4 ms·
> You solve problems of scale at scale. Yes. One good step would be to allow density everywhere so more people who want to live in dense environments can affor
by ryukafalz 5y ago
> You solve problems of scale at scale.
Yes. One good step would be to allow density everywhere so more people who want to live in dense environments can afford to do so. After all, there's more demand for walkable places than there are walkable places: https://cityobservatory.org/the-myth-of-revealed-preference-for-suburbs/ https://cityobservatory.org/the-myth-of-revealed-preference-...
> make it actually better, quieter, cleaner, and cheaper
Trying over here. My local government is not very amenable to this, unfortunately.
> it takes up to two hours to go a few miles by any mode of transportation
In a city that actually cares about efficiently moving people seriously, that'd be absurdly slow. It takes far less time than that to bike a few miles. Yes, most American cities don't have the infrastructure for that. Again: trying.
But all that aside:
> You don't tell people to lower their energy, you build desirable technologies that use less energy automatically, and most importantly, raise the energy consumption level that is sustainable by building more carbon-free power ASAP.
This is an important part of the solution, yes, but time is not on our side here. I think it's foolish to think that we can reduce our emissions as much as we need to while maintaining our lifestyles exactly as they are. Maybe if we'd taken the problem seriously decades ago that would have been the case, but now it's going to involve at least some level of inconvenience.
An example: it takes a long time for all the cars on the road to turn over. Even if we assume that electric cars will become massively more popular and available in the next decade, and even if we assume that 100% of the electricity to power those comes from green energy, we still wouldn't be on track to halve emissions from passenger vehicles by 2030, because a significant percentage on the vehicles on the road would still be gas powered. Some element of this is going to have to involve less driving. And that's just one source of emissions.
- int_19h 5y agoThe practical choice isn't really between more and less inconvenience. The choice is between less inconvenience and nothing being done at all. It's a political problem, not just a scientific and engineering one, and any engineering approach to solve it that is not also politically viable (which is likely to be the case for anything that significantly affects quality of life for a lot of people) is not going to happen in a democracy.
- ryukafalz 5y agoIf it's not politically viable to take the only routes we know of that can actually reduce our emissions as much as we need to, we've got a big damn problem. I'm hoping the present climate disasters are at least beginning to change people's minds.
- int_19h 5y agoReducing emissions as much as we need to is a ship that has already sailed. At this point, it's a balancing act between how much to disrupt the economy and quality of life now versus how much it will be disrupted later, when AGW fully kicks in. And it's a scale, so expect a lot of bickering about where the line ought to be drawn.