4 ms·

You're not wrong. I agree with you. I just see that as a better option than continuing to burn fuel in trucks that don't need it 360 days per year.

by mabbo 4y ago

kspacewalk2 4y ago
Better for whom or what? Surely not for the New York City budget, or the folks who pay for it.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Better for those folks and the budget, both of which will feel the full impact of climate change. (But I don't think a separate fleet is the answer.)
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    It’s better for the environment to build and maintain a separate fleet of occasionally-used snow plows?
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Did you read the second sentence? I mean, I know people don't read entire articles, but two sentences?
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Did you read the second sentence? You said a separate fleet is better “for the folks and the budget” of New York, and added a parenthetical clarifying that it isn’t the answer. I’m agreeing with the second sentence, that a separate fleet isn’t the answer. I’m also refuting the first point, that it’s better than the status quo.
        wolverine876 4y ago
        Not a separate fleet, just electrifying the trucks somehow would be beneficial (depending on how that's done, of course - not with coal-fired charging stations on every block). I'm just trying to include the factor of climate change, which does and will cost a ton.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - wernercd 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - KMag 4y ago
      > Might as well believe in Halley's Comet and enjoy a cool glass of koolaid. Have I just run into an Internet conspiracy theory where Halley's Comet is "what the man wants you to believe, wake up sheeple?"
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        Maybe they were joking: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11286314/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11286314/
zmgsabst 4y ago
Is that just how you feel? Or can you show the conversion saves resources even when you have to buy and maintain dozens of extra vehicles? This seems to me like you’re making a negative decision just because you find it emotionally satisfying, without any reasonable basis to believe that it improves things.
gen220 4y ago
Might the better option be a hybrid truck, which runs on electricity 90% of the time but has the capacity to use fossil fuels in situations such as these? (snow is but one example, I can imagine other exceptional circumstances where such a vehicle might need an extra boost). To balance your suggestion, the environmental cost of constructing, shipping, and maintaining a fleet of single-purpose snow plows is not close to zero.
- culi 4y ago
  Along the same line, can we modularize these trucks? Like the specific parts useful for snowplowing, can we take them off the rest of the year (less gas wasted) and add them back on only when needed

You're not wrong. I agree with you. I just see that as a better option than continuing to burn fuel in trucks that don't need it 360 days per year.

by mabbo 4y ago

You're not wrong. I agree with you. I just see that as a better option than continuing to burn fuel in trucks that don't need it 360 days per year.

kspacewalk2 4y ago

Better for whom or what? Surely not for the New York City budget, or the folks who pay for it.

wolverine876 4y ago
Better for those folks and the budget, both of which will feel the full impact of climate change. (But I don't think a separate fleet is the answer.)
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  It’s better for the environment to build and maintain a separate fleet of occasionally-used snow plows?
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Did you read the second sentence? I mean, I know people don't read entire articles, but two sentences?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Did you read the second sentence? You said a separate fleet is better “for the folks and the budget” of New York, and added a parenthetical clarifying that it isn’t the answer. I’m agreeing with the second sentence, that a separate fleet isn’t the answer. I’m also refuting the first point, that it’s better than the status quo.
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        Not a separate fleet, just electrifying the trucks somehow would be beneficial (depending on how that's done, of course - not with coal-fired charging stations on every block). I'm just trying to include the factor of climate change, which does and will cost a ton.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- wernercd 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - KMag 4y ago
    > Might as well believe in Halley's Comet and enjoy a cool glass of koolaid. Have I just run into an Internet conspiracy theory where Halley's Comet is "what the man wants you to believe, wake up sheeple?"
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      Maybe they were joking: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11286314/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11286314/

zmgsabst 4y ago

Is that just how you feel? Or can you show the conversion saves resources even when you have to buy and maintain dozens of extra vehicles? This seems to me like you’re making a negative decision just because you find it emotionally satisfying, without any reasonable basis to believe that it improves things.

gen220 4y ago

Might the better option be a hybrid truck, which runs on electricity 90% of the time but has the capacity to use fossil fuels in situations such as these? (snow is but one example, I can imagine other exceptional circumstances where such a vehicle might need an extra boost). To balance your suggestion, the environmental cost of constructing, shipping, and maintaining a fleet of single-purpose snow plows is not close to zero.

culi 4y ago
Along the same line, can we modularize these trucks? Like the specific parts useful for snowplowing, can we take them off the rest of the year (less gas wasted) and add them back on only when needed