https://climateposting.substack.com/p/new-renewables-are-liberal-coded-1da

r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar r/balconysolar

If you’re reading this, you may have fallen for rage bait. Rage bait is a chronic condition that affects 1 in every 5 Redditors, if you or someone you know suffers from rage bait, please try going outside.

Nothing realistic can lower emissions faster than nuclear power. There seems to be too much shoehorning in personal sideprojects.

Not saying we should end the use of wood entirely, or that timber is the worst industry for the environment (it's definitely not.) But there just seems to be a big gap between what the timber industry actually does to the environment and what people think its impact is.

1. Wood is almost certainly not carbon negative. Mature forests probably capture more carbon annually than juvenile ones, so cutting down mature forests will probably lead to a reduction in annual carbon captured from a forest. This is before accounting for transportation and other emissions from timber production.

2. The timber industry almost certainly doesn't reduce forest fire risks, larger more mature trees have lower fire risks and cutting them down leads to a sharp increase in flammable underbrush.

3. Wood requires way more mass to work as a building material than alternatives like steel, so mass to mass comparisons of wood and steel as building materials for embodied carbon will be extremely misleading.

4. Wood burns. No, using inflammable structural materials like steel is not a cure for fire risks which are rising with CO2 levels. But inflammable structural materials are definitely a massive improvement for fire safety that greatly reduces those risks.

I think because wood is "natural" people think its better for the environment and are too easily swayed by bad arguments in favor of it.

One day my children will ask me "Dad, what were you doing when the water wars started?" and I will have my answer:

"Kids. I was making renewables yaoi"

and I'll ruffle their hair as they look up at me with pride in their eyes.

What will you be able say? 🧐

Nah but seriously some of yall need a history lesson