4 ms·

Depends. Come live out west on some acreage, own a tractor, build stuff, etc. Pretty easy to end up in the place where it makes sense. All my neighbors have lar

Depends. Come live out west on some acreage, own a tractor, build stuff, etc. Pretty easy to end up in the place where it makes sense. All my neighbors have large trucks and a "legitimate" reason for them, as long as you consider living the life you want to live on the size of property you want to have, legitimate.

nicoburns 5y ago
I’m not opposed to people living the life they want to live, but I do feel like environmental concerns should be figured in, and energy usage prioritised to the areas you care most about rather than just “it doesn’t matter how much energy I use if I’m doing something I want to do”
- anonfornoreason 5y ago
  100% in agreement. Fuel should be much more expensive and should find remediation efforts as well as investigating / building out alternatives. The problem that I struggle with is that disproportionately harms poor people. I can afford to fill my tank at 10 bucks a gallon, my mom with a 35mpg Honda who commutes to her job from a suburb can’t. The real problem is energy production. So completely asinine to push for fleet electrification while base load is provided by coal and natural gas.
  - austhrow743 5y ago
    Climate change disproportionately harms poor people. Environmental degradation in general disproportionately harms poor people. Everything disproportionately harms poor people. It's practically the definition. To be poor is to have little power. So for any X you have less to bring to bear to avoid it.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > The problem that I struggle with is that disproportionately harms poor people I think the answer here is more general support for the poor. Progressive taxation, public transport, etc. That's politically difficult in the US of course. But it's surely the solution. > The real problem is energy production. That and energy consumption. IIRC the US consumes ~2x the energy per capita compared to Europe. Yes, we need greener production, but we could also do a lot by reducing consumptions.
rowanajmarshall 5y ago
Great, as long as you pay for the externalities of your choices.

nicoburns 5y ago

I’m not opposed to people living the life they want to live, but I do feel like environmental concerns should be figured in, and energy usage prioritised to the areas you care most about rather than just “it doesn’t matter how much energy I use if I’m doing something I want to do”

anonfornoreason 5y ago
100% in agreement. Fuel should be much more expensive and should find remediation efforts as well as investigating / building out alternatives. The problem that I struggle with is that disproportionately harms poor people. I can afford to fill my tank at 10 bucks a gallon, my mom with a 35mpg Honda who commutes to her job from a suburb can’t. The real problem is energy production. So completely asinine to push for fleet electrification while base load is provided by coal and natural gas.
- austhrow743 5y ago
  Climate change disproportionately harms poor people. Environmental degradation in general disproportionately harms poor people. Everything disproportionately harms poor people. It's practically the definition. To be poor is to have little power. So for any X you have less to bring to bear to avoid it.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > The problem that I struggle with is that disproportionately harms poor people I think the answer here is more general support for the poor. Progressive taxation, public transport, etc. That's politically difficult in the US of course. But it's surely the solution. > The real problem is energy production. That and energy consumption. IIRC the US consumes ~2x the energy per capita compared to Europe. Yes, we need greener production, but we could also do a lot by reducing consumptions.

rowanajmarshall 5y ago

Great, as long as you pay for the externalities of your choices.