Would You Rather Give Up Meat Or Flying For The Environment?
ebikefolder @ ebikefolder @feddit.de Posts 0Comments 48Joined 2 yr. ago
ebikefolder @ ebikefolder @feddit.de
Posts
0
Comments
48
Joined
2 yr. ago
Use the same place where the old flight of stairs used to be: the house's structure and floor statics were calculated to have stairs there. You don't want to mess with a house's structure without the help of a statics engineer!
A little bit of "Stair maths" to start. Sorry for metric units, you might have to convert them if you're in the US.
The ideal stair has an angle of 30°, a rise of 17 centimetres up, from step to step, with steps 29 cm deep, from front to back. Two rises plus one depth should be as close as possible to 63 cm because of the length of a human's step.
You won't get this ideal in most cases, because the distance between the upper and lower floor will rarely be an exact mulitiple of 17 cm.
1: measure this distance, finished upper floor to finished lower floor. Divide by 17 cm. Round up or down to get the number of steps you need.
2: Divide the distance between the floors by the number of steps from above
3: Use the "2 rises plus 1 depth = 63 cm" to determine the ideal depth. Stay as close to that as possible to make the stairs easy, safe and comfortable to walk on. It's a good idea to make a drawing to scale at this point, to see how the stairs fit in the floorplan.
4: Now you can calculate the length of the stairs using good old Pythagoras (a2 + b2 = c^2, "a" being the distance between the floors, "b" is the depth of one step multiplied by the number - from above, "c" is the length of the stair - and the boards ("stringers") on either side as well as the handrails).
Now you can calculate the material you need. Two stringer boards, the required number of steps of the correct length, plus brackets and screws on either side of each, plus one or two handrails plus balusters.
Use a parquet stripper.
Somehow I have the feeling that we are, in fact, on the same page.
Yes, we need big political and societal changes (how often do I have to repeat that?). But the result will be the abscence of meat and straws and cars and airplanes. And the transition will be much smoother for the individual if he already learned how to not use them even while they are still available and affordable. Affordable in a solely monetary way, don't get me wrong! They are far from affordable from a ecological point of view.
By no means I want to obscure any issues or distract from them. On the contrary!
I earn less than 30K, and spent a few hundred here, a few hundred there, over the years, in renewable energy co-ops in my region. In total, my share of those installations now produces more than I consume. Our next project: charging stations for EVs, although I don't even have a car.
I don't have to have my own panels or windmills or chargers.
Yes, ballot box. Of course ballot box! And at least new combustion engine cars, for example, will be a thing of the past in a few years, here in Europe, thanks to ballot box. But I don't want people to buy a Tesla. I want people to buy no car at all. And I want countries to tax the crap out of fuel for both surface and air transport. But how realistic is this ballot box solution?
We need both. Individual behaviour and ballot box.
Of course it's about getting used to things. I just picked your meat and straw examples but I know there are bigger and more substantial issues. Don't underestimate the damage done by meat production though: it's huge.
Transport is a biggie. Air travel will probably never be sustainable. Time to say good bye. Simply don't fly unless it's a question of life and death. Electric cars? No. Those don't address the right problems. A niche product for niche uses. Pressure for better infrastructure, better zoning, but also buy a bicycle and at least try to not drive everywhere.
And don't get me started on fashion.
There are about 327 more issues. Don't worry: I am well aware of that.
Right, but this "carbon footprint was invented by BP" argument is most often used by people who outright refuse to do their part. Yes, we do need to get angry and demand change. While at the same time reducing our own impact as much as possible.
Main reason: if our demands will someday be heard, there will no longer be any meat or plastic straws available anyway. Why not get used to living without, now?
The "final straw" in my diet: I subscribed to a "surprise bag" of 3 kg of vegetables every other week. Stuff that's too big, too crooked, too small... whatever keeps it from regular supermarket shelves. Mostly local and seasonal, always fresh and organic.
3 kilograms is quite a lot for one person when you add some pasta or rice or bread or whatever to make a complete meal.
There's hardly any room for meat left in my stomach. And I often have to find new recipes because sometimes there's stuff in this bag which I wouldn't buy otherwise.
Why has it to be either, or? We need both. Systemic and behavioural changes on all levels. And we need it now. We no longer have any time left to shift the blame back and forth! I'm getting so sick of this blame game!