this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
48 points (82.4% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5239 readers
538 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Piped link | Invidious link

“Because green skyscrapers and high-rises are a bullshit non-solution to serious systemic problems.”

“But if you want greenery on a building nonetheless, do I have an idea for you – a portable, modular, scalable solution called ‘potted plants on your balcony’.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I just like the idea. It don't solve anything. However more greenery is better than less.

Sucks up pollution. Hells with depression. Hells with pollinators and bugs. Can't really see a downside

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Can’t really see a downside

The downside is almost certainly structural (significant weight as well as moisture, and a need for long term structural integrity and safety, likely don't pair well. Especially not when the people doing the building are looking for cost effectiveness).

[–] HanzAndHisFlammenwerfer@eviltoast.org 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you don't build with cardboard this problem is very easy to solve, its called putting a goddam Pond liner between the dirt and the structure itself.

And the weigh isn't a issue with low buildings, say 10 to 20 floor that aren't made from cardboard, and higher than that is inefficient in all regards anyway and should be avoided.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

How heavy do you think plants are ? Heavier than furniture? Or just fat humans ?

[–] shani66@ani.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well if we're talking fully grown oak trees for some stupid reason it'd be heavy, but most of the plants people point at in these things would be light as fuck. The dirt for the planters would probably be heavier.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Maybe some people are thinking trees. But no I expected potted plants. Shrubs of the like

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

Plants + dirt + water = significant additional weight to consider when designing a building for the people and their furniture..

Buildings today are already being designed with only the bare essentials in mind, they aren't even built with safety in mind only cost effectiveness (see Grenfell and million other buildings like it that should be condemned).

I never said it can't be done, but the person I replied to asked what the downside is, and from a developers' point of view, that will be it.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Water is heavy, and plants are made of mostly water.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ok. Is water heavier than steel ? I think most buildings can support a bunch of plants

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The issue I was trying (and failing) to get at is the additional weight the building now has to support on top of everything else a building normally has to support. However, it doesn't seem to be a big deal judging by everyone's replies.

[–] HanzAndHisFlammenwerfer@eviltoast.org 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Short info https://www.bbr-server.de/bauarchivddr/archiv/dokumente/3-4-17-wohnungsbauserie-wbs70.pdf

The blueprints https://bauarchivddr.bbr-server.de/bauarchivddr/archiv/dokumente/3-4-01-2-wohnungsbauserie-wbs-70-6-3-t.pdf

This is the blueprints of a pre modern apartment building (its in German but you could use chat pdf if you need translation) more modern buildings use these as basis (modified versions of course) as these block buildings are modular, cheap, very resistant and reliable. They can definitely support the extra weight of some plants on the facade, nobody wants to plant trees on the building, that wouldn't necessarily be a weight problem but rather a problem with the roots damaging the building, and you can't really stop tree roots, maybe some smaller trees but definitely not Oaks or Fruit trees.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That’s awesome, thanks for the info!

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I have no idea. Not an architectural engineer.

My assumption would be that they have to build the building to a code that has a minimum weight requirements.

Male Humans are generally averaging about 80kg.

If you have a party and have 10 - 15 over. That's a lot of weight. Not all the time but I think if every apartment had a few plants then the weight would still be less than having a party.

Or that was my assumption anyway. I know balconies have a weight limit, as there was a story about a party and too many people were out on it and it collapsed

[–] HanzAndHisFlammenwerfer@eviltoast.org 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Depends on the plants...

Also... Humans are mostly water as well if you go by that. I know my balcony supports 3,2 (+ the required tolerance) metric Tons of weight on a area of 10 square meters.

I could plant a tree there. Probably more than one. And these building concepts are rather about small plants, so the weight shouldn't be a problem if you build with Reinforced Concrete like a normal person.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Except that plants grow… and grow, and grow. Unless they’re maintained, which takes additional labor and people and infrastructure to handle, all of which adds even more weight.

As said, you don't need to use trees or gigantic plants, use Twiners and shrubs, they cover the whole facade and don't way that much, yet they do the same, if not a better job at keeping the building cool and the air cleaner. They don't need much maintenance and they don't grow indefinitely, if the plant cant reach more facade it stops, only thing is you have to regularly cut the plants around the windows, wich isn't a gigantic problem.

[–] Nighed@sffa.community 2 points 9 months ago

For now, if richish people want to pay for it in their flat, go for it. (It would be interesting to see the carbon cost of the extra materials though!) They can pay for the building and maintenance, and everyone else gets a cool building to look at.

The hopefully the kinks get worked out and it can be done cheaper on other buildings.