781
We produce more resources than we could ever consume in the least sustainable ways possible. (mander.xyz)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 50 points 5 months ago (13 children)

This is a much less cool post when you realize that the Earth can only sustainably support 10 billion people if we never fly, give up a lot of our modern tech, and have rice make up 50% of our diet. Basically any meat is completely off the table, as with personal cars, and probably standalone houses. If I'm given the choice between not having kids and not flying to see my family for holidays, I'll take the no-kids option.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 34 points 5 months ago

    So let's build lots of highspeed rail? We went to the moon on less compute than your cell phone and modern tech could be way more sustainable if we properly optimized. Rice is fantastic and works for a significant chunk of the current population just fine. Meat? Just gotta grow that protein in other more sustainable/efficient ways. Cars are useless in a dense urban environments and make everything worse. Fuck cars. Standalone houses are a giant waste of space and when you design your neighborhoods around this idea, everything is too spread out to actually have proper density and utility.

    This is a very cool post that does point out that all of these things are in such excess. You should give StrongTowns and NotJustBikes a watch on youtube for much more on the topic of urban design.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Aviation is about 2.5% of global emissions.

    In the long run then yes, we need carbon neutral fuels, but it should be possible for people to fly a little and not destroy the planet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] 3 points 5 months ago (6 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Which gives me huge misgivings about the current space push.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I am no expert at all in this field, but I think rocket fuels are often quite differently composed than plane fuels. If you just use liquid oxygen and hydrogen, your only reaction product will be water, which isn't a strong greenhouse gas (despite being the dominant on by sheer amount). Of course there are also rocket fuels which blast out carbon products like there is no tomorrow.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I was very interested in space and learned a lot. The more I learned the more I realized this is just another case of capitalists destroying the planet for profit.

    Yes, some rockets are hydrogen/oxygen. The space shuttle was. The Falcon 9 uses kerosene/oxygen (or RP1, rocket propellant 1 but it's just refined kerosene) the new rocket, starship, uses methane/oxygen. They'll tell you that methane burns really clean but the part they don't tell you is how much "leaks" out. Rocket engines don't just start, they have to 'spin up'. The pumps have to be pumping and all the propellant has to be flowing before it'll ignite. So a certain amount of raw propellant (oxygen and or methane or kerosene) will get 'spent' as in 'thrown out the back'. Perhaps it's not that terrible at launch, but during second stage ignition the rocket is way up there. How much comes out? Don't know, they don't say. You can watch the streams and see it happen for your self. The two stages separate and big puffs of 'mist' happen. Again, the mist is oxygen and or methane or kerosene (there are other gasses, like nitrogen and helium used for maneuvering but we're talking about what comes out the back). Right there is enough for me to think it's a bad idea and will end up fucking us over, and that's just the obvious part. Now make a business model that says you're going to launch these 5 times a day to deliver tons and tons of electronics into space that you plan on burning as a means of disposal. It's almost as if Samsung had a recycling program where they just burned everything out back. Except that it's at high altitude so it's way worse. No planet B my ass.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions

    4% of global warming to date. Flying will still be possible (and not uncommon) in a net zero world. Maybe americans will have to take the train to see their relatives, but they could just DACCS if they love TSA controls so much.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Your thesis doesn't match up with this chart:

    https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

    We're working to decarbonize the highest categories on that list, with rapid adoption of solar/wind, some potential for more nuclear and geothermal in the medium term, and maybe even fusion in the long term.

    Then, while decarbonizing electricity, we're electrifying heating for homes, water, cooking, and we're electrifying transportation.

    US carbon emissions per capita peaked in the 70's, and peaked as a whole in the 2000's. US carbon emissions per capita still greatly exceed those of other rich nations.

    It's very much possible to have modern first world living standards, even with significant reductions in our resource use and net emissions. We just need to line up the incentives (aka pricing) with what is good for the Earth. And we're already doing that in many of the heaviest polluting sectors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    As a Mexican I can confirm I'm already eating a lot of rice and beans, and I take the bus instead of flying. It's really not that bad, it's mostly over production of resource intensive corps and fossil fuels, which we could have already transitioned from without any real detriment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent