To start with I fully agree with your last paragraph- no arguement here.
You’re right on recyclability, the problem is that they aren’t because the infrastructure isn’t in place or profitable. There is also the fact the earth doesn’t actually contain enough of the rare earth minerals to give everyone an EV (This is off memory, cant place the source).
That’s a very weird comment - first part is really hard to read and you’ve accused me of not arguing in good faith without anything to suggest as much. If im reading this correctly
You then have the whole argument on how that power is actually generated. Mass power generation is much more efficient than small ICE, but it does still add up if its not using renewable sources.
Regarding battery efficiency- yes I agree they will get better the same way ICE did.
The other point is that the EV swap delays other advances - walkable cities, car centric infrastructure, mass transportation. If we cut carbon by 50% but it delays 0% by decades did we actually achieve anything?
Yes, if you are only considering the individual’s carbon cost and power is generated via 100% renewable means.
Something like 80% of China power is fossil fuels. Admittedly large scale power generation is more fuel efficient, and I don’t have the full numbers of carbon cost of manufacturing, but its important to keep in mind that carbon costs didn’t just disappear overnight.
Another consideration is that Evs still drove car centric culture. If each EV saved 50% of a vehicles lifetime carbon, but it doubled the time for mass transport to be more widely adopted, lengthened the time for cities to prioritize other means of transport and city design, and means we as a society made 50% more vehicles did we actually save anything?
Genocide includes deliberately manipulating birth rates - killing isn’t actually required.
I wouldn’t take it too strongly yet.
Actually fueling a car is only something like 60 - 80% of the total carbon cost. Rest is manufacturing and disposal. Evs hold considerable costs (carbon, waste, human suffering) in terms of manufacturing and disposal, and only really pay off if their power is created in sustainable ways - otherwise you’re just pushing the problems out of sight.
One commits it, one supplies arms to a third being investigated for it (we at confirmed yet?). Its murder vs manslaughter or association to murder.
Maori here
Don’t think like European monarch - couldn’t point this guy out or name him.
Not entirely sure why we have one, what he does or even where he is. Probably something to do with our co-governance requirements.
Not denying that - wish I could though…
You’re getting carrying capacity, carbon capture and carbon neutral confused, which then flows into sustainability.
Carrying capacity isn’t about getting it back or stored - its the environments ability to “carry” our waste products without long term damage or effects. Increases of forest - pine or mature native - does indeed increase the earths carrying capacity for carbon emissions, waste water, runoff and other areas. You’re right, pine doesn’t mean long term carbon capture but that’s not this arguement.
Regarding burning waste that otherwise cant be used - yes it is greenwashing. We used to think the same thing about burning or dumping rubbish- can’t use it so let’s just burn it. Admittedly this is a much more complicated problem and reverts back to a complete circular economy requiring a significant change in design, ways of thinking and culture to eliminate this one - but it can still be done.
Different areas - you are correct with what you said.
My comment was specifically on those grown to be burned for biomass. Taking a mature forest on the other hand is indeed a problem.
That’s interesting.
Biomass that is grown to be burned is completely sustainable, increases the earths carrying capacity and provides economic growth, profit and jobs. Triple bottom line.
Biomass burned as waste is just incineration with a bit of green washing.
Just a point - biomass regenerates and sucks carbon while it does.
Coal gets burnt and stays out there.
Unfortunately many, if not most genocides are civil war actions.
Course its right back - they won.
First of all, yes.
The post is a line from the article. Discussed in context its the next step up in drills they have been conducting - rather than drilling sections they are covering the wider range of skills, assets and learning opportunities that would be utalised in a small scale war.
You’re right this won’t help - all it will do is push up the average house price by 25k. Freezing prices won’t do anything except drive shortage and lower quality property. Everything you mentioned will work once until people realize they can take advantage of it. We’ve seen it before - price freezes don’t help.
It is well known what we need to do.
make property a bad investment. Heavily tax vacant properties and ownership of multiple, improve renters rights, increase interest rates for investment purchases. The goal is to drive down Qd quickly, reducing the value of other owned properties.
significantly drive up quality housing stock - Increase of Qs. Tax breaks for new builds, government rent to own, density and infrastructure increases. No tax on new builds owned for 10 years. Longer plan that solves long term.
I would pay to watch Trump angrily and frustratingly banging on a table screaming " Nein Nein Nein", more so with tears in his eyes and his pack behind him knowing they can’t interfere without taking the brunt of it, watching their world view just smolder to the ground.
I know a few politicians who do that too.
If we go down that path you’re also forgetting the energy costs of manufacturing, distribution, installation and maintenance of the renewable producers. Definitely haven’t forgotten the need for a snarky comment though.
You can say “this is better, forget everything else” or you can look at the wider systematic concerns and solutions and actually succeed.