/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11915448

57KiB, 736x717, 144965109485.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 10:26:27 2020 No.11915448 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11915458 >>11915461 >>11915463 >>11915465 >>11915478 >>11916390 >>11916398

What luxuries would you ban to try and save the environment?
>no more sugar candy or drink
>cigarettes of all kinds
>combustion engines banned from public roads from 2025
>riding solo in a combustion engine car in general
>only two plane trips per person per year, out and back again
>cruise ships must go

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 10:39:05 No.11915458 Report

Quoted By:

>>11915448
keep the pcs on

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 10:41:23 No.11915461 Report

Quoted By:

>>11915448
the luxury of anti-nuclear sentiment

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 10:45:45 No.11915463 Report

Quoted By: >>11915471

>>11915448
Before policing individual behavior I would prefer we start with the much larger industrial practices.
That time frame is unrealistic impossible to remove all combustible engines. Even if you mandated all production and sales cease immediately. It would take at least til 2040 to completely remove all combustible engines from circulation.
The are other industries far more dangerous to climate than sugar production.
Severely restricting travel has other far reaching societal implications than besides reducing greenhouse emissions. Whether you like it or not tourism and luxury travel are central to the economies in many places in the world and you would plunge many people into abject poverty by removing it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO tenor (3).gif, 1MiB, 498x280

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 10:48:00 No.11915464 Report

Quoted By:

>No more sugar

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 10:48:36 No.11915465 Report

Quoted By:

>>11915448
>imagine, if you will
>a dystopian slash post apocalyptic world
>where the once separate governments of the world combined into a single entity

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 10:54:44 No.11915471 Report

Quoted By: >>11916380

>>11915463
>Whether you like it or not tourism and luxury travel are central to the economies in many places in the world and you would plunge many people into abject poverty by removing it.
This, not to mention business travel.

Instead of banning things we should look to finding sustainable alternatives and reducing our footprints where possible but not at the cost of regression. Maybe, for example, it would be feasible to build planes that glide instead of being propulsed. They could be launched from a catapult or pulled to altitude by a balloon. Or maybe they'd use propulsion engines to get to altitude and then glide down. Idk.
Meat could be grown in vats soon, we could build vertical farms using hydroponics and greywater. I'm an architect and we're putting more thought into creating C2C buildings that can be completely recycled and made from concrete using up to 80% less cement than regular concrete...
A lot can be done and is done aside from banning things, which is the most stupid and useless approach to problem solving.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 10:59:16 No.11915478 Report

Quoted By:

>>11915448
based anime retard

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20200628-202020_1.jpg, 375KiB, 1080x1385

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 19:12:55 No.11916380 Report

Quoted By:

Pretty sure several of those bans would get you literal armed revolts. And good luck finding police or soldiers to enforce those rules - look at any military bases's parking lot and see how many sports cars & lifted trucks you see, and well the police would never stand for sugar free donuts.

>>11915471
Has the right idea. Coming up with lower impact alternatives is much more likely to succeed. For example, France proved you can completely replace fossil fuels for base load power, at a reasonable price - they actually spent less (inflation adjusted) than Germany has already spent building wind & solar. And if you do that nuclear plant build out, you can make synthetic fuels at night when there is surplus power; the US Navy has done a lot of work on this. Stuff like cheaper solar panels would also work if people can't break the nuclear stigma. Even if the synthetic fuels are 2 to 4 times as expensive as dino juice, telling people they have to pay 50% to 100% more on a plans ticket is a lot more palatable than saying you only get one flight a year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 19:16:01 No.11916390 Report

Quoted By:

>>11915448
All cpus and gpus must have maximum capacity, software unlockable

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 19:16:16 No.11916392 Report

Quoted By:

>ban luxuries
>save the environment
This is a false choice.

It's possible to have both, but big corporations will lose profit margins so they present it as an impossible choice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 19 Jul 2020 19:18:02 No.11916398 Report

Quoted By:

>>11915448
Almost none of those changes would have no effect on environment.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches