Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World • Hacker News Board

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#181

Post by trophycase » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

_jyog wrote: post #161

trophycase wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You use "post-modernism" like Jordan Peterson uses "post-modernism"... incorrectly, and likely without having read any of it. If anything, reducing population (not through genocide obviously) for expedience is actually a very neoliberal idea

> You use "post-modernism" like Jordan Peterson uses "post-modernism"... incorrectly, and likely without having read any of it. Incorrect on both counts. And I use it to describe the philosophical base that essentially, there is no absolute truth and nothing can be taken for reality. Which, ironically, post-modernists use their only absolute truth. > reducing population (not through genocide obviously) for expedience…

"Incorrect on both counts. And I use it to describe the philosophical base that essentially, there is no absolute truth and nothing can be taken for reality. Which, ironically, post-modernists use their only absolute truth."

Ok so remind me what that has to do with population control or believing that things would be better off without humanity. Also feel free to refer me to major post modern philosophers who advocate for such a thing, because I've never read them. Most post-modernism is very life affirming in a very backwards way. The people I hear advocating for this sort of ideology is actually many in the mainstream "left" (read Democratic) in the US.

I didn't say you were a neoliberal, just that such a policy is. In the sense of "for the greater good" and it's insistence on dehumanization and erosion of any non-Capital based relations

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#182

Post by toss1 » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #174

toss1 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For starters: What says that we have more right to liver here, take the air, water and other resources than any of the other clearly sentient & intelligent beings among whom we live? I have a hard time finding any good answers to that question that do not boil down to , i.e., we're more intelligent, capable, etc., so screw all the other animals and plants (upon which, BTW, our continued existence depends). So, from a…

>What says that we have more right to liver here, take the air, water and other resources than any of the other clearly sentient & intelligent beings among whom we live? Nature does. In the same way it gave wolves the right to eat rabbits. By providing us with the indisputable power to do so. It also gave us the ability to choose: We can live a tiny existence as a species, completely eschewing any and all anthropolog…

>> ...that do not boil down to ? >> Nature does. In the same way it gave wolves the right to eat rabbits. By providing us with the indisputable power to do so.

So, how, exactly does that not boil down to ?

I'm also generally for your Option 3, but looking at it realistically, we're quite fully committed to Option 2, consuming the entire world in a few generations.

Short of a massive global Marshal Plan level effort to eradicate poverty, educate everyone, and provide contraception so that every locale goes well below replacement reproduction (or a bio-engineered highly contagious virus that causes infertility), I see vastly insufficient efforts to put us on an even sustainable track.

And the problem is that when resources are exhausted to , e.g., a level 10% below what will sustain a polulation, it isn't a 10% die-off, but more like a 90% die-off, since almost all are under the sustainable level. We break hte food web, and we'll likely be part of the mass extinction.

But everyone has normalcy bias, so, enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#183

Post by SECProto » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 8:03 PM UTC

cheerlessbog wrote: post #55

tyfon wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about the amount of gas, however it is quite common to make the ground floor of concrete here in Norway. However it's not solid, it has a core of Styrofoam to insulate so it. The rest of the houses are usually of wood/glass that is heavily insulated. It would be interesting to see if you could make the foundations out of wood or something like that instead. All new buildings has to adhere to very strict…

I hope that wooden building has excellent (and redundant) sprinklers. It didn't mention fireproof treatment of some kind. Grenfell showed how fast a tower can burn if it's flammable.

Structural properties are interesting. Fires are a combination of fuel, oxidizer, and initiator. Can't really avoid the last one, accidents happen, but you can slow it down.

Grenfell was interesting. My understanding (inquiry is still ongoing, so conditional): because the panels are so thin, they have much larger oxidizer availability to the fuel - like burning a piece of paper held vertically, the rising flames will spread and consume available fuel quickly.

Mass timber, on the other hand, is fairly resistant to fire [1] - initiates slowly, takes a long time to burn through - it's what makes logs in a wood stove burn over hours, not seconds. And while the outside is slowly charring, the core maintains structural strength - quite unlike structural steel as it heats (the steel connectors in this building are actually one of the weak points! [1]). Sprinklers in any high rise is necessary to ensure it has an adequate fire rating (eg, it will remain structurally stable/safe for 2 hours is I think the standard in my country?).

It's not like taking a stick built house and making it taller.

Caveat: I have studied structures/fire rating stuff, but am not a professional.

[1] for your further reading pleasure: https://www.moelven.com/news/news-archive2/2018/how-the-worl...

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#184

Post by stephenr » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 8:05 PM UTC

valw wrote: post #133

bin0 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way this is happening is if the planet gets depopulated of humans rapidly. Please don't tell me you're one of those "earth would be better of were we all dead" people. I can't stand that kind of post-modernist, nihilistic garbage. I'm not mister optimist, but still, that's way too far. Also, that kind of rhetoric is going to end up being a justification for some one very evil doing some thing very bad. > T…

> At some point, pulling energy out of thin air will end up cheaper than doing expensive drilling operations. A lot of people seem to believe that abundant clean energy is a sufficient solution for our environmental problems. A huge part of GHG emissions is due to deforesting and cattle, which has little to do with energy consumption. History also seems to show that giving humanity abundant energy will only lead to i…

> A huge part of GHG emissions is due to deforesting and cattle

Deforestation is clearly an issue, but I seem to recall reading about a diet with some/more/lots of seaweed essentially solved the methane issue of cattle?

If the deforestation is to have space for cows the answer is obvious: cow/fish hybrids. Or cows with scuba masks? No need to collect the seaweed, no need to destroy the forest.

You’ll need bigger fishing nets though.

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#185

Post by nikehat » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

sampo wrote: post #93

nikehat wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Livestock consume far more feed grains (mostly corn) than they produce food on their own [1]. The transportation costs to feed them are greater than the transportation costs would be if we were to feed humans on plant based foods, so transportation would actually be reduced if we lowered the amount of animal products we consume. [1] http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-mi...

That is a US-specific article. In the US, animal agriculture contributes about 2.8% of US total CO2eq emissions, whereas US transportation sector contributes 26%. https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-...

Not sure what your point is. I never said emissions related to animal agriculture outweigh total transportation emissions. What I said was reducing meat consumption would lower transportation emissions associated with food.

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#186

Post by hannob » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #184

valw wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point, pulling energy out of thin air will end up cheaper than doing expensive drilling operations. A lot of people seem to believe that abundant clean energy is a sufficient solution for our environmental problems. A huge part of GHG emissions is due to deforesting and cattle, which has little to do with energy consumption. History also seems to show that giving humanity abundant energy will only lead to i…

> A huge part of GHG emissions is due to deforesting and cattle Deforestation is clearly an issue, but I seem to recall reading about a diet with some/more/lots of seaweed essentially solved the methane issue of cattle? If the deforestation is to have space for cows the answer is obvious: cow/fish hybrids. Or cows with scuba masks? No need to collect the seaweed, no need to destroy the forest. You’ll need bigger fish…

> Deforestation is clearly an issue, but I seem to recall reading about a diet with some/more/lots of seaweed essentially solved the methane issue of cattle?

Don't get your hopes up. This story gets thrown around a lot, but it's based on a mini study with twelve cows.

Whether this will work at scale or permanently is pretty much an open question.

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#187

Post by dantondwa » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #157

valw wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen numerous promising business ideas to capture carbon and convert it into useful materials; I think it's more feasible to do that than to force veganism on every one. Yeah, we've all seen them - they make for fantastic headlines. None of them is as viable as protecting forests / planting trees by a long shot. They systematically fail to mention that the energy consumption is super high or that they're not s…

60% of America is overweight or obese, and America throws out enough food to feed .. a lot of people, every day. Shame me for eating meat when you stop them from overeating food full stop - and all the farm machinery and transport and packaging involved in that. I don't have children, I don't drive them to school in a SUV or to a holiday in DisneyWorld, I have never launched a SpaceX rocket, or lived on my own in a f…

Yeah, I agree with what you are saying. This approach has put all the responsibility on the individual and has comfortably concealed the fact that a problem of this scale must be approached from above and in a systemic way. Yes, individuals can make a difference, in mass. So can laws that force them to act in a certain way and laws which actually touch the interests of the big polluters. Making the powerless majority feel guilty about their insignificant choices is not the solution, and it is just a way to not face the responsability of the big and influential culprits.

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#188

Post by fwip » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

m3kw9 wrote: post #152

midnitewarrior wrote: post #17

Telling a lie then saying 3 Hail Marys means you are forgiven for the lie, it doesn't fix the lie. As such, planting a tree to be forgiven for going on a flight that burns carbon-laden jet fuel doesn't fix what you did. Fossil fuels are excess carbon atoms sequestered safely deep inside the Earth. Unless you can find a way to put them back there, there's no fixing the situation. Planting a tree does capture carbon. H…

Trees are ok, but they create a carbon debt, because the tree stores the co2, and when it dies either in fire or fermenting, it releases that back. It’s more like a 50-100 year debt contract.

Luckily, trees have a built-in mechanism to beget more trees.

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#189

Post by H8crilA » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

voyager2 wrote: post #49

gingabriska wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I am wondering, how much CO2 is too much for plants? And now when more CO2 is available, why don't see new forests appearing in places where there never were any forest.

Greenhouse operators often provide their plants with an atmosphere of 1200-1500 ppm CO2, which would fall into the economically advantageous range. No idea where the "too much" range starts though.

Which is still waaay more than in the atmosphere: https://www.co2.earth/

Once we get to 1500 ppm the situation will be so bad that worrying about photosynthesis quality will be as unimportant as worrying about who wins the football cup.

Re: Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

#190

Post by richk449 » Sun, Jun 23, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

bin0 wrote: post #158

valw wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen numerous promising business ideas to capture carbon and convert it into useful materials; I think it's more feasible to do that than to force veganism on every one. Yeah, we've all seen them - they make for fantastic headlines. None of them is as viable as protecting forests / planting trees by a long shot. They systematically fail to mention that the energy consumption is super high or that they're not s…

> privileged people I don't eat a ton of beef, but no, beef is relatively affordable (at least in America). But I do eat a lot more chicken, and not a ton of beef. With that said, I want a good steak once every few months and a burger once a week. More importantly, I don't want the government saying "thou shalt" about my beef consumption, nor do I want people finger-wagging at me about it. America can sustainably rai…

> This is also the tragedy of the commons. If I emit less, others will feel they can emit more. I refuse to be "the sucker" that loses this game theory problem.

The whole point in the tragedy of the commons is that if everyone follows their own self interest (as you are doing) then everyone loses. That is why it is called a tragedy.

Saying you are going to avoid losing by taking what you want completely misunderstands what the problem is.