this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
16 points (75.0% liked)

Solarpunk technology

2552 readers
1 users here now

Technology for a Solar-Punk future.

Airships and hydroponic farms...

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/6839374

Fad or relevant?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I get you but I've already done all those things.

Ordering them by priority is fine but this is more of an ethos than a checklist. Everything that one could do could follow the same philosophy by shaving off energy usage where one can. Doesn't matter if it's a hot water tap, a walk to the shops instead of driving, sitting under a tree instead of aircon, or designing a website to send less data. They are all the same because the goal is use less and they all matter. Does that make sense?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

At one point then the goal is not to lower your impact, it is to make it positive: don't lower your energy use anymore, become a net producer. We just moved in a house so the insulation and switch to heat pump is our priority but at one point I want solar panels. I want guilt-free air conditioning in summer

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Already done. Plus all the tree planting and biochar I do.

Perhaps your argument is a foundational one whereas other people are already chasing the diminishing returns. As an ethos, I feel that everything one should do is striving to that lower goal but there is no shame in attacking your agenda as a priority checklist, it makes sense financially.

I still don't know why we can't have low energy websites as the norm but certainly there are low-hanging fruit to grab elsewhere. Definitely not denying any of that.

Somewhat related anecdote: When I do my environmental work in the field and biomass needs to be moved, most people tend to move it downhill as that's easier. I always move biomass uphill as I introduce energy into the system rather than the usual entropy (nutrients flow downhill). Most people don't understand that argument, it's beyond them, they think "it doesn't matter". Just like low energy websites, it's the little things...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of good reasons to do lighter websites. Environmental impact is not one of them. Either your electricity usage emits CO2, in which case you have more urgent things to do, or your electricity does not, and you don't care about the additional microwatthour loading a js library took.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

My site has some international visitors. Mostly poor farmers though I guess scale and millions of users doesn't come into the equation but sure, whatever you say.

https://www.theonion.com/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one-plast-1819571260

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Then making it light makes sense because some of these visitors will have slow computers and expensive bandwidth. (And probably a much bigger co2 impact per site visited but I have the weakness to think that knowledge is worth it)