As you have said over and over, it is about an urban zoning that does not require cars. Car centric development is not liberation, it is the continuing loss of money, time, community, loneliness, welcoming, attractive community, separation, exercise, companionship, commonly shared community spaces, walkability etc etc.
You're not making sense. Are you talking only about urban areas or suburban and rural areas as well?
And I will disagree - the ability of common folks to move around at a time of their scheduling (or emergency) from the place they are at to the location they wish to go without relying on govt and thus, having their movement controlled by Government was one of the most liberty invoking inventions of all times.
Loneliness? I am a few miles from pretty much anything or one but in a few minutes, I can be at a rousing party of my friends - without a vehicle here in the boonies, I certainly would be lonely.
Also note that I think cities are a blight on humanity for those of us that can't stand them. I lived in Boston for 7 years while in college - one of the most walkable cities in the world and I did my fair share of walking. Not because I would be constrained to do so if Lloyd gets his way with the 15-minute city (aka, wallless-prison) but because I chose to walk - and often, far more than 15 minutes. But it was crime-ridden and smelly; only outdone by NYC.
And rural areas, because of the ability to travel at one's choice and time, have SPLENDID communities and generally very (what's that Lefty word that's overabused and seldom used correctly) welcoming. Being part of a community is a CHOICE - not forced upon you simply because some urban Govt planner decides "let's constrain movement so a person HAS to interact with others" (a violation of one's Right of Association, I might add, along with its converse).
All those things you listed, Peter, are the result of CHOICES - either by you or made by Govt for you (with "for" being used in the very mandatory sense of the word). How I decide to spend my free money should NOT be your concern. Nor should the others. In that, you are part of the "community" that wishes to take my choices away from me.
The phrase containing "dead, hands, cold" comes to mind.
"And I will disagree - the ability of common folks to move around at a time of their scheduling (or emergency) from the place they are at to the location they wish to go without relying on govt and thus, having their movement controlled by Government was one of the most liberty invoking inventions of all times. " I can do this by bike for much cheaper. It's also healthier and improves my mental health. Driving does the opposite.
So you have no idea of what it is to live and work in a rural area?
Yes, the map is correct concerning density but having lived in cities before, trains and other public transportation modalities are insufficient and inefficient for that freedom of movement.
It's certainly clear that you are a believer in the "rack'em and stack'em" lifestyle, though.
I wish out here in the boonies, that we could get behind public transport. Poor rural people as a part of carbon pollution I bet are some of the worst in contributing to climate change. There is some weird thing against it and every damn body has to have a car.
Public Transportation requires population density - rural areas don't have it. That's both the demographic and economics of it.
And given where I live in a rural area, public transportation would be useless.
"There is some weird thing against it and every damn body has to have a car."
Because it doesn't work. Most rural people also haven't had their Freedom to move about bred out of them. As you are trying to intimate that you live out here in the boonies? How would you fare if you really had to rely on public transportation and an emergency arose that required immediate transport of someone or the fetching of something thing, tell us all how well public transportation would work.
I'll give you a personal example. I got a call from an out-of-her-mind daughter-in-law begging us to come get her youngest daughter IMMEDIATELY (no, I'm not getting into the back story). A 7 hour round trip drive from Central NH to Northern NH right up against the Canadian border. She doesn't drive - she developed a medical condition while she served on the USS Ronald Reagan. I was her only solution.
I left within 10 minutes of the call late in the afternoon. Got home late that night.
So I want to hear how public transportation would have "saved" the day if you had taken my F-150 from me. Go ahead, I'll wait; I'm a retired engineer and have plenty of time on my hands.
And yet majority of people live in urban areas in the US and it's a car is still the default. This has nothing to do with urban or rural, but to do with the US's transport and building policies.
"She doesn't drive - she developed a medical condition while she served on the USS Ronald Reagan. I was her only solution."
You don't see the irony of this story. Your shitty country's transport policies have resulted in her being forced to require help from you to solve them. That's what happens when you make driving the only option, it leaves out all those who can't drive. That includes all those under 17 who have no licences; they are forced to rely on their parents. Such freedom. What happens when you are too old to be able to drive safely? Do you like being stuck?
Funny how China can manage such a dense network of trains yet the apparently "advanced" US offers crap and crumbling infrastructure. It's embarrassing.
Your place of living bias is showing - are another one of those that believe that urban areas are the only living spots and that every other place needs to be "re-wild" free from the pestilence (echoing Nelson666 from Treehugger) of humans?
I did have to chuckle a bit over your 17 yro remark.
"Family should ALWAYS be the first responders." That's stupidly rigid. What if they don't have a family? How about a way that they can travel regardless of their status?
Your question is not answerable. What makes building public transit there impossible? Again, you ignore the examples of other countries which are developing theirs, like China, at a rapid rate.
A train network which isn't too extensive could connect a large percentage of the population.
Now, despite what I have been saying I am not claiming no cars should exist (although you did buy the F-150, one of the most polluting cars ever), but I am saying many cars and car journeys could be replaced. It's you who has a problem with anyone making that point and take issues with actions to get us their claiming it impedes on your freedom or other such nonsense. It's idiotic.
Don't be pendantic. Of course, some folks don't have families but those exceptions don't disprove the Rule. And "family" can also be friends as well. Or are you suggesting that "only Government can do good things" and/or "always leave it to the professionals (within govt)"?
And the rest of your answer shows your disdain for anyone not living in your preferred high density environment. But, I'll ask again - do you live in a rural area?
"only Government can do good things" and/or "always leave it to the professionals (within govt)" No. Urgh seriously you make yourself look not intelligent. I'm saying that the Government should provide a possibility for this person in case they don't have family or friends to help them in this situation. None of that stops your option. But your solution does stop people that wouldn't be able to get this help.
I also like the double standard. Your ruptured disc example can be used to attack my point but I can't point out counter examples to a general rule? Give me a break.
"And the rest of your answer shows your disdain for anyone not living in your preferred high density environment." It's not a disdain. I'm merely pointing out that since a large percentage do live in these environments, these modes could be made available for them with more relative ease. The small percentage which lives rurally doesn't stop that, yet you are using them to argue against any action that could give more options to those who do.
And yes an F-150 is a very polluting car and has nothing to do with rural living. It's a modern monstrosity that did not exist in the past and yet people lived rurally in the 20th century with far smaller cars.
Well put. There are no easy answers. Can't beat walking and biking - even e-bikes have issues.
EVs seem to be particularly vulnerable to flooding with sea water. When they burst into flames it can take 10-30,000 gallons of water to control the blaze, not 1,000 like a gas powered car.
You can't beat walking and biking IF AND ONLY IF your demand for travel falls within the distances which walking and biking allow by themselves. Public transportation in the form of buses only works on a schedule which you need to revolve YOUR schedule around to take advantage of.
All other forms of transit on an individual's time schedule and demand requires cars to make possible.
And you are assuming that ALL people like living in cities.
Sorry, I'd rather be out here where I can hear the birds warble, watch the turkeys take their short flights, the deer bounding through my yard, and other assorted animals saunter by (like bears, Tom?).
Also, they of course should have far more green space and greenery than they do (which encourages wildlife). US cities are very depressing because everything is concreted over and half the space is dedicated to parking. That's not a good city. Not all cities are the same.
Walking during a blizzard used to be fun in my 20s. Not so much anymore.
Ditto tropical downpours.
And hardly do the "walkers and bikers" fans mention the considerable amount of time it takes, especially for older people with infirmities (or having the start issues thereof).
Seeing your bio, ah you are a "libertarian" which means you want to do what YOU want regardless of the impact it has on others. Transport policy is not a personal thing, so changing it against your interests isn't the state infringing on your rights, you loser. Transport policy is also dictated by Governments. Either way, it is imposed on us.
Conservatarian, to be precise. And your bias and ignorance as to my political outlook is completely stereotypical - but I get that a lot from folks residing on the Left side of the political chasm. That's what comes from residing in a bubble.
So what do you have against old folks and the infirm? Have they no say in this
Oh yeah, transport policy is dictated to us (and not for us).
Whatever, it still includes the things I mentioned.
No, for car manufacturers mostly. Why do you think jaywalking was made illegal in the USA? How many cities were ripped in two and communities relocated to build highways for them? Why were they allowed to buy up public transit and run it to the ground so that the car was the only option? These are not things by Governments who have their citizens' interests at heart. The USA is run by corporations.
Mobility issues are very much more probable if you aren't regularly exercising. Driving everywhere rather than walking and cycling is an example of that.
No, it's not as your point is dependent on the idea that people CAN tolerate sustained exercise. Once again, you show your bias by being dismissive of the elderly and infirm who CAN'T do as you posit.
"The Automobile manufacturers say, “The personal automobile allows people to live, work and play in ways that were unimaginable a century ago.” This is true, but it is not necessarily a good thing. The manufacturers call cars a liberating technology, but it is the opposite, chaining us to a high-carbon lifestyle where we are dependent on the car for access to markets, to doctors, to jobs. As Lewis notes, we have to reimagine how we live now so that we don’t have to depend on a car for every trip."
Yep, let's live like our forefathers did during the Middle Ages - never straying more than 5 miles from "the village" (be it physical like they want to create in Vermont or virtual villages made from physical cities).
And demanding that we put up with "intermittent power" like they did then. 'Cept back then, they could chop down their own wood...
The reason why we AREN'T living, working, and playing the same way as a century ago is because today's life, work, and play are far superior to the energy-limited past available to our great-grandparents. That salient fact is largely ignored by the limited-carbon people in their discussions.
Our economies have grown **precisely** because cheap energy allowed for massive improvements in industrialization and innovation freeing us from the tedious, time-consuming nature of things like washing clothes and dishes, or cleaning of our homes—providing us the freedom to enjoy more leisurely pursuits. The idea that intermittent energy supplies PLUS a reduction in energy demanding activities is somehow going to result in an INCREASE to our current standard of living is—for lack of other words—the very definition of insanity.
Not at the rate that is happening now. Far faster than in any point of human history. You know Earth had mass extinction events also, right? So I think we want to avoid anything that could lead to that sort of thing. The rapid changing climate is because of human activity and it can be halted.
And no, it's not - but what is fact is that the enlarging urban heat islands are skewing the reported temps. And have you ever read the siting study showing where some of sensors are located? When not properly sited, the results should be thrown away - but they're not.
So you think you have unlocked the key to disprove something thousands of people dedicate their life to and that they haven't taken it into account? Pretty god damn arrogant if you ask me.
Most people aren't travelling large distances day to day. A car in these situations is a blunt instrument not necessarily always the appropriate tool. And we have transport modes (trains) that have lower carbon emissions that are suitable for long distance travel too.
And there is only ONE train rail (other then short line tourist lines) here in NH. And it loses money on every passenger. And unless you live on the Seacoast, it's useless to 95% of us that live in NH.
In fact, ALL passenger trains lose money - and do you know the single one that doesn't
Most journeys are under 6miles. Short distance. You can cycle than in 30min. Even 10miles is not that far.
"And there is only ONE train rail (other then short line tourist lines) here in NH. And it loses money on every passenger. And unless you live on the Seacoast, it's useless to 95% of us that live in NH."
Right somehow other countries have far better networks and they are sustainable. Just because the US is shit at it doesn't show it can't be made to work, they just need to actually treat it seriously.
Btw, driving is subsidised by society. Do you really think the cost of road maintenance, traffic policing, air quality and noise leading to health issues, trauma care, and so on are free?
NH's population is not evenly distributed, as are most places in the US. It's concentrated in some areas. Those ones can be linked with a train network. I am not saying that every single person needs to have a train nearby, but some kind of network linking a large percentage is possible. I don't want to hear that it's impossible in the US for seemingly no reason. It's nothing to with possibility and all to do with political will.
Rail does not have to be profitable. It is a public service. No one talks about the "profitability" of other services like education, roads, and worst of all the military. And let's not forget how much a car-focused transport policy costs society, as I mentioned elsewhere.
Pretty broad question, some history. Heatwaves aren't something you can control. Average global temperatures are going up. That is not deniable. Heatwaves and droughts make forest fires more likely with the same management.
Temps have gone up and down for eons - and we're still coming out of the last Ice Age so I'd expect them to go up. Onebig difference, though, is the size, density, and construction of our urban areas and how they skew reporting.
Yes, but not at the rate that they have been recently (as in the last 100 years). The temperature varied somewhat cyclically since the last ice age and now has shot up. And the types of life supported at those temperatures were very different and could handle it. This does not apply to the types of life we have now.
To get fewer cars we need a different land use policy, one that enables active and public transportation. Until then electric cars are a bridge solution.
I didn't because it's a stupid question. Why would any of those things change right to owning your own home? To specify, parking minimums should be much lower or non existent. It uses a lot of available space and therefore drives up the price of the property and further entrenches car dependency. Zoning laws which separate residential areas from businesses also lead to any essentials being further away, again forcing more traffic than if they were closer.
America was founded on the ideals of Freedom of Speech, Religious Expression, the Rule of Law, and the Right to Private Property.
And remember, zoning laws are created by individual municipalities by planning/zoning boards that are (at least in NH) staffed by a town's residents as volunteers. Then the town taxpayers vote on proposed changes.
So it is the people that live in a given area that make the decision of how they wish to live. You have a problem with that part of the democratic process?
As if these processes can result in nothing bad happening. One other related example is not being allowed to use your lawn how you want because they want to maintain housing prices in the area. So much for freedom.
And China is now throttling graphite and other rare earths.
We have lithium deposits here in the US (Maine and Nevada, to mention two of the biggest ones) but "environmentalists" have gotten them taken off the table.
It's the old "anvil and hammer" schtick - saying we NEED something with the right hand and then make it unavailable with the Left, thinking no one is figuring it out.
As you have said over and over, it is about an urban zoning that does not require cars. Car centric development is not liberation, it is the continuing loss of money, time, community, loneliness, welcoming, attractive community, separation, exercise, companionship, commonly shared community spaces, walkability etc etc.
You're not making sense. Are you talking only about urban areas or suburban and rural areas as well?
And I will disagree - the ability of common folks to move around at a time of their scheduling (or emergency) from the place they are at to the location they wish to go without relying on govt and thus, having their movement controlled by Government was one of the most liberty invoking inventions of all times.
Loneliness? I am a few miles from pretty much anything or one but in a few minutes, I can be at a rousing party of my friends - without a vehicle here in the boonies, I certainly would be lonely.
Also note that I think cities are a blight on humanity for those of us that can't stand them. I lived in Boston for 7 years while in college - one of the most walkable cities in the world and I did my fair share of walking. Not because I would be constrained to do so if Lloyd gets his way with the 15-minute city (aka, wallless-prison) but because I chose to walk - and often, far more than 15 minutes. But it was crime-ridden and smelly; only outdone by NYC.
And rural areas, because of the ability to travel at one's choice and time, have SPLENDID communities and generally very (what's that Lefty word that's overabused and seldom used correctly) welcoming. Being part of a community is a CHOICE - not forced upon you simply because some urban Govt planner decides "let's constrain movement so a person HAS to interact with others" (a violation of one's Right of Association, I might add, along with its converse).
All those things you listed, Peter, are the result of CHOICES - either by you or made by Govt for you (with "for" being used in the very mandatory sense of the word). How I decide to spend my free money should NOT be your concern. Nor should the others. In that, you are part of the "community" that wishes to take my choices away from me.
The phrase containing "dead, hands, cold" comes to mind.
"And I will disagree - the ability of common folks to move around at a time of their scheduling (or emergency) from the place they are at to the location they wish to go without relying on govt and thus, having their movement controlled by Government was one of the most liberty invoking inventions of all times. " I can do this by bike for much cheaper. It's also healthier and improves my mental health. Driving does the opposite.
You don't live in a rural area, do you?
No, neither do most people. And yet urban areas in the US are mostly filled with cars anyway.
So you have no idea of what it is to live and work in a rural area?
Yes, the map is correct concerning density but having lived in cities before, trains and other public transportation modalities are insufficient and inefficient for that freedom of movement.
It's certainly clear that you are a believer in the "rack'em and stack'em" lifestyle, though.
The US is not a good example of public transportation done in any way well, so the fact you have means nothing.
I wish out here in the boonies, that we could get behind public transport. Poor rural people as a part of carbon pollution I bet are some of the worst in contributing to climate change. There is some weird thing against it and every damn body has to have a car.
Public Transportation requires population density - rural areas don't have it. That's both the demographic and economics of it.
And given where I live in a rural area, public transportation would be useless.
"There is some weird thing against it and every damn body has to have a car."
Because it doesn't work. Most rural people also haven't had their Freedom to move about bred out of them. As you are trying to intimate that you live out here in the boonies? How would you fare if you really had to rely on public transportation and an emergency arose that required immediate transport of someone or the fetching of something thing, tell us all how well public transportation would work.
I'll give you a personal example. I got a call from an out-of-her-mind daughter-in-law begging us to come get her youngest daughter IMMEDIATELY (no, I'm not getting into the back story). A 7 hour round trip drive from Central NH to Northern NH right up against the Canadian border. She doesn't drive - she developed a medical condition while she served on the USS Ronald Reagan. I was her only solution.
I left within 10 minutes of the call late in the afternoon. Got home late that night.
So I want to hear how public transportation would have "saved" the day if you had taken my F-150 from me. Go ahead, I'll wait; I'm a retired engineer and have plenty of time on my hands.
And yet majority of people live in urban areas in the US and it's a car is still the default. This has nothing to do with urban or rural, but to do with the US's transport and building policies.
"She doesn't drive - she developed a medical condition while she served on the USS Ronald Reagan. I was her only solution."
You don't see the irony of this story. Your shitty country's transport policies have resulted in her being forced to require help from you to solve them. That's what happens when you make driving the only option, it leaves out all those who can't drive. That includes all those under 17 who have no licences; they are forced to rely on their parents. Such freedom. What happens when you are too old to be able to drive safely? Do you like being stuck?
Funny how China can manage such a dense network of trains yet the apparently "advanced" US offers crap and crumbling infrastructure. It's embarrassing.
And you didn't answer my question.
Family should ALWAYS be the first responders.
Your place of living bias is showing - are another one of those that believe that urban areas are the only living spots and that every other place needs to be "re-wild" free from the pestilence (echoing Nelson666 from Treehugger) of humans?
I did have to chuckle a bit over your 17 yro remark.
"Family should ALWAYS be the first responders." That's stupidly rigid. What if they don't have a family? How about a way that they can travel regardless of their status?
Your question is not answerable. What makes building public transit there impossible? Again, you ignore the examples of other countries which are developing theirs, like China, at a rapid rate.
Look at a map of the US's population density: https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/metropolitan-areas-population-density.gif
A train network which isn't too extensive could connect a large percentage of the population.
Now, despite what I have been saying I am not claiming no cars should exist (although you did buy the F-150, one of the most polluting cars ever), but I am saying many cars and car journeys could be replaced. It's you who has a problem with anyone making that point and take issues with actions to get us their claiming it impedes on your freedom or other such nonsense. It's idiotic.
Don't be pendantic. Of course, some folks don't have families but those exceptions don't disprove the Rule. And "family" can also be friends as well. Or are you suggesting that "only Government can do good things" and/or "always leave it to the professionals (within govt)"?
And the rest of your answer shows your disdain for anyone not living in your preferred high density environment. But, I'll ask again - do you live in a rural area?
"only Government can do good things" and/or "always leave it to the professionals (within govt)" No. Urgh seriously you make yourself look not intelligent. I'm saying that the Government should provide a possibility for this person in case they don't have family or friends to help them in this situation. None of that stops your option. But your solution does stop people that wouldn't be able to get this help.
I also like the double standard. Your ruptured disc example can be used to attack my point but I can't point out counter examples to a general rule? Give me a break.
"And the rest of your answer shows your disdain for anyone not living in your preferred high density environment." It's not a disdain. I'm merely pointing out that since a large percentage do live in these environments, these modes could be made available for them with more relative ease. The small percentage which lives rurally doesn't stop that, yet you are using them to argue against any action that could give more options to those who do.
And yes an F-150 is a very polluting car and has nothing to do with rural living. It's a modern monstrosity that did not exist in the past and yet people lived rurally in the 20th century with far smaller cars.
Well put. There are no easy answers. Can't beat walking and biking - even e-bikes have issues.
EVs seem to be particularly vulnerable to flooding with sea water. When they burst into flames it can take 10-30,000 gallons of water to control the blaze, not 1,000 like a gas powered car.
CTIF.org, https://www.wnem.com/2023/02/16/local-fire-departments-train-ev-fires/
You can't beat walking and biking IF AND ONLY IF your demand for travel falls within the distances which walking and biking allow by themselves. Public transportation in the form of buses only works on a schedule which you need to revolve YOUR schedule around to take advantage of.
All other forms of transit on an individual's time schedule and demand requires cars to make possible.
Most cities could be designed so that day to day things you need are close by. America's sprawl problem is entirely self inflicted. Idiotic zoning laws, and so much space wasted on parking. But, even with that, most car journeys are short in the US. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-august-13-2018-2017-nearly-60-all-vehicle-trips-were-less-six
6 miles is cyclable. 10 miles is cyclable.
And you are assuming that ALL people like living in cities.
Sorry, I'd rather be out here where I can hear the birds warble, watch the turkeys take their short flights, the deer bounding through my yard, and other assorted animals saunter by (like bears, Tom?).
I don't know about deer, but cities can have wildlife too like birds. Cities are noisy because of mostly because of cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8
Also, they of course should have far more green space and greenery than they do (which encourages wildlife). US cities are very depressing because everything is concreted over and half the space is dedicated to parking. That's not a good city. Not all cities are the same.
>> US cities are very depressing
Well, that's the second true thing you've said so far.
And along with the birds, don't forget the rats.
Walking during a blizzard used to be fun in my 20s. Not so much anymore.
Ditto tropical downpours.
And hardly do the "walkers and bikers" fans mention the considerable amount of time it takes, especially for older people with infirmities (or having the start issues thereof).
Seeing your bio, ah you are a "libertarian" which means you want to do what YOU want regardless of the impact it has on others. Transport policy is not a personal thing, so changing it against your interests isn't the state infringing on your rights, you loser. Transport policy is also dictated by Governments. Either way, it is imposed on us.
Conservatarian, to be precise. And your bias and ignorance as to my political outlook is completely stereotypical - but I get that a lot from folks residing on the Left side of the political chasm. That's what comes from residing in a bubble.
So what do you have against old folks and the infirm? Have they no say in this
Oh yeah, transport policy is dictated to us (and not for us).
Whatever, it still includes the things I mentioned.
No, for car manufacturers mostly. Why do you think jaywalking was made illegal in the USA? How many cities were ripped in two and communities relocated to build highways for them? Why were they allowed to buy up public transit and run it to the ground so that the car was the only option? These are not things by Governments who have their citizens' interests at heart. The USA is run by corporations.
>> Whatever, it still includes the things I mentioned.
Actually no, your stereotyping of a class of people is wrong.
Actually, most public transit IS Govt owned and operated. Thanks for confirming that Govt can be the source of stupidity.
Mobility issues are very much more probable if you aren't regularly exercising. Driving everywhere rather than walking and cycling is an example of that.
When one has two ruptured discs and bad knees, there's a reason why I don't get out and about the way I did in decades past.
Others are in similar circumstances.
That is completely irrelevant to my point.
No, it's not as your point is dependent on the idea that people CAN tolerate sustained exercise. Once again, you show your bias by being dismissive of the elderly and infirm who CAN'T do as you posit.
Your ideology's blinkers are too big.
Yep, BACKWARDS to the Future!
"The Automobile manufacturers say, “The personal automobile allows people to live, work and play in ways that were unimaginable a century ago.” This is true, but it is not necessarily a good thing. The manufacturers call cars a liberating technology, but it is the opposite, chaining us to a high-carbon lifestyle where we are dependent on the car for access to markets, to doctors, to jobs. As Lewis notes, we have to reimagine how we live now so that we don’t have to depend on a car for every trip."
Yep, let's live like our forefathers did during the Middle Ages - never straying more than 5 miles from "the village" (be it physical like they want to create in Vermont or virtual villages made from physical cities).
And demanding that we put up with "intermittent power" like they did then. 'Cept back then, they could chop down their own wood...
The reason why we AREN'T living, working, and playing the same way as a century ago is because today's life, work, and play are far superior to the energy-limited past available to our great-grandparents. That salient fact is largely ignored by the limited-carbon people in their discussions.
Our economies have grown **precisely** because cheap energy allowed for massive improvements in industrialization and innovation freeing us from the tedious, time-consuming nature of things like washing clothes and dishes, or cleaning of our homes—providing us the freedom to enjoy more leisurely pursuits. The idea that intermittent energy supplies PLUS a reduction in energy demanding activities is somehow going to result in an INCREASE to our current standard of living is—for lack of other words—the very definition of insanity.
That comes at a cost of climate change. Sorry that you are a total moron if you deny its existence.
The Earth's climate is constantly changing and has for eons - that is not under dispute.
BTW, did you see the Norway Statista report? What was your reaction to it?
Not at the rate that is happening now. Far faster than in any point of human history. You know Earth had mass extinction events also, right? So I think we want to avoid anything that could lead to that sort of thing. The rapid changing climate is because of human activity and it can be halted.
No it didn't.
So you haven't read the report, have you?
And no, it's not - but what is fact is that the enlarging urban heat islands are skewing the reported temps. And have you ever read the siting study showing where some of sensors are located? When not properly sited, the results should be thrown away - but they're not.
So you think you have unlocked the key to disprove something thousands of people dedicate their life to and that they haven't taken it into account? Pretty god damn arrogant if you ask me.
Most people aren't travelling large distances day to day. A car in these situations is a blunt instrument not necessarily always the appropriate tool. And we have transport modes (trains) that have lower carbon emissions that are suitable for long distance travel too.
Citation for your factoid, please.
And there is only ONE train rail (other then short line tourist lines) here in NH. And it loses money on every passenger. And unless you live on the Seacoast, it's useless to 95% of us that live in NH.
In fact, ALL passenger trains lose money - and do you know the single one that doesn't
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-march-21-2022-more-half-all-daily-trips-were-less-three-miles-2021
Most journeys are under 6miles. Short distance. You can cycle than in 30min. Even 10miles is not that far.
"And there is only ONE train rail (other then short line tourist lines) here in NH. And it loses money on every passenger. And unless you live on the Seacoast, it's useless to 95% of us that live in NH."
Right somehow other countries have far better networks and they are sustainable. Just because the US is shit at it doesn't show it can't be made to work, they just need to actually treat it seriously.
Btw, driving is subsidised by society. Do you really think the cost of road maintenance, traffic policing, air quality and noise leading to health issues, trauma care, and so on are free?
At what cost? You really think that NH population density is such that it can support running rails all over the place?
The answer is no, it isn't. That's why line after line is being turned into walking paths.
Rail is fine AND profitable for cargo but fails for passenger (with very few exceptions).
NH's population is not evenly distributed, as are most places in the US. It's concentrated in some areas. Those ones can be linked with a train network. I am not saying that every single person needs to have a train nearby, but some kind of network linking a large percentage is possible. I don't want to hear that it's impossible in the US for seemingly no reason. It's nothing to with possibility and all to do with political will.
Rail does not have to be profitable. It is a public service. No one talks about the "profitability" of other services like education, roads, and worst of all the military. And let's not forget how much a car-focused transport policy costs society, as I mentioned elsewhere.
Last time I looked (snicker), only one of those things is a Constitutional mandated ("shall") item.
Really good points. We can't fix the climate crisis with business as usual, much as we would like to think so.
Please define your sense of a crisis? Is it immediate, medium term, or a long term event?
Have you not seen all the heatwaves and fires happening in the US?
Have you studied past history? Obviously not.
Now, confer onto us your knowledge of forest management and it's role in "fires".
Pretty broad question, some history. Heatwaves aren't something you can control. Average global temperatures are going up. That is not deniable. Heatwaves and droughts make forest fires more likely with the same management.
Temps have gone up and down for eons - and we're still coming out of the last Ice Age so I'd expect them to go up. Onebig difference, though, is the size, density, and construction of our urban areas and how they skew reporting.
Yes, but not at the rate that they have been recently (as in the last 100 years). The temperature varied somewhat cyclically since the last ice age and now has shot up. And the types of life supported at those temperatures were very different and could handle it. This does not apply to the types of life we have now.
To get fewer cars we need a different land use policy, one that enables active and public transportation. Until then electric cars are a bridge solution.
And what is your projected land use policy? Does it protect the Right to Private Property?
Addressing zoning laws and parking minimums.
You failed to mention specifics - so you're just spouting talking level words at this point.
And you certainly didn't answer my second question - why was that (but I can guess)?
I didn't because it's a stupid question. Why would any of those things change right to owning your own home? To specify, parking minimums should be much lower or non existent. It uses a lot of available space and therefore drives up the price of the property and further entrenches car dependency. Zoning laws which separate residential areas from businesses also lead to any essentials being further away, again forcing more traffic than if they were closer.
America was founded on the ideals of Freedom of Speech, Religious Expression, the Rule of Law, and the Right to Private Property.
And remember, zoning laws are created by individual municipalities by planning/zoning boards that are (at least in NH) staffed by a town's residents as volunteers. Then the town taxpayers vote on proposed changes.
So it is the people that live in a given area that make the decision of how they wish to live. You have a problem with that part of the democratic process?
As if these processes can result in nothing bad happening. One other related example is not being allowed to use your lawn how you want because they want to maintain housing prices in the area. So much for freedom.
And China is now throttling graphite and other rare earths.
We have lithium deposits here in the US (Maine and Nevada, to mention two of the biggest ones) but "environmentalists" have gotten them taken off the table.
It's the old "anvil and hammer" schtick - saying we NEED something with the right hand and then make it unavailable with the Left, thinking no one is figuring it out.