don’t know why anyone would mention GPUs and AI in the same context as electric vehicles. Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. It’s not good for the local environment, but it’s necessary. Recycling and reuse is also a grand idea, you’re right about that. Except for plastics, which never made sense. Electric cars are unequivocally a good thing. Every electric car takes a fossil fuel guzzling car off the road. Once a family has an electric car they tend to use it whenever possible, making the effect even more pronounced. Some people float the ridiculous argument that they emit more greenhouse gases in manufacturing and mining than they save over their lifetime. Firstly, gasoline cars also cost energy to manufacture and gasoline also takes energy to extract and refine and transport. Secondly, electric cars break even within the first few years of use. Even in todays world where the electric grid still has a lot of fossil fuel generation.

bee_rider 3y ago
Not sure they are unequivocally good — maybe if we had the option between electric cars, and no cars, no cars might be preferable. But that is not the world we live in. Among the options we actually have, electric cars seem to be one of the least bad picks.
- slashdev 3y ago
  Exactly.
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  That’s not the world you used or chose to live.
walleeee 3y ago
In 30 years we are going to look back at all the "unequivocally good" electric family cars and wish we'd used the materials and energy on civilizational resilience, not to temporarily extend the unsustainable habits of the planet's richest minority Electric vehicles can be a good thing if we also dramatically reduce our consumption of transportation and bring our political systems, lifestyles and economies in harmony with planetary boundaries. Without a corresponding sea change in expectations and way of life, they just dig us deeper into the energy trap.
- slashdev 3y ago
  You act like cars are a luxury good used for joy riding. Transportation is necessary. I’m all for mass transit, and making cities more walkable and friendly to cycling. That’s complementary. But cars are still necessary, and that’s not about to change.
  - walleeee 3y ago
    Electric cars are a luxury good. The people buying new EVs are not the same people struggling to break even with 2 jobs. Many of the people struggling to break even are putting extra miles on their older ICE vehicles to deliver meals or groceries to the Tesla owners. We need to make cars less necessary for life. It's not an easy task, but it's a question of priorities. Do we care more about convenience in the near term, or prospects for life in the long term?
    - throwanapple 3y ago
      Plus, if you already have an older ICE car that works perfectly fine, isn't it better to keep driving it (in terms of carbon emission and other environmental impacts from mining, production, distribution and disposal), than to swap it with a new electric one?
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        Yes, but is that a problem? Usually you sell your ICE, you don’t trash it when you buy an EV.)
        throwanapple 3y ago
        Yes if we want to reduce total consumption of polluting resources. Depends on each person's circumstance, if you need to drive then it's better to keep using your old car but use it as little as possible and look for opportunities to replace trips with walking, cycling, public transport, etc. Rather than buying a new EV but still driving everywhere even for short trips.
aziaziazi 3y ago
> Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. Heh ??! Mining is a huge source of GHG, especially if you count scope 3 (you should): https://www.mining-technology.com/features/cop26-scope3-net-zero/ https://www.mining-technology.com/features/cop26-scope3-net-... > Within mining, scope 1 and 2 emissions account for 4%-7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This rises to 28% of global emissions however when accounting for scope 3
- slashdev 3y ago
  Scope three isn’t mining. Calling it mining is really playing fast and loose with words. Smelting and processing of raw materials is a big source of GHG. Most of scope 2 and 3 emissions go away if you decarbonize the electric grid though.
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    > Scope three isn’t mining Absolutely, but that’s not what I said neither the article I link. Is talks about the emissions of mining itself and the scopes associated of that activity. It’s not mining within another activity scope. The conclusion is basically : scope 1 and 2 emissions of mining itself is quite small compare to its scope 3 emissions. The reason is mining activity uses a HUGE quantity of steel which -in this context- produce a lot of GHG. > Most of scope 2 and 3 emissions go away if you decarbonize the electric grid though. I guess you talk about derived goods “we” consume away from the mines… so your assomption of scope 2 is true but as stated in the article a linked, the mining part of our scope 3 will largely more benefit of decarbonizing the steel industry (the grid won’t have much effect). But guess what ? That’s (very) expensive and the only ones that cares are some smart Norwegians.

bee_rider 3y ago

Not sure they are unequivocally good — maybe if we had the option between electric cars, and no cars, no cars might be preferable. But that is not the world we live in. Among the options we actually have, electric cars seem to be one of the least bad picks.

slashdev 3y ago
Exactly.
aziaziazi 3y ago
That’s not the world you used or chose to live.

walleeee 3y ago

In 30 years we are going to look back at all the "unequivocally good" electric family cars and wish we'd used the materials and energy on civilizational resilience, not to temporarily extend the unsustainable habits of the planet's richest minority Electric vehicles can be a good thing if we also dramatically reduce our consumption of transportation and bring our political systems, lifestyles and economies in harmony with planetary boundaries. Without a corresponding sea change in expectations and way of life, they just dig us deeper into the energy trap.

slashdev 3y ago
You act like cars are a luxury good used for joy riding. Transportation is necessary. I’m all for mass transit, and making cities more walkable and friendly to cycling. That’s complementary. But cars are still necessary, and that’s not about to change.
- walleeee 3y ago
  Electric cars are a luxury good. The people buying new EVs are not the same people struggling to break even with 2 jobs. Many of the people struggling to break even are putting extra miles on their older ICE vehicles to deliver meals or groceries to the Tesla owners. We need to make cars less necessary for life. It's not an easy task, but it's a question of priorities. Do we care more about convenience in the near term, or prospects for life in the long term?
  - throwanapple 3y ago
    Plus, if you already have an older ICE car that works perfectly fine, isn't it better to keep driving it (in terms of carbon emission and other environmental impacts from mining, production, distribution and disposal), than to swap it with a new electric one?
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      Yes, but is that a problem? Usually you sell your ICE, you don’t trash it when you buy an EV.)
      - throwanapple 3y ago
        Yes if we want to reduce total consumption of polluting resources. Depends on each person's circumstance, if you need to drive then it's better to keep using your old car but use it as little as possible and look for opportunities to replace trips with walking, cycling, public transport, etc. Rather than buying a new EV but still driving everywhere even for short trips.

aziaziazi 3y ago

> Mining isn’t a huge source of greenhouse emissions. Heh ??! Mining is a huge source of GHG, especially if you count scope 3 (you should): https://www.mining-technology.com/features/cop26-scope3-net-zero/ https://www.mining-technology.com/features/cop26-scope3-net-... > Within mining, scope 1 and 2 emissions account for 4%-7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This rises to 28% of global emissions however when accounting for scope 3

slashdev 3y ago
Scope three isn’t mining. Calling it mining is really playing fast and loose with words. Smelting and processing of raw materials is a big source of GHG. Most of scope 2 and 3 emissions go away if you decarbonize the electric grid though.
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  > Scope three isn’t mining Absolutely, but that’s not what I said neither the article I link. Is talks about the emissions of mining itself and the scopes associated of that activity. It’s not mining within another activity scope. The conclusion is basically : scope 1 and 2 emissions of mining itself is quite small compare to its scope 3 emissions. The reason is mining activity uses a HUGE quantity of steel which -in this context- produce a lot of GHG. > Most of scope 2 and 3 emissions go away if you decarbonize the electric grid though. I guess you talk about derived goods “we” consume away from the mines… so your assomption of scope 2 is true but as stated in the article a linked, the mining part of our scope 3 will largely more benefit of decarbonizing the steel industry (the grid won’t have much effect). But guess what ? That’s (very) expensive and the only ones that cares are some smart Norwegians.