!simpleliving@slrpnk.net is getting some activity.
I don't doubt that the return on investment for solar and wind will continue to improve relative to fossil fuels when used for electricity generation, but the problem seems to be, again, the manufacture of infrastructure such as wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, and so on, which require energy-intensive mining and refining of minerals. Unless every stage of the manufacturing process can be electrified, the efficiency of generating electricity using wind and solar won't matter in the slightest, as there will be no way to use that electricity to eventually recycle/replace the existing wind/solar infrastructure, let alone to deploy more of it or to do either of these while maintaining the high energy return on energy invested.
To be clear, I don't want solar/wind/etc to be dependent on fossil fuels at all, and so I would be interested to read an explanation of how these (or other) clean energy technologies can be deployed without using fossil fuels at any stage of the process. The problem presented in the article seems to be that such technologies currently do depend upon the use of coal, and I posted the article here with the idea that it might get people to start thinking about potential solutions to this problem, not to suggest that the deployment of clean energy technologies is not worthwhile.
Realistically, even if photovoltaic panels and wind turbines can be recycled 100% efficiently, the supply of energy from these sources at any given time will still have an upper limit based on the finite supply of the minerals required for these technologies, so people cannot continue to increase their energy consumption indefinitely even from "renewable" sources. But that's a separate problem.
Do you know of a way to efficiently produce the infrastructure needed for solar, wind, etc using energy from solar, wind, etc such that the energy return on energy (ERoE) is high enough? That seemed like the crux of the argument made in the article, and I'd be interested to read a rebuttal.
It would seem that scaling back the use of many modern technologies is both necessary and inevitable. When hydrocarbon-based energy sources run out, it's back to old-fashioned carbohydrates...
Accessible texts with substance point towards some activity people can do in real life, some change they can bring about by doing a specific thing.
For example:
- Live vegan. No one is free until everyone is free.
- Plant trees. Capitalism and the state have been waging war on the forest for millennia for a reason; the whole system depends on grass.
- Plant fruit trees. If you grow your own food, you are much less dependent on the system.
- Share. Nature produces enough for everyone's need. Share fruits, share information, and help your neighbours live more freely too.
Can you define “non exploitation”?
I probably could, but I cannot say what Donald Watson or Leslie Cross or anyone else meant.
My understanding is that leather is a waste byproduct of the meat industry
It is a co-product, and it directly supports the industry.
so much in the same way that gas is from dinosaurs that are already dead, the cows that provide leather are “already dead” due to their use as meat.
Dinosaurs did not die as a result of humans exploiting them in order to consume their bodies. Cows live and die solely for the sake of exploitation.
It is not possible to exploit today someone who died millions of years ago.
As for what humans do to each other, I'm not the one to ask. I don't think that "animals" in the original definition of veganism was intended to include humans, but I don't know that for sure. I doubt that the linked article considers exploitation of humans in determining which cars to feature.
Shit. I use uBlock Origin and block all javascript by default, so I didn't even see that. I'll add a warning to the post.
I'd say so, at least in theory. Veganism is about non-exploitation, not ecological impact. That said, there are plenty of other reasons to avoid gasoline.
Remove all of the grass, let it bake in the sun until it dies, and then mulch with the dead grass. Living grass will suck your garden dry of nutrients in a time short compared to 20-30 years.
Wait, what? What did I miss?
14
Nearly half of tree species in Mexico and Central America threatened with extinction
(news.mongabay.com)
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24584255
- Of the more than 4,000 known tree species found only in Mesoamerica, nearly half are threatened with extinction, according a new assessment.
- Agriculture emerges as the primary threat across the region from both small- and large-scale farming, while logging represents the second major threat in five countries.
- While 72% of threatened tree species occur within protected areas, only 16% of endemic threatened species have recorded conservation actions, and just 18% are protected in botanical collections, highlighting significant gaps in active conservation efforts.
- With 515 threatened tree species shared between countries, researchers emphasize the need for international collaboration and incorporating native threatened species into large-scale tree-planting efforts rather than focusing solely on fast-growing nonnative species.
archived (Wayback Machine)
Animal agriculture is the leading cause of both deforestation and species extinction.
1
Nearly half of tree species in Mexico and Central America threatened with extinction
(news.mongabay.com)
- Of the more than 4,000 known tree species found only in Mesoamerica, nearly half are threatened with extinction, according a new assessment.
- Agriculture emerges as the primary threat across the region from both small- and large-scale farming, while logging represents the second major threat in five countries.
- While 72% of threatened tree species occur within protected areas, only 16% of endemic threatened species have recorded conservation actions, and just 18% are protected in botanical collections, highlighting significant gaps in active conservation efforts.
- With 515 threatened tree species shared between countries, researchers emphasize the need for international collaboration and incorporating native threatened species into large-scale tree-planting efforts rather than focusing solely on fast-growing nonnative species.
archived (Wayback Machine)
Animal agriculture is the leading cause of both deforestation and species extinction.
Trees Not Grass