78
submitted 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) by inari@piefed.zip to c/environment@sh.itjust.works
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] shpuncle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 14 hours ago

With an almost 30 percent in compressive strength, the amount of cement can also potentially be reduced. Anything is better than nothing, eh? Or should we deny anything that's not everything?

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I'm all for reduction, but if you priced in the externalities even that would likely favor other materials in many applications that are extensively cement based. Including bitumen in some cases. I just think we have to be aggressively against cement usage because theres no stoichiometric way to get it to not be a massive source of carbon if we keep using it the way we do.

My problem with the don't throw the productive economy out by just trying to decarbonize argument is really structural though. It just gets to the point that we can't outgrow destroying the commons. Who cares if we maintain rapid development if the resulting assets are worthless?

this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
78 points (95.3% liked)

Environment

1545 readers
155 users here now

Environment:

The totality of the natural world, often excluding humans.

A subset of the natural world; an ecosystem.

The combination of external physical conditions that affect and influence the growth, development, behavior, and survival of organisms.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS