bratcomplex

Partially beacuuse the us housing market is a ponzie scream. it cost more money on infrastructure maintenance that the total tax revenue of the building. so we use growth sprawl to cover the cost.. so ya up it goes.

“ Turning to more industrialization seems like a cop-out instead of real (hard) solutions: change of consumption habits, organic farming, strong environmental laws and so on.”

This. I used to carry the view that going to a full industrial processes would eliminate the inefficiencies. It just ignores the core problem, we are no longer in coexistence.

moving away from sprawl, and back to high tax revenue older school forums of urbanization(which we are seeing as new age urban spaces), agroforestry, more cyclical product “end of life” supply chains

some quick searching, it’s looking maybe not so little https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/sources-and-solutions-...

Only when you are actually better off. isn’t there a crossover point between the outside market needing/paying for electricity and mining? Or is mining the most effective return in all cases?

Definitely. meat balls was a step back

actually no, they don’t. drive train wise the have less fun enough. Resolver and current sensor.

Cuss no one gives a shit. People get in a Tesla and feel like a million bucks.

I think something that is completely missed by the industry that comma dose quite well in comparison, is driver monitoring.

sure self driving cars is the engineering end goal. But really we aren't we trying to cut fatalities?

Good driver monitoring is a pretty god Dayum good way to prevent distracted driving from causing an accident.

Because the end result user experience is better +ota ?

Not exactly. Elon made an offer to geo to make a better mobile eye. some work was done, geo wasn’t okay with the deal. But he was still interested in the problem so he forumd comma

seasoned tree planter here. It’s mostly bullshit. most lots that are dedicated to ecological “reforestation “ are usually clear cut 20 years down the line. and yes generally no more than 5 species of trees are planted. Plot density is chosen based of statistical tree survival rate per land piece.

What’s interesting about the hole topic is- how small of a felid habit rehabilitation and reforestation actually is, and how much of the knowledge is currently applied in the felid today. It’s tiny. there’s one small planting company I know of, whom imply practices like planting pieces immediately after logging. roots, mycelium, and soil bacteria is still thriving. Opposed to say planting the same piece 5-10-20 years after.

logging, and mining could actually be fairly “sustainable” if the right management practices are put in place.

Yes. But this shows the limitations of of carbon offsets. carbon is fungible, but the land destruction and resources extraction isn’t to the same degree. I guess what is the perceived goal vs actual goal of a carbon offset?

tree planting ≠ forest planting. But on that notion a “productive” artificial forest solves this issue. build forest with plants that provide utility. But are family to the local environment. it’s a concept that has been proven

A car sitting in traffic, not moving, but releasing emissions, isn’t a problem?

Right because we can’t introduce more floura within development. this isnt binary.

The only reason I can think of why your getting down voted, is a reductionists viewpoint.

Forests are really the simple solution. it’s a matter of time frames not net carbon in and out.

This. it’s the difference between dirt and soil.