lpcam33

The environmental cost of making the car takes a reasonable amount of the resources used in is lifecycle. So in the case you only need the car for a few miles a week you should consider alternatives. Maybe village councils should have a car to be shared by all.

So we need to add into EROEI all the energy needed to deactivate/retrofit de old technology used in planes and large boats. If I don't do this exercise I will be as in denial as the ones that don't believe in climate change. We need to reduce air and maritime travel. We need to invest in trains and also avoid unnecessary travel. Fuel taxes in the previously mentioned sectors may be a good option because at the moment they don't have taxes on externalities. We have only a few years to prevent climate change getting out of hand and there are simple and effective solutions. We do not have a carbon budget for solutions that are not yet viable on paper.

What is the energy return of energy invested on getting hydrogen from solar and then turning into ammonia?

Regarding closing the case with glue, I have an iPod Classic 5Gen and there are a lot of mod's but I don't see one that change the case to be easily open. Remarkable don't apply to this because they are extremely thin but it should be a good feature to have in other devices.

It could work if the promise was to give people time instead of a 9 to 5 shitty job, and assuring equality through a Universal Basic Income. That income could be financed with taxes on externalities. Taxing externalities would also benefit the local and more sustainable economy with more decent jobs.

In the video the economist talks about progress just as if progress is the end in itself, but is not. We need to have a goal in order to progress to that goal. To have infinite progress is the same to say that at least one of this things:

We don’t know where we want to go; We are infinitely greed; We are infinitely incompetent;

We can use the example of the rope. There was many technological progress in the last decades to manufacture good gear for climbing, but as time goes by we will need to spend much more resources in research to get less and less improvements on the rope. There will be a time were the climber needs are fulfilled and we could just spare the nature (ex: the mountains that they like to climb) and enjoy what we have accomplished.

If I was a car manufacturer I would invest heavily on Uber. The fact that people need to have a new car to work for Uber is one of the main factors that keep the auto industry out of recession.

What would happen if we put the externalities to the level they need to be is that the local economy would be more efficient that the global economy. The important organizations are not "too big to fail" they are "to big to succeed". It's physically impossible to continue buying stuff from the other side of the world that could be done near where we live. Also we need to consume less useless stuff, invest in repairing and maintaining what we have and implement measure to greatly reduce planned obsolescence

It would promote the local economy (the one with less externalities). That would created meaningful jobs, jobs that you know have a propose. Yes we could not buy cheap clothing every weekend or go to a 3 day holiday in the south of Europe 4 times a year but we don't need to. What we need to live within the boundaries of the planet.

You could place the externalities directly on an UBI (universal basic income). This would address a problem of redistribution of the tariffs income. France had the yellow jackets because people are tired of not knowing were taxes income go (normally to the very rich.) If we implement externalities to level of what IPPC advices there will be unemployment, but work like the economy is just another mean to an end. Right now the big problem is ecological.

I'm with you. we need to act even if it means the end on economic growth. Economy is a mean to an end not the end on itself.

Marcus Aurelius had the quote "Confine yourself to the present". He was one of the most respected roman emperors, and a famous stoic. Today living the present is associated with reckless living but for the old philosophies it was about questioning every day "what can I do today to improve myself as a human being?"

You have the effect "mix vs sort" that shows that if you are very good making thing you are bad distributing them. So mass production is not as effective as local production if you account transportation externalities.

For me protectionnism could be a good thing environmentally like adhelas said. It could be a good measure if you use this tariffs to improve equality, distributing this equally through the population. Sadly nobody knows here the income will be spent.

That's my opinion. For me this protectionism could be a good thing environmentally, and even socially if the tariffs income are well spend. For instance if we spend this tariffs in a UBI we could use this to change the economy to a more efficient and local economy.