ᐅ About Passive Houses, Plastic Bags, and Styrofoam Cladding

Asian car manufacturers generally agree that electric vehicles are the right direction, but they consider storing energy in batteries to be impractical, for the reasons mentioned in the post above. In their view, hydrogen, synthetic/bio/conventional gas used with fuel cells is the better solution.

I also think it’s unwise to become dependent again on scarce raw materials that are required for such a large number of batteries. Moreover, the demand for vehicle batteries will compete with the demand for other portable electronics that use batteries. This creates a very high dependency, and we will end up extracting raw materials from the Earth in increasingly unsustainable ways.

Actually, this is a good time to invest in stocks or directly in commodities.

As long as the fuel contains more than just carbon and hydrogen, it is impossible to avoid combustion products other than CO2 and H2O. This applies to diesel and gasoline. Of course, emissions can be reduced through technical improvements as well as driving habits, but both have their limits. Unfortunately, our cars are only "clean" under strict climatic conditions on the test bench. A smaller car will realistically consume less fuel than a heavy SUV. However, driving and buying a car is often not just a matter of practical reasoning. If someone wants a large, heavy, and expensive car, they will always be able to justify it...

The same goes for a mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery in a house, or alternatively, no mechanical ventilation and only window frame ventilators.

And with us humans, more is emitted than just CO2 and H2O.

Nordlys schrieb:
Not exactly. My point isn’t that the passive house is like a plastic bag, but that it is obviously a legislative goal to make this type of house mandatory for new construction due to CO2 reduction reasons. Mandatory! I don’t care if tego, haydee, or whoever else likes it—they can build it themselves. But making it compulsory for everyone, while at the same time not banning the Touareg or BMW with their huge engines, that’s outrageous. Our

With all due respect, your argument is quite limited. Just because A isn’t banned doesn’t mean that banning B isn’t reasonable. If the state didn’t regulate anything, we would still be living in Stone Age conditions.

The same applies to climate change… not implementing a sensible measure just because another possible measure is not implemented is somehow…?!

Tego12 schrieb:
Your reasoning is, with all due respect, quite limited. Just because A is not forbidden, it doesn’t automatically mean that banning B wouldn’t make sense. If the government didn’t regulate anything, we would still live in conditions similar to the Stone Age.

The same applies to climate change... not implementing one sensible measure just because another possible measure isn’t being taken is, well... ?!

Climate change has existed for about 4.8 billion years (since the Earth formed and developed an atmosphere). Until around 65 million years ago, the climate was much warmer, and the ecosystem was correspondingly more extensive and diverse. I don’t want to debate the impact of increased CO2 emissions since industrialization here. However, if it prevents the next ice age—which is geologically overdue—then the impact may actually be positive. Or do you want to imagine the refugee flows if a glaciation started north of Hamburg? Against stronger storm surges or rising sea levels, it is possible, if necessary, to build better dikes, but what can you do against a advancing glacier?

We should avoid thinking too anthropocentrically here, as if humans influence everything and everything revolves around humans. The overcoming of anthropocentric worldviews was a defining feature of the transition from the Middle Ages to modern times.

Hopefully, we can avoid a return to the Middle Ages in the coming years...

I quote...

"Our three-cylinder Golf with 110 hp can reach about 180 km/h (110 mph), consumes between 5 and 7 liters (1.3 to 1.8 gallons), has space for four, and emits around 110 g of CO2. That is completely sufficient."

And I agree with you. For those who have been around here longer, that is more than enough....

Marvinius II schrieb:
Climate change has existed for about 4.8 billion years (since the Earth formed and developed an atmosphere). Until about 65 million years ago, the climate was significantly warmer, and the ecosystem was correspondingly larger and more diverse.

Ah, a climate change skeptic. No one denies that there has always been climate change, but by now climate scientists worldwide agree that the observed warming is significantly (and negatively) influenced by human activity and must be controlled accordingly. It is unfortunate that there are still some individual specialists who deny this.