this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
32 points (97.1% liked)
askchapo
22717 readers
1 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You would still have industry, just not wholly reliant on fossil fuels and perpetual growth. And you'd need considerably more industry at first
That's my concern. Industry, even when electricity is clean, generates a ton of carbon.
This is a diagram of current US manufacturing production emissions
Just addressing combustion would radically reduce industrial carbon output without needing to address carbon capture for cement or green hydrogen for steel
Jesus, I thought steel and concrete were significantly worse than they are. That is a really good graph. What is most chemical production for?
Ammonia and methanol (ammonia is like, half of non-combustion emissions even though we can readily produce 'green' ammonia)