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

191–200 of 249 posts

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

#191

Post by e98cuenc »

bin0 wrote: post #144
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…

Cattle likely won't change. I'm going to keep eating meat. And deforestation may not change due to exploding population. However, that doesn't mean we can't capture carbon. 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.

There was an article about a small change in cattle diet that vastly reduced it's methane emissions. Something related to an Australian algae. Here, I found it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/environme...

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

#192

Post by dr_dshiv »

Robotbeat wrote: post #124
valw wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change requires a call to arms for everyone. Many scientific experts don't believe that enhanced technology can be the main solution. True, technology can be a part of the solution, but changing our values and life habits are much more important. That's why top recommended environmental measure is carbon taxes, not subsidizing energy efficiency. We've already made dramatic technological progress on our energy…

> Many scientific experts don't believe that enhanced technology can be the main solution. True, technology can be a part of the solution, but changing our values and life habits are much more important. Are you sure these are scientists? Because this sounds a lot like an ideological belief, not a scientific one. I definitely know a lot of activists who believe this.

It is career suicide for scientists to pursue technology-based approaches to climate change (geoengineering)

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

#193

Post by dr_dshiv »

Robotbeat wrote: post #143
nroets wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we really take a gamble that engineers will come up with enhanced technology ? If the future is uncertain, we should rather do too much than too little. That is how insurance works.

Insisting on hardcore changing values as the main instrument of climate action is likely to backfire, however. Imagine if we had responded to ozone depletion by insisting people not use refrigerators and air conditioning versus just developing non-depleting refrigerants?

Great example.

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

#194

Post by xcklo »

torpfactory wrote: post #89
xcklo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an engineering challenge, but not in development and innovation so much as in policy and implementation. There is a lack of understanding of that what is happening isn't a choice. It is an escalating situation where things you don't deal with today will cost more to deal with tomorrow. Something we and our societies aren't used to. Rather we are used to a Moore's law situation where things get better by themsel…

It won't get better by itself, hence the "call to arms". Engineers need to choose to work on, maybe even for less money or less job security, solutions which are so much better that policy and implementation will contort themselves toward the new paradigms. Politics is the really effective avenue to solve this but it is a lot easier if better alternative solutions exist. I wanted to emphasize that the optimism can be…

That isn't really the point. It doesn't make any sense to be optimistic that a factor will change when it is the overall equation that is wrong.

> Engineers need to choose to work on, maybe even for less money or less job security, solutions which are so much better that policy and implementation will contort themselves toward the new paradigms.

Not only is this becoming harder in most countries every year in recent decades, but the paradigm shift already happened with climate change. If you want to be optimistic you could be optimistic that we find a way to change the equation. In its current state your optimism is awfully close to it being someone else's problem.

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

#195

Post by dr_dshiv »

cagenut wrote: post #28
noja wrote: post #2

Is there an ordered list of what produces most pollution? What's at the top? Is there an easy way to answer the question "I just did environmentally bad thing X, now what can I do to offset that?"

realistically there is no way to "offset" carbon emissions today. there are plenty of people that will take your money, but to date they can be considered at best beta tests, not functioning solutions. your choice is to vote hard environmentalist, agitate hard for immediate change, stop flying and stop driving and stop eating red meat. or don't. but don't delude yourself. a lot of people wish so hard there were easie…

Also, don't have children and pursuade those around you to not have children. It's about 60 times more impactful than going vegetarian. https://images.app.goo.gl/WzvXhy9brdTih8PWA

I have 3 kids, so I'm basically forced on one side of the climate debate. I worry will soon have to wear a scarlet letter for my shame.

Instead, I intensely advocate for technology-based approaches to climate stabilization, such as marine cloud brightening.

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

#196

Post by Gibbon1 »

mattfrommars wrote: post #107

I was involve in trying to prove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoclaved_aerated_concrete a viable alternate to concrete and red brick frequently used in household development. The only part I was unable to secure was seed capital. Does anyone know of program which invest in green/climate fighting `hard` start ups? Love to get in touch with them and revive my project.

I think AAC is an increasingly common building material outside the US. I think it's being regulated out of existence in Europe because because AAC only has moderate R values it can't meet passive house rules. R value of 15 or so vs the 30 or more required by passive house. Which is insane. Passive house assumes the house is going to be heated with fuel oil or nat gas it's whole life. And it's obvious that isn't going to be case over newer houses 100-200 year working life.

Dirty secret about solar and wind is the supply isn't constrained like oil and nat gas. So designing houses around energy scarcity is 'dumb'. And building houses to use nat gas/fuel oil even dumber.

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

#197

Post by nradov »

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…

Unfortunately large scale depopulation is probably coming for us in a few decades. Once the wet bulb temperature exceeds 35°C for a few days people start dying of heat stress. Many tropical and equatorial regions are close to the limit already; a few degrees of global warming will push them over the edge.

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

#198

Post by Theodores »

rleigh wrote: post #178
johnr2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Planting a tree does capture carbon. However, when it dies and rots, all the carbon gets re-released over time back into the atmosphere." Not all the carbon. Some of it stays in the ground to eventually form more fossil fuel.

Not really, not in any meaningful quantity. That only happened once, on a geological timescale (the carboniferous period). During that period, there was no breakdown of dead trees; fungi and bacteria hadn't evolved the enzymes to break it down at that point, so it just sat there, piling up layer upon layer, and eventually got turned into coal seams and oil reservoirs deep underground. Consider just how long it took t…

I wish I could mod your comment up 1000 times.

That small detail about the Carboniferous Period is something nobody has told me before, which makes me wonder how many people in this debate know their subject.

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

#200

Post by noonespecial »

toss1 wrote: post #182
noonespecial wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 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)

Post reply on HN