The problem with concrete


The Guardian newspaper in the UK have just done a series of articles on concrete.


Not only concrete every item we consume directly or indirectly contribute to emission problems.
The only way to solve this is to consume less and use resources effectively. Sharing unused spaces etc.
But who is going to to do it?
We want others to do the job for us.


True, but also true some of us also want to do it ourselves, helping each other change. This is implicit in your comment (and in the OP) but i post to make explicit this lovely thing, this opportunity, which you point out. TY!

Also. what’s with the BBC apparently hating on grey? lol

1 Like

Who are the culprits of environmental pollution?
Many of you might think that is India and China.
It is due to the propaganda by the west.
The best way to calculate the environmental pollution is to use the world per capita income. For instance, if my income is $1000.00 per year and if I invest or donate say $250.00 per year, my contribution to environmental pollution is $750.00
Say if I donate $250.00 to sutta Central and they spent $250.00 that is their contribution to the environmental pollution.
See the following schedule to see who got the highest income to find out who are the biggest environment polluters.
So the best way to reduce environmental pollution is by reduce consumption. That is sensible investing or sensible donating of your income.
I understand that the population should be considered to calculate the total but what really matters in long run is the per capita income. Because rich people set the example and agenda for the poor.

The best way to calculate the environmental pollution is to use the world per capita income.

Can you explain, or link to an explanation? Sorry, not understanding and want to!

I assume you all are economists.
Per capita is the average income of a country.
For instance, say there are only two people in the country, persons A&B.
A’s income is $500.00 and B’s income $1000.00 the per capita is $750.00 (ie 500+1000=1500/2=750)
According to the table per capita of South Sudan is $228.00 however per capita of Luxembourg is $105863.00
Hence the average person in Luxembourg is consuming 464 times (105863/228) than a person in South Sudan. So the biggest environmental polluter is the person living in Luxembourg.

My intention with this post was to share something I learned with the video about how the production and use of cement and concrete contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Also, to share that people are trying to find a way around its complications without stopping development to allow masses to have access to minimum level of material comfort and living infrastructure
I can only but apologize if this post ends up getting hijacked by broader and unsolved climate changes challenges.



I appreciate your effort to see green gas emission at a micro level.
What I showed was how it was contributed in macro level.
I think we both have the same intention.
This problem has to be address in both macro and micro level.
It is not any means a criticism of your post but further support.

Are there alternatives to concrete which are less environmentally harmful? I blame the Romans myself. :yum:


The relationship between money-spending and environmental pollution can be variable, people who use 100 dollar to buy beef meat surely generate pollution differently from people who use 100 dollar to buy organic vegetable.
How would this variabilty accounted?

Easier to blame the dead than confront the living :yum:

Unfortunately organic vegitables take more resources. That is why they are more expensive.

And what have the Romans ever done for us? :yum:

But seriously, concrete appears to be a cheap and effective solution for many building and engineering applications, which is probably why it is ubiquitous.

1 Like

And some practical steps for us.