6 ms·

Then get yourself elected to a national level office and get to work. Usually an idealist's first set of budget or appropriation meetings is enough to cure them

Then get yourself elected to a national level office and get to work. Usually an idealist's first set of budget or appropriation meetings is enough to cure them. It sure worked for me.

jdietrich 7y ago
The average American produced 16.5 tonnes of CO2e in 2014. The average Briton produced 6.5 tonnes. British people do not live in medieval squalor, nor do they all live in bedsits in central London and travel everywhere by tube. The only thing stopping American politicians from vastly reducing CO2 emissions is the will of the electorate. The top-down political solution actually comes from the bottom-up - by persuading people to vote for candidates who support decarbonisation. You only have one president, but he was chosen for office by 62,979,636 voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
- grayed-down 7y ago
  How would America vastly reduce CO2 emissions to achieve parity with the UK? Who do we hurt first?
  - magduf 7y ago
    Well we could start by not building in the suburbs any more, and instead building more densely (this is done with zoning regulations), and raising fuel taxes as well.
    - grayed-down 7y ago
      Urban/Suburban infill development is a terrific idea. It's being accomplished at a far faster clip than a lot of people realize, but there could be better incentives at the federal level (US). Fuel taxes are pretty high already. Increasing them will hurt a lot of people very badly.
      - tombert 7y ago
        Umm, what? American fuel taxes are pretty cheap. Fuel is almost half the price here than anywhere in Europe, largely due to Europe's higher taxes on fuel. It's actually becoming a problem; our fuel taxes haven't risen as much as inflation, and our road infrastructure is funded largely by fuel taxes.
        grayed-down 7y ago
        Fuel taxes are high enough for America. It's not fair to compare the US and the EU. The EU has an extra trillion or so per year to spend on swanky infrastructure and entitlements since it doesn't have to outlay much for its own defense.
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    Tighten the CAFE standards until something other than the Ford F-150 is the world's bestselling passenger vehicle. Get rid of coal. Take some of the ~$6bn/yr that you currently spend subsidising the fossil fuel industries and deliver a package of job-creating tax credits in Wyoming and West Virginia. Do whatever it takes to remove minimum lot sizes, single-use zoning and minimum parking requirements from zoning laws. I'm sure that the Supreme Court could be persuaded to change their mind on Euclid vs Ambler. Maybe people would drive less and walk more if suburbs weren't legally required to be unwalkable. Reallocate some of the ~$20bn/yr you spend on agricultural subsidies to disincentivise cattle feedlot operations and incentivise soil sequestration. Impose gradually escalating taxes on road and domestic aviation fuel and spend the revenues on mass transit infrastructure. Offer low-income citizens a rebate.
    - grayed-down 7y ago
      You make this sound so easy. Ok, let's do it! Seriously, I agree with your end goal in the reduction of man-made CO2 emissions. I even agree, in spirit, with items 3 and 4 above. What I don't agree with is the sudden dismantling of industries and punitive taxation. I believe CO2 emissions will be cut as man's technologies and economies gradually evolve. I also believe that the Earths weather operates wholly independently of man's industrial activity at this time.
      - jdietrich 7y ago
        >You make this sound so easy. Ok, let's do it! Plenty of other countries have already done it. There's literally nothing stopping Americans from following suit if Americans decide that it's the right thing to do. >I believe CO2 emissions will be cut as man's technologies and economies gradually evolve. If the IPCC are right, that'll be far too late. They say we need ambitious action now. They could be wrong, but is that a gamble we want to take? Is it worth risking a disaster-movie scenario so that we can keep driving big trucks and prop up some industries with no future anyway? If the IPCC are right and we do nothing, how will we explain it to our grandchildren? "Sorry kids, we ruined your lives because we thought that 99.9% of scientists were wrong?". "Sorry kids, we ruined your lives because we couldn't be bothered getting the bus?". Is that how we want to be remembered?

Then get yourself elected to a national level office and get to work. Usually an idealist's first set of budget or appropriation meetings is enough to cure them. It sure worked for me.

jdietrich 7y ago

The average American produced 16.5 tonnes of CO2e in 2014. The average Briton produced 6.5 tonnes. British people do not live in medieval squalor, nor do they all live in bedsits in central London and travel everywhere by tube. The only thing stopping American politicians from vastly reducing CO2 emissions is the will of the electorate. The top-down political solution actually comes from the bottom-up - by persuading people to vote for candidates who support decarbonisation. You only have one president, but he was chosen for office by 62,979,636 voters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

grayed-down 7y ago
How would America vastly reduce CO2 emissions to achieve parity with the UK? Who do we hurt first?
- magduf 7y ago
  Well we could start by not building in the suburbs any more, and instead building more densely (this is done with zoning regulations), and raising fuel taxes as well.
  - grayed-down 7y ago
    Urban/Suburban infill development is a terrific idea. It's being accomplished at a far faster clip than a lot of people realize, but there could be better incentives at the federal level (US). Fuel taxes are pretty high already. Increasing them will hurt a lot of people very badly.
    - tombert 7y ago
      Umm, what? American fuel taxes are pretty cheap. Fuel is almost half the price here than anywhere in Europe, largely due to Europe's higher taxes on fuel. It's actually becoming a problem; our fuel taxes haven't risen as much as inflation, and our road infrastructure is funded largely by fuel taxes.
      - grayed-down 7y ago
        Fuel taxes are high enough for America. It's not fair to compare the US and the EU. The EU has an extra trillion or so per year to spend on swanky infrastructure and entitlements since it doesn't have to outlay much for its own defense.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  Tighten the CAFE standards until something other than the Ford F-150 is the world's bestselling passenger vehicle. Get rid of coal. Take some of the ~$6bn/yr that you currently spend subsidising the fossil fuel industries and deliver a package of job-creating tax credits in Wyoming and West Virginia. Do whatever it takes to remove minimum lot sizes, single-use zoning and minimum parking requirements from zoning laws. I'm sure that the Supreme Court could be persuaded to change their mind on Euclid vs Ambler. Maybe people would drive less and walk more if suburbs weren't legally required to be unwalkable. Reallocate some of the ~$20bn/yr you spend on agricultural subsidies to disincentivise cattle feedlot operations and incentivise soil sequestration. Impose gradually escalating taxes on road and domestic aviation fuel and spend the revenues on mass transit infrastructure. Offer low-income citizens a rebate.
  - grayed-down 7y ago
    You make this sound so easy. Ok, let's do it! Seriously, I agree with your end goal in the reduction of man-made CO2 emissions. I even agree, in spirit, with items 3 and 4 above. What I don't agree with is the sudden dismantling of industries and punitive taxation. I believe CO2 emissions will be cut as man's technologies and economies gradually evolve. I also believe that the Earths weather operates wholly independently of man's industrial activity at this time.
    - jdietrich 7y ago
      >You make this sound so easy. Ok, let's do it! Plenty of other countries have already done it. There's literally nothing stopping Americans from following suit if Americans decide that it's the right thing to do. >I believe CO2 emissions will be cut as man's technologies and economies gradually evolve. If the IPCC are right, that'll be far too late. They say we need ambitious action now. They could be wrong, but is that a gamble we want to take? Is it worth risking a disaster-movie scenario so that we can keep driving big trucks and prop up some industries with no future anyway? If the IPCC are right and we do nothing, how will we explain it to our grandchildren? "Sorry kids, we ruined your lives because we thought that 99.9% of scientists were wrong?". "Sorry kids, we ruined your lives because we couldn't be bothered getting the bus?". Is that how we want to be remembered?