Won't anybody think of the poor children in the Congo cobalt mines? The ones absolutely nobody have a flying fuck about when cobalt was mainly used as a catalyst in gasoline production?
The structural integrity of the bicycle failed approximately 0.2 microseconds after the photo was taken, given a 20,000 kg weight was attached to the seatpost :>
I, too, remember this. All the way back in the 1890s someone had calculated CO2 emissions and global warming. Also, the oil industry did in the 1950s, but kept the data for themselves. In both cases, they were right about the CO2 count at the end of the century, about 20 years ago. We've blown right past that number since.
Good question. I found an article that seemed solid enough a few years back and I wish I could cite it and did search a bit now. Of course I found a lot of general history on air pollution but not thst specific research I am talking about. 😕
A good metaphor for getting rid of fossil fuels, makes pushing for further climate goals easier. After all less lobbying money and people in that industry.
So true.
I just hope that hydrogen-based combustibles get reasonably cheap (and that the people who research and develop them do not commit suicide by shooting themselves 50 times in the back and then throwing themselves in a burning black bag towards a cliff with spikes at the bottom).
Also cleaner, healthier, safer, cheaper and more efficient alternatives to lithium and sodium batteries.
Remember that industry exists primarily for the consumption habits of end users.
They aren't polluting just for the love of the game, they are doing it to power your devices or make the energy to produce the cheap tat you buy off Amazon.
Yet at the same time, there are people who cannot afford actually good products, are forced to buy fresh due to planned obsolescence or simply ate unable to buy anything environmentally friendly because there are no products that is/does that. Companies themselves could easily produce more environmentally friendly products, yet don't because it's cheaper and thus better for the profit margins.
The fault and responsibility lies at least as much with companies as it does with consumers/customers, if not more.
The ability to recognize that the responsibility is no single person or entities is a highly important part of fighting climate change. I'm convinced that corporations are running a couple simulatious campaigns; one that tells consumers their choices are ultra important and one that says it's only companies choices that are important so that the 2 sides fight eachother and get less done...
But in the end, both consumers and corporations need to change habits.
Not for the consumption of end user. If they can get their money without end user they will totally drop everyone. They are totally doing it for greed, they are doing it for the game. Do you think they(rich/industry) will stop polluting if you bike everywhere and stop buying stuff?
Doubtful. Firstly because it's very difficult to keep track in war, and it's also difficult (morally too) to count the emission reductions from destruction and death.
And, secondly, because modern wars are integrated into economy and society. Well, Putin may try to change that and turn the whole economy into a war-oriented one (top down control and nationalization), which would be a huge blunder now.
Oh, thirdly, you're mostly referring to the US, so be specific.
Emissions of GHG can be measured at many different layers, you have to decide what analysis, what perspective, you are using; otherwise, you risk counting emissions multiple times. It's all accounting.
Theyre shit at it because they are made shit from the get go these days. Towing was a valid use case when utility vehicles where used as utility vehicles not as status symbols for the fragile minded - it is the whole concept of these vehicles.
I do agree about commercial. Anything commercial is guaranteed to work so renting or buying that would be more beneficial than buying a pseudo utility truck these days.
51 Comments
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 100 pts · 4d
And then "conservative" politicians will blame the cyclists.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 42 pts · 4d
Well, it's true. Don't you know mining for ebike batteries pollutes a lot? And bike lanes cause lots of traffic? /s
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 20 pts · 4d
Won't anybody think of the poor children in the Congo cobalt mines? The ones absolutely nobody have a flying fuck about when cobalt was mainly used as a catalyst in gasoline production?
ignotum@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 4d
Those are some good points, I'll ditch my bike and drive an electric car during rush traffic instead
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 4d
What are you, some kind of communist? Real, red blooded Americans drive coal rolling trucks!
jol@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 4d
Beautiful, green, coal
Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org · 2 pts · 4d
And beautiful, black oil; also tasty when it falls into a body of fresh water, such as a lake.
tea_n_typewriters@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 4d
Damn DEI cyclists
Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org · 3 pts · 4d
Although walk > totally mechanical bicycles > scooters > electric bicycles > cars.
coyootje@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d
And especially the foreign cyclists
newthrowaway20@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 4d
2026 version: both the cyclist and weighted metaphor are in free fall
Naz@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 3d
The structural integrity of the bicycle failed approximately 0.2 microseconds after the photo was taken, given a 20,000 kg weight was attached to the seatpost :>
Pennywise@quokk.au · 24 pts · 4d
TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website · 16 pts · 4d
A month ago I watched a movie from the 70s that depicted exactly the situation we are in right now. Country going lying their way to war for petrol
ilillilillilillililli@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 4d
You happen to know the name of the movie?
Nemo@slrpnk.net · 7 pts · 4d
Could be Tank Girl, who knows
whoisearth@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 3d
70s... Tank girl... My God I've lost hope in the youth 🤣
TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website · 2 pts · 4d
Not sure. It could be The Deal but it’s a 2005 movie.
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 4d
Was it Planet of the Apes?
boobookittyfrick@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 4d
Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org · 2 pts · 4d
distal@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 4d
This has been blatantly obvious since the 90s
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 4d
70s.
The 1870s.
distal@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 4d
True. Early researchers like Svante Arrhenius were true geniuses
Strider@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
There's even research from the beginning of the industrialization afaik if we were to go on it would have dire consequences
distal@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 3d
Oh, where?
Blaster_M@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
I, too, remember this. All the way back in the 1890s someone had calculated CO2 emissions and global warming. Also, the oil industry did in the 1950s, but kept the data for themselves. In both cases, they were right about the CO2 count at the end of the century, about 20 years ago. We've blown right past that number since.
Strider@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 3d
Good question. I found an article that seemed solid enough a few years back and I wish I could cite it and did search a bit now. Of course I found a lot of general history on air pollution but not thst specific research I am talking about. 😕
Dozzi92@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 4d
At least they accomplished something in the '90s. And yes, I know it went into effect in 1989, but that's essentially the '90s!
Swaus01@piefed.social · 11 pts · 3d
World of Goo, anyone?
dumnezero@piefed.social · 2 pts · 3d
Not sure what's going on, but I prefer Worms Armageddon.
MrMakabar@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 4d
A good metaphor for getting rid of fossil fuels, makes pushing for further climate goals easier. After all less lobbying money and people in that industry.
Witchfire@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 4d
In fact, I don't think it's possible to slow our descent until we shed oil capitalism
dumnezero@piefed.social · 1 pts · 3d
The will is lacking.
Kangae_Hishiryo@scribe.disroot.org · 1 pts · 4d
So true. I just hope that hydrogen-based combustibles get reasonably cheap (and that the people who research and develop them do not commit suicide by shooting themselves 50 times in the back and then throwing themselves in a burning black bag towards a cliff with spikes at the bottom). Also cleaner, healthier, safer, cheaper and more efficient alternatives to lithium and sodium batteries.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 3d
not pictured; andy burnham trying to save the ball while pushing the person on the bike off the cliff
Ironrod@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 3d
Ikr! Let's just push all our issues onto him! Then we can complain about tories and start the cycle again!
gmtom@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
Remember that industry exists primarily for the consumption habits of end users.
They aren't polluting just for the love of the game, they are doing it to power your devices or make the energy to produce the cheap tat you buy off Amazon.
Iamaquantummechanic@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 3d
The bike, too, has been produced in a factory.
But we can reduce consumption, and production a bike causes significantly less pollution that production of a car.
dumnezero@piefed.social · 2 pts · 3d
Facts.
Blemgo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3d
Yet at the same time, there are people who cannot afford actually good products, are forced to buy fresh due to planned obsolescence or simply ate unable to buy anything environmentally friendly because there are no products that is/does that. Companies themselves could easily produce more environmentally friendly products, yet don't because it's cheaper and thus better for the profit margins.
The fault and responsibility lies at least as much with companies as it does with consumers/customers, if not more.
Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 3d
The ability to recognize that the responsibility is no single person or entities is a highly important part of fighting climate change. I'm convinced that corporations are running a couple simulatious campaigns; one that tells consumers their choices are ultra important and one that says it's only companies choices that are important so that the 2 sides fight eachother and get less done...
But in the end, both consumers and corporations need to change habits.
Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 3d
Not for the consumption of end user. If they can get their money without end user they will totally drop everyone. They are totally doing it for greed, they are doing it for the game. Do you think they(rich/industry) will stop polluting if you bike everywhere and stop buying stuff?
gmtom@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 2d
If everyone starts to use a bike, they will produce less petrol.
If you buy less plastic tat you don't need, those factories will shut down or produce something better, and they will produce less plastic.
SomeRandomNoob@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 4d
You can cut the chain by voting the right people!
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 13h
i'm not sure how this is particularly relevant to this specific community, see rule 4.
terranoid@lemmy.cafe · 1 pts · 4d
The factory must grow
krom@fosstodon.org · 0 pts · 4d
@dumnezero top that with the war, which overtakes all of them
dumnezero@piefed.social · 2 pts · 3d
Doubtful. Firstly because it's very difficult to keep track in war, and it's also difficult (morally too) to count the emission reductions from destruction and death.
And, secondly, because modern wars are integrated into economy and society. Well, Putin may try to change that and turn the whole economy into a war-oriented one (top down control and nationalization), which would be a huge blunder now.
Oh, thirdly, you're mostly referring to the US, so be specific.
Emissions of GHG can be measured at many different layers, you have to decide what analysis, what perspective, you are using; otherwise, you risk counting emissions multiple times. It's all accounting.
This is one conventional way: https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/scope-1-2-and-3-emissions
It is not easy, especially since a lot of data is missing.
I know that you want to say that the US is bad, and that is valid regardless of emissions.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pclm.0000569
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -10 pts · 4d
isn't towing one of the few legitimate uses for SUVs and trucks?
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 4d
No, not really as they are pretty shit at it. Commercial vehicles are good at that and you can rent them when you need one.
cosmos8188@leminal.space · 10 pts · 4d
Theyre shit at it because they are made shit from the get go these days. Towing was a valid use case when utility vehicles where used as utility vehicles not as status symbols for the fragile minded - it is the whole concept of these vehicles.
I do agree about commercial. Anything commercial is guaranteed to work so renting or buying that would be more beneficial than buying a pseudo utility truck these days.