CONTEXT

GhostOnTheHalfShell

EV are not “green” in the way that has been publicized.

The problem is resource & energy use, not whether it’s internal combustion or electric.

We have to understand that shifting to a different kind of supply chain is a version of using less of something in one area, causing a rapid expansion of something equally destructive in another area

Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

bullshit

get everyone an EV, and then the game becomes moving the power plants off fossil fuels. which is being done

of course mining resources for EV batteries is a concern

much less of a concern than fossil fuel extraction

especially in regards to climate change

that difference matters

of course it's not perfect

as if anyone concerned with magical impossible perfection is thinking clearly or remotely a serious person

Amoshias

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva right. like if you move off of beef to a plant based diet it becomes just as bad.

oh wait, that's wrong and an insane think to say.

e-Flex

@blogdiva @GhostOnTheHalfShell you should probably watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM

GhostOnTheHalfShell

@Amoshias @blogdiva

The comparison is inaccurate.

A plant base diet dramatically decreases the amount of water and other resources.

The correct comparison as you switch from using arsenic to plutonium and thereby reduce your exposure to toxic waste. Or switching from CO2 to methane generation, therefore reducing CO2 production.

Patrick H. Lauke

@blogdiva they externalise the problems of non-renewables to other countries. still...climate change will come for them regardless

Brad Macpherson

@benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva In the US - or large pats of it, anyway - that's the pragmatic approach. In other places, Europe generally for instance, we don't need more cars. We desperately need to reduce numbers, weight, and size of cars, and continue to ramp up genuinely good and cheap public transport.

The US needs that just as much as us, of course, but it's a hell of a job trying to counter 200 years of Rugged Individualism and at least 100 years of intense propaganda

GhostOnTheHalfShell

@eFlex @blogdiva

I have already watched it. the trade-off he talks about in terms of costs in CO2 production while he never references the mining and refinement payload that comes with all these renewables.

In order to build out this glorious renewable future we only have to exponentially, expand the destruction of the world, psychologies and sacrifice exponentially more people, and the ecologies they depend on that we all depend on ultimately.

GhostOnTheHalfShell

@eFlex @blogdiva

Do you know how those cheap panels are built? Well, it turns out those panels needs tons of carbon in order to manufacture them.. in order to produce all that coal you need to use a lot of water to mine and process them. When you damn up a river, it releases many times of methane, 28 x more potent GHG.

And we’re not even the complete destruction of biomes to get at all the minerals we need copper aluminum, silver lithium etc.

Destroy the planet in order to save us from CO2

Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@brad @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

no argument

except that this is an orthogonal argument, another topic that you are invoking

which is fine

but it doesn't dispel the point in the top level comment blogdiva is making, nor does it support the argument GhostOnTheHalfShell is making

GhostOnTheHalfShell

@eFlex @blogdiva

I think people should definitely read 99th Day, because the problem is the level of resource use, and the destructive payload that comes with energy production.

https://gerrymcgovern.com/books/99th-day/

GhostOnTheHalfShell

@benroyce @blogdiva

You say bullshit, but do you understand the actual environmental costs of building a renewable infrastructure.

You should consider for a moment that the corporations who extract resources are quite happy to Greenwash them because they are no different than big oil or big tobacco.

draNgNon

@benroyce @GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva there is also the consideration wrt the effects of vehicle exhaust. Unless the power plants are coal, that's a straight up win for the carbon cycle.

Of course the batteries have rare chemicals and extractive companies still come into play. But they are there for vehicles regardless.

GhostOnTheHalfShell

@benroyce @blogdiva

I repeat and will continue to repeat the only way to step off the path of destruction is the immediate reduction of all energy use, and resource use. The equation that you and I get told repeatedly is a false one..

Renewables come with a permanently destructive permanently, toxic permanently, life ending legacy.

In order to build it, we have to kill the planet.

GhostOnTheHalfShell

@brad @benroyce @blogdiva

And 50 years of suburban sprawl, witches economically insolvent by the way.

The least expensive most resource and energy efficient way to save the planet is to make car free, walkable and reasonably self-sufficient communities.

The best way to think about this is the length of the supply chain you rely on is level of energy and environmental destruction you rely on.

The most effective way to observe planetary boundaries is to live within the means of your locality

Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @blogdiva

this is the trap of perfectionism

there is nothing wrong with your argument, but you've decided to make another argument your enemy. even though that argument is a good thing, it is not a perfect thing, so you think you can complain

you can't

is it good we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?

yes

is it good to reduce resource use, your agenda?

also yes

but why make enemies of these fine goals

applaud both, push both

don't make them enemies. that is a lie

Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @brad @blogdiva

so go do that

i support your agenda

why must you attack another agenda that is also good?

applaud efforts to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels

*and* work on your agenda

you can do both, because both are good things

positing one as the enemy of the other is a lie

GhostOnTheHalfShell

@eFlex @blogdiva

For instance, in order for China to produce those incredibly inexpensive, solar panels, they’ve caused enormous tracks of old growth forest in Southeast Asia to be cut down.

Question becomes how many brown people and how much of the world’s ecologies are you happy to obliterate as a sacrifice zone, to keep using as much energy as we do. In order to build this so-called renewable future exponentially more life has to be exterminated.

Bent Chinrest

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @benroyce @blogdiva good bet the very next proposed strategy is a eugenicist purge of half the world's latitudes