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

We are not sustainable

frame.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 138 posts

Re: We are not sustainable

#31

Post by steve_adams_86 »

lucb1e wrote: post #25
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding display production: I recently bought a Studio Display from Apple with the thought that it should last a very long time. It bricked itself with a software update after maybe 3 months. I realized these things depend on Apple supporting the A13 chip in order for it to remain compatible with new technologies and, absurdly, to remain secure from exploits. A monitor. I couldn’t regret my purchase much more and f…

If you want to get rid of it, multiple months for a good-as-new product is long enough to suggest they just keep it and give you the full money back instead. Laws may be different where you live, I'm not a lawyer, but that should work

I suppose the laws where I am don’t work in my favour. I firmly insisted I get a refund after about 45 days, but they flatly refused and shortly after agreed to a replacement. I still don’t have that, though.

Re: We are not sustainable

#33

Post by noobermin »

gpm wrote: post #23
icegreentea2 wrote: post #15

The life cycle assessment shows that over a five year life span, production is responsible for 65% of CO2e, and usage about 25% (out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline) using "a typical US energy mix". Component wise (during production), the largest CO2e contributor was the display at ~25%, then the mainboard at 20%, and then battery around 15%. Take aways for me are that: from a sustainability stan…

> out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline Five year CO2 production roughly equivalent to two tanks of gas in a honda civic. It's not nothing, but if you're looking to reduce your CO2 footprint I'm not sure this is what I'd look towards as the low hanging fruit for just about anyone who can afford their product. For instance for most people driving less, or driving smaller vehicles, would be far more…

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Transport is by-and-large the #1 source of emissions in the US[0], the majority of which are passenger cars and trucks[1]. Reducing car dependency would be one of the largest contributors to sustainability the US (and many other nations, but likely not as much as America) could do to have an impact on climate change

[0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

Pulled quote from [1]: "The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector."

Re: We are not sustainable

#34

Post by noobermin »

Small comment on framework only somewhat related to its sustainability as a country. I live in Asia (Singapore) now after buying mine in America, and I cannot buy replacement parts now, even though most of the parts are made in Taiwan which is quite close to here. I am guessing it's likely because framework cannot make their nice markup if I buy from their Taiwanese suppliers directly, but it has dented somewhat the repairability of these things when the effective supply chain you have is not present (available for Americans and Europeans on their online store but not people in Asia).

Re: We are not sustainable

#35

Post by nluken »

ajayyy wrote: post #29
nluken wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are not sustainable, and we know that, but buy our products anyway" is still greenwashing...

They encourage people to wait to buy their product only until they aren't able to repair their current one.

So does H&M in the clothes world (at least, that’s what they’ll tell you). At the end of the day it’s still a sales tactic.

Re: We are not sustainable

#36

Post by wmf »

noobermin wrote: post #34

Small comment on framework only somewhat related to its sustainability as a country. I live in Asia (Singapore) now after buying mine in America, and I cannot buy replacement parts now, even though most of the parts are made in Taiwan which is quite close to here. I am guessing it's likely because framework cannot make their nice markup if I buy from their Taiwanese suppliers directly, but it has dented somewhat the…

They're adding countries one by one so Singapore should come eventually. They're not boycotting Asia or anything.

Re: We are not sustainable

#38

Post by marcus_holmes »

noobermin wrote: post #33
gpm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline Five year CO2 production roughly equivalent to two tanks of gas in a honda civic. It's not nothing, but if you're looking to reduce your CO2 footprint I'm not sure this is what I'd look towards as the low hanging fruit for just about anyone who can afford their product. For instance for most people driving less, or driving smaller vehicles, would be far more…

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Tr…

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours".

I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil.

But I do understand that changing that much public behaviour is difficult (and made more difficult by this attitude/argument). So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this.

Except that if fuel prices go up, people point out that they can't afford to drive for necessary trips. And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars. So the government has to keep fuel prices low enough to make cars usable for poor people. Which means no-one gives up their cars and the oil companies carry on processing this much oil.

So I don't really understand how we're going to solve this and not cook ourselves.

Re: We are not sustainable

#39

Post by tourmalinetaco »

noobermin wrote: post #33
gpm wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> out of a total estimated 200kg - roughly 86L of gasoline Five year CO2 production roughly equivalent to two tanks of gas in a honda civic. It's not nothing, but if you're looking to reduce your CO2 footprint I'm not sure this is what I'd look towards as the low hanging fruit for just about anyone who can afford their product. For instance for most people driving less, or driving smaller vehicles, would be far more…

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Tr…

The problem is the genuine vitriol the anti-car topic can bring out in people. The US can stand a lot of changes in public travel, i.e. it’s bullshit that I cannot take the train from one state capital to another, barring Hawaii and possibly Alaska. It’s also bullshit, however, when urbanists/“fuck car” people enter the conversation and demand we need to destroy rural and suburban living entirely. Even labeling it as anti-car is, frankly, ignorant of reality. Not even Europe is car-free, and Europe is much more dense than America. Instead of anti-car, the topic should always be pro-choice in transport, which is the real problem in the US.

I also, in general, find CO2 to be a weak argument for climate change that is normally brought up as a smoke screen for big businesses like Google or Apple, who make literal tons of unrepairable ewaste, to make them appear better than they are. Which I am not saying Framework is doing, mind you, but I find it a much less interesting metric than, say, total material waste.

Re: We are not sustainable

#40

Post by tourmalinetaco »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #38
noobermin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Tr…

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped…

And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport.

> I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours.

I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job or current state of living, people will accept the corporate greed. No one but Adobe was happier because Photoshop removed ownership, but people need Photoshop for their work and have to live with it. No one wanted lightbulbs that die earlier than before, but that’s all they sell. And don’t even get me started on the righteous anger felt over the fact that Apple made ewaste trendy.

Also, you obviously haven’t seen how much CO2 a 10kHP engine puts out after an 8 hour shift.

> So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this.

I’m glad you are far away from America, because even in Europe this is a hilariously stupid idea. Sure let’s just leave a large chunk of society stranded at home with no ability to have a job, they’ll surely be happy we “saved the planet” by cutting out minor CO2 emissions while corporate greed leads to mass produced garbage.

> So I don't really understand I’m not surprised, considering your radical views.

Post reply on HN