That’s great, but EmperorHenry said regulation would stop 99% of emissions. I can assure you that personal vehicles and animal agriculture represent more than 1% of emissions. If we’re talking about a 20%, 50%, maybe even 70% reduction, then your argument is fine. But we need a 100% reduction in order to save the species. I’m ready for 100%, are you?
I can’t use public transit. And I don’t want to live in a 15-minute city either. I like my big rural town with tons of free space between every home. 1000 regular people driving cars isn’t even 10% of one billionaire flying in a private jet once.
Have you ever noticed how all these environmental regulations only affect us? Or how we’re the only ones looked at as being the ones who need to “cut back” on things WE like?
But billionaires and millionaires are never expected to change anything THEY do to help the environment.
I’ve also noticed that climate change isn’t nearly as bad as authoritarian, anti-free-speech assholes like Al Gore says it is. Al Gore said there wouldn’t be any ice in the polar regions by 2013, we’re 11 years past that and there’s still ice there.
I honestly don’t know if climate change is real, because half the studies are funded by oil companies and the other half of studies are funded by evil groups that want us to live in pods and eat bugs, the olde “you will own nothing and be happy” types.
I keep hearing from the latter that we’re all going to die because of climate change at whatever date they say, then we pass that time and we’re still here.
Look dude it’s awesome that you like your rural town and the big truck you probably take to grab a big mac from the nearest McDonald’s and all and there is nothing wrong with you personally liking that, but I like big cities. I like having everything I need, plenty of diverse entertainment and new friends to make, all within a 15 minute walk from me; being able to hop on a bike, tram or train to get anywhere further than that; the livelihood of living amongst other walking, talking, living, breathing humans; living amongst green spaces that people actually use and that I don’t have to personally maintain, that exist for a reason other than being a non-location that you pass through and don’t really think about on your way from a to b. I currently can’t have that at a reasonable quality without either having a damn near million dollar salary, moving several states away from my friends and family, and/ or just leaving the country altogether.
Nobody is saying towns that need cars to get around can’t exist, we are saying that walkable cities and towns are actually really good for our society and small business and the fucking tax revenue keeping your beloved money-pit suburbs and rural towns afloat. We are saying that there should be more places where humans come before cars, made available for the people that want them; just as badly as you want your free space between every home; rather than owning a home and a car in a bleak patchwork of corn fields, manicured bluegrass, and crumbling asphalt being the only real option for the vast majority of the country.
Heck, I’m honestly not even asking for big cities or any crazy amount of density. Americans have a hard time conceptualizing this before they travel and see it for themselves, god knows I did, but I’m not talking Manhattan. Literally just take any historical district of 1-over-1 or 3-over-1 mixed-use buildings in an American town (usually all that remains is a single block but they do still dot the country and are beloved places of commerce and leisure), expand that by a radius of 10 or so blocks, slap a tram, a couple buses, plenty of bike lanes, and a pedestrian-only zone or two in the middle of it, and boom you have yourself the lively and functional cross between a suburban town and a densely populated city that worked in America long before everyone was convinced they needed a car, and has adapted well to cars in Europe.
You see, we deliberately killed our cities when we flattened huge swaths of them to build freeways, parking lots, and arterial roads through them in order for whites to move somewhere that blacks were priced and redlined out of. We cut off our nose to spite our face and as a result, a lot of the issues we see in this country today are symptomatic of that era of government subsidized suburbanization.
This is not the natural order of things, we did not get here by suburbia and rural towns with their car-dependent lifestyles simply being superior in some way to cities and moderately dense towns, and we won’t go back by forcing people out of their homes and into tenements and taking their cars away. We simply have to fix what was destroyed and give people a choice and if they want to, they will move on their own. Many of those people will likely find that a car just isn’t worth the investment anymore. I would bet my life savings that a good chunk of people would choose that over the suburban sprawl that is currently the default.
Personal vehicles and animal agriculture are responsible for way more than 30% of emissions, it would be impossible to get 70% reduction without touching them. 100% reduction is not possible, necessary, or desirable, some industry is necessary to maintain basic necessities.
I think what you’re trying to say is that it’s necessary to address personal vehicles and animal agriculture to adequately address climate change, which is true and valid. But the way you’ve phrased it comes across as unreasonable.
I’m not NT but maybe I can give some advice, constructive criticism as someone who agrees with your overall point.
I think being generous on that point backfired because it made the other changes seem less necessary. It meant being more insistent on other points, which are more subjective, like, “exactly where do you draw the line between sacrificing for the environment vs maintaining quality of life?” It’s better to be generous on questions like that while sticking to your guns on facts you can support with data.
It could also help to point out that lifestyle changes are something people can do right now, while regulations have to go through political processes with lots of money working against them.
Also I just realized you may have been referencing carbon neutrality when you say “100% reduction.” The way I (and I think others) interpreted it was not “net zero emissions” but just “zero emissions.” The planet removes some carbon naturally, so it’s ok to have some pollution, we don’t need to go back to living in mud huts or anything. The question is, where can we get the most bang for our buck in reducing overall emissions to bring us closer to net zero, and the answers are the things you mentioned.
Yeah, I meant carbon neutrality. Carbon neutrality is the first step to preventing runaway climate collapse. When we reach carbon neutrality, it’ll keep getting hotter, but the rate at which it gets hotter won’t be increasing anymore. We need to be carbon negative in order to prevent further warming.
We’re still going to need to have some emissions, like from farting, but meat and cars are easy to get rid of. Those changes actually have a negative cost, because cars and meat are already bad for reasons besides climate change. I got rid of them and it was easy and it made my life better.
I would want to get rid of meat and cars before we get rid of things like intercontinental container ships. Those ships are actually super efficient for the amount of cargo they carry, and I think intercontinental trade is an absolute necessity. The main problem with container ships is just how much disposable garbage we’re shipping and how much we’ve moved away from local industry. But intercontinental industry is definitely going to be a necessity in some ways if we want to have an advanced society. Cheeseburgers? Not so much.
That’s great, but EmperorHenry said regulation would stop 99% of emissions. I can assure you that personal vehicles and animal agriculture represent more than 1% of emissions. If we’re talking about a 20%, 50%, maybe even 70% reduction, then your argument is fine. But we need a 100% reduction in order to save the species. I’m ready for 100%, are you?
Can we hit 100% if we sacrifice annoying pedants like you?
No, because we have lower emissions than annoying car drivers like you.
I can’t use public transit. And I don’t want to live in a 15-minute city either. I like my big rural town with tons of free space between every home. 1000 regular people driving cars isn’t even 10% of one billionaire flying in a private jet once.
Have you ever noticed how all these environmental regulations only affect us? Or how we’re the only ones looked at as being the ones who need to “cut back” on things WE like?
But billionaires and millionaires are never expected to change anything THEY do to help the environment.
I’ve also noticed that climate change isn’t nearly as bad as authoritarian, anti-free-speech assholes like Al Gore says it is. Al Gore said there wouldn’t be any ice in the polar regions by 2013, we’re 11 years past that and there’s still ice there.
I honestly don’t know if climate change is real, because half the studies are funded by oil companies and the other half of studies are funded by evil groups that want us to live in pods and eat bugs, the olde “you will own nothing and be happy” types.
I keep hearing from the latter that we’re all going to die because of climate change at whatever date they say, then we pass that time and we’re still here.
Look dude it’s awesome that you like your rural town and the big truck you probably take to grab a big mac from the nearest McDonald’s and all and there is nothing wrong with you personally liking that, but I like big cities. I like having everything I need, plenty of diverse entertainment and new friends to make, all within a 15 minute walk from me; being able to hop on a bike, tram or train to get anywhere further than that; the livelihood of living amongst other walking, talking, living, breathing humans; living amongst green spaces that people actually use and that I don’t have to personally maintain, that exist for a reason other than being a non-location that you pass through and don’t really think about on your way from a to b. I currently can’t have that at a reasonable quality without either having a damn near million dollar salary, moving several states away from my friends and family, and/ or just leaving the country altogether.
Nobody is saying towns that need cars to get around can’t exist, we are saying that walkable cities and towns are actually really good for our society and small business and the fucking tax revenue keeping your beloved money-pit suburbs and rural towns afloat. We are saying that there should be more places where humans come before cars, made available for the people that want them; just as badly as you want your free space between every home; rather than owning a home and a car in a bleak patchwork of corn fields, manicured bluegrass, and crumbling asphalt being the only real option for the vast majority of the country.
Heck, I’m honestly not even asking for big cities or any crazy amount of density. Americans have a hard time conceptualizing this before they travel and see it for themselves, god knows I did, but I’m not talking Manhattan. Literally just take any historical district of 1-over-1 or 3-over-1 mixed-use buildings in an American town (usually all that remains is a single block but they do still dot the country and are beloved places of commerce and leisure), expand that by a radius of 10 or so blocks, slap a tram, a couple buses, plenty of bike lanes, and a pedestrian-only zone or two in the middle of it, and boom you have yourself the lively and functional cross between a suburban town and a densely populated city that worked in America long before everyone was convinced they needed a car, and has adapted well to cars in Europe.
You see, we deliberately killed our cities when we flattened huge swaths of them to build freeways, parking lots, and arterial roads through them in order for whites to move somewhere that blacks were priced and redlined out of. We cut off our nose to spite our face and as a result, a lot of the issues we see in this country today are symptomatic of that era of government subsidized suburbanization.
This is not the natural order of things, we did not get here by suburbia and rural towns with their car-dependent lifestyles simply being superior in some way to cities and moderately dense towns, and we won’t go back by forcing people out of their homes and into tenements and taking their cars away. We simply have to fix what was destroyed and give people a choice and if they want to, they will move on their own. Many of those people will likely find that a car just isn’t worth the investment anymore. I would bet my life savings that a good chunk of people would choose that over the suburban sprawl that is currently the default.
It’s a motorcycle actually.
Personal vehicles and animal agriculture are responsible for way more than 30% of emissions, it would be impossible to get 70% reduction without touching them. 100% reduction is not possible, necessary, or desirable, some industry is necessary to maintain basic necessities.
I think what you’re trying to say is that it’s necessary to address personal vehicles and animal agriculture to adequately address climate change, which is true and valid. But the way you’ve phrased it comes across as unreasonable.
Neurotypicals are so picky. I deliberately tell them 70% might be possible just to seem extra reasonable and concilatory, and it’s still not enough.
I’m not NT but maybe I can give some advice, constructive criticism as someone who agrees with your overall point.
I think being generous on that point backfired because it made the other changes seem less necessary. It meant being more insistent on other points, which are more subjective, like, “exactly where do you draw the line between sacrificing for the environment vs maintaining quality of life?” It’s better to be generous on questions like that while sticking to your guns on facts you can support with data.
It could also help to point out that lifestyle changes are something people can do right now, while regulations have to go through political processes with lots of money working against them.
Also I just realized you may have been referencing carbon neutrality when you say “100% reduction.” The way I (and I think others) interpreted it was not “net zero emissions” but just “zero emissions.” The planet removes some carbon naturally, so it’s ok to have some pollution, we don’t need to go back to living in mud huts or anything. The question is, where can we get the most bang for our buck in reducing overall emissions to bring us closer to net zero, and the answers are the things you mentioned.
Yeah, I meant carbon neutrality. Carbon neutrality is the first step to preventing runaway climate collapse. When we reach carbon neutrality, it’ll keep getting hotter, but the rate at which it gets hotter won’t be increasing anymore. We need to be carbon negative in order to prevent further warming.
We’re still going to need to have some emissions, like from farting, but meat and cars are easy to get rid of. Those changes actually have a negative cost, because cars and meat are already bad for reasons besides climate change. I got rid of them and it was easy and it made my life better.
I would want to get rid of meat and cars before we get rid of things like intercontinental container ships. Those ships are actually super efficient for the amount of cargo they carry, and I think intercontinental trade is an absolute necessity. The main problem with container ships is just how much disposable garbage we’re shipping and how much we’ve moved away from local industry. But intercontinental industry is definitely going to be a necessity in some ways if we want to have an advanced society. Cheeseburgers? Not so much.
Based. I’ve also cut out meat and got rid of my car (have had to rent/borrow bc reasons) and yeah I agree with you 100%.
“We can’t do 100% so why are we talking about 20%?”
We can do 100%. You pessimists need to start thinking bigger. We can do it.