>>2682228>we can replace electronic vehicles with EVs and nuclear energyEVs have less footprint than combustion engine yes, but it still has very high embodied carbon, you need raw earth materials to build EVs and to build the renewable energy grid that will fuel those EVs. Eventually we will return to the same dilemma that faced biodiesel where the macroeconomic of mass production of a renewable technology makes it only slightly less bad for the environment. Nuclear might be but i doubt that there is much political will among the people to massively increase the number of nuclear plants we have, not with the ghost of Fukushima
>we can replace monoculture fertilizer farming with hydroponicsman, we aren't just farming weed here, there are lots of food crops that aren't suitable for hydroponics, and the sheer amount of energy and technology you need to do mass hydroponic farming means that it is going to be very carbon intensive
>automated work is probably more efficient than human work in terms of CO2-emissions-per-x-produced or whateverthis is not just about how much CO2 emissions you create per unit, this is also about embodied carbon. Humans are natural organisms. We fuck, we are born, we eat, we shit, we die, we get recycled into nature. For automation, you have to mine things, then craft the pieces individually, then assemble them, then ship them, then scrap them, then recycle them. All of the above practices are extremely energy and time consuming, this is the difference between having an ox and a tractor