9 ms·

> A company might make a single product less carbon-intensive, for example. But if it winds up selling more of that product than it used to, it might end up pum

> A company might make a single product less carbon-intensive, for example. But if it winds up selling more of that product than it used to, it might end up pumping out as much or even more greenhouse gas emissions than it used to. But if it's carbon neutral, it doesn't really matter does it? The increased greenhouse gas emissions are offset by some carbon capture.

kitkat_new 3y ago
greenhouse gas emissions are not the only thing that needs to be looked at regarding sustainability
- dundarious 3y ago
  It's the existential issue of our time. It absolutely deserves primacy. If you have a significant secondary issue, you should mention.
  - kitkat_new 3y ago
    > It's the existential issue of our time. It absolutely deserves primacy. it's still not the only one, even if it does > If you have a significant secondary issue, you should mention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
    - dundarious 3y ago
      Primacy means it's the most significant issue. Of course it's not the only one. Prioritization matters to a huge degree, and climate change deserves prime position. Of course that are other resource constraint issues, but resolving the energy crisis resolves a large number of such issues, which again further reinforces the primacy of dealing with climate change. I can't think of a single resource crisis that could justify even approaching the priority of climate change, and just gesturing at every single resource limit on the planet doesn't convince me to change my thoughts on priority.
      - kitkat_new 3y ago
        you are arguing against a straw man. I say you can't just ignore everything besides co2 emissions. You argue for co2 emissions being the most important thing
        dundarious 3y ago
        That's a pretty fair summary except I'd add it's the most important by a huge margin across many dimensions. There's definitely significant daylight between what we've written, but a lot of agreement too.
  - porkbeer 3y ago
    Pollution beoynd simple carbon is a bigger issue with zero doubt. Id rather a 10degree hotter planet where you can stilk drink the water.
    - dundarious 3y ago
      Climate change deserves to be the prime issue because we're accelerating towards very bad, very wide-ranging effects, that will eventually be irreversible (on the time scale of human civilization). That's not true to anywhere near the same degree for any other global environmental issue. The primary way we might "soon" ruin a lot of our drinking water is through climate change, and even change that's far less significant than your 10 degrees remark.
throw0101b 3y ago
> But if it's carbon neutral, it doesn't really matter does it? An ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure. By not generating the carbon emissions in the first place, you then have to have a bunch of rigamarole cleaning it up.
0x457 3y ago
I hate carbon neutrality as marketing. It all means is that they got some carbon credits to offset their carbon emissions. Oil companies could change literally nothing in their production pipelines and claim there are carbon-neutral by acquiring those credits somewhere and/or planting some trees (and lobbying to increase how many carbon credits are given for that)

kitkat_new 3y ago

greenhouse gas emissions are not the only thing that needs to be looked at regarding sustainability

dundarious 3y ago
It's the existential issue of our time. It absolutely deserves primacy. If you have a significant secondary issue, you should mention.
- kitkat_new 3y ago
  > It's the existential issue of our time. It absolutely deserves primacy. it's still not the only one, even if it does > If you have a significant secondary issue, you should mention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
  - dundarious 3y ago
    Primacy means it's the most significant issue. Of course it's not the only one. Prioritization matters to a huge degree, and climate change deserves prime position. Of course that are other resource constraint issues, but resolving the energy crisis resolves a large number of such issues, which again further reinforces the primacy of dealing with climate change. I can't think of a single resource crisis that could justify even approaching the priority of climate change, and just gesturing at every single resource limit on the planet doesn't convince me to change my thoughts on priority.
    - kitkat_new 3y ago
      you are arguing against a straw man. I say you can't just ignore everything besides co2 emissions. You argue for co2 emissions being the most important thing
      - dundarious 3y ago
        That's a pretty fair summary except I'd add it's the most important by a huge margin across many dimensions. There's definitely significant daylight between what we've written, but a lot of agreement too.
- porkbeer 3y ago
  Pollution beoynd simple carbon is a bigger issue with zero doubt. Id rather a 10degree hotter planet where you can stilk drink the water.
  - dundarious 3y ago
    Climate change deserves to be the prime issue because we're accelerating towards very bad, very wide-ranging effects, that will eventually be irreversible (on the time scale of human civilization). That's not true to anywhere near the same degree for any other global environmental issue. The primary way we might "soon" ruin a lot of our drinking water is through climate change, and even change that's far less significant than your 10 degrees remark.

throw0101b 3y ago

> But if it's carbon neutral, it doesn't really matter does it? An ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure. By not generating the carbon emissions in the first place, you then have to have a bunch of rigamarole cleaning it up.

0x457 3y ago

I hate carbon neutrality as marketing. It all means is that they got some carbon credits to offset their carbon emissions. Oil companies could change literally nothing in their production pipelines and claim there are carbon-neutral by acquiring those credits somewhere and/or planting some trees (and lobbying to increase how many carbon credits are given for that)