Strong video: showing the difference between true solar punk on the one hand and greenwashing on the other .

    • gandalf_der_12te@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      i guess this was a joke, but just fyi: plants don’t go that well along with buildings sometimes, for example when you want to plant a tree on the roof. You need to be sure that the walls are actually strong enough for this, wasting additional concrete in reinforcing them.

      • RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Things get murky once time comes into the discussion.

        Yes, more concrete is used. But if the building survives for 100yrs, there’s a point where the reduced CO2 required to power the HVAC system thanks to the added shade cover, equals the amount of CO2 expressed in order to create that extra concrete. And that benefit continues as time goes on, never mind the added beauty.

        Do we create durable homes for our people by choosing concrete over the naturally carbon-sequestering wood? Are we not subsequently damaging our forests more directly as a result? I’m not really sure either way, to be honest.

        However, I expect losing the ability to make multistory buildings would be losing out on efficiency in indirect ways; heat rises, so in winter, less energy is needed to keep a large group of people warm vs a cluster of individual houses. Groceries and work can be closer to one another thanks to the higher density. There’s obviously some real downsides to these choices as well, but there it is.