It was Belorruia that struck me most on that graph. Well, that and Namibia and CAR.Belorruia
It was Belorruia that struck me most on that graph. Well, that and Namibia and CAR.Belorruia
There has to be some relationship f(wealth, equality) = goodness, and it seems certain that it will be monotonic in both variables. The relative effect would be a great economics PhD I reckon (or perhaps 100).So GINI coefficients measure equality, but not the level of wealth. Is poorer but more equal better than less equal but richer?
So GINI coefficients measure equality, but not the level of wealth. Is poorer but more equal better than less equal but richer?
Concrete reabsorbs the CO2 it gives off in making quicklime while setting
I expect ruminants to become a very niche thing once the full economic cost is payed by the consumer.
and I would be surprised if the picture is much different for smelting.
I was convinced that the actual CO2 produced from reduction of iron ore would be insignificant in the whole process, but you are right:Not really, that only traps a certain percent of the CO2 it releases, the rest goes up into the air.
Assuming you can convince the majority of Americans to ditch eating steak.
For smelting you have to remember that the vast amount of metals are found in nature in the form of oxide ores. That means after mining the only way you can extract the metal from the ore is to use heat and a carbon based fuel to carbonize the ore so the carbon bonds with the oxygen in the ore to form CO2. After the CO2 is burned off, the metal is now found in the form of a bloom containing slag (left over impurities from the ore). The bloom is then heated up until liquified then the slag floats to the top of the molten metal where it is skimmed off. Then you have the pure metal.
However if making steel, carbon has to be used again if you want to improve the iron's strength and reduce/prevent it's ability to rust. So instead once you get to the bloom making phase, the bloom is carbonized immensely in a blast furnace from the raw ore. What comes out is called pig iron, a highly carbonized form of iron that's so brittle it's practically worthless, as it has too much carbon to make it durable. With steel you can't have too little or too much carbon to make it, hence why in the next phase you have to re-smelt the pig iron multiple times in order to burn off the excess carbon (which escapes as yet more CO2). Through this process the pig iron is reduced into cast iron, high carbon steel, low carbon steel, or wrought iron if you so choose. Add in chromium to the mix and you now have stainless steel.
Now one would wonder why can't we just recycle already made steel in an electric arc furnace? We can. The problem with that is you now cap humanities steel supply at a fixed amount, meaning that if the population were to grow you could no longer build any further steel buildings and vehicles other than the ones we currently have. Big problem if we are to expect the population to grow to 10 billion as predicted, hence new ore would have to be mined and carbonized. This applies to all metals as well, not just steel, as they are all extracted from oxides and choosing to endlessly recycle caps the metal supply that can be used.
In the particular case of steel, whenever it is recycled and smelted again, some carbon burns off of it in the form of CO2. Steel is after all an alloy of iron with carbon. This means the steel is also losing it's strength and becoming softer with each recycle, resembling more and more like pure iron. This is bad if you want recycled steel to maintain it's structural integrity and resistance to corrosion. So often times after steel is recycled in an electric arc furnace, it's then taken back to a blast furnace where it can be re-carbonized by coal coke. And of course this final process produces, guess what? More CO2.
It would be cool, if there were enough data points, to see those scores spread by county or state. i suspect that the range would vary geographically.
It's more than just energy usage. Vast amounts of greenhouse gases are produced from livestock, concrete, and metallurgy. That only solves part of the problem. Scientist claim we have to get to net zero emissions, not simply a reduction, for the climate to be stable.
So GINI coefficients measure equality, but not the level of wealth. Is poorer but more equal better than less equal but richer?
Actually, it's the 2-party system that has allowed the republicans to sink as low as they can.Biggest problem in the United States today is the Republican Party.
iron and steel are about 7%, that is part of energy use since they use coal to do it
The charcoal could be used to reduce iron ore.
Actually, it's the 2-party system that has allowed the republicans to sink as low as they can.
There are some interesting ideas about taking carbon out of the atmosphere. I think the best ways are "naturally" with ocean fertilisation with iron or forestation
Actually, it's the 2-party system that has allowed the republicans to sink as low as they can.
You posted income, this is wealth. What it means is that in places like the Netherlands or the US, some people own a looooooot of stuff while most people don't own much (wealth here is basically property and savings and pensions). Whereas in Myanmar or Timor Leste, assuming accuracy of the data, there are not much in the way of people who own a lot of wealth compared to everyone else.
Note that global wealth inequality is nearly as high as the Netherlands here.
Equality:
I'm going to frame this a little differently than you might figure. There has been recent research suggesting an increase in despair in the United States, despite the fact that this country has continued as by far the wealthiest in the world. You can't quite pin the problem on economics, or something tangible. In fact, by many measures, violence, early pregnancies and some types of drug use - the standard indicators of social despair - are down. More people are taking serious drugs, that often result in death, and that is just a symptom of something really bad that is happening. A somewhat related issue is race. Again, I don't think any one statistic captures what happens here. Minorities get trapped into an authoritarian and impersonal legal system that primarily serves the needs of those with money and influence. This system doesn't "temper mercy with justice", as it we as a country are morally obligated to do. Moreover, unwittingly, our nation has created a structure that reserves privilege, honor and material comfort to a limited few. This system doesn't exclude minorities, but it caters to the majority, and minorities fall out of the system early and often. Not only is this bad for the long-term health of the economy, but it is fundamentally unjust. And it results in minorities disproportionately falling into the "despair zone" of US society. And in that despair zone, they are more likely to encounter real and unfortunately still extant racism.
I hope you don't jump on me for how I framed the problems. I tried to do so in a nuanced way based on research and scholarship, rather than relying on more common notions. I also think that a lot of discussion pre-supposes some ideas that probably need to be justified before they are included. And of course, feel free to add other problems you think are worth discussing.