3 ms·

The real *ways (not just rails, also roads) issue is one: evolution. We start a project a day, with a certain set of needs and desires. The project takes time

by kkfx 4y ago

The real *ways (not just rails, also roads) issue is one: evolution. We start a project a day, with a certain set of needs and desires. The project takes time to be complete, let's say 10-15-20 years, at the end some parts of the network are still useful and valuable many others are not. Change them is hard, demand again more time, once done (IF done) we end up in the similar departure scenario. Society does not change that fast in general, but still do. In the past we have followed nature and people have started to follow transport networks, now with climate change, transport tech changes etc we experience issues. The sole solution is IMO: - do their best to create free networks, like privileging air and water transports who demand infra but only at their endpoints letting paths evolve much faster and simpler; - do their best to avoid LARGE infra, preferring capillar ones were surely there would be useless parts but being a small local size and much connected network any segment cost far less so both profitable ones and unprofitable ones can be operated. In the past we have seen something like this, for rails for instance: http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg http://carfree.fr/img/2015/06/sncf.jpg overall the old network worked LESS well and cost A BIT more, but the old one allow many paths from A to B so allow flexibility, the new one is far more efficient AS LONG AS transportation needs do not change. We have seen the very same issue in modern just-in-time manufacturing and we see that solutions found so far are the same: less efficiency traded for more flexibility.

dieortin 4y ago
Why would we privilege air and water transports when they're the hardest ones to electrify by far? We're in a climate emergency, and should be doing the opposite.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Every time you read general emergency "no time left", TINA, you read "someone want to impose something with an excuse". Yes climate change and that's a disaster, NOTHING we will right now will have ANY significant effect in less than 100+ years and the Green New Deal have nothing to do with the environment preservation, at least for the public and advertised parts. Air and water means flexibility, when the climate change migration happen, flood happen, permafrost melt etc so we need something that can evolve as needed depending on the kind of change, so far only air and water can. Railroads roads can't be moved quickly nor can't evolve in general beside the fact that in environmental terms are no more friendly than a plane, despite what's advertised. Similar cities can't adapt, especially dense one, we need spread people avoiding being too spread to have still economy of scale and social proximity.
  - danhor 4y ago
    > NOTHING we will right now will have ANY significant effect in less than 100+ years Where are you getting this from? Some people are estimating the lag to the maximum effect as low as ~10 years [1], with the popular consensus being ~30 years until the peak effects are reached (so probably a lot less time needed for any significant effects to be felt). If the 100+ years were true, it's very unlikely we'd be able to measure any large effects from emissions from 100+ years ago, while the average temperature have increased by 1°C [2]. In that time cumulative emissions have increased 16-fold (1920: 100 bT, 2020: 1.6 tT) so we'd be fucked without any recourse if that were true. That seems to be a sorry excuse to just say "fuck it, we'll just have to adapt when the time comes" The broad scientific consensus (ipcc) is that just continuing on like we do right now will have significant detrimental effects on humanity and that actions taking today can stop global warming by ~2040 [5]. > beside the fact that in environmental terms are no more friendly than a plane Where are you getting this from? Or are you conflating environmental impact in general and global warming impact specifically for this argument? (Which I'd also not agree with, but that's a different point). And why would cities be less able to adapt? They seem to be better suited for adapting, with more indoor spaces and less energy & resource usage. Due to the concentrated nature a lot less area has to be adapted for climate change effects (and there certainly are cities that won't exist, primarily due to sea level rise, but that's also the case for non-cities). Air travel especially suffers from noise & pollution (not the co2 kind) concerns, which is (at least in europe) stopping many airports from expanding. It's also very limited in capacity. Water has great capacity, but can only use few fixed waterways, with most inland waterways requiring a significant amount of human intervention to make them suitable. Why would a ship be more flexible in travel & destination than a railroad or trucks? I also disagree with your hypothesis about the needed flexibility on most infrastructure projects in regards to time. Most railways & highways are by now more than 40 years old (with railways usually being much older) and very few parts have been deemed useless (at least in germany), because human development is pretty fixed in place, with most population centers 40 years age still having at least a significant population now. Usually the worst issue is that capacity is quickly reached in just a few years, but that's more of a nice problem to have. Climate change will have effects on human living, but if we let it get so extreme that formerly unlivable places in the north become very livable while those built up areas that are currently used by humans become unlivable, I doubt a functional global or large distance transport network will be available or even necessary on a larger scale. And regarding the Green New Deal: Recommendations from it[3] seems to outline needed actions for emissions cuts and approaches for mitigating climate change[4] in the near term pretty well. [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/12... [2]: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_... [4]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINA... P. 27 [5]: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... P 15, P 18

by kkfx 4y ago

dieortin 4y ago

Why would we privilege air and water transports when they're the hardest ones to electrify by far? We're in a climate emergency, and should be doing the opposite.

kkfx 4y ago
Every time you read general emergency "no time left", TINA, you read "someone want to impose something with an excuse". Yes climate change and that's a disaster, NOTHING we will right now will have ANY significant effect in less than 100+ years and the Green New Deal have nothing to do with the environment preservation, at least for the public and advertised parts. Air and water means flexibility, when the climate change migration happen, flood happen, permafrost melt etc so we need something that can evolve as needed depending on the kind of change, so far only air and water can. Railroads roads can't be moved quickly nor can't evolve in general beside the fact that in environmental terms are no more friendly than a plane, despite what's advertised. Similar cities can't adapt, especially dense one, we need spread people avoiding being too spread to have still economy of scale and social proximity.
- danhor 4y ago
  > NOTHING we will right now will have ANY significant effect in less than 100+ years Where are you getting this from? Some people are estimating the lag to the maximum effect as low as ~10 years [1], with the popular consensus being ~30 years until the peak effects are reached (so probably a lot less time needed for any significant effects to be felt). If the 100+ years were true, it's very unlikely we'd be able to measure any large effects from emissions from 100+ years ago, while the average temperature have increased by 1°C [2]. In that time cumulative emissions have increased 16-fold (1920: 100 bT, 2020: 1.6 tT) so we'd be fucked without any recourse if that were true. That seems to be a sorry excuse to just say "fuck it, we'll just have to adapt when the time comes" The broad scientific consensus (ipcc) is that just continuing on like we do right now will have significant detrimental effects on humanity and that actions taking today can stop global warming by ~2040 [5]. > beside the fact that in environmental terms are no more friendly than a plane Where are you getting this from? Or are you conflating environmental impact in general and global warming impact specifically for this argument? (Which I'd also not agree with, but that's a different point). And why would cities be less able to adapt? They seem to be better suited for adapting, with more indoor spaces and less energy & resource usage. Due to the concentrated nature a lot less area has to be adapted for climate change effects (and there certainly are cities that won't exist, primarily due to sea level rise, but that's also the case for non-cities). Air travel especially suffers from noise & pollution (not the co2 kind) concerns, which is (at least in europe) stopping many airports from expanding. It's also very limited in capacity. Water has great capacity, but can only use few fixed waterways, with most inland waterways requiring a significant amount of human intervention to make them suitable. Why would a ship be more flexible in travel & destination than a railroad or trucks? I also disagree with your hypothesis about the needed flexibility on most infrastructure projects in regards to time. Most railways & highways are by now more than 40 years old (with railways usually being much older) and very few parts have been deemed useless (at least in germany), because human development is pretty fixed in place, with most population centers 40 years age still having at least a significant population now. Usually the worst issue is that capacity is quickly reached in just a few years, but that's more of a nice problem to have. Climate change will have effects on human living, but if we let it get so extreme that formerly unlivable places in the north become very livable while those built up areas that are currently used by humans become unlivable, I doubt a functional global or large distance transport network will be available or even necessary on a larger scale. And regarding the Green New Deal: Recommendations from it[3] seems to outline needed actions for emissions cuts and approaches for mitigating climate change[4] in the near term pretty well. [1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/12... [2]: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_Resolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal#Green_New_Deal_... [4]: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINA... P. 27 [5]: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6... P 15, P 18