-1
submitted 4 months ago by Cat@ponder.cat to c/climate@slrpnk.net

New research finds that certain packaging materials can show 70% lower emissions than alternatives.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Courantdair@jlai.lu 27 points 4 months ago

Authored in collaboration with Trayak, Inc. and ExxonMobil

Yep, just as neutral and useful as all the research on how cigarette is "not that bad", conducted by Marlboro and friends

[-] sinkingship@mander.xyz 7 points 4 months ago

Oh man... I was about to comment satirically "this study was sponsored by coca-cola" but then I read your comment.

Sometimes it seems like there is no more need for satire, because reality has become a joke itself.

[-] riskable@programming.dev 20 points 4 months ago

The entire basis for this is the assumption that goods are being transported using fossil fuels. If we transport the goods using electric trucks suddenly plastic starts to look much, much worse than paper or even glass.

Aluminum is much better all around so I'm not sure why it's lumped into everything else. It's basically infinitely recyclable and you don't have to use natural gas or propane to heat it up to the melting point for forming/extrusion. There's basically an infinite amount of ways to heat things up; even to really high temperatures.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

There are complexities when dealing with aluminum. Main one being oxygen.

You don't want aluminum oxide, you want pure aluminum. Just heating the stuff up on its own will not give you pure aluminum. You have to eliminate oxygen from the equation.

Edit: Any wonder why aluminum welders have fat bank accounts?

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

The entire basis for this is the assumption that goods are being transported using fossil fuels.

Sponsored by ExxonMobil

[-] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Alu is very expensive to produce due to how much processing it takes—which also includes requiring a ton of energy and water, IIRC.

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works -2 points 4 months ago

Until you start bringing up the lithium mining receipts.

[-] SeekPie@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

And oil mining is more ethical?

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 months ago

Oil mining is a more urgent issue, yes, but polluting the land with exhausted lithium mines is not the way to divest.

[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 2 points 4 months ago

The thing with lithium is, that it can be recycled. Can't say that about coal (etc). Lithium mining is absolute trash, but I hope that we can improve on this.

[-] Jax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

I understand why it's considered better, I'm merely elucidating the importance of recognizing that it's a stop gap measure.

[-] FatCrab@lemmy.one 1 points 4 months ago

Does lithium mining inherently push GHG into the atmosphere? I'm honestly asking because I don't know much about the process other than it requires significant amounts of processing to extract lithium from its surrounding deposits. But if the source of emissions for lithium mining are solely from powering the equipment, it is not really a climate change issue (though even localized environmental damage is bad and needs to be addressed, of course).

[-] trailee@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Traditional lithium rock ore mining is a dirty, polluting process that also uses huge amounts of fresh water. But that’s not all necessarily inherent. There are several projects around the Salton Sea in California that promise not only to extract lithium cleanly, but also to generate a lot of GHG-free electricity along the way, because the ore is hot salty corrosive water extracted from deep underground. optimistic podcast episode 1 podcast 2 website article

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Good thing we’re moving to sodium ion then I guess. Also good that lithium batteries can be recycled so less lithium has to be mined. Can’t say that about coal, oil, or natural gas.

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Yes, because I prefer plastic over glass in my testicles..

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

I prefer only testicles in my testicles.

To that end, I propose a new packaging system!

[-] over_clox@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

TDS - Testicle Distribution System

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Bulllllllshit.

[-] gnygnygny@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Eat plastic you will live longer

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.vg 1 points 4 months ago
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
-1 points (48.9% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

6917 readers
491 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS