ᐅ About Passive Houses, Plastic Bags, and Styrofoam Cladding

The market will not regulate this because the seller/car manufacturer wants to make as much profit as possible, while the customer wants to buy as cheaply as possible. If everything naturally balanced itself out for the best, we wouldn’t need governments, laws, etc. Then there would be no emissions cheating, and everyone would be happy. Unfortunately, the world works differently.

Men, I’ve been hearing this kind of argument for too long and too often, and honestly, it makes me angry. It’s highly moralistic, very principled, but full of double standards and hypocrisy.
An adult usually makes decisions in the market based on economics and rationality. Of course, emotional factors like image play a role, but they don’t override the rational part. So, if we want to actually do something for the climate and health—sticking to cars as an example—then we have to enforce NOx limits or bans. Instead of relying on unrealistic lab consumption figures, whether with or without software manipulation, set real-world limits like 50-90-120.
Tax diesel the same as gasoline, but provide farmers, freight companies, and shipping with dyed low-cost diesel—but only for them, because they have no alternatives. A ship or a tractor can only run on that, at least for now.
Then you create a market that moves in the right direction, and if someone still wants a Cayenne Turbo diesel, okay—the world can handle a few Cayennes. That’s better than these scrappage programs that export hundreds of thousands of cars to places like Upper Volta, where they keep polluting instead of continuing to operate here under technical inspection. Because the product “new car” is not CO₂-neutral either.
And in the construction sector… a target would also make sense here, for example, a new build without CO₂ emissions could be exempt from property transfer tax, a new build with a certain number of grams per square meter would get incentives, etc. Or continue working with KfW funding programs. However, I would never ban traditional building without much insulation or so. Because an affordable house has to remain possible. Why else can you no longer build rental properties with rents of $7–8 per square meter without subsidies? Not even in areas with cheap land. Because construction is made so expensive by the KfW energy-saving regulations craze.
Promote the exceptional, but let the standard continue, and trust citizens to be grown-ups. And seriously, you new housing eco-warriors with your hardware store cards and controlled ventilation systems, have you saved Germany and helped achieve the CO₂ targets? Or? No. We destroy them despite the energy-saving regulations, because traffic and the energy sector don’t cooperate. For example, here in the North, we produce massive amounts of electricity for you in the South, but you don’t get any of it because there are no power lines. Okay… so we just give it away to Copenhagen, because they have power lines. No, no, it’s always suspicious when arguments start from high moral grounds instead of looking at reality and what follows from the actual situation. Karsten

Agreed with you from the first to the last line, Nordlys! The only exception is the speed limit. That contradicts your otherwise very smart and liberal views. Where the motorway is really clear, you should be allowed to drive faster sometimes—you’re paying for it yourself, after all. Every car consumes several liters of fuel per 100 km (62 miles) at 250 km/h (155 mph), and the Tesla battery also runs out very quickly at that speed. But as I said: great statement overall!
Greetings from Switzerland (speed limit 120 km/h (75 mph))

It would be ideal to use the excess electricity generated by wind turbines for water electrolysis. The hydrogen produced could then be combined with CO2 through established catalytic processes to recreate alcohol or gasoline (also diesel), thus mimicking a natural cycle.

To simplify once more for better understanding:
Plants consume CO2 and water, producing glucose and oxygen (this is called photosynthesis).

Animals (and humans) consume glucose and oxygen, releasing CO2 and water.

Our new cycle:
Cars consume gasoline and oxygen, emitting water and CO2 (basically like animals—just glucose replaced by gasoline).

A wind turbine combined with electrolysis and a catalytic system consumes water and CO2, releasing gasoline and oxygen (essentially a kind of industrial plant...).

From this, two things can be concluded:

A) Excessive government regulations are inefficient and lead to waste (expensive electricity must be discarded). This should be familiar from centrally planned economies...

B) CO2 limits for road traffic are unreasonable. The key factors for urban air quality are limits on particulate matter and NOx emissions.
If needed, sufficient options exist to keep CO2 levels constant by introducing a cycle system modeled on nature. As atmospheric CO2 levels rise, the rate of photosynthesis and thus plant biomass also increase. We might not even need that many "industrial plants."

Or to put it more simply: More CO2 makes cities greener!

See, now we also understand why algae-covered ETICS facades are so important for the environment.

Alex85 schrieb:
You see. Now we also know why algae-covered ETICS facades are so important for the environment.

As long as the woodpecker doesn’t eat them up