zlacker

>>Brajes+(OP)
I'm starting to wonder whether the conventional wisdom of reducing carbon emissions in favour of more electricalisation is really solving the actual problem. As is often pointed out on HN, electrical cars are substantially heavier than their fossil fueled alternatives, and generate other pollution along the way. Furthermore, we're digging our lithium brines from the environment, without really understanding what all this lithium will do once it's leached out into the environment or what impact the mines themselves will have.

With the recent advances of turning CO2 into other substances, such as propane, should we be focusing more on closing the carbon cycle and simply be producing fossil fuels from the waste products of yesteryear?

Naively, it feels like we understand C, O and H, better than we understand some of the rare metals we're now introducing in the name of climate change.

>>alexch+Ei
Well the real answer is to reduce consumption. It can and should be done without sacrificing comfort. This is a very uphill battle against systems that are interested in distracting you by turning your attention towards fads (recycling, electrification, carbon capture) when in reality we need degrowth and permaculture. (Please read this thread a bit more, including my replies, before you tell me what I think degrowth means. I'm only using it to mean "less [economic] growth")

In a bit more detail:

How about less cars? More effective public transit is good for people and the climate.

Let's do away with golf lawns and pools for every house... Perhaps architecture can be adapted to suit the specific location instead of stamping the same stock photo "American house with garage that can fit 4 cars." Look at passive cooling and stuff. [Again, I'm talking about redefining comfort. Is a personal pool and large car and trimmed lawn really, honestly, what makes you comfortable? Or is it more a product of culture and advertising? You're absolutely free to believe either way, and I don't want anyone to force you to do anything.]

And honestly, we need to consoom less. Devices should not have a lifecycle of one year. You and I don't really need all these gadgets and trinkets, either. Let's stop buying random things

If you think this is a distraction or that it won't work because we can't get everyone to agree: Degrowth and permaculture requires honestly no critical mass. You can choose to buy things that last longer, and use them a bit more. Learn to fix things, etc. These are all nothing but straight benefits to you (more money in your pocket, skills that can make you more valuable in the current system, more time available now that you aren't swiping short form videos all day).

>>pictur+wl
"Degrowth" is code for "poor people should have fewer things"

>>jiofj+xq
Stop telling me what I mean. No, I believe that degrowth and permaculture are about yourself, not other people. This is why I say comfort cannot be sacrificed, because I see myself in this future too.

>>pictur+Rq
People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves, so governments turned authoritarian will force them, but will do so in a way that won't affect the rich.

For example, low emission zones for cars - you have to have a new car to be able to drive in a low emission zone. So, who can afford it?

Cheap airplane tickets, make them more expensive - who will be able to afford to fly? Beef contaminates, make it more expensive, same result.

You can follow the logic from there.

>>jiofj+fr
"People aren't going to "degrow" by themselves" is an immediate flaw, because, well, mere ideas were enough to convince me to change some of the ways I act. You're thinking about all this from policy at the global or national scale, but these ideas are closer to the local and organic level

It's actually a little concerning how your line of reasoning seems to follow the most dystopian path, can't you see any other way of it happening?

>>pictur+ku
Low emission zones already exist and have existed for years.

"Airplane tickets are too cheap" is a talking point of French politicians recently. It's likely they will do something about it.

The EU already has a law in place saying no more regular cars can be sold starting in 2035. Of course, with a nice exception for Ferraris.

These dystopian things are happening now, I'm not imagining things.

>>jiofj+Zu
A town with no cars is about the least dystopian thing I can imagine.

Banning them all would make my life difficult in many ways, but there would be some really huge upsides.

>>lostlo+Rv
> there would be some really huge upsides.

You can live in Mackinak and try out the no car lifestyle. Watch out for the crap and piss in the gutters. https://www.michigan.org/city/mackinac-island