#car pollution

[atlurbanist]

I'm never trying to make drivers feel guilty about their pollution. Instead, I'm always trying to state the importance of more-compact developments that better enable alternatives to driving such as walking and transit.

Personal car trips need to be de-centered in our development patterns.

With that caveat...

Research over the last few years has revealed more and more harm coming from the ultra-fine particle pollution of tire and brake dust. One report found that 78 percent of ocean microplastics are from synthetic tire rubber. Others have found links to bad health outcomes in humans.

Despite the benefits of switching to electric powered vehicles, it's a problem they can't solve -- in fact, the heavier weight of EVs can worsen the pollution. One study found that EVs can shed around 20 percent more from their tires due to their higher weight compared to internal combustion vehicles.

Things I'm not saying: "ban all cars" or "EVs are evil" or "anyone driving a car should be ashamed." I don't think that and I'm not saying that.

What I am saying: every development going forward needs to be intentionally designed to contribute to a cure for car dependency, and to not sustain or exacerbate the problem.

[feckcops]

‘This Machine Kills Kids’: SUVs Hit With Spray Paint in Bristol

“Climate activists have welcomed the news that SUVs have been targeted with spray paint in Bristol.

“‘This machine kills kids’ was spray-painted onto the doors and bonnet of around six vehicles on Sunday night in Clifton, Bristol’s most expensive suburb, according to Bristol Live …

“SUVs, which are more polluting than normal cars – and are also more deadly when striking pedestrians – have been the target of a recent wave of climate activism. Since March 2022, guerilla climate group the Tyre Extinguishers have targeted over 10,000 SUVs across 15 countries, deflating their tyres and making them temporarily unusable.”

[reasonsforhope]

"Environmental groups are claiming victory after Mitsubishi Chemical Group dropped plans for a $1.3 billion plant in the heart of Louisiana’s industrial corridor. 

In the works for more than a decade, the chemical manufacturing complex would have been the largest of its kind in the world, stretching across 77 acres in Geismar, a small community about 60 miles west of New Orleans. Tokyo-based Mitsubishi cited only economic factors when announcing the cancellation last week, but a recent report on the plant’s feasibility noted that growing community concern about air pollution could also hamper the project’s success. 

“The frontline communities are fighting back, causing delays, and that amounts to money being lost,” said Gail LeBoeuf with Inclusive Louisiana, an environmental group focused on the industrial corridor along the Mississippi River known as Cancer Alley.

The nonprofit group Beyond Petrochemical declared the project’s failure a “major victory for the health and safety of Louisianans.”

According to Mitsubishi, the plant could have produced up to 350,000 tons per year of methyl methacrylate, or MMA, a colorless liquid used in the manufacture of plastics and a host of consumer products, including TVs, paint, and nail polish.

The plant was expected to be a major polluter, releasing hundreds of tons per year of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and other harmful chemicals, according to its permit information...

In July, a report on the plant’s viability warned that a global oversupply of MMA and fierce local opposition made the project a “bad bet.” 

Conducted by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the report said that credit agencies are paying more attention to “community sentiment” about petrochemical projects, particularly in Louisiana. In Geismar and other parts of Cancer Alley, there’s a “disproportionately heavy concentration of polluting industrial facilities” and Mitsubishi could become “entangled in a decades-long dispute involving issues of racial inequality and environmental justice,” the IEEFA report said. 

Geismar residents are surrounded by about a half-dozen large chemical facilities that emit harmful levels of air pollution. Of the more than 6,000 people who live within the 3 miles of the planned project site, about 40 percent are Black or Hispanic, and 20 percent are considered low-income, according to federal data. 

“The air here is already so dirty that the kids can’t play outside anymore,” said Pamela Ambeau, Ascension Parish resident and member of the group Rural Roots Louisiana.

The proposed plant is the latest in a string of failed industrial projects in Cancer Alley. Since 2019, local activism was instrumental in halting the development of two large plastics complexes in St. James Parish and a grain export terminal in St. John the Baptist Parish. All three projects would have been built in historically Black and rural communities."

-via Grist, January 16, 2025

[jadeharleyinc]

the scale of AI's ecological footprint

standalone version of my response to the following:

"you need soulless art? [...] why should you get to use all that computing power and electricity to produce some shitty AI art? i don’t actually think you’re entitled to consume those resources." "i think we all deserve nice things. [...] AI art is not a nice thing. it doesn’t meaningfully contribute to us thriving and the cost in terms of energy use [...] is too fucking much. none of us can afford to foot the bill." "go watch some tv show or consume some art that already exists. […] you know what’s more environmentally and economically sustainable […]? museums. galleries. being in nature."

you can run free and open source AI art programs on your personal computer, with no internet connection. this doesn't require much more electricity than running a resource-intensive video game on that same computer. i think it's important to consume less. but if you make these arguments about AI, do you apply them to video games too? do you tell Fortnite players to play board games and go to museums instead?

speaking of museums: if you drive 3 miles total to a museum and back home, you have consumed more energy and created more pollution than generating AI images for 24 hours straight (this comes out to roughly 1400 AI images). "being in nature" also involves at least this much driving, usually. i don't think these are more environmentally-conscious alternatives.

obviously, an AI image model costs energy to train in the first place, but take Stable Diffusion v2 as an example: it took 40,000 to 60,000 kWh to train. let's go with the upper bound. if you assume ~125g of CO2 per kWh, that's ~7.5 tons of CO2. to put this into perspective, a single person driving a single car for 12 months emits 4.6 tons of CO2. meanwhile, for example, the creation of a high-budget movie emits 2840 tons of CO2.

is the carbon cost of a single car being driven for 20 months, or 1/378th of a Marvel movie, worth letting anyone with a mid-end computer, anywhere, run free offline software that consumes a gaming session's worth of electricity to produce hundreds of images? i would say yes. in a heartbeat.

even if you see creating AI images as "less soulful" than consuming Marvel/Fortnite content, it's undeniably "more useful" to humanity as a tool. not to mention this usefulness includes reducing the footprint of creating media. AI is more environment-friendly than human labor on digital creative tasks, since it can get a task done with much less computer usage, doesn't commute to work, and doesn't eat.

and speaking of eating, another comparison: if you made an AI image program generate images non-stop for every second of every day for an entire year, you could offset your carbon footprint by… eating 30% less beef and lamb. not pork. not even meat in general. just beef and lamb.

the tech industry is guilty of plenty of horrendous stuff. but when it comes to the individual impact of AI, saying "i don’t actually think you’re entitled to consume those resources. do you need this? is this making you thrive?" to an individual running an AI program for 45 minutes a day per month is equivalent to questioning whether that person is entitled to a single 3 mile car drive once per month or a single meatball's worth of beef once per month. because all of these have the same CO2 footprint.

so yeah. i agree, i think we should drive less, eat less beef, stream less video, consume less. but i don't think we should tell people "stop using AI programs, just watch a TV show, go to a museum, go hiking, etc", for the same reason i wouldn't tell someone "stop playing video games and play board games instead". i don't think this is a productive angle.

(sources and number-crunching under the cut.)

good general resource: GiovanH's article "Is AI eating all the energy?", which highlights the negligible costs of running an AI program, the moderate costs of creating an AI model, and the actual indefensible energy waste coming from specific companies deploying AI irresponsibly.

CO2 emissions from running AI art programs: a) one AI image takes 3 Wh of electricity. b) one AI image takes 1mn in, for example, Midjourney. c) so if you create 1 AI image per minute for 24 hours straight, or for 45 minutes per day for a month, you've consumed 4.3 kWh. d) using the UK electric grid through 2024 as an example, the production of 1 kWh releases 124g of CO2. therefore the production of 4.3 kWh releases 533g (~0.5 kg) of CO2.

CO2 emissions from driving your car: cars in the EU emit 106.4g of CO2 per km. that's 171.19g for 1 mile, or 513g (~0.5 kg) for 3 miles.

costs of training the Stable Diffusion v2 model: quoting GiovanH's article linked in 1. "Generative models go through the same process of training. The Stable Diffusion v2 model was trained on A100 PCIe 40 GB cards running for a combined 200,000 hours, which is a specialized AI GPU that can pull a maximum of 300 W. 300 W for 200,000 hours gives a total energy consumption of 60,000 kWh. This is a high bound that assumes full usage of every chip for the entire period; SD2’s own carbon emission report indicates it likely used significantly less power than this, and other research has shown it can be done for less." at 124g of CO2 per kWh, this comes out to 7440 kg.

CO2 emissions from red meat: a) carbon footprint of eating plenty of red meat, some red meat, only white meat, no meat, and no animal products the difference between a beef/lamb diet and a no-beef-or-lamb diet comes down to 600 kg of CO2 per year. b) Americans consume 42g of beef per day. this doesn't really account for lamb (egads! my math is ruined!) but that's about 1.2 kg per month or 15 kg per year. that single piece of 42g has a 1.65kg CO2 footprint. so our 3 mile drive/4.3 kWh of AI usage have the same carbon footprint as a 12g piece of beef. roughly the size of a meatball [citation needed].

[thoughtportal]

Tires and Microplastics and fossil fuel waste

[telluricdog]

we need to start shooting people who throw anything out their car window. the fatal kind if possible

[scopophilic1997]

scopOphilic_micromessaging_1030 - scopOphilic1997 presents a new micro-messaging series: small, subtle, and often unintentional messages we send and receive verbally and non-verbally.

[gayamulet]

10/10/24 over Hamilton, MA

[superxstarzz]

For your combination godtier stuff! Bard of Heart and Sylph of Mind?

my goal for all the bard combos is just to make a circus

[thebusylilbee]

" Après 2024, 2030 sera-t-elle une nouvelle année olympique en France ? Le Comité international olympique (CIO) a désigné mercredi 24 juillet les Alpes françaises comme site organisateur des Jeux olympiques d’hiver. Après plusieurs semaines d’incertitude liée à l’actuelle vacance du pouvoir, c’est une victoire pour Emmanuel Macron qui a défendu personnellement la candidature de la France devant le comité mercredi 24 juillet au matin. 

Le CIO conditionne néanmoins la validation définitive de ce projet à la présentation des garanties financières et juridiques par lesquelles le pays hôte s’engage à couvrir les éventuels déficits de l’événement et à livrer les équipements en temps voulu. [...]

À quarante-huit heures de la cérémonie d’ouverture de Paris 2024, le sujet des Jeux d’hiver apparaît lointain. C’est pourtant maintenant qu’il faut s’en préoccuper, tant qu’il est encore temps de les arrêter. Coûts financiers, flou budgétaire, impact environnemental et verrou dans un modèle économique mortifère pour l’écosystème alpin : les problèmes posés par d’éventuels JO dans les Alpes sont nombreux et sérieux.

Si les plans climat et les schémas bas-carbone adoptés tant bien que mal par nos institutions ont un sens, si le souci budgétaire affiché par l’exécutif est réel, le projet de JO 2030 devrait être remis en question. Mettre en suspens la candidature et offrir aux citoyennes et citoyens la possibilité de se prononcer sur sa pertinence serait un signe de santé démocratique.

Ce serait aussi un geste de confiance envers la population, trop peu consultée sur les grands projets. Ceux-ci engagent pourtant les habitant·es, riverain·es et contribuables pour des années dans des trajectoires souvent polluantes et coûteuses.

Un demi-milliard de dépenses publiques

Le budget de fonctionnement annoncé pour les JO d’hiver s’établit à 2 milliards d’euros, selon le rapport du mois de juin de la commission de futur hôte – document qui comprend l’analyse du projet par un jury désigné par le CIO.

Cette enveloppe représenterait un coût de 462 millions d’euros pour la puissance publique – à partager entre l’État et les régions organisatrices. C’est autant que l’aide exceptionnelle débloquée par le gouvernement en février pour les hôpitaux. Ou que les financements annoncés en 2023 pour le plan logement devant permettre aux personnes sans domicile d’accéder à des solutions de logement pérennes. Ou encore que le fonds annuel de rénovation du bâti scolaire. C’est donc beaucoup d’argent, surtout dans le contexte du plan d’économie de 10 milliards d’euros décidé par Bruno Le Maire en février 2024.

Est-ce le meilleur usage à faire des subsides publics ? La question est d’autant plus pertinente que le montant à débourser sera en réalité sans doute beaucoup plus élevé : 2,4 milliards d’euros au total, pour une dotation publique comprise entre 800 et 900 millions d’euros, selon un rapport de l’Inspection générale des finances non publié, mais cité par le media La Lettre. Matignon, qui a commandé ce rapport, n’a pas répondu aux questions de Mediapart.

Une forte contribution de l’État

Dans le détail, les quelques informations publiques sur le volet budgétaire de cette candidature interrogent. La part de financement public, autour de 23 %, est beaucoup plus élevée que dans les dossiers d’autres pays, a remarqué Delphine Larat, membre du collectif No JO : 0 % pour la Suède pour les JO de 2026 – et retoqué de ce fait, 4 % pour l’Italie, 6 % pour la Chine (2022), 14 % pour le Kazakhstan (2022). Le montant et la part de provisions pour imprévus sont également « hors norme », autour de 258 millions d’euros pour la France, ajoute-t-elle.

Or les économistes des infrastructures ont bien documenté la sous-estimation systématique du coût des JO, dont les budgets ne prennent pas en compte tout un ensemble de dépenses plus ou moins cachées : les exonérations fiscales (nombreuses), les dépenses de sécurité ou de transports publics, etc.

Les rapporteurs de la commission de futur hôte s’inquiètent d’ailleurs à plusieurs reprises de la soutenabilité financière du projet, citant la construction des villages olympiques et d’une patinoire à Nice (Alpes-Maritimes).

Constructions massives dans les Alpes

Tout en promettant de « s’attaquer aux conséquences du changement climatique », le dossier des JO 2030 prévoit des constructions massives. Pas moins de cinq villages olympiques sont annoncés, avec 700 lits en projet au Grand-Bornand (Haute-Savoie), 700 supplémentaires à Bozel (Savoie), 1 500 à Nice – où la patinoire pourrait coûter 50 millions d’euros. Celle-ci pourrait prendre place sur des terrains destinés initialement à construire des logements sociaux. Et le projet serait particulièrement énergivore compte tenu du climat méditerranéen de la ville – un choix baroque pour des Jeux d’hiver.

Un « réseau routier olympique » devra par ailleurs être mis en place, notamment pour pallier les routes « étroites » dans les zones de montagne. L’empreinte carbone de l’ensemble est estimé entre 700 000 et 800 000 tonnes équivalent CO2 – sans aucun élément pour le vérifier –, soit autant que la consommation annuelle moyenne de 80 000 personnes en France.

Avec le réchauffement des températures, la neige tient de moins en moins en petite et moyenne montagne. Lors de l’édition 2022 de la Coupe du monde de biathlon au Grand-Bornand, en Haute-Savoie, elle a dû être livrée par camion avant la tenue des épreuves. Comment imaginer que la situation sera différente en 2030 ? Les canons à neige et retenues collinaires sont très consommatrices en eau, et, de ce fait, remis en cause par les défenseurs des écosystèmes. En 2022, la justice a suspendu l’autorisation d’une retenue d’altitude à La Clusaz, en Haute-Savoie, que la mairie voulait construire pour produire de la neige artificielle. C’est l’un des lieux choisis pour les JO de 2030.

Opacité antidémocratique

En l’absence de consultation et de référendum sur la tenue de JO d’hiver en France en 2030, il n’y a pas eu d’information correcte du public : le budget n’est pas publié en détail et le dossier de candidature n’est pas consultable en ligne. La clé de répartition entre État et régions n’est pas connue. Il n’y a pas eu d’étude alternative à la construction des nouvelles infrastructures, ni de contre-expertise du budget présenté par la France.

Avoir des JO dans les Alpes en 2030 « serait formidable pour inventer le modèle de Jeux d’hiver de demain qui doit être plus durable, qui doit s’adapter aux changements climatiques », a encore déclaré Emmanuel Macron au JT de France 2. Le chef de l’État semble se tromper de priorité : plutôt que le business olympique, c’est la montagne, son milieu naturel et les personnes qui y vivent qui doivent être défendus pour avoir une chance de perdurer.

La bonne question à poser est simple : cela est-il compatible avec des JO d’hiver ? Car, au vu des investissements nécessaires, ils enfermeraient ces territoires en plein bouleversement climatique dans un modèle touristique inadapté et dépassé.

Jade Lindgaard "

[feckcops]

Polluting SUVs have the carbon footprint of a major industrial nation

“Global SUV sales have increased from around 10 million in 2010 to more than 30 million in 2021, according to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA). In terms of market share, this translates into growth from 16.5 per cent of the market in 2010 to 45.9 per cent in 2021. While there was a slight drop in sales in 2020, 2021 was a record year for the market, with growth of 10 per cent.

“The problem with typical, non-electric SUVs is that they produce 25 per cent more carbon emissions on average than a medium-sized car. The growth in the SUV market means that, if these so-called ‘Chelsea tractors’ were a country, the 900 million tonnes of carbon they emit each year would make them the sixth biggest emitter in the world, above industrial powerhouses such as Germany and South Korea.”

[chiralitree]

The worst thing that can happen to a girl is moving away from the big city where she was spoiled by good public transit to a small town where busses come hourly.

[ms-boogie-man]

Dodge commercial (America Fuck Yeah!)

No Tumblr blog is proper without this epic little ditty yo!  *nods

Angie/Maddie🦇❥✝︎🇺🇸

[gwyoi]

I feel like if I lived in NYC I would want to shower like so much more often like 2 times a day depending….

[jacks-weird-world]

hm deduction from me but i think jack doesn't fly a lot … he mostly drives (to MA, Chicago, DC, Philadelphia)...

Scared of flying? Or is he trying to prove that Toyota is the best car in the world? or both? ✊😆😑

[swirlingyouintomypoems]

Why do I keep getting lando/mclaren posts on my recommended. I ain’t the one‼️‼️‼️