3 ms·

Honestly a “fuck carbon emissions” t-shirt is probably an easier and more direct way of communicating your membership to the “environmentalism” tribe while stil

Honestly a “fuck carbon emissions” t-shirt is probably an easier and more direct way of communicating your membership to the “environmentalism” tribe while still doing fuck-all to reduce emissions. If you actually care about the environment, then you’re doing everything in your power to promote carbon pricing or other policies that have an outsized impact beyond shallow lifestyle choices. Personal responsibility stuff plays right into fossil fuel industry’s hand—it’s all premature micro optimization. To copy another commenter, it’s arranging deck chairs on the titanic.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Using transit, walking, or cycling is promoting 'other policies that have an outsized impact beyond shallow lifestyle choices' because these modes all hage network effects. It becomes vastly easier for city planners to override idiotic traffic engineers with once a comparatively tiny threshold of people are using them. There is also a network effect in knowledge and experience. If you learn all the safe byways and tracks then it becomes immensely easier for anyone nearby who knows you to start walking, if twenty of you in an area start cycling then your local mechanic might be afford to stay in business and run an outreach event.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Using transit, walking, or cycling is promoting 'other policies that have an outsized impact beyond shallow lifestyle choices' because these modes all hage network effects. I see your point, but this isn't viable. Too many people live too far away from their workplaces, shopping centers, etc (not to mention unpleasant weather) for walking/cycling and we don't have adequate public transit networks (nor can we build them in time to meet our public transit goals). Moreover, EVs are coming in very quickly and will largely wipe out our personal transportation carbon footprint (especially as the grid transitions to clean energy) such that there's very little to be gained (environmentally speaking) from a transition to walking, cycling, and public transit (I say this as someone who wants America to be more walkable, but not at the expense of the environment). Not only is it technically unviable to build out the transit networks and otherwise reorganize our society away from cars, but it's politically unviable--apart from urban progressives, there's very little political will for public transit (many of the people who say they support increased public transit networks aren't actually going to avail themselves of them until they really become more convenient than cars for their specific transit needs).
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > Moreover, EVs are coming in very quickly and will largely wipe out our personal transportation carbon footprint (especially as the grid transitions to clean energy) such that there's very little to be gained EVs still cause massive inefficiency in infrastructure and living. They require obscene amounts of energy to make and run (just less obscene than similarly oversized ICEs). They cause local and global pollution. And they compete for resources with other, much better solutions. Direct emissions are only a tiny part of the ravages cars cause on the climate and environment. The only upside is they are so inefficient they might induce the public to buy grid storage directly. > Not only is it technically unviable to build out the transit networks and otherwise reorganize our society away from cars, Places like istanbul or toronto prove that it can be done in less time than an EV transition will take (and in toronto's case in the face of massive political opposition). The costs are commensurable with the subsidies and infrastructure required for moving from ice to ev. Getting the political will starts with not concern trolling with lies every time it comes up.
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      > EVs still cause massive inefficiency in infrastructure and living. They require obscene amounts of energy to make and run (just less obscene than similarly oversized ICEs). Maybe, but there's no sense in optimizing for those things in the midst of a climate crisis. Yes, if we could flip a switch and everyone could start cycling, that would help the climate crisis enormously, but there is no such switch and in reality it would be completely reorganizing our society which is not a viable project in the timeframe the climate demands. > They cause local and global pollution. They cause less pollution per passenger mile than the average diesel bus. > The only upside is they are so inefficient they might induce the public to buy grid storage directly. They are strictly more efficient than the status quo, and especially where it counts: miles traveled per unit carbon emission. This is the overriding concern. > Places like istanbul or toronto prove that it can be done in less time than an EV transition will take (and in toronto's case in the face of massive political opposition). Istanbul and Toronto are more densely populated than almost anywhere in the United States. Of course public transit investment works there. Moreover, they're individual small places--we're talking about public transit infrastructure for the entirety of the United States--there aren't enough public transit infrastructure firms in the world to get that done, and developing experienced people to do that work takes decades and considerable expense. > Getting the political will starts with not concern trolling with lies every time it comes up. I would say that smugness and self-righteousness from the anti-car people is the biggest obstacle to political will. I don't think the people bringing a dose of reality to the anti-car party are doing any meaningful harm.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Using transit, walking, or cycling is promoting 'other policies that have an outsized impact beyond shallow lifestyle choices' because these modes all hage network effects. It becomes vastly easier for city planners to override idiotic traffic engineers with once a comparatively tiny threshold of people are using them. There is also a network effect in knowledge and experience. If you learn all the safe byways and tracks then it becomes immensely easier for anyone nearby who knows you to start walking, if twenty of you in an area start cycling then your local mechanic might be afford to stay in business and run an outreach event.

throwaway894345 4y ago
> Using transit, walking, or cycling is promoting 'other policies that have an outsized impact beyond shallow lifestyle choices' because these modes all hage network effects. I see your point, but this isn't viable. Too many people live too far away from their workplaces, shopping centers, etc (not to mention unpleasant weather) for walking/cycling and we don't have adequate public transit networks (nor can we build them in time to meet our public transit goals). Moreover, EVs are coming in very quickly and will largely wipe out our personal transportation carbon footprint (especially as the grid transitions to clean energy) such that there's very little to be gained (environmentally speaking) from a transition to walking, cycling, and public transit (I say this as someone who wants America to be more walkable, but not at the expense of the environment). Not only is it technically unviable to build out the transit networks and otherwise reorganize our society away from cars, but it's politically unviable--apart from urban progressives, there's very little political will for public transit (many of the people who say they support increased public transit networks aren't actually going to avail themselves of them until they really become more convenient than cars for their specific transit needs).
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Moreover, EVs are coming in very quickly and will largely wipe out our personal transportation carbon footprint (especially as the grid transitions to clean energy) such that there's very little to be gained EVs still cause massive inefficiency in infrastructure and living. They require obscene amounts of energy to make and run (just less obscene than similarly oversized ICEs). They cause local and global pollution. And they compete for resources with other, much better solutions. Direct emissions are only a tiny part of the ravages cars cause on the climate and environment. The only upside is they are so inefficient they might induce the public to buy grid storage directly. > Not only is it technically unviable to build out the transit networks and otherwise reorganize our society away from cars, Places like istanbul or toronto prove that it can be done in less time than an EV transition will take (and in toronto's case in the face of massive political opposition). The costs are commensurable with the subsidies and infrastructure required for moving from ice to ev. Getting the political will starts with not concern trolling with lies every time it comes up.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > EVs still cause massive inefficiency in infrastructure and living. They require obscene amounts of energy to make and run (just less obscene than similarly oversized ICEs). Maybe, but there's no sense in optimizing for those things in the midst of a climate crisis. Yes, if we could flip a switch and everyone could start cycling, that would help the climate crisis enormously, but there is no such switch and in reality it would be completely reorganizing our society which is not a viable project in the timeframe the climate demands. > They cause local and global pollution. They cause less pollution per passenger mile than the average diesel bus. > The only upside is they are so inefficient they might induce the public to buy grid storage directly. They are strictly more efficient than the status quo, and especially where it counts: miles traveled per unit carbon emission. This is the overriding concern. > Places like istanbul or toronto prove that it can be done in less time than an EV transition will take (and in toronto's case in the face of massive political opposition). Istanbul and Toronto are more densely populated than almost anywhere in the United States. Of course public transit investment works there. Moreover, they're individual small places--we're talking about public transit infrastructure for the entirety of the United States--there aren't enough public transit infrastructure firms in the world to get that done, and developing experienced people to do that work takes decades and considerable expense. > Getting the political will starts with not concern trolling with lies every time it comes up. I would say that smugness and self-righteousness from the anti-car people is the biggest obstacle to political will. I don't think the people bringing a dose of reality to the anti-car party are doing any meaningful harm.