I was thinking of making lemonade and was wondering if it would let CO2 into the atmosphere or not.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    yes but remember you breathe out co2 all the time. Making a fizzy drink is way lower than many other things you do. As one person im going back and forth on would say going vegan would massively lower the amount of co2 your responsible for putting in the atmosphere and actually just not eating beef would give you the majority of that lessening. walking/biking(even electric)/public trans instead of driving would also be huge. even if the driving was in an ev. Not using bitcoin and its ilk is big to (in absolute terms its only so big but for what it does its a massive cost in energy). The single biggest thing a person can do is not have kids although thats a big ask but the co2 of most eco friendly folks is going to still not be low enough if you have a kid and he has a kid and so on. So for example the average french person is about 5 tons of carbon a year while the average north american is 3x that. so you start adding capita and thats way more carbon. Anyway worry about the fizzy drink is sorta a penny wise pound foolish type of thing as far as global warming goes and honestly its not really causing any more of general pollution which is an issue even if we found some unlimited energy source to do sequestration.

    • Gamers_Mate@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks I have been vegan since 2018. Though I was interested in Bitcoin a few years ago before I learned how bad it was.
      If I wanted kids I would look into adopting but I have heard that is really complicated.

    • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not using bitcoin and its ilk is big to (in absolute terms its only so big but for what it does its a massive cost in energy).

      I mean, yes, and no, Bitcoin actually produces less CO2 than the alternative, it’s just that people won’t ever stop using the alternative so all of that CO2 will continue being created. People have this wrong idea that Bitcoin replaces credit cards, when in fact what it replaces is money. And Money is a CO2 hell, it’s made of cotton, so you need to add the CO2 cost of producing, transporting and processing the cotton, add the cost of manufacturing the inks, printing the actual money, transporting it again, then all of the CO2 cost in keeping that safe, moving it from one place to another, etc, etc, etc… Yes, Bitcoin and the like consume a lot of electricity, but most server farms are in zones where electricity is very cheap, and that usually means green energy (hydroelectric, wind and solar plants produce a lot of surplus energy, so they sell it very cheap, which is why you’ll see most server farms for Bitcoin are located near such plants), but Bitcoin could process Visa level amount of transactions with that same amount of energy, i.e. it doesn’t need a certain amount of energy to process a single payment it needs a certain amount of energy to process a block of transactions, regardless of block size, which means that theoretically Bitcoin could replace all of the money in the world using the same amount of electricity it’s using now. And the hardware for the server farms could theoretically be old GPUs that would otherwise become e-waste.

      Having said that there are technical limitations and a long debate on how to better scale Bitcoin, and old cards will never be as profitable as new ones so it’s unlikely that old cards would get used for mining, but they could if Bitcoin (or others) were designed around that idea. At the end of the day my point is that most people don’t consider the scale of what Bitcoin is replacing.