Yea same here - I keep thinking of the example of a stainless water bottle where most users never used it long enough to pay back the upfront energy investment.
-
-
Yeah it’s not a panacea. Plastic straws and cloth totes are other examples. It’s a mix of targeted redesign, proper labeling, modeling and imitation, and incentives. Designing for durability and repairability as a general default in isolation won’t work.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr @NickPinkston and
But the larger point is, there’s no way to decarbonize without shifting consumption patterns to a lower-emissions equilibrium. There’s only so far you can get with taxes, cap-and-trade, and carbon credits. And with matter unlike energy there’s fewer big levers like renewables.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Carbon tax / sequestration seems like the true panacea. It could be done at massive scale while the economy adjusts. I don't see what would limit it if carbon tax / credits could provide the funding.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NickPinkston @vgr and
The only issue I'm heard is
@sampenrose saing that carbon taxes don't work fast enough, so we need the R&D side as well because the market pressure would arrive too late to hit the targets. Thoughts Sam?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NickPinkston @vgr and
Re: Consumption Patterns - I'm unsure what the top patterns we'd need to change are, but things like cars can be easily made more efficient (electric + smaller engines), lighting can be moved to LED, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NickPinkston @letkma and
Direct energy use is about half the carbon pie chart. The other half is materially embodied. Accounting methods are a bit messy, but currently the biggest pattern that needs shifting in the energy half of the pie is probably HVAC.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @vgr @NickPinkston and
Energy in general is much more legible and within it, electricity generation and transportation are the most legible parts. But I don’t think there’s a way to decarbonize based on energy alone. You have to do a “renewables” equivalent to materials production and use as well.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr @NickPinkston and
But something about moving mass consumption manufacturing to net negative carbon without touching the content seems off to me. Medium is the message. I can’t imagine carbon negative high-tech renewables based factories delivering through EV supply chains...the same crap as today.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's likely that "touching the content" would likely be things like reducing raw material mass, more heat recycling, etc. - more traditional things that we already know that work. Less so things like moving from ABS to PLA - which has big performance / cost sacrifices.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I think you may be mixing up my current dabbling in maker stuff with my opinions on sustainability :D There's a coupling (I'm doing it partly to learn the possibilities/limits of last-mile tech) but most of the serious interventions I'm thinking about aren't consumer-level
-
-
I'm think of manufacturing-level too, say mass market disposable spoons or consumer electronics enclosures going from ABS --> PLA material or similar green types of material changes.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.