But fuel taxes are not protecting the environment. They are not high enough to fund environmental remediation, nor do they cover the costs of other externalities of road travel like pavement damage, accidents, and congestion
So raise them?
Transportation analysts record travel distance using a variety of methods that require equipment ranging from vehicle odometers to GPS-based technology.
I am deeply uncomfortable with this. It is already a huge privacy problem that new vehicles come with all sorts of tracking systems that transmit information remotely, but at least having these enabled isn’t a legal obligation. If such a bill is passed I would say there is a 100% chance that this will also be used to prevent people from opting out from mass surveillance of their movements under the pretext of tax compliance.
As an alternative, what about instead taxing companies for the commutes and business travel of their employees? In that case it isn’t necessary to track vehicles on an individual basis, instead you keep track of where employees live relative to their workplaces and work from home rates. I understand commercial trucking is already generally tracked, and that is the biggest impact on wearing down the roads, so tax that too. You don’t need to be forcing individuals to regularly check in with the government about where they’ve been and how much they have been traveling.
The drop in population in historical civilizational collapses are much sharper than even World3 would indicate. World3 assumes perfect allocation of resources, technological investments with no unforeseen effects, no military, war, pandemics, natural disasters, etc.
Especially technological investments can very much mean a higher population as well. Say we find a way to easily cure cancer for example. That means people live longer and that means a higher population.
not only does it have a larger battery… it also uses up that battery 10 times faster while doing 100 times less work :')
I would really like to have modern laptops at like double/triple the size for more battery space though, why can’t we have a normal laptop that lasts like a week on a charge?
I would really like to have modern laptops at like double/triple the size for more battery space though
Mainly because that would violate airplane regulations. You aren’t meant to go over 100 Wh because of what most Li-Ion cells do when damaged, overheated, and ruptured.
why can’t we have a normal laptop that lasts like a week on a charge?
Maybe because that’s impossible without using some really low power parts. Do you like having a black and white screen running at maybe 30 FPS with no brightness to speak off? That’s what you would end up with. Okay actually with modern eInk and transreflective LCDs we can do limited colour, but it will cost a fortune.
Even with triple the energy you are going to struggle powering a modern fast machine with a modern display for that long. Higher resolutions, better colours, brightness, and frame rate all demand more power.
Is that actually on and working for an entire week or in sleep mode? Obviously sleep mode uses less power. No one is disputing the fact that you can have long stand by times, even if modern laptops have actually gotten worse in this regard.
If it can manage 8 hours of screen on time everyday for a week that would be closer to what I mean and probably what the original commenter meant.
Definitely not 40 hours use, but I get about 20 out of it, unless I’m doing something particularly heavy. Like, I tested BG3 on it for shits and giggles, and got better performance than my 2070 machine, but it drained my battery by over 50% in Les than an hour
Im my sweet summers there were basically no commercial laptops.
I was trying to say that that laptop isnt just 25 years old. It just seems odd to even put 25 there, where 40 is used for the other two.
I was going to mention that the laptop looks like a “tough-book” heavy duty type thing. The only reason it seems old is because of the video ports on the side. Military laptops for field use still look similar, admittedly a bit smaller
This makes sense for mid-latitudes, but the timing of peak power will depend on how much energy the current youth in India and children in central Africa will aspire to use as they get older. That’s hard to ‘predict’ - it’s their choice of development pathway, but hope they don’t follow China’s route with so much cement, steel, roads, there are other options.
The global south will need a lot of air conditioning to simply survive. However, a lot of that energy should be carbon neutral if renewable trends continue.
Most living things stop growing at a point or do so much slower. There are systems which do not, like cancer for example. However killing the system you feed off is a bad strategy, if you only have a single one.
Evolution doesn’t demand anything, it’s literally about adaptation. The expectation of infinite growth inside an obviously finite system is the death cult.
I think having the focus be about reducing unnecessary and wasteful production to be a more accurate description, as we don’t want to degrow everything. Sectors of the society providing human and social value/services will need to grow. It is only the wasteful production that needs to be degrown.
degrowth
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.