Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: OK (Score 1) 169

Also, a lot of folks will have workplace charging that they can use during the day, or charge at chargers while they're out shopping, or charge at other times.

People with home chargers aren't gonna want to pay the markup of charging in public unless they absolutely have to. The only time I use a public L2 charger is if it is the only parking space available.

Comment Re:Another Legal Case Of Dubious Merit (Score 5, Interesting) 87

If an ATM accidentally dispenses you an extra $1000, it is still stealing to keep it. If a software platform accidentally lets you do something illegal, then you still broke the law.

If the lender's platform gave this guy an illegal loan that he should have known was illegal, it's his problem, not the lender's.

Comment Re:Misleading framing (Score 1) 167

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The only thing that affects the climate is tons of CO2 emitted. It does not matter what the per capita numbers are, that is totally irrelevant. All that has any effect is the total tons emitted. China is emitting more than double the tons the US does, and so its emissions are contributing more than twice as much to climate change.

And they are rising. And it mines and burns more coal than the rest of the world put together. Again, how much per capita is irrelevant to the climate. All that counts is the tonnage.

Ok, now image China were split up into 50 tiny countries. In absolute terms, each one has a small fraction of total emissions, so we shouldn't worry about it at all, despite the same amount of total carbon emanating from that region, right?

Even if China's electricity generation were like 70% renewables, they still might be near the top the list in terms of total tons just due to their absolute size. That's why we user per capita. It's a meaningful way to compare how well differently sized countries are doing in terms of limiting how much CO2 living in that country generates.

Comment Re:Easy fix (Score 2) 167

How do you expect society to function without fertilizer, plastics, concrete, steel and many more other irreplaceable ingredients of a technological society that require emissions to produce? Go without means mass starvation followed by extinction-level human casualties and subsistence survival for the remaining small percentage of the population.

If we just used oil for a feed stock and stopped burning it for transport and electricity we'd be fine, climate-wise. Same goes for coal if we just used it to smelt steel.

The food issue is thornier, because it's not just hydro-carbons: it's also water from non-renewable aquifers and phosphates from non-renewable mineral deposits. I think we'll have to worry about the latter two being exhausted long before the oil runs out. I don't think anyone's yet cracked sustainable farming at a level that supports the current wold population. So far I think our best hope is that the natural population decline that comes with industrialization shrinks the population enough that sustainable methods become tractable before those non-renewables are exhausted.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Working...