5 ms·

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Transport is by-and-large the #1 source of emissions in the US[0], the majority of which are passenger cars and trucks[1]. Reducing car dependency would be one of the largest contributors to sustainability the US (and many other nations, but likely not as much as America) could do to have an impact on climate change [0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... Pulled quote from [1]: "The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the transportation sector."

marcus_holmes 3y ago
When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil. But I do understand that changing that much public behaviour is difficult (and made more difficult by this attitude/argument). So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this. Except that if fuel prices go up, people point out that they can't afford to drive for necessary trips. And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars. So the government has to keep fuel prices low enough to make cars usable for poor people. Which means no-one gives up their cars and the oil companies carry on processing this much oil. So I don't really understand how we're going to solve this and not cook ourselves.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job or current state of living, people will accept the corporate greed. No one but Adobe was happier because Photoshop removed ownership, but people need Photoshop for their work and have to live with it. No one wanted lightbulbs that die earlier than before, but that’s all they sell. And don’t even get me started on the righteous anger felt over the fact that Apple made ewaste trendy. Also, you obviously haven’t seen how much CO2 a 10kHP engine puts out after an 8 hour shift. > So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this. I’m glad you are far away from America, because even in Europe this is a hilariously stupid idea. Sure let’s just leave a large chunk of society stranded at home with no ability to have a job, they’ll surely be happy we “saved the planet” by cutting out minor CO2 emissions while corporate greed leads to mass produced garbage. > So I don't really understand I’m not surprised, considering your radical views.
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    So what do you think the answer is?
    - kbelder 3y ago
      Slow transition to electric cars coupled with a large investment in nuclear energy.
  - gochi 3y ago
    >And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses. So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
The problem is the genuine vitriol the anti-car topic can bring out in people. The US can stand a lot of changes in public travel, i.e. it’s bullshit that I cannot take the train from one state capital to another, barring Hawaii and possibly Alaska. It’s also bullshit, however, when urbanists/“fuck car” people enter the conversation and demand we need to destroy rural and suburban living entirely. Even labeling it as anti-car is, frankly, ignorant of reality. Not even Europe is car-free, and Europe is much more dense than America. Instead of anti-car, the topic should always be pro-choice in transport, which is the real problem in the US. I also, in general, find CO2 to be a weak argument for climate change that is normally brought up as a smoke screen for big businesses like Google or Apple, who make literal tons of unrepairable ewaste, to make them appear better than they are. Which I am not saying Framework is doing, mind you, but I find it a much less interesting metric than, say, total material waste.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mh8h 3y ago
I don’t have the numbers for US wildfires this year. But the emission caused by the wildfires in Canada this year was about 2x the annual emissions generated by transportation.
- palata 3y ago
  Do you know why wildfires are increasing worldwide? ...
  - mh8h 3y ago
    Absolutely. And I'm all for reducing our environmental impact. My point is that even if we could flick a magic wand, and reduce the transportation emissions to zero overnight, we wouldn't be able to meet the long term emission goals given the trend in wildfires. Forests in Canada have been carbon positive in the past many years. It's much easier for the governments to pass regulations, and put the burden on the consumers to reduce the emissions, than do anything about wildfires. It's important to have a sense of the diminishing effects, and focus our efforts on the most important factor.
- rypskar 3y ago
  That don't compare since wildfires are releasing carbon that is part of the natural cycle while transportation is adding to the natural cycle. What is released from wildfires are soon absorbed by new forest growing where the old was
  - mh8h 3y ago
    Evidently that hasn't been the case in Canada. Forests have been a carbon source, rather than a sink, in Canada for many years now. And with the recent wildfires, the numbers are now larger than ever.
fbdab103 3y ago
Good thing my employer has mandated RTO two days a week where I continue to have exclusively remote interactions with coworkers.

marcus_holmes 3y ago

When I've pointed out to people that if they really want to be green then they should stop driving their car, I got a response along the lines of "the top ten producers of CO2 are all private companies. It's not about changing public behaviours, it's about regulating corporate behaviours". I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. If we all stopped driving cars, the oil companies are going to stop processing so much oil. But I do understand that changing that much public behaviour is difficult (and made more difficult by this attitude/argument). So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this. Except that if fuel prices go up, people point out that they can't afford to drive for necessary trips. And the transport infrastructure is all based around lots of private cars. So the government has to keep fuel prices low enough to make cars usable for poor people. Which means no-one gives up their cars and the oil companies carry on processing this much oil. So I don't really understand how we're going to solve this and not cook ourselves.

tourmalinetaco 3y ago
And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job or current state of living, people will accept the corporate greed. No one but Adobe was happier because Photoshop removed ownership, but people need Photoshop for their work and have to live with it. No one wanted lightbulbs that die earlier than before, but that’s all they sell. And don’t even get me started on the righteous anger felt over the fact that Apple made ewaste trendy. Also, you obviously haven’t seen how much CO2 a 10kHP engine puts out after an 8 hour shift. > So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this. I’m glad you are far away from America, because even in Europe this is a hilariously stupid idea. Sure let’s just leave a large chunk of society stranded at home with no ability to have a job, they’ll surely be happy we “saved the planet” by cutting out minor CO2 emissions while corporate greed leads to mass produced garbage. > So I don't really understand I’m not surprised, considering your radical views.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  So what do you think the answer is?
  - kbelder 3y ago
    Slow transition to electric cars coupled with a large investment in nuclear energy.
- gochi 3y ago
  >And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses. So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!

tourmalinetaco 3y ago

The problem is the genuine vitriol the anti-car topic can bring out in people. The US can stand a lot of changes in public travel, i.e. it’s bullshit that I cannot take the train from one state capital to another, barring Hawaii and possibly Alaska. It’s also bullshit, however, when urbanists/“fuck car” people enter the conversation and demand we need to destroy rural and suburban living entirely. Even labeling it as anti-car is, frankly, ignorant of reality. Not even Europe is car-free, and Europe is much more dense than America. Instead of anti-car, the topic should always be pro-choice in transport, which is the real problem in the US. I also, in general, find CO2 to be a weak argument for climate change that is normally brought up as a smoke screen for big businesses like Google or Apple, who make literal tons of unrepairable ewaste, to make them appear better than they are. Which I am not saying Framework is doing, mind you, but I find it a much less interesting metric than, say, total material waste.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mh8h 3y ago

I don’t have the numbers for US wildfires this year. But the emission caused by the wildfires in Canada this year was about 2x the annual emissions generated by transportation.

palata 3y ago
Do you know why wildfires are increasing worldwide? ...
- mh8h 3y ago
  Absolutely. And I'm all for reducing our environmental impact. My point is that even if we could flick a magic wand, and reduce the transportation emissions to zero overnight, we wouldn't be able to meet the long term emission goals given the trend in wildfires. Forests in Canada have been carbon positive in the past many years. It's much easier for the governments to pass regulations, and put the burden on the consumers to reduce the emissions, than do anything about wildfires. It's important to have a sense of the diminishing effects, and focus our efforts on the most important factor.
rypskar 3y ago
That don't compare since wildfires are releasing carbon that is part of the natural cycle while transportation is adding to the natural cycle. What is released from wildfires are soon absorbed by new forest growing where the old was
- mh8h 3y ago
  Evidently that hasn't been the case in Canada. Forests have been a carbon source, rather than a sink, in Canada for many years now. And with the recent wildfires, the numbers are now larger than ever.

fbdab103 3y ago

Good thing my employer has mandated RTO two days a week where I continue to have exclusively remote interactions with coworkers.