spidermanchild

“The harms imposed by the Rivian are three times the harms imposed by the Prius, in terms of air pollution and death from accidents,” said Hunt Allcott, a co-author and professor of global environmental policy at Stanford University. “But we are subsidizing the Rivian and not the Prius.”

EV fans have some reckoning to do. There's an argument that the carbon matters "more" than the other effects, but good luck not sounding like a psychopath saying the children gunned down by 8000lb pickup trucks with 0-60 times under 3 seconds and zero visibility are worth it for slightly lower carbon.

Meanwhile I'll keep riding my unsubsidized bicycle and not killing people. We should all have safe paths and trails to ride and communities designed for humans - that's where I'd like to see hundreds of billions go. We should absolutely also do a carbon fee and dividend (since this polls better than a "tax").

That's entirely the wrong denominator for this comparison. IRS doesn't write the budget nor do they write tax law, they just collect.

Frankly a highly speculative set of conclusions. Despite the green deal forbidding converting woodland to crops, the author assumes the opposite. Then they basically ignore the organic requirement. The idea that EU will wholesale move their food production (likely the strictest in the world) to Africa is so outlandish as to not be taken seriously.

Totally agree. It's like saying scoring a goal was a waste when your team still lost. Just score the damn goal and move on.

IMO people often attach way too much meaning to what a vote even is. It doesn't mean that you are swearing fealty to or even agree with them, it literally just means you think that person is better for the seat. I vote in every single election for every single race, it's just not even a consideration that someone wouldn't live up to my moral code on every issue because that's not what a vote even means to me. Vote early and vote often, and stop letting candidates define you.

The original post I responded to was someone talking about how starlink lets them game in a rural RV. What about carbon emissions from thousands of rocket launches? What about atmospheric damage? What about astronomy? I'm saying the downsides don't appear to be worth the upsides for these niche scenarios. Humanity survived just fine for quite some time before ultra remote Internet became a thing.

I'm not trying to alienate anyone, I'm trying to understand why low latency gaming needs for digital nomads is worth the real downsides of providing such a service (scientific, GHG, atmospheric tinkering, etc). I also believe that we should leave a lot more of the earth alone and that nature matters. I'm not trying to put people anywhere, just recognizing there are pros and cons to different living schemes, humans are social creatures, and population of 2 areas don't warrant large societal investments. I'm similarly against a hypothetical drone sushi delivery service for rural Canadadian boreal forests if that happens to have real downsides too.

Scientists doing science > tech bro nomads cosplaying as explorers but actually just playing fortnite in a van. You're also ignoring the other downsides besides spectral emissions. Read the article I linked.

The answer to what? If everyone does this, there won't be a single remote place on earth that isn't crawling with sprinter vans. It can't scale, and it doesn't need to be specifically catered to. You want the wilderness, you get the wilderness. You want low latency Internet, then get to a fiber connection. We don't need every first world amenity everywhere.

Welp, I guess we'll all have to suffer the consequences so that Lordkitsuna can game in the middle of nowhere. Truly first world problems.

https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-reentry-ozone-depletion-atmosphere

Shipping is more like 15g CO2/km/metric ton of cargo. No way the whole giant boat emits 10g per km lol, that would be like an order of magnitude less than a Prius per km. But yes, even with shipping, over the lifetime of a car an imported BEV beats a domestic ICE because that initial carbon penalty is like driving let's say quarter of the way to China once in an ICE.

What do you mean a commercial butcher will need thousands of animals to produce the same amount of meat as a half cow locally? I haven't heard an argument that a little meat from a bunch of animals is ethically any different than a lot of meat from one animal, just curious.

TOU isn't the issue, it's just the rates themselves that are out of control. The reality is electricity costs vary dramatically throughout the day and seasonally, so reflecting that in customer prices is a natural way to shift some load.