A review of available techno-fixes leads to two unavoidable conclusions. First, our problem is not just carbon emissions per se; it’s also how we humans inhabit our planet (too many of us using too much stuff too fast). And second, we need non-technological ways of addressing the climate crisis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 2 days ago (13 children)

A more nature-based society will feature fewer people living closer to the land, with a throughput of energy and materials far smaller than is the case in industrialized nations today. We will be less urbanized, more rural.

Oh, that's bad. Whenever you have people move out of cities and into nature, they build wide 1 story buildings, have lots of kids, cut down all the trees, and those kids grow up to build more 1 story buildings for their families.

We need people building tall structure in urban settings, so we can scale up without cutting down the trees in between our homes.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 days ago (9 children)

    Yeah, this article is really fucking strange.

    I fully agree with the seeming goals - restore nature, reduce human footprint, smarter use of resources - all valid, noble, and needed. But some of the proposed methods are simultaneously counterproductive and scientifically ignorant.

    'Wind is intermittent so it can't be used' therefore we need 'household bike generators'...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    'Wind is intermittent so it can't be used' therefore we need 'household bike generators'...

    Human power cannot come anywhere close to our energy needs.

    We'd be lucky to get 1000 kcals per day of useful locomotion from a human powered generator. That's basically the equivalent of a very fit person biking for 20 miles (32 km) per day, into a machine that captures that energy with perfect efficiency. That would translate into about 1.1 kWh per person, per day.

    Compare that to actual electricity consumption per capita. The world total is 3.9 MWh/year per capita, which translates into 10.6 kWh/day. Developed/Western countries use even more: North America uses 36.6 kWh/day/person, Europe uses 16.8 kWh/day/person. And that doesn't include direct combustion of fuels (biofuels, fossil fuels) for heating or transportation, either, and only represents grid electricity usage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    do you have any source for that number about the amount of power genrrated from a human please? also a source about the efficiency with which different forms of generation translate to energy?

    Also I find it devastating that places like the global north and oceania use some of the largest amounts of energy but the people st the Equator will oay the highest price for this in the next 50-200 years....

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    Human power cannot come anywhere close to our energy needs

    Tell that to the article author and their rather unhinged view of our energy future.

    To be clear, I completely agree with you. I was responding to the article itself which starts out as reasonable-sounding directives to re-wild ecosystems to build climate resilience and then devolves into this strange science-denying anarcho-ecologism.

    The bike generators are suggested seemingly seriously and are such a glaringly implausible idea that it sullies the entire piece.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago

    I wasn't disagreeing with you, just backing you up with some calculations.

    Anyone who has ever done the "hmm I wonder if a human in a hamster cage could power human energy needs" thought experiment very quickly runs into the answer "no, and it's not even close."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    ‘Wind is intermittent so it can’t be used’ therefore we need ‘household bike generators’…

    This sentence never appears in the article, and it's content is never implied. So what are you talking about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    The verbatims:

    The first climate-tech category consists of low-carbon energy generating machines, including solar panels, wind turbines, and nuclear power plants. These energy sources produce electrical power with minimal carbon emissions. However, they are not problem-free or risk-free. Wind and solar power are intermittent, requiring energy storage (e.g., batteries) and a major grid overhaul.

    And further down:

    If solar, wind, and nuclear electricity generators won’t solve the climate problem, and fossil fuels have to be quickly phased out, where will we get our energy?

    Next paragraph:

    Instead, we can use energy from sunlight, wind, and flowing water, not just in high-tech ways—via photovoltaics, wind turbines, and hydroelectric dams—but in low-tech ways that entail less usage of mined materials. Low-Tech Magazine explores these options, including human-powered air compressors, sailing ships, practical household bike generators

    Bit of a far cry from 'the content is never implied'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

    Thank you, precisely my point. Nowhere does it say anything like or implying, the combination you mention, which was ‘Wind is intermittent so it can’t be used’ therefore we need ‘household bike generators

    In relation to the 3 segments you provide:

    • Wind is intermittent, nobody denies that by itself. It doesn't say not to use it for this reason
    • Then a question?
    • Using renewable energy, not just in high-tech ways, but also through low tech approaches to avoid mining is very different to what you claim they say

    Edit: Several, to make things clearer @skibidi@lemmy.world

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

    To my knowledge deforestation does not take place because people move out of cities and into nature.

    Ce4hNUBSRKU8Zd5.png

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments