45 ms·

And yet, they're not on approach to get net-zero in time. All that change and it wasn't enough. EVs are just the tiniest inconvenience to Americans over gas an

by coryrc 5y ago

And yet, they're not on approach to get net-zero in time. All that change and it wasn't enough. EVs are just the tiniest inconvenience to Americans over gas and still they won't embrace it. It's much cheaper than the other things we need to do.

bluGill 5y ago
EVs are just the tiniest bit better than gasoline engines for the environment, yet everyone pretends like the solve the problem because they don't want to be inconvenienced. If you want to make a dent in the problem you need useful mass transit everywhere. Useful is more important than everywhere - useful will get people out of their cars, while everywhere gets people driving by and ignoring it because when they last looked it wasn't useful. (best to assume once every 5 years unless someone else finds it useful and raves about it)
- coryrc 5y ago
  They won't happen in the US. Seattle has 89% single-house zoning. We just invested $54 billion in a transit system which can never carry the majority of the metro-area commuters even when it finishes in thirty years. It's too late and a dollar short. EVs are way better for the environment than gas cars while asking so little from the user. And we still won't make this tiny sacrifice.
aaomidi 5y ago
EVs are not the solution for climate change.
- coryrc 5y ago
  No one thing is. The US doesn't have the infrastructure for effective mass transit. We've shown to be incapable of running large projects: it costs far more and takes longer for projects we do -- like Sound Transit 3 or second avenue subway -- and many are given up -- CA HSR. If your plan is "US moves the population into apartments and builds mass transit for all" then you have no plan.
  - aaomidi 5y ago
    There are examples of countries getting their shit together and actually expanding mass transit. If your plan is "Let's make everyone drive EVs" you also did nothing, and fucked over poor countries while doing that. If we're going to do something, we need to do it right, which means: 1. Listen to climate scientists about what's the best way to mitigate as much as we can. 2. Mobilize every single branch of the government to respond to the realities of climate change. 3. Make the hard decisions and push companies and cities to follow them. We've done this before with the new deal. It's not hard to imagine that level of mobilization. 4. THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: Plan how you're going to minimize damages that we can't prevent, and minimize damages that are going to be caused by this "move fast" approach. Keep people on your side while making these changes. These changes should come with a quality of life improvement for most Americans. It's important to remember, climate change was NEVER an individual failing. It was systemic ignorance and failure. Which means the response to it needs to involve as many, or more gears that climate change denial did.
    - coryrc 5y ago
      I agree with what you outlined. The US is not capable of doing that. There's not the will. Literally 40%+ of voters are completely opposed.
      - aaomidi 5y ago
        > There's not the will. Literally 40%+ of voters are completely opposed. If this is a reference to either party, people who identify with either party all actually are suffering under the status quo, and would be fine with making changes if the changes also take them into account and increase their QoL. So no, I disagree, the divide is barely there and has been fabricated. I'm an anarchist, I've had successful conversations with essentially everyone on every side you can imagine. The problems are the same. Just that US has allowed media to drive a "us vs them" mentality.

by coryrc 5y ago

bluGill 5y ago

EVs are just the tiniest bit better than gasoline engines for the environment, yet everyone pretends like the solve the problem because they don't want to be inconvenienced. If you want to make a dent in the problem you need useful mass transit everywhere. Useful is more important than everywhere - useful will get people out of their cars, while everywhere gets people driving by and ignoring it because when they last looked it wasn't useful. (best to assume once every 5 years unless someone else finds it useful and raves about it)

coryrc 5y ago
They won't happen in the US. Seattle has 89% single-house zoning. We just invested $54 billion in a transit system which can never carry the majority of the metro-area commuters even when it finishes in thirty years. It's too late and a dollar short. EVs are way better for the environment than gas cars while asking so little from the user. And we still won't make this tiny sacrifice.

aaomidi 5y ago

EVs are not the solution for climate change.

coryrc 5y ago
No one thing is. The US doesn't have the infrastructure for effective mass transit. We've shown to be incapable of running large projects: it costs far more and takes longer for projects we do -- like Sound Transit 3 or second avenue subway -- and many are given up -- CA HSR. If your plan is "US moves the population into apartments and builds mass transit for all" then you have no plan.
- aaomidi 5y ago
  There are examples of countries getting their shit together and actually expanding mass transit. If your plan is "Let's make everyone drive EVs" you also did nothing, and fucked over poor countries while doing that. If we're going to do something, we need to do it right, which means: 1. Listen to climate scientists about what's the best way to mitigate as much as we can. 2. Mobilize every single branch of the government to respond to the realities of climate change. 3. Make the hard decisions and push companies and cities to follow them. We've done this before with the new deal. It's not hard to imagine that level of mobilization. 4. THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE: Plan how you're going to minimize damages that we can't prevent, and minimize damages that are going to be caused by this "move fast" approach. Keep people on your side while making these changes. These changes should come with a quality of life improvement for most Americans. It's important to remember, climate change was NEVER an individual failing. It was systemic ignorance and failure. Which means the response to it needs to involve as many, or more gears that climate change denial did.
  - coryrc 5y ago
    I agree with what you outlined. The US is not capable of doing that. There's not the will. Literally 40%+ of voters are completely opposed.
    - aaomidi 5y ago
      > There's not the will. Literally 40%+ of voters are completely opposed. If this is a reference to either party, people who identify with either party all actually are suffering under the status quo, and would be fine with making changes if the changes also take them into account and increase their QoL. So no, I disagree, the divide is barely there and has been fabricated. I'm an anarchist, I've had successful conversations with essentially everyone on every side you can imagine. The problems are the same. Just that US has allowed media to drive a "us vs them" mentality.