Sure the initial carbon dumped into the atmosphere to plow the fields is a short term increase, but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them, which permanently adds more carbon into the atmosphere.
The biodiesel.org site, which is run by the National Biodiesel Board (a biodiesel industry trade group), references [1] a 1998 study that shows biodiesel to have a 78 percent reduction in net CO2 emissions. So not carbon neutral, but significantly less net emissions. I'd be interested in seeing the results of a more up-to-date study.
However, that's the net reduction for B100, or 100% biodiesel. The more common and engine-friendly B20 blend at 20% biodiesel / 80% petroleum diesel would be a 15.6% net reduction in CO2.
The research in question was merely cited by the lobbying group. Specifically, they write:
> A 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the US Department of Agriculture, concluded biodiesel reduces net CO² emissions by 78 percent compared to petroleum diesel.
Where are the people who funded those studies working today? Industry has a well established track record of planting shills and promising lucrative jobs to public officials who do their bidding.
> but then you're also deforesting lands to grow them
Other than anecdotal evidence, do you have any source for this?
The cost to remove trees and put that land into production is quite high. Even then, most forested land is poor for growing crops. I would be very surprised to learn that in the US, farmers are removing trees and preparing the land to till on a large scale.
Most of the land in the US East of the Mississippi was forested, cut down, and turned into farmland. Some marginal lands have returned to forest like in upstate New York and in the Appalachia Mountains, but Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and other mid-western states are/were the heart of US agricultural production. They are slowly beginning covered by urban and suburban development. I believe that people thought farming was not possible if the land did not already support trees. They were mostly right before irrigation and scientifically bred crops.
This is covered in the article. The forests in question are in Argentina, not the US, and it sounds like demand for Soybeans from China may be causing some of the deforestation (although it is unclear how much is due to that versus US-based demand).
They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel. Of course energy is still needed to convert the soybeans into something you can burn in an engine, plus all of the cultivation and transportation costs.
The intent is that this is grown on lands that would otherwise lay fallow, so there shouldn't be a large deforestation concern.
You either are or you aren't, you can't be "more" carbon neutral. And anyway, I'm not asking if it's better for the environment than fossil fuels, I'm asking if the claim that it is carbon neutral is true or not.
I was clarifying in case the author of the comment was unsure what "carbon neutral" means. It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.
It's not a comparative term, so it confuses the discussion to use it as such, just as unfunny comments derail discussion.
"Either it is or it isn't," implies that it's a binary. That's incorrect and muddies the waters. It's quantitative in a practical sense, as in geography or geology, not in an absolute sense as in mathematics. So "more carbon neutral" can be sensibly interpreted in this quantitative sense. Your use of language implying that it's a binary, "confuses the discussion to use it as such."
You probably think it's "unfunny" because you missed the logical distinction. Now that it has been explained to you how you were the one who derailed the discussion in the first place with bad logic, you probably still think it's "unfunny."
I honestly can't for the life of me understand what you're trying to say here.
The poster said "They're more carbon neutral than dino diesel."
I was simply stating that not only was I not arguing otherwise (if we're assuming "more carbon neutral" means better for the environment), but also clarifying what the term means (the binary state of being carbon neutral).
I think your statement was unfunny because I did not personally find it funny, nor do I expect others to. Not for any other nefarious reason.
Notice that this is in the Opinion column. None of what's said here is even close to true.
Plenty of people shop at their local Goodwill or Salvation Army, where clothes are vastly cheaper than buying them new. Not only are they cheaper, but the clothes are often better quality.
Saying used clothes cost as much as new clothes and then citing an Indian blanket mill competing with Chinese manufacturers as evidence of this is disingenuous.
Where do you think the recyclers in the article are getting their raw materials from?
Your counterpoint to the authors claim that nobody wants your used clothes anymore seems to be that a handful do, which is great but is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of new product being churned out, consumed, and ultimately dumped - albeit in some cases via a donation bin or even a cycle of reuse - via the fast fashion chains.
I won't say you're wrong but it does seem as if there's at least somewhat of a trend away from selling used goods.
One example local to me is a local sports store used to have a thriving second-hand section. A few years ago they got out of it because it wasn't profitable. Selling used ice hockey gear made more sense when most of the new stuff was made in the US, Canada, Finland, etc. compared to China. And, of course, eBay has shifted more toward new things from big sellers.
I suspect that the quality (therefore price) has gone down on most of what they sell. Result: the goods don't last as long and don't retain value as well, and most people looking to buy can probably afford new.
Of course. It's a highly subjective title. However, with fast fashion such as H&M and Zara at similar prices, it would sense if interest is in the latest fashion versus stores carrying vintage like Buffalo Exchange. But in the world of fashion, everything comes back around. Vintage will strike again if it's truly on the out.
Yeah, when i was in college, i went to thrift stores. I'd get decent things on the cheap. By things i mean pants and shirts. No shoes or anything more personal.
Today i donate my stuff to them. Even if they have holes, they can be recycled.
I recall some guy in college who bought used clothing and shipped it to some guy who sold it somewhere in the Balkans, iirc. Do even if there isn't a local market, there probably is an intl market.
According to https://charts.bitcoin.com/chart/price it first reached today's price on the 6th of December and peaked on the 17th of December. It has now taken an entire month to fall to the 6th of December's price.
To say the fall was quicker than the rise is at best cherry picking price point data and at worst an outright lie.
On the contrary I think we will see the ATH again soon. Apparently no one knows what's going to happen, but there's just too much people, money, hash power and ecosystem for this to go bust.
After eyeing BTC charts for the past 6 months, there is virtually no price movement that would surprise me. $30k in a couple of months? Sure. $3k? Why not. However, I will believe the bull run is over only when I see it stay down for those couple of months.
If a man has a hundred children and lives many years but cannot enjoy his prosperity, a licensed therapist and possibly medication to deal with depression would be much preferable to being stillborn.
Firstly, Japanese manhole cover t-shirts already exist, I found a bunch on Amazon. Why are these different? Why does this need a kickstarter?
The authors of the kickstarter say they are working closely with city officials to use their art, however there is no mention of artist attribution or whether cities will get a portion of the proceeds from selling their art. Is any of that happening at all?
Lastly, the HN poster created an account an hour ago specifically to advertise this Kickstarter project and nothing else. The same Reddit user has been spamming that platform with the project (https://www.reddit.com/user/aquintar).
To me, it just looks like two white guys are stealing Japanese art and putting it on t-shirts. Good for them, but leave HN out of it.
Do you have a few links to the t-shirts in Amazon?
I just ignored this story, but the art in the manholes is interesting and I was almost going to upvote it. Is there any article about it somewhere, for example in atlasobscura?
The self balancing technology in the Segway, revolutionary at the time, paved the way for hoverboards. The forms are changed but the underlying technology is the same.
In the same way, Eth and Monero are further iterations of Bitcoin.
No, Segway didn't. Hoverboards are specifically based off of a patent made by some guy living in Oregon, and are actually ingenuitive in their own right. There's a good planet money podcast about it: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/11/27/457404184/epis...
Bitcoin, Eth, and Monero are all implementations of blockchain. Bitcoin is technically inferior to Eth, Monero, even Dogecoin, but that doesn't stop GP and others from comparing it to the internet's success in saying that Bitcoin is destined for similar success.
You don't have to be a carpenter to know if a house is built poorly, just if you try to describe the cause. They were right in their criticism of transaction fees, but were off in what was causing it.
Block size is limited by bytes allowed in the block, usually about 7 transactions a second (on average) for Bitcoin. Increased demand for transactions increased tx fees.
The length of the chain can affect processing power and bandwidth, as each block contains all previous blocks.
Insider information that is publicly disclosed is by definition no longer "insider information".
Indeed, if this had been an equity, it would have been illegal for him to trade the equity without disclosing the insider information prior to the trade.
What exactly are you sharing? It's not illegal to be an asshole. It's also not important to anyone that you knew him years ago and think he's an asshole, so where is the schadenfreude coming from?
"One could be forgiven for assuming the blockchain tech and crypto industry is a male-dominated field."