Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cement Produces More Pollution Than All the Trucks in the World

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 249 posts

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

#201

Post by arcseco »

patrickk wrote: post #42

One alternative to traditional concrete is autoclaved aerated concrete[1], a 70 year old material that's more eco friendly. Some of the advantages are mentioned in this video[2]. I'm guessing higher upfront cost means it's not competitive with traditional concrete. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoclaved_aerated_concrete [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS3BTDBMt7I

I've run into Siporex panels, which are a type of low density concrete per-fabricated panels. When these panels become water logged their tensile strength drops off quite a bit more than conventional concrete panels. The climate in which these panels are to be used probably plays a significant factor in specifying their use.

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

#202

Post by stordoff »

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…

> come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give [air-con] up [...] we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be

Are you sure about that? It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem.

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

#203

Post by Der_Einzige »

bin0 wrote: post #63
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…

> 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…

What you describe is not postmodernism. Antinatalism is certainly not nihilism. You seem to be confused

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

#204

Post by benj111 »

lozenge wrote: post #126
tyfon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone thinks like this nothing will change. You can do both. Campaign for political change and change your personal behaviour. I've done radical changes to my life at least last few years to reduce my pollution/co2 footprint and if more people think like this it _will_ help. So saying that there is nothing that can be done on the individual level is quite dangerous as I personally think over time this will have…

Boycotts have never toppled an industry as far as I'm aware. In this case the beef or aviation industries could be targeted. They have only succeeded in small changes and when customers have very similar alternatives they can use.

You don't have to aim to topple the industry, just pressure them to make changes, with the implied threat of a boycott.

I'll admit that approach works better with a simpler less wide ranging issue. Examples off the top of my head, in the UK I don't believe you can buy non fair trade bananas from any of the major supermarkets, and most eggs now seem to be free range.

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

#205

Post by dorgo »

valw wrote: post #163
bin0 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered) Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year. > Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l... . Think of the consequences in famines (whole countries transfor…

> https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l....

I could not see any graphics/media (the website is a mess. It tries to load a dozen 3rd party resources). But the article is pretty optimistic:

> Now is the time to buy property in Greenland – before it too turns green...

> Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich

I'm sure there will be cities in these new deserts. And people in these cities will still eat beef sandwiches.

If somebody talks like that, my impression is always that it's more about restriction and reduction than about saving the world.

> Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year.

Cool, is there a CO2 calculator somewhere?

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

#206

Post by dorgo »

stordoff wrote: post #202
bin0 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give [air-con] up [...] we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be Are you sure about that? It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem.

> It seems like we'd adapt by using more power, deepening the problem.

Not if it is solar/wind power as is the case for 50% of the power already (in my country). With 100% renewables you can waste as much energy as you like.

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

#207

Post by toss1 »

noonespecial wrote: post #200
toss1 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> ...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 t…

So, how, exactly does that not boil down to ? It boils down exactly to might makes right, also know as "natural law". Everything else brings the argument into religious territory by assuming an absolute moral standard. (Which is fine by the way, as long as we explicitly call it out and argue from it in a consistent manner - and understand that we are crossing the border of science and philosophy when we do)

Actually, we can look to many studies of pre-linguistic children, primates, and birds showing that ALL of them show a significantly developed sense of fairness.

We can also look to vast quantities of documented examples of altruistic behavior in studies far "down" the animal scale.

There is substantial theory growing that religious and moral attitudes, cultural structures, and laws emerged from these innate qualities, rather than being some human invention.

Here's an article on just two: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/true-altruism-seen-c...

So, this "natural law" that you posit at the top/root of all behavior evaluation is actually quite shaky, and it is not at all clear that it has the priority you claim.

It looks far more like a justification for might being right. By that standard, it'd be ok for me to steal your pay, enslave you, or simply kill you for the $10 in your pocket if merely had the means & whim, with all concerns about fairness, ethics, morality, relegated to the minor realm of "religious territory".

Yet even a chimp, dog, elephant, or dolphin would know that it's wrong.

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

#208

Post by bin0 »

dorgo wrote: post #205
valw wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered) Cool, how much? IIRC, sustainability would require an individual average below 2 teqCO2/year. > Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented: https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l... . Think of the consequences in famines (whole countries transfor…

> https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l... . I could not see any graphics/media (the website is a mess. It tries to load a dozen 3rd party resources). But the article is pretty optimistic: > Now is the time to buy property in Greenland – before it too turns green... > Yeah sure, we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich I'm sure there will be cities in these new deserts. And people in…

I used this one: https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/

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

#209

Post by pmoriarty »

jacques_chester wrote: post #137
patrickk wrote: post #42

One alternative to traditional concrete is autoclaved aerated concrete[1], a 70 year old material that's more eco friendly. Some of the advantages are mentioned in this video[2]. I'm guessing higher upfront cost means it's not competitive with traditional concrete. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoclaved_aerated_concrete [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS3BTDBMt7I

A core topic of the article is that there a number of less carbon-intensive means of producing concrete, but all of them are more expensive. As it is basically a commodity market, price sensitivity among buyers is intense. It's an example of where carbon trading or carbon pricing would be able to shift the market's current selection.

Papercrete[1] is an interesting material. It's a mix of (usually recycled) paper and concrete, so clearly using it wouldn't get rid of all of the pollution caused by concrete production, but it would help. It also can't be used as a concrete substitute in every situation, but it has some interesting properties like being a much better insulator than concrete, and being of very low cost.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papercrete

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

#210

Post by dorgo »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #176
icxa wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If these people really believed that overpopulation was the problem, then why don't they start depopulating with themselves? * It sounds terrible I know, but it serves to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the stance. Like George Carlin said, "I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. Peopl…

Suppose we have enough people and resources to support the current population, but not enough to support 20% more at the same level of luxury ... you don't think we should bother to try and keep the population at the level where everyone can benefit?

I think we should improve our tools/planing/everything to support 20% more of us at a higher level of luxury..
Post reply on HN