Once again, Lloyd, you've left your context incomplete. The total population of Toronto and Montreal is 4,200,000 against your reported 1,100 deaths. That's a 0.026% - again, rounding error territory.
Yes, the obligatory that any death is a tragedy but you should not create public policy on such a minuscule number. And once again, I point out, what is the cost to achieve your end goal of no risk of anything to anyone at anytime? And that includes both the financial cost AND the political costs of running up the old truism of the 80/20 Rule.
Except you're trying to solve the 98/2 rule - tremendously more expensive. And while you are railing against the problem, what is your real world solution that is achievable? THAT I want to see (although I already know, in part, what that is after reading your posts for years now).
"As urban areas continue to grow,". This must gall you as a New Urbanist - see, it's the CITIES that are the problem! Decentralize everything - including population centers! Wouldn't you agree with me on that point?
That would be 22,000. Percentage? 0.52%. Is that sufficient to make large changes to everyone else's lives and wallets to solve that problem, Lloyd?
It would be cheaper just to buy them a home in the country and get them out of your polluted cities, and infringe on everyone else, right?
However, Lloyd, you forget one thing. The MOST important thing - to decide what is best for oneself considering all factors.
They have CHOSEN to live in that environment. They have deliberately decided that such a risk, along with all of the others that you've pointed out over the years, is acceptable to them. After all, the freedom to move is still present in Canada, n'est pa? But they've chosen not to move.
"Is that sufficient to make large changes to everyone else's lives and wallets to solve that problem, Lloyd?"
Again, you have found" the point of the needle". Many people are pushing well meaning policies without realising that in the grand scheme of things they are not important.
Even if we do make the changes they want, will they have any meaningful effect? What will be the cost of that change (I don't just mean money there).
Exactly. I foresee the Law Of Unintended Consequences at play here.
Unless these scientist modelers who predict 'x' number of deaths and 'y' number of adversely impacted disability-adjusted life years can also accurately predict remediation efforts will result in 'z' number of fewer deaths and DALY's, I'm ignoring anything they have to say.
Because life.
Because costs.
Because freedom.
Because onerous regulatory oversight by unelected bureaucrats.
Because of any number of other metrics one wishes to consider.
The take-away from these kinds of articles that are constantly pushed by climate zealots make it sound like if we just did away with fossil fuels we'd all be living pristinely healthy lives for at least 200 years. And that can't be further from the truth.
… but you're never going to have climate change pundits say otherwise, because it would undermine the entire paradigm of this redistribution scheme.
The most important of those you listed. However, we both have observed over the years, most people don't even think about losing it.
It's like that old 60s song "you don't know what you've got 'til its gone".
Again, Life is multidimensional and most militant advocates only care about THEIR issue and denigrate others who believe other things are more important than the advocate issue.
One of the reasons that it is very hard to make changes in the Aero industry, even when it is clearly a common good, is because you have to prove that your change no matter how well meaning, or apparently minor will not result in an issue or problem appearing somewhere else.
I am yet to see "activists" doing similar due diligence to the changes they push.
Spot on, Bob. Most people do NOT think in terms of systems - only in "point solutions". As in 1 thing at a time and always thinking "everything else stays status quo". While that MIGHT happen in the most trivial of trivials, most things like this aren't. Doubt me, folks?
How about the acknowledgement, finally, that forcing the maritime industry to shift to much lowered sulfinated heavy fuel oil. Sure, an "air pollutant" was reduced and the advocates were filled with joy...
...until years later (that is, just recently), it was determined that doing so actually raised global temps as the former sulfide aerosols were no no longer present to reflect sunlight back outside the atmosphere.
"Might" be? That's a hell of a supposition, Lloyd. Even if it was 20x higher, we're talking 0,523% of the population in Toronto and Montreal. The smoking population alone is roughly 205,200 out of the roughly ~3M residents in Toronto (12% over age 25 smoke.) How do we parse out the impact of UFP's generated by combustibles from that inhaled by smokers and second-hand smokers?
The short answer is: you can't. This is all a bunch of bullshit statistical manipulation done by some so-called scientist (who is, in reality, a mathematical modeler) to drum up hyperbole for useful pundits such as yourself to jump on that ballyhoo wagon and preach about how impactful this (non)issue is and how more has to be done about it—but without any discussion whatsoever about the costs associated with conversion, or proof that it will result in tangible improvements of health and longevity. It's why I no longer trust >95% of the so-called "science" put out these days, because of the crisis in reproducibility and genuine peer-review prepublication processes.
You raise a good point about the importance of context. I am constantly having to remind myself to step back and ask whether my obviously brilliant solutions to problems are truly practical. We live in a world of finite resources and therefore must as a community necessarily make tough choices about where we allocate what we have. This will inevitably bring to the surface conflicts between local, regional, national, international and global interests. There is no perfect solution but I would argue that our current system over values short term political expediency at a local/tribal level way too highly over long term human/life survival. It is admittedly often harder work and more expensive to create better solutions but on a planetary basis we direct an awful lot of resources toward things of questionable value and obvious danger to our future survival (war and cars for example). Directing more of those resources towards teaching humanity to embrace the idea that the persons across the street and in the next town and across the border and on the the other side of the planet are all members of your tribe would be a good start.
P.S. : Cities are not the problem. Designing them for the benefit of the car instead of the people living in them might be.
"Directing more...are all members of your tribe would be a good start."
No that's a rubbish idea. I don't want to be in their tribe, they don't want to be in my Tribe and neither of us want to be in your tribe.
Thats not going to change as it's built into us and at the most fundamental levels. We can recognise this and move forward for the common good. But we need to recognise that we are not all the same.
Some of the greatest blunders in policy in the last couple of decades have happened because decision makers have failed to understand this. e.g. the Russians are not Europeans and do not think like Europeans and don't want to either be or think like us.
Because we do have some things in common there can indeed be a common good but that does not mean that's its impact or cost, or implementation is common to every tribe.
Change A will have a different cost to Tribe X from Tribe Y but the impact to Tribe X may also be different from Tribe Y. Thats does not stop it being a common good.
You can have a common good without it being the same common good to every tribe. This is why the argument that we should all use only 7.5 Tons of Carbon emissions every year is so flawed. It's a common good to reduce carbon emissions but by how much and how, is different for every Tribe. Actually, I prefer herd to tribe in this context!
Agreed that the costs of life can never practically be allocated precisely evenly to each individual or even each herd (I like that term. It acknowledges our underlying similarities). They don’t need to be. I would argue that one of our noble goals as a species should be to work towards them being allocated fairly. I don’t think the current set up does that particularly well.
I would suggest you not take the 7.5 tons of carbon per person concept too literally. Think of it as a tool that helps clarify the current inequity and as a guide to help get us to a better place.
"I would suggest you not take the 7.5 tons of carbon per person concept too literally."
Except that large number of activists and commentators and policy makers are absolutely doing that. They are treating it as some sort of hard limit, set in the stone of the planet itself. As being scientifically unquestionable. If you question it, you are automatically a Very Bad Person who wants to eat babies every morning!
I agree that it is meaningless and arbitrary and just like the 1.5 C degrees and 2 C degrees targets that others similarly deem absolute targets.
How working towards ensuring there is a liveable planet for the next generations is not a common good we should be all be on board with escapes me unless you think our existence is pointless.
Nor me to be someone, or a whole flock of people, else's Keeper.
I already have my hands full being my family's Keeper - continuing to insist that I am also other peoples' Keeper is both wrong and evil of you to place that unwanted obligation upon me and others.
-Your acknowledgment that there is a common good to work toward is an admission IMHO that you already accept them and me as part of your tribe. Awesome. we are half way there. The other half just needs you and us to keep that in mind when your interests don't completely align with ours.
-Russians may not be Europeans but they are all humans. Once you get there the differences are only those we create. I would also argue that for many, if not most, the lines demarcating the differences are inconsequential.
"Your acknowledgment that there is a common good to work toward is an admission IMHO that you already accept them and me as part of your tribe."
That is not logically correct at all. We can have a common good without having a common tribe.
'Awesome. we are half way there" No we are not - I will never be in your tribe, and I will never let you be a member of mine. I will fight you if you try to change that truth.
"I would also argue that for many, if not most, the lines demarcating the differences are inconsequential."
tell that to the people of Eastern Europe - I am sure they would have a different take on the issue.
Bear in mind that the Russians are currently telling their people that Ukrainians are not really human and during the breakup of Yugoslavia one of my friends discovered that her children were being taught that croats were not really human so It did not matter if you hurt them!
I think perhaps my use of the word "tribe" is a bit loose for your liking. What I want to get at is that as humans I think we all share the same basic needs and desires. How those manifest at the smaller individual group level can vary quite a bit. We can find different solutions to the similar problems. What I think we need to avoid continuing to do is to focus on the details of those difference in unproductive ways and start acting in a way that supports the things we share.
Every war mongering person/tribe/nation since there were war mongering people/tribes/nations has attempted to characterize their enemy, perceived or real, as less than human. A certain American political party that shall go nameless routinely dehumanizes desperate people seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the US for political gain. Like war mongers, they do this because they know that if they can get people to make a divide between us and them they can convince many of them to do almost anything against that other, no matter how inhumane. It is fundamentally necessary to dehumanize the other in order for people to bear/block the psychological pain of asking them to do the inhumane things that war demands. Even after brainwashing people for a lifetime through religion or ideology and bullying/beating/ them to comply with orders without questioning those orders against their base human moral framework it still takes a deep psychological toll on most people who truly experience war. This simple reality demonstrates, imho incontrovertibly, that we innately share an understanding as humans that we are of one "tribe" and owe a duty to each other on that basis alone.
"Every war mongering person/tribe/nation since there were war mongering people/tribes/nations has attempted to characterize their enemy, perceived or real, as less than human."
And that is part and parcel of human nature - there will always be those that have no problem in plundering sheeple for their own benefit. There will ALWAYS be those among us that believe they can Rule others with impunity and history is full of such people.
And you, with your grandiose Glittering Generalities, refuse to acknowledge that fact head on; your quote even says it and then you tritely go on to try to cover that in saying:
"that we innately share an understanding as humans that we are of one "tribe" and owe a duty to each other on that basis alone. We are one "tribe". We always will be."
I'll be honest and blunt - sheer stupidity nonsense. You summed up History's truth and then tried to gloss right over it.
Arthur, you may mean well but you have just told us that you have no solution; merely saying "one tribe" doesn't make it so and you've offered no practical ways to achieve it. Until you do, I'm now finished with your kumbaya outlook because it has never worked in the real world.
Otherwise, not a single jail would exist in any country. Try solving that problem first.
"A certain American political party that shall go nameless routinely dehumanizes desperate people seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the US for political gain."
While VB already covers your statement, I'll add this.
What a coward - you can't say "Republican" outright? So that pretty much nails where you stand. Insulting them doubles down.
What you refuse to state is that the reason is one of the other philosophical Pillars of our American Constitutional Republic is The Rule of Law.
I don't care how desperate you are, your first action should be to follow our Laws. Period.
And in making us assume that anyone should be able to cross our borders without going through the legal process (like my grandparents did), you prove yourself, Arthur, in being an Open Borders kinda guy that lets the rest of us know you believe our legal system is of no account.
Tell me, how many of these desperate people have to offered entry into your home, especially those whose bald heads are full of tattoos letting everyone which "tribe" they belong to?
>>"A certain American political party that shall go nameless routinely dehumanizes desperate people seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the US for political gain."
Actually, it's for the preservation of American sovereignty that "a certain American political party" wants them kept out—because 40 million people ANNUALLY apply for green card status to the U.S. despite only having ~1 million slots open.
Which is why they come here illegally and become felons, and do not DESERVE sympathy or accommodation, because we can't take in every fucking Tom, Dick, or Julio that wants to just waltz across the border and become economic slaves of the Democrat party.
… because that's what they are. Slaves.
And just like in times of old, it's the DEMOCRAT party who wishes to keep them in slavery—just so long as they keep voting for them.
Lemme ask you, where do YOU draw the line on the number of people who should be allowed to legally enter the country? And why do we even have laws on the books outlining HOW they are to apply to enter the country if Democrats are hellbent on ignoring them, only to resort to puerile, idiotic pathos arguments of "they just want to try to improve their lives"?
To that I'd say, "No shit, Charlie—so fight for improving your own country instead of coming here and fucking ours up by failing to assimilate or respect the rule of law." That's why Africa and Central and Southern America have not developed the way Western nations have—because corruption is so deeply entrenched in their societies that they just accept it as how life ought to be.
You pinch off a turd in an Olympic pool, you've fouled the entire thing and need to sanitize it to make it safe for everyone who uses it; you add clean water to a pool full of shit and it does no good. Only emptying it entirely and sanitizing it will get it to where it's safe for all who want to swim; the same applies to who we allow into our borders, regardless of the sob story they talk about to gain entry.
>>"Directing more of those resources towards teaching humanity to embrace the idea that the persons across the street and in the next town and across the border and on the the other side of the planet are all members of your tribe would be a good start."
… which is noble as an ideological goal, but ultimately not practical. My neighbor doesn't pay the taxes on my house or property; the starving kid overseas isn't going to be fed if I don't finish eating my pork-fried rice tonight. It's why we have international trade, to more equally spread out producers and consumers, and the best things to share are education, innovation, and economic development for each member of the global tribe and hope it improves their lot in life. But it's not **MY** responsibility to ensure **THEY** act like I want them to do—which is why things like war exists, because it's human nature, and tribalism has always been the core tenet of conflict—even within a tribe, some families are richer, stronger, or more powerful than others, so it's not even remotely like a John Lennon wet dream and never will be.
-Since when are noble ideological goals a bad thing, even if not immediately attainable. Should it not be our base line objective to work incrementally toward such goals. Surely you can at least give me that.
The idea, I would argue, is to move forward and improve, not revert to the same old habits just because they worked in the past or we are too lazy or selfish to consider alternatives. Wtf is all that grey matter and free will for if not allow us a chance to look beyond ourselves and to give us a chance to be better.
-Your neighbor, in particular the one in the overseas factory producing all the crap you consume, does in fact indirectly help pay your taxes. Every nickel we squeeze out of his hourly wage translates into more money in your pocket leaving you more to pay your taxes. The problem is we don't have anywhere left to externalize the actual costs of our insatiable appetites. We need to start getting along. Easy to dismiss doing our part. We are just a blip as individuals. Also easy to see that if we all do a bit it adds up fast. Be courageous and go first.
-I don't disagree about sharing education, innovation and economic development. Great ideas essential to building a fairer world for all.
-I agree that it is not your responsibility to ensure others act like you want them to but I think it is a collective responsibility that we all work very hard to act decently toward each other and to try to ensure that our acting like we want does not deprive others of the opportunity to the same. And yes, at least until you are the last person standing, that will mean compromise. That can be done, in part, quite indirectly by simply giving some thought to the impact on others of what you do locally and adjusting your expectations and behavior a bit
-Tribalism is indeed deeply ingrained in us and it has served us well for a long time. I don't propose trying to abandon it completely. Just expand the boundaries of the tribe. Let's demonize invading aliens instead of our neighbor. Make them the common enemy and protect earth and each other. They are about as real as the enemies we make neighbors out to be when we are feeling insecure or just are not living up to our basic responsibility to be decent human beings. If and when the aliens actually show up we can reassess and hopefully invite them into the tribe. Education about the other and shared experience with the other tends to reveal very quickly that we all need and want basically the same things. Aliens probably won't be much different. Again, why not apply all that brain power we inherited toward some loftier goals, rather than admit defeat before we really get started. Peace.
>>"-Your neighbor, in particular the one in the overseas factory producing all the crap you consume, does in fact indirectly help pay your taxes. Every nickel we squeeze out of his hourly wage translates into more money in your pocket leaving you more to pay your taxes."
That's now how international trade works.
That's not how taxation works.
That's not how commerce works.
You're proving nothing but how engrossed with your particular ideological bent you are, and expecting me to give a shit about a "neighbor" overseas has no choice but to foul their own backyard so I can have a cheap Acme widget. Only humans eat where they shit; no other animal on the planet does that, but I'm intelligent enough to know that I don't **HAVE** to eat where I shit. It's all a choice—same as our "neighbors" across the pond.
»”Should it not be our base line objective to work incrementally toward such goals.” Sure, but there are two problems (caveats) to that intention:
We are constantly told that climate change is of such an imperative that we simply do not have time to waste decoupling from fossil fuels if we are to “save the planet” by 2100. Yet most money spent on addressing the issue is on mitigating the EFFECTS of climate change, rather than ridding society of CO2. That to me says that either (a) every country on the planet is incapable of replacing fossil fuels on the timeline demanded by the UN IPCC or (b) they implicitly acknowledge that the problem is not really as dire as they claim it to be.
What is our timeline, and at what cost, should we be working to change incrementally? Many Western nations are overleveraged with debt and unfunded liabilities the likes of which the world has never seen and has no way of paying off—that can will be perpetually kicked down the road until such time as the road goes over the proverbial cliff and takes every citizen down along with it. If I can barely make ends meet on my salary, how would I afford products to lower my carbon emissions when they are expensive and represent rich people’s hubris? And if wealthy people are endlessly taxed at higher and higher rates to pay for things that lesser producers are incapable of affording, what incentive is there to keep producing at the same or greater level?
A number of former Treehugger readers have argued for the better part of a decade now that massive expansion of nuclear power is vital towards achieving net zero. Even the UN IPCC has stated that we are highly unlikely to reach necessary decarbonization goals without such nuclear expansion, as well as MASSIVE amounts of CC&S (carbon capture and storage.) Yet the whole topic of nuclear generation is not only frowned upon but vilified, and the working concepts of CC&S are of such inconsequentiality and high cost that it will never be possible to make it viable.
… which then calls into question the validity of UN IPCC projections that are wholly reliant on an unproven technology to save us, and by extension, the totality of the argument that we can or even need to reach net zero.
I hope you will agree that your disagreement with a particular approach to addressing climate change does not counter the argument that there is a need to address climate change.
Any incapacity of the developed world to meet their targets stems from a lack of political will more than any underlying inability.
Fear of change, stoked relentlessly by those with a vested interest in the status quo doesn’t help.
The idea of working together is to get over the issue of individual affordability. Progressive taxation is a pretty good tool for spreading the burden. If you are harbouring the delusion that wealthy people (really wealthy) actually produce all that wealth through their own effort I hate to burst your bubble but that is first rate nonsense.
I agree that we need to think more carefully about if and how we can use nuclear power safely to get us at least part of the way to net zero. It comes with its own baggage but it might (emphasis on might) be the lesser evil. Everyone freaked out after the Japanese meltdown and through the baby out with the bath water on that one. A mistake me thinks.
I agree that, based on the current state of knowledge, carbon capture technology will not save us. Not sure that supports your next line of thought. There is no magic fix. There is just a shitload of hard work to be done and a new understanding of the concept of sufficiency to be embraced.
"The idea of working together is to get over the issue of individual affordability. Progressive taxation is a pretty good tool for spreading the burden. If you are harbouring the delusion that wealthy people (really wealthy) actually produce all that wealth through their own effort I hate to burst your bubble but that is first rate nonsense."
And that is why I will never let you into my tribe. What you have said is that you have no problem obviating their Right to Private Property, which is one of the 4 pillars of the American philosophy of Government, in order to redistribute it for YOUR ideals.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
- How much to redo cities to fit the outlooks of both you and Lloyd given your recognition that Practicality is not always a concern?
- Yes, there are various level of "community" (an overused and abused word, IMHO) but remember that thousands of history of mankind used to being/working in/protecting small tribes is not easily erased if it is even possible. Sorry, I'm not buying to the notion of a "global citizen" as it has never worked in the past and certainly isn't going to happen any time soon (think that I, a senior white Christian male, would last long in Gaze, as a trite example that's in the news lately)?
- and who or what will "direct" those resources? And do you believe that they will truly be altruistic?
- Remember, as one climbs up the political tiers, the less influence a single ordinary person has on outcomes - or even what is being considered. Can you trust that YOUR best interests will always be taken care of? Or even one?
I can have a large effect within my family. A pretty big one in my hamlet. And in my small state of NH here in the US, I do have some "pull" on stuff as a well-known political activist. Nationally - not a chance. Globally, I don't even exist.
So no, your words about "the other side of the planet are all members of your tribe would be a good start" are a non-starter because IT ISN'T A PRACTICAL OUTLOOK and never has. Altruistic, sure, I will give you that but not even close to Venn diagram intersection of realm of reality and possibility and practicality.
- I'm rather shocked - you REALLY believe that cars are the equivalent of wars
Thanks for the detailed response. Clearly you have given this some thought.
From the top:
-A lot. But cities are "redone" to a large extent every generation already (unfortunately usually by sprawl requiring more cars so far). Plan ahead and it takes less time to make material change than we have all already taken by bickering about whether anything need be done at all.
-I make no assertion that this one will be easy. I do believe that it is, in some form or other, essential. We have failed miserably to date but we have always done so where we had an option to run away to somewhere new when there was not enough food to go around or we just couldn't get along. I think that time has past. The world may not be flat but we have hit the end edge of it and I wouldn't pin my hopes on Elon to save the day by finding us a new home.
It does not mean handing over everything to a, hopefully, altruistic dictator or cabal or retreating into ever smaller isolated tribes. It means doing things at your local level taking into account the impact on your neighbor and elsewhere and paying the true cost for what we enjoy. We (all) need to stop externalizing our costs to the "other". Hard work indeed, and it takes a lot of courage to go first. It requires us to contain/manage/control the drives built into us through millions of years of evolution and thousands of years "civilization". What greater purpose to put that bit of grey matter between or ears toward accomplishing? What better way to exercise our free will? (of course if I can't convince that you we having something approaching free will my point will be lost).
-See above. With the help of tools, that already exist and work when well employed, to facilitate organization at scale. No need for pure altruism when we face a collective existential threat and failing to save your neighbor means failing to save yourself. Tricky part is to use the free will part of us to thoughtfully override the rather loud and pushy evolution/history part.
-1.) Many single, once ordinary people have had extraordinary influence. 2.) Until you are the last person standing your best interests will in some circumstances come before those of the many (the community pays the cost with you) and in some cases they will fall behind those of the community (you bear the cost alone or with those similarly situated). Creating a civilization is about finding the right balance between those two. A fair discussion requires that we assess the costs on both sides fairly. Some level of trust will always be required.
-I agree entirely up to the word "activist". As for the rest, your individual influence may become difficult to measure with precision as you move further beyond your immediate circle but most certainly, when combined with the work of others, is real. Its not about anyone alone. It is about us. Sounds like you have the time, motivation and thoughtfulness to be quite influential. Why not aim big and direct your energy toward helping everyone while you help you, family, friends and neighbors. The two are not mutually exclusive. Perfection is not expected.
-See above. Seeing in a Chinese factory worker, or anyone outside your immediate world, a kinship with you, your brother, your sister, your son your daughter... does not obligate you to abandon those next to you in favor of those beyond but I would hope that you would allow it to instill in you a sense of moral duty to admit and attempt to lessen the costs you indirectly impose on them through caring for yourself and those close to you. I disagree regarding the Venn Diagram. We overlap on the truly important things almost completely.
-I don't thing I made any claim of a direct general equivalency between war and cars. That does not mean our continued use of them as we have in the past does not constitute an existential risk. War, might be capable of making that risk materialize in a sudden and dramatic way all on its own while the continued use of ICE's is perhaps only a contributor ( a not immaterial one I would argue even if you might have to combine it with a more general risk of fossil fuel reliance to tuck into your Pareto Principle) to us inflicting on ourselves a death by a thousand cuts. We are, IMHO, capable of doing better. Looking ahead to what we can measure with some certainty will follow from continuing to use each of them and trying to find a better alternative is a step towards doing just that.
5) "Seeing in a Chinese factory worker, or anyone outside your immediate world, a kinship with you,"
A kinship? Sorry, an altruism gone mad. My response?
My mom always chided me to finish all that was on my dinner plate: "you know, there are starving Chinese children!". So I said "name two" and that was the end of the conversation and dinner.
Again, you're trying to weld different tribes that have nothing in common.
My Mom was shell-shocked the first time I said it (and I was, to be honest, quite surprised that I actually said it out loud). After the second time, as she had no good answer, she stopped saying it.
I was, of course, given more chores around the house for a while but we both knew it was a stupid argument to have been used to make me clean my plate.
At least Mom learned something about it. Arthur, seemingly, not so much.
And no, I have no moral duty to hue to your example as it would break what you said was important to you: Free Will. Again, the ability to say yes OR no,
4) "... Its not about anyone alone. It is about us.
I totally reject that philosophy just like I reject "the Collective" and "it takes a village" because when you look under the hood, it's always about the forcing of belonging and that "belonging" leads to a Hobbesian dystopia where all Rights are demanded by the Collective and doled out on whims. After all, look at Great Britain whose newly elected "collectivists"are now threatening native Brits with jail for expressing wrongthink.
Instead, like De Tocqueville found in the mid-1800s and the Amish today, it's all about voluntary teams - individuals recognizing a problem, making it irrelevant, and then going along their merry way INDIVIDUALLY. And no one was forced to join that team - Free Will.
"Why not aim big and direct your energy toward helping everyone"
while you help you, family, friends and neighbors. The two are not mutually exclusive. Perfection is not expected.
3) "failing to save your neighbor means failing to save yourself"
Sorry, I disagree with that philosophy that turns me into someone without Free Will. After all, if I am forced to save everyone around me, hasn't Free Will been stripped from me? That others now have a claim on me before my own?
Freedom, by definition, is being able to say "yes" AS WELL as being able to say "NO!". Please do not conflate being friendly with a condition of demanded obligation. Sure, I have saved complete strangers' lives from drowning and other scenarios at risk to myself, so don't get me wrong and call me heartless when I say what I did.
2) "It requires us to contain/manage/control the drives built into us through millions of years of evolution and thousands of years "of civilization". What greater purpose to put that bit of grey matter between or ears toward accomplishing? What better way to exercise our free will? (of course if I can't convince that you we having something approaching free will my point will be lost)."
I certainly DO believe that we, as individuals, have Free Will. And that's a problem as most yelling that "we must solve XY as a Collective" will punish (and already have) attempts to exercise individual Free Will.
But if you think that you can rewire people in a few short years that took millions to develop, you've already failed. Look at just the old Soviet Union whose philosophy promised much to the proletarians if they only Collectively worked together - only to fail and the true nature of most returned. You can only "Genie bottle" basic human realities for just so long in Collectives before you get Revolutions against it (re: our American Revolution is a decent example of putting Individuals first).
"What better way to exercise our free will?"
Sorry, but when I read that, I first read "give up" instead of "exercise".
1) -A lot. But cities are "redone" to a large extent every generation already (unfortunately usually by sprawl requiring more cars so far). Plan ahead and it takes less time to make material change than we have all already taken by bickering about whether anything need be done at all.
No, they are not redone extensively every 25 years (one generation) for any medium to large city - the infrastructure is too large to redo things. MAYBE a block or two in a specific locale of that city (with that replicated in a number of areas).
Plan? Sure but I found that few planners care about what "common folk" believe to be important. And I don't think they can reliably "see" what will be important a couple generations into the future.
An excellent point GG. When dealing with numbers in this area people frequently have problems dealing with the scale of the issues.
1,100 deaths with 22k impacted is "in the noise" why are we bothered by it? One reason could be that is a harbinger of other issues. So, collecting information, like the EU is. is indeed critical.
However, though I would say a case has been made for changes due to PM2.5 the case about smaller values has still to be made.
As professor Williams said "Remember: this is an area where all numbers are large"
"One reason could be that is a harbinger of other issues."
Or it might not (perhaps, perhaps not) as there may well be other things in play here with other co-morbidities, acting either singly or in concert. Not enough information has been presented here.
"though I would say a case has been made for changes due to PM2.5 "
Perhaps. But as I pointed out as well, if one were to decentralize out of cities, the problem is most likely solved. But then THAT solution is fraught with other issues not yet addressed.
" But as I pointed out as well, if one were to decentralize out of cities"
While true that's not going to happen. We continue to make more and larger cities and that is not going to change. The agglomeration economies of cities overwhelm everything else.
e.g. Agglomeration economies refer to the economic benefits that businesses and individuals can derive from being located in close proximity to one another, typically in urban areas or cities.
"if one were to decentralize out of cities...that's not going to happen."
True and not in dispute. However, I mentioned it because if Lloyd is TRULY all about the PM2.5 in highly urbanized areas and the polluted air in them, he should be seriously considering decentralization out of the cities. Sure, there may well be some good consideration to be in a city for some.
For me, not so much. I lived in Boston for 7 years - that was more than enough.
However, too many "edumacated" and "ideologically bent" folks DO insist that on implementing "one-size-fits-all" monoculture solutions in almost every venture of human life as...
...they know better than the rest of us what is best for us...
...but never seem to be willing to ask us first. They get locked into their thinking spiral and make the rest of us miserable. They have no concern that many, if not most, of us simply just wish to be left alone.
Or, as our Declaration of Independence put it, left alone to seek our own "pursuit of Happiness".
Interestingly, the UFPs from tire and brake emissions are some of the worst offenders (Emissions Analytics says they're nearly 2000x as concentrated as combustion, especially in newer engines), and tire emissions are even worse with EVs, which are 20-30% heavier and have far more torque. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/climate-change/article284533695.html. So solving idling or tailpipe doesn't actually solve the problem -- and their antidotes: speedy, uncongested traffic, actually make EV emissions worse.
The answer is so so clearly density, walkability, lighter vehicles (i.e bikes), the smallest possible electric vehicles where a car or truck is absolutely needed, and far far far fewer VMT overall.
"and tire emissions are even worse with EVs, which are 20-30% heavier and have far more torque."
No, many EV's are no heavier that their ICE equivalents and the torque issue is irrelevant. In every way EV's are better that ICE, of the same class used in the same way. You are succumbing to Journalist BS - you need to read better sources.
"The answer is so ...far far far fewer VMT overall."
Yes, but doings so in practise is going to be far harder than many people realise.
An average ICE sedan weighs 3800 lbs. A Tesla Model S weighs 4828 lbs. That's nearly 25% more than a comparatively-sized ICE sedan.
I do not know where you get your information from, but EVs typically—not "occasionally"—weigh hundreds to thousands of pounds more than their ICE equivalent. And EV tire wear is a real problem … maybe not 2000% more particulate matter worse, but it's definitely worse because of frictional coefficients between a car's mass and its tire wear.
You have chosen a particular heavy EV there - the average EV weight is about 1800Kg or 4000lbs. So only about 200 lbs average ICE to average EV.
Which in the real world is the same.
"And EV tire wear is a real problem" Real world data is showing that EV tyres are lasting on average 25% longer that their ICE equivalents due to the effect of the dynamic breaking that EV; s do. So, I suspect you are completely wrong.
None of those are independent. They are all media articles.
They are written based on what an editor wants them to say!
I get my info from reading basic research reports.
Your first article has nothing to do with emissions from EV tyres.
Your second one says other factors May outweigh the weight factor. They quite correctly state that high performance cars get though their tyres faster. Many EV's such as the Tesla's are high performance rides so if you want to compare them you need to compare a high-performance EV with a similar high performance ICE not an average one.
Your third reference refers to emissions from all tyres nothing to do with EV vs ICE tyre use.
Initial studies for tyre emissions from EV's vs ICE only modeled weight differences. This has since be found to be a poor way of modeling as it does not take into account that the stresses of EV's tyres are different from ICE tyres, so their tyre wear patterns are different.
A similar thing happened with brake pads with initial reports stating that EV;s would wear out their brake pads faster as they weighed more - but because EV's do dynamic breaking despite the higher weight (compared with an ICE equivalently) they use their brake pads less and hence the pads actually last longer.
But again, most of these "media" reports fail because they are not comparing like with like.
Again, a lot of anger there. Not sure I follow the logic.
I do have an ideological bent but it is not inflexible in the face of reasoned argument that reveals an error in my own reasoning or facts that demand it be reconsidered. Can you say the same?
When I speak of shared needs and desires I am not trying to delve into the detailed specifics of what creates a happy place for you or any particular individual, I am talking about the fundamentals. Things like food shelter, personal security, a chance to live and be loved, an opportunity to do productive work. There is room for plenty of difference in the details.
Wow. That got angry fast. Interesting how when I suggested that an unnamed political party was actively dehumanizing their chosen other as a war monger might you assumed it was the GOP. Not sure I have the energy to engage with that kind of hostility tonight. Is that your resting state and you just get more wound up from there or did I just hit a raw nerve with the political party reference? Any chance of a civil conversation?
Overshoot is killing us. A literal plague of large primates, heretofore unimaginable. Ultrafine particles, climate change, the sixth great extinction... these are all mere side dishes to the main entree of human overshoot.
I wonder, if we could have known the costs of automobiles long ago—injuries and deaths from collisions, injuries and deaths from pollution, etc.—would we have created the modern car-centered world?
No. We wouldn't be living in the modern world, we'd be living in a version of the year 1623 where we rely on horses, oxen, and human-pulled carts for transportation of goods and services, as well as wind-powered sails on wooden boats for long, dangerous trips overseas.
In other words, we wouldn't have developed into the modern Western societies we currently love and enjoy. Hard stop.
Yes, we would, because the benefits outweigh the costs.
You sit presumably in a reasonable constructed house, warm/cool (Delete as required) typing on some sort of Internet terminal. These are the benefits of a high energy civilisation.
Once you have a high energy civilisation something like cars are inevitable. Did we botch their implementation and use. Yes, I believe firmly we did but we were 100% going to do something like that,
We still get more power from burning stuff than any other way. Thats not changing soon no matter what is said. Industry runs on burning stuff, as does travel.
We are not even 10% of the way there in practise. Have you failed to notice that our fossil fuel consumption is still rising?
… based on what, exactly? Your supposition? Great stuff.
For the record, I just slit a cock rooster's throat and let it run around the backyard, studied the blood spatter patterns, and can now definitively say we're going to suffer a very cold and snowy winter this year.
Thanks for bringing some added attention to this topic.
Our love of growing stuff and our love of burning stuff are what differentiates us from the rest of life on this planet (with perhaps an exception for a few farming ants and fire spreading birds). Our passion for these pursuits has led us, and the planet in general to the brink, and will push us over if we don't get better at both how we grow and how we burn (the planet will carry on).
The ultrafine particulates problem points again to the need to take a holistic and truly scientific approach (science for the purpose of learning, not for the purpose of obfuscating) to solving the myriad problems that our exceptional technical success as a species has spawned. By focusing on larger particle pollution and ignoring or under appreciating the impacts of processes like photochemical nucleation we risk jumping out of the pot into the fire like we have done while implementing so many of our "fixes". Approaching problems in a way that takes into account downstream impacts of any proposed solution is more complicated, hard work, more expensive and fraught with uncertainty but not doing so almost always seems to end up imposing new and often worse problems on the future. "Penny wise, pound foolish" is probably the entry under "human" in the intergalactic dictionary.
All those embracing vaping as a solution to the evils of smoking may want to pay attention here.
Do you know what produces an enormous quantity of ultrafine particles? Combusted candle wax. While smoke from a smouldering cigarette or a snuffed-out candle has a lot of mass, that's in "larger" (but still very small) particles.
Ultrafine particles can't even be detected with a typical consumer PM 2.5 meter, or any optical particle counter. A condensation particle counter will work, and hence the need for less expensive accessible technology like the open source hardware from OpenAeros.
Once again, Lloyd, you've left your context incomplete. The total population of Toronto and Montreal is 4,200,000 against your reported 1,100 deaths. That's a 0.026% - again, rounding error territory.
Yes, the obligatory that any death is a tragedy but you should not create public policy on such a minuscule number. And once again, I point out, what is the cost to achieve your end goal of no risk of anything to anyone at anytime? And that includes both the financial cost AND the political costs of running up the old truism of the 80/20 Rule.
Except you're trying to solve the 98/2 rule - tremendously more expensive. And while you are railing against the problem, what is your real world solution that is achievable? THAT I want to see (although I already know, in part, what that is after reading your posts for years now).
"As urban areas continue to grow,". This must gall you as a New Urbanist - see, it's the CITIES that are the problem! Decentralize everything - including population centers! Wouldn't you agree with me on that point?
the number of people whose quality of life is ruined might be 20 times as high.
That would be 22,000. Percentage? 0.52%. Is that sufficient to make large changes to everyone else's lives and wallets to solve that problem, Lloyd?
It would be cheaper just to buy them a home in the country and get them out of your polluted cities, and infringe on everyone else, right?
However, Lloyd, you forget one thing. The MOST important thing - to decide what is best for oneself considering all factors.
They have CHOSEN to live in that environment. They have deliberately decided that such a risk, along with all of the others that you've pointed out over the years, is acceptable to them. After all, the freedom to move is still present in Canada, n'est pa? But they've chosen not to move.
Tag, you're it!
"Is that sufficient to make large changes to everyone else's lives and wallets to solve that problem, Lloyd?"
Again, you have found" the point of the needle". Many people are pushing well meaning policies without realising that in the grand scheme of things they are not important.
Even if we do make the changes they want, will they have any meaningful effect? What will be the cost of that change (I don't just mean money there).
Will their change make something else worse?
Exactly. I foresee the Law Of Unintended Consequences at play here.
Unless these scientist modelers who predict 'x' number of deaths and 'y' number of adversely impacted disability-adjusted life years can also accurately predict remediation efforts will result in 'z' number of fewer deaths and DALY's, I'm ignoring anything they have to say.
Because life.
Because costs.
Because freedom.
Because onerous regulatory oversight by unelected bureaucrats.
Because of any number of other metrics one wishes to consider.
The take-away from these kinds of articles that are constantly pushed by climate zealots make it sound like if we just did away with fossil fuels we'd all be living pristinely healthy lives for at least 200 years. And that can't be further from the truth.
… but you're never going to have climate change pundits say otherwise, because it would undermine the entire paradigm of this redistribution scheme.
"Because freedom"
The most important of those you listed. However, we both have observed over the years, most people don't even think about losing it.
It's like that old 60s song "you don't know what you've got 'til its gone".
Again, Life is multidimensional and most militant advocates only care about THEIR issue and denigrate others who believe other things are more important than the advocate issue.
Bit harsh there but still an important point.
One of the reasons that it is very hard to make changes in the Aero industry, even when it is clearly a common good, is because you have to prove that your change no matter how well meaning, or apparently minor will not result in an issue or problem appearing somewhere else.
I am yet to see "activists" doing similar due diligence to the changes they push.
Spot on, Bob. Most people do NOT think in terms of systems - only in "point solutions". As in 1 thing at a time and always thinking "everything else stays status quo". While that MIGHT happen in the most trivial of trivials, most things like this aren't. Doubt me, folks?
How about the acknowledgement, finally, that forcing the maritime industry to shift to much lowered sulfinated heavy fuel oil. Sure, an "air pollutant" was reduced and the advocates were filled with joy...
...until years later (that is, just recently), it was determined that doing so actually raised global temps as the former sulfide aerosols were no no longer present to reflect sunlight back outside the atmosphere.
That should have read "than infringe on everyone else..."
"Might" be? That's a hell of a supposition, Lloyd. Even if it was 20x higher, we're talking 0,523% of the population in Toronto and Montreal. The smoking population alone is roughly 205,200 out of the roughly ~3M residents in Toronto (12% over age 25 smoke.) How do we parse out the impact of UFP's generated by combustibles from that inhaled by smokers and second-hand smokers?
The short answer is: you can't. This is all a bunch of bullshit statistical manipulation done by some so-called scientist (who is, in reality, a mathematical modeler) to drum up hyperbole for useful pundits such as yourself to jump on that ballyhoo wagon and preach about how impactful this (non)issue is and how more has to be done about it—but without any discussion whatsoever about the costs associated with conversion, or proof that it will result in tangible improvements of health and longevity. It's why I no longer trust >95% of the so-called "science" put out these days, because of the crisis in reproducibility and genuine peer-review prepublication processes.
You raise a good point about the importance of context. I am constantly having to remind myself to step back and ask whether my obviously brilliant solutions to problems are truly practical. We live in a world of finite resources and therefore must as a community necessarily make tough choices about where we allocate what we have. This will inevitably bring to the surface conflicts between local, regional, national, international and global interests. There is no perfect solution but I would argue that our current system over values short term political expediency at a local/tribal level way too highly over long term human/life survival. It is admittedly often harder work and more expensive to create better solutions but on a planetary basis we direct an awful lot of resources toward things of questionable value and obvious danger to our future survival (war and cars for example). Directing more of those resources towards teaching humanity to embrace the idea that the persons across the street and in the next town and across the border and on the the other side of the planet are all members of your tribe would be a good start.
P.S. : Cities are not the problem. Designing them for the benefit of the car instead of the people living in them might be.
"Directing more...are all members of your tribe would be a good start."
No that's a rubbish idea. I don't want to be in their tribe, they don't want to be in my Tribe and neither of us want to be in your tribe.
Thats not going to change as it's built into us and at the most fundamental levels. We can recognise this and move forward for the common good. But we need to recognise that we are not all the same.
Some of the greatest blunders in policy in the last couple of decades have happened because decision makers have failed to understand this. e.g. the Russians are not Europeans and do not think like Europeans and don't want to either be or think like us.
"I don't want to be in their tribe, they don't want to be in my Tribe and neither of us want to be in your tribe."
And I dryly point out that too few don't understand that because of different tribes, there CANNOT BE a common good as everyone's is different.
Change my mind.
OK, how about this.
Because we do have some things in common there can indeed be a common good but that does not mean that's its impact or cost, or implementation is common to every tribe.
Change A will have a different cost to Tribe X from Tribe Y but the impact to Tribe X may also be different from Tribe Y. Thats does not stop it being a common good.
You can have a common good without it being the same common good to every tribe. This is why the argument that we should all use only 7.5 Tons of Carbon emissions every year is so flawed. It's a common good to reduce carbon emissions but by how much and how, is different for every Tribe. Actually, I prefer herd to tribe in this context!
Agreed that the costs of life can never practically be allocated precisely evenly to each individual or even each herd (I like that term. It acknowledges our underlying similarities). They don’t need to be. I would argue that one of our noble goals as a species should be to work towards them being allocated fairly. I don’t think the current set up does that particularly well.
I would suggest you not take the 7.5 tons of carbon per person concept too literally. Think of it as a tool that helps clarify the current inequity and as a guide to help get us to a better place.
"I would suggest you not take the 7.5 tons of carbon per person concept too literally."
Except that large number of activists and commentators and policy makers are absolutely doing that. They are treating it as some sort of hard limit, set in the stone of the planet itself. As being scientifically unquestionable. If you question it, you are automatically a Very Bad Person who wants to eat babies every morning!
I agree that it is meaningless and arbitrary and just like the 1.5 C degrees and 2 C degrees targets that others similarly deem absolute targets.
OK, riddle me this - what might I have in common, ideologically, with Putin or Xi?
I hazard to guess (smirk) that the intersection on a Venn diagram is a nullity.
The phrase "common good" has been thrown around so often that the only worst abused word is "community".
You all want to be dictators?
"community" has indeed been misused - people assume it's a good thing - it can be it can also be a trap.
How working towards ensuring there is a liveable planet for the next generations is not a common good we should be all be on board with escapes me unless you think our existence is pointless.
Do you reject the idea of there being basic human rights?
There are basic Rights and our US Bill of Rights enumerates the most basic ones. However, expecting others to be my "Keeper" is not one of them.
Nor me to be someone, or a whole flock of people, else's Keeper.
I already have my hands full being my family's Keeper - continuing to insist that I am also other peoples' Keeper is both wrong and evil of you to place that unwanted obligation upon me and others.
-Your acknowledgment that there is a common good to work toward is an admission IMHO that you already accept them and me as part of your tribe. Awesome. we are half way there. The other half just needs you and us to keep that in mind when your interests don't completely align with ours.
-Russians may not be Europeans but they are all humans. Once you get there the differences are only those we create. I would also argue that for many, if not most, the lines demarcating the differences are inconsequential.
"Your acknowledgment that there is a common good to work toward is an admission IMHO that you already accept them and me as part of your tribe."
That is not logically correct at all. We can have a common good without having a common tribe.
'Awesome. we are half way there" No we are not - I will never be in your tribe, and I will never let you be a member of mine. I will fight you if you try to change that truth.
"I would also argue that for many, if not most, the lines demarcating the differences are inconsequential."
tell that to the people of Eastern Europe - I am sure they would have a different take on the issue.
Bear in mind that the Russians are currently telling their people that Ukrainians are not really human and during the breakup of Yugoslavia one of my friends discovered that her children were being taught that croats were not really human so It did not matter if you hurt them!
We are not and never will be one tribe.
I think perhaps my use of the word "tribe" is a bit loose for your liking. What I want to get at is that as humans I think we all share the same basic needs and desires. How those manifest at the smaller individual group level can vary quite a bit. We can find different solutions to the similar problems. What I think we need to avoid continuing to do is to focus on the details of those difference in unproductive ways and start acting in a way that supports the things we share.
Every war mongering person/tribe/nation since there were war mongering people/tribes/nations has attempted to characterize their enemy, perceived or real, as less than human. A certain American political party that shall go nameless routinely dehumanizes desperate people seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the US for political gain. Like war mongers, they do this because they know that if they can get people to make a divide between us and them they can convince many of them to do almost anything against that other, no matter how inhumane. It is fundamentally necessary to dehumanize the other in order for people to bear/block the psychological pain of asking them to do the inhumane things that war demands. Even after brainwashing people for a lifetime through religion or ideology and bullying/beating/ them to comply with orders without questioning those orders against their base human moral framework it still takes a deep psychological toll on most people who truly experience war. This simple reality demonstrates, imho incontrovertibly, that we innately share an understanding as humans that we are of one "tribe" and owe a duty to each other on that basis alone.
We are one "tribe". We always will be.
"Every war mongering person/tribe/nation since there were war mongering people/tribes/nations has attempted to characterize their enemy, perceived or real, as less than human."
And that is part and parcel of human nature - there will always be those that have no problem in plundering sheeple for their own benefit. There will ALWAYS be those among us that believe they can Rule others with impunity and history is full of such people.
And you, with your grandiose Glittering Generalities, refuse to acknowledge that fact head on; your quote even says it and then you tritely go on to try to cover that in saying:
"that we innately share an understanding as humans that we are of one "tribe" and owe a duty to each other on that basis alone. We are one "tribe". We always will be."
I'll be honest and blunt - sheer stupidity nonsense. You summed up History's truth and then tried to gloss right over it.
Arthur, you may mean well but you have just told us that you have no solution; merely saying "one tribe" doesn't make it so and you've offered no practical ways to achieve it. Until you do, I'm now finished with your kumbaya outlook because it has never worked in the real world.
Otherwise, not a single jail would exist in any country. Try solving that problem first.
"A certain American political party that shall go nameless routinely dehumanizes desperate people seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the US for political gain."
While VB already covers your statement, I'll add this.
What a coward - you can't say "Republican" outright? So that pretty much nails where you stand. Insulting them doubles down.
What you refuse to state is that the reason is one of the other philosophical Pillars of our American Constitutional Republic is The Rule of Law.
I don't care how desperate you are, your first action should be to follow our Laws. Period.
And in making us assume that anyone should be able to cross our borders without going through the legal process (like my grandparents did), you prove yourself, Arthur, in being an Open Borders kinda guy that lets the rest of us know you believe our legal system is of no account.
Tell me, how many of these desperate people have to offered entry into your home, especially those whose bald heads are full of tattoos letting everyone which "tribe" they belong to?
>>"A certain American political party that shall go nameless routinely dehumanizes desperate people seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the US for political gain."
Actually, it's for the preservation of American sovereignty that "a certain American political party" wants them kept out—because 40 million people ANNUALLY apply for green card status to the U.S. despite only having ~1 million slots open.
Which is why they come here illegally and become felons, and do not DESERVE sympathy or accommodation, because we can't take in every fucking Tom, Dick, or Julio that wants to just waltz across the border and become economic slaves of the Democrat party.
… because that's what they are. Slaves.
And just like in times of old, it's the DEMOCRAT party who wishes to keep them in slavery—just so long as they keep voting for them.
Lemme ask you, where do YOU draw the line on the number of people who should be allowed to legally enter the country? And why do we even have laws on the books outlining HOW they are to apply to enter the country if Democrats are hellbent on ignoring them, only to resort to puerile, idiotic pathos arguments of "they just want to try to improve their lives"?
To that I'd say, "No shit, Charlie—so fight for improving your own country instead of coming here and fucking ours up by failing to assimilate or respect the rule of law." That's why Africa and Central and Southern America have not developed the way Western nations have—because corruption is so deeply entrenched in their societies that they just accept it as how life ought to be.
You pinch off a turd in an Olympic pool, you've fouled the entire thing and need to sanitize it to make it safe for everyone who uses it; you add clean water to a pool full of shit and it does no good. Only emptying it entirely and sanitizing it will get it to where it's safe for all who want to swim; the same applies to who we allow into our borders, regardless of the sob story they talk about to gain entry.
"I think we all share the same basic needs and desires."
Nope
>>"Directing more of those resources towards teaching humanity to embrace the idea that the persons across the street and in the next town and across the border and on the the other side of the planet are all members of your tribe would be a good start."
… which is noble as an ideological goal, but ultimately not practical. My neighbor doesn't pay the taxes on my house or property; the starving kid overseas isn't going to be fed if I don't finish eating my pork-fried rice tonight. It's why we have international trade, to more equally spread out producers and consumers, and the best things to share are education, innovation, and economic development for each member of the global tribe and hope it improves their lot in life. But it's not **MY** responsibility to ensure **THEY** act like I want them to do—which is why things like war exists, because it's human nature, and tribalism has always been the core tenet of conflict—even within a tribe, some families are richer, stronger, or more powerful than others, so it's not even remotely like a John Lennon wet dream and never will be.
-Since when are noble ideological goals a bad thing, even if not immediately attainable. Should it not be our base line objective to work incrementally toward such goals. Surely you can at least give me that.
The idea, I would argue, is to move forward and improve, not revert to the same old habits just because they worked in the past or we are too lazy or selfish to consider alternatives. Wtf is all that grey matter and free will for if not allow us a chance to look beyond ourselves and to give us a chance to be better.
-Your neighbor, in particular the one in the overseas factory producing all the crap you consume, does in fact indirectly help pay your taxes. Every nickel we squeeze out of his hourly wage translates into more money in your pocket leaving you more to pay your taxes. The problem is we don't have anywhere left to externalize the actual costs of our insatiable appetites. We need to start getting along. Easy to dismiss doing our part. We are just a blip as individuals. Also easy to see that if we all do a bit it adds up fast. Be courageous and go first.
-I don't disagree about sharing education, innovation and economic development. Great ideas essential to building a fairer world for all.
-I agree that it is not your responsibility to ensure others act like you want them to but I think it is a collective responsibility that we all work very hard to act decently toward each other and to try to ensure that our acting like we want does not deprive others of the opportunity to the same. And yes, at least until you are the last person standing, that will mean compromise. That can be done, in part, quite indirectly by simply giving some thought to the impact on others of what you do locally and adjusting your expectations and behavior a bit
-Tribalism is indeed deeply ingrained in us and it has served us well for a long time. I don't propose trying to abandon it completely. Just expand the boundaries of the tribe. Let's demonize invading aliens instead of our neighbor. Make them the common enemy and protect earth and each other. They are about as real as the enemies we make neighbors out to be when we are feeling insecure or just are not living up to our basic responsibility to be decent human beings. If and when the aliens actually show up we can reassess and hopefully invite them into the tribe. Education about the other and shared experience with the other tends to reveal very quickly that we all need and want basically the same things. Aliens probably won't be much different. Again, why not apply all that brain power we inherited toward some loftier goals, rather than admit defeat before we really get started. Peace.
>>"-Your neighbor, in particular the one in the overseas factory producing all the crap you consume, does in fact indirectly help pay your taxes. Every nickel we squeeze out of his hourly wage translates into more money in your pocket leaving you more to pay your taxes."
That's now how international trade works.
That's not how taxation works.
That's not how commerce works.
You're proving nothing but how engrossed with your particular ideological bent you are, and expecting me to give a shit about a "neighbor" overseas has no choice but to foul their own backyard so I can have a cheap Acme widget. Only humans eat where they shit; no other animal on the planet does that, but I'm intelligent enough to know that I don't **HAVE** to eat where I shit. It's all a choice—same as our "neighbors" across the pond.
»”Should it not be our base line objective to work incrementally toward such goals.” Sure, but there are two problems (caveats) to that intention:
We are constantly told that climate change is of such an imperative that we simply do not have time to waste decoupling from fossil fuels if we are to “save the planet” by 2100. Yet most money spent on addressing the issue is on mitigating the EFFECTS of climate change, rather than ridding society of CO2. That to me says that either (a) every country on the planet is incapable of replacing fossil fuels on the timeline demanded by the UN IPCC or (b) they implicitly acknowledge that the problem is not really as dire as they claim it to be.
What is our timeline, and at what cost, should we be working to change incrementally? Many Western nations are overleveraged with debt and unfunded liabilities the likes of which the world has never seen and has no way of paying off—that can will be perpetually kicked down the road until such time as the road goes over the proverbial cliff and takes every citizen down along with it. If I can barely make ends meet on my salary, how would I afford products to lower my carbon emissions when they are expensive and represent rich people’s hubris? And if wealthy people are endlessly taxed at higher and higher rates to pay for things that lesser producers are incapable of affording, what incentive is there to keep producing at the same or greater level?
A number of former Treehugger readers have argued for the better part of a decade now that massive expansion of nuclear power is vital towards achieving net zero. Even the UN IPCC has stated that we are highly unlikely to reach necessary decarbonization goals without such nuclear expansion, as well as MASSIVE amounts of CC&S (carbon capture and storage.) Yet the whole topic of nuclear generation is not only frowned upon but vilified, and the working concepts of CC&S are of such inconsequentiality and high cost that it will never be possible to make it viable.
… which then calls into question the validity of UN IPCC projections that are wholly reliant on an unproven technology to save us, and by extension, the totality of the argument that we can or even need to reach net zero.
I hope you will agree that your disagreement with a particular approach to addressing climate change does not counter the argument that there is a need to address climate change.
Any incapacity of the developed world to meet their targets stems from a lack of political will more than any underlying inability.
Fear of change, stoked relentlessly by those with a vested interest in the status quo doesn’t help.
The idea of working together is to get over the issue of individual affordability. Progressive taxation is a pretty good tool for spreading the burden. If you are harbouring the delusion that wealthy people (really wealthy) actually produce all that wealth through their own effort I hate to burst your bubble but that is first rate nonsense.
I agree that we need to think more carefully about if and how we can use nuclear power safely to get us at least part of the way to net zero. It comes with its own baggage but it might (emphasis on might) be the lesser evil. Everyone freaked out after the Japanese meltdown and through the baby out with the bath water on that one. A mistake me thinks.
I agree that, based on the current state of knowledge, carbon capture technology will not save us. Not sure that supports your next line of thought. There is no magic fix. There is just a shitload of hard work to be done and a new understanding of the concept of sufficiency to be embraced.
"The idea of working together is to get over the issue of individual affordability. Progressive taxation is a pretty good tool for spreading the burden. If you are harbouring the delusion that wealthy people (really wealthy) actually produce all that wealth through their own effort I hate to burst your bubble but that is first rate nonsense."
And that is why I will never let you into my tribe. What you have said is that you have no problem obviating their Right to Private Property, which is one of the 4 pillars of the American philosophy of Government, in order to redistribute it for YOUR ideals.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Again, not my tribe.
" be our base line"
Your use of "our base line" is logically the same as "Collectivist outlook".
Already said that Collectivism is anathema to Freedom so there's no "ours" for me. Consider me out of anything that is forced.
"Your neighbor, in particular the one in the overseas factory"
No, he's not. Never will be. You analogy is a false one.
Let me put it another way.
VB and I are friendly. We also share, mostly, the same ideological framework (Conservatarian).
We are not, however, neighbors.
VB embraces social tolerance?
In reverse order, then:
- How much to redo cities to fit the outlooks of both you and Lloyd given your recognition that Practicality is not always a concern?
- Yes, there are various level of "community" (an overused and abused word, IMHO) but remember that thousands of history of mankind used to being/working in/protecting small tribes is not easily erased if it is even possible. Sorry, I'm not buying to the notion of a "global citizen" as it has never worked in the past and certainly isn't going to happen any time soon (think that I, a senior white Christian male, would last long in Gaze, as a trite example that's in the news lately)?
- and who or what will "direct" those resources? And do you believe that they will truly be altruistic?
- Remember, as one climbs up the political tiers, the less influence a single ordinary person has on outcomes - or even what is being considered. Can you trust that YOUR best interests will always be taken care of? Or even one?
I can have a large effect within my family. A pretty big one in my hamlet. And in my small state of NH here in the US, I do have some "pull" on stuff as a well-known political activist. Nationally - not a chance. Globally, I don't even exist.
So no, your words about "the other side of the planet are all members of your tribe would be a good start" are a non-starter because IT ISN'T A PRACTICAL OUTLOOK and never has. Altruistic, sure, I will give you that but not even close to Venn diagram intersection of realm of reality and possibility and practicality.
- I'm rather shocked - you REALLY believe that cars are the equivalent of wars
Thanks for the detailed response. Clearly you have given this some thought.
From the top:
-A lot. But cities are "redone" to a large extent every generation already (unfortunately usually by sprawl requiring more cars so far). Plan ahead and it takes less time to make material change than we have all already taken by bickering about whether anything need be done at all.
-I make no assertion that this one will be easy. I do believe that it is, in some form or other, essential. We have failed miserably to date but we have always done so where we had an option to run away to somewhere new when there was not enough food to go around or we just couldn't get along. I think that time has past. The world may not be flat but we have hit the end edge of it and I wouldn't pin my hopes on Elon to save the day by finding us a new home.
It does not mean handing over everything to a, hopefully, altruistic dictator or cabal or retreating into ever smaller isolated tribes. It means doing things at your local level taking into account the impact on your neighbor and elsewhere and paying the true cost for what we enjoy. We (all) need to stop externalizing our costs to the "other". Hard work indeed, and it takes a lot of courage to go first. It requires us to contain/manage/control the drives built into us through millions of years of evolution and thousands of years "civilization". What greater purpose to put that bit of grey matter between or ears toward accomplishing? What better way to exercise our free will? (of course if I can't convince that you we having something approaching free will my point will be lost).
-See above. With the help of tools, that already exist and work when well employed, to facilitate organization at scale. No need for pure altruism when we face a collective existential threat and failing to save your neighbor means failing to save yourself. Tricky part is to use the free will part of us to thoughtfully override the rather loud and pushy evolution/history part.
-1.) Many single, once ordinary people have had extraordinary influence. 2.) Until you are the last person standing your best interests will in some circumstances come before those of the many (the community pays the cost with you) and in some cases they will fall behind those of the community (you bear the cost alone or with those similarly situated). Creating a civilization is about finding the right balance between those two. A fair discussion requires that we assess the costs on both sides fairly. Some level of trust will always be required.
-I agree entirely up to the word "activist". As for the rest, your individual influence may become difficult to measure with precision as you move further beyond your immediate circle but most certainly, when combined with the work of others, is real. Its not about anyone alone. It is about us. Sounds like you have the time, motivation and thoughtfulness to be quite influential. Why not aim big and direct your energy toward helping everyone while you help you, family, friends and neighbors. The two are not mutually exclusive. Perfection is not expected.
-See above. Seeing in a Chinese factory worker, or anyone outside your immediate world, a kinship with you, your brother, your sister, your son your daughter... does not obligate you to abandon those next to you in favor of those beyond but I would hope that you would allow it to instill in you a sense of moral duty to admit and attempt to lessen the costs you indirectly impose on them through caring for yourself and those close to you. I disagree regarding the Venn Diagram. We overlap on the truly important things almost completely.
-I don't thing I made any claim of a direct general equivalency between war and cars. That does not mean our continued use of them as we have in the past does not constitute an existential risk. War, might be capable of making that risk materialize in a sudden and dramatic way all on its own while the continued use of ICE's is perhaps only a contributor ( a not immaterial one I would argue even if you might have to combine it with a more general risk of fossil fuel reliance to tuck into your Pareto Principle) to us inflicting on ourselves a death by a thousand cuts. We are, IMHO, capable of doing better. Looking ahead to what we can measure with some certainty will follow from continuing to use each of them and trying to find a better alternative is a step towards doing just that.
5) "Seeing in a Chinese factory worker, or anyone outside your immediate world, a kinship with you,"
A kinship? Sorry, an altruism gone mad. My response?
My mom always chided me to finish all that was on my dinner plate: "you know, there are starving Chinese children!". So I said "name two" and that was the end of the conversation and dinner.
Again, you're trying to weld different tribes that have nothing in common.
Mine were always African - and I never had the nerve to talk back to her or I would have been beaten.
My Mom was shell-shocked the first time I said it (and I was, to be honest, quite surprised that I actually said it out loud). After the second time, as she had no good answer, she stopped saying it.
I was, of course, given more chores around the house for a while but we both knew it was a stupid argument to have been used to make me clean my plate.
At least Mom learned something about it. Arthur, seemingly, not so much.
And no, I have no moral duty to hue to your example as it would break what you said was important to you: Free Will. Again, the ability to say yes OR no,
4) "... Its not about anyone alone. It is about us.
I totally reject that philosophy just like I reject "the Collective" and "it takes a village" because when you look under the hood, it's always about the forcing of belonging and that "belonging" leads to a Hobbesian dystopia where all Rights are demanded by the Collective and doled out on whims. After all, look at Great Britain whose newly elected "collectivists"are now threatening native Brits with jail for expressing wrongthink.
Instead, like De Tocqueville found in the mid-1800s and the Amish today, it's all about voluntary teams - individuals recognizing a problem, making it irrelevant, and then going along their merry way INDIVIDUALLY. And no one was forced to join that team - Free Will.
"Why not aim big and direct your energy toward helping everyone"
while you help you, family, friends and neighbors. The two are not mutually exclusive. Perfection is not expected.
3) "failing to save your neighbor means failing to save yourself"
Sorry, I disagree with that philosophy that turns me into someone without Free Will. After all, if I am forced to save everyone around me, hasn't Free Will been stripped from me? That others now have a claim on me before my own?
Freedom, by definition, is being able to say "yes" AS WELL as being able to say "NO!". Please do not conflate being friendly with a condition of demanded obligation. Sure, I have saved complete strangers' lives from drowning and other scenarios at risk to myself, so don't get me wrong and call me heartless when I say what I did.
2) "It requires us to contain/manage/control the drives built into us through millions of years of evolution and thousands of years "of civilization". What greater purpose to put that bit of grey matter between or ears toward accomplishing? What better way to exercise our free will? (of course if I can't convince that you we having something approaching free will my point will be lost)."
I certainly DO believe that we, as individuals, have Free Will. And that's a problem as most yelling that "we must solve XY as a Collective" will punish (and already have) attempts to exercise individual Free Will.
But if you think that you can rewire people in a few short years that took millions to develop, you've already failed. Look at just the old Soviet Union whose philosophy promised much to the proletarians if they only Collectively worked together - only to fail and the true nature of most returned. You can only "Genie bottle" basic human realities for just so long in Collectives before you get Revolutions against it (re: our American Revolution is a decent example of putting Individuals first).
"What better way to exercise our free will?"
Sorry, but when I read that, I first read "give up" instead of "exercise".
Not happening.
1) -A lot. But cities are "redone" to a large extent every generation already (unfortunately usually by sprawl requiring more cars so far). Plan ahead and it takes less time to make material change than we have all already taken by bickering about whether anything need be done at all.
No, they are not redone extensively every 25 years (one generation) for any medium to large city - the infrastructure is too large to redo things. MAYBE a block or two in a specific locale of that city (with that replicated in a number of areas).
Plan? Sure but I found that few planners care about what "common folk" believe to be important. And I don't think they can reliably "see" what will be important a couple generations into the future.
An excellent point GG. When dealing with numbers in this area people frequently have problems dealing with the scale of the issues.
1,100 deaths with 22k impacted is "in the noise" why are we bothered by it? One reason could be that is a harbinger of other issues. So, collecting information, like the EU is. is indeed critical.
However, though I would say a case has been made for changes due to PM2.5 the case about smaller values has still to be made.
As professor Williams said "Remember: this is an area where all numbers are large"
"One reason could be that is a harbinger of other issues."
Or it might not (perhaps, perhaps not) as there may well be other things in play here with other co-morbidities, acting either singly or in concert. Not enough information has been presented here.
"though I would say a case has been made for changes due to PM2.5 "
Perhaps. But as I pointed out as well, if one were to decentralize out of cities, the problem is most likely solved. But then THAT solution is fraught with other issues not yet addressed.
"Not enough information has been presented here."
Which is why we need a lot more research.
" But as I pointed out as well, if one were to decentralize out of cities"
While true that's not going to happen. We continue to make more and larger cities and that is not going to change. The agglomeration economies of cities overwhelm everything else.
e.g. Agglomeration economies refer to the economic benefits that businesses and individuals can derive from being located in close proximity to one another, typically in urban areas or cities.
"if one were to decentralize out of cities...that's not going to happen."
True and not in dispute. However, I mentioned it because if Lloyd is TRULY all about the PM2.5 in highly urbanized areas and the polluted air in them, he should be seriously considering decentralization out of the cities. Sure, there may well be some good consideration to be in a city for some.
For me, not so much. I lived in Boston for 7 years - that was more than enough.
This proves that there is no "one size fits all" solution.
I have always lived in a city and the idea of living in the countryside fills me with horror!
However, too many "edumacated" and "ideologically bent" folks DO insist that on implementing "one-size-fits-all" monoculture solutions in almost every venture of human life as...
...they know better than the rest of us what is best for us...
...but never seem to be willing to ask us first. They get locked into their thinking spiral and make the rest of us miserable. They have no concern that many, if not most, of us simply just wish to be left alone.
Or, as our Declaration of Independence put it, left alone to seek our own "pursuit of Happiness".
Interestingly, the UFPs from tire and brake emissions are some of the worst offenders (Emissions Analytics says they're nearly 2000x as concentrated as combustion, especially in newer engines), and tire emissions are even worse with EVs, which are 20-30% heavier and have far more torque. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/climate-change/article284533695.html. So solving idling or tailpipe doesn't actually solve the problem -- and their antidotes: speedy, uncongested traffic, actually make EV emissions worse.
The answer is so so clearly density, walkability, lighter vehicles (i.e bikes), the smallest possible electric vehicles where a car or truck is absolutely needed, and far far far fewer VMT overall.
"and tire emissions are even worse with EVs, which are 20-30% heavier and have far more torque."
No, many EV's are no heavier that their ICE equivalents and the torque issue is irrelevant. In every way EV's are better that ICE, of the same class used in the same way. You are succumbing to Journalist BS - you need to read better sources.
"The answer is so ...far far far fewer VMT overall."
Yes, but doings so in practise is going to be far harder than many people realise.
An average ICE sedan weighs 3800 lbs. A Tesla Model S weighs 4828 lbs. That's nearly 25% more than a comparatively-sized ICE sedan.
I do not know where you get your information from, but EVs typically—not "occasionally"—weigh hundreds to thousands of pounds more than their ICE equivalent. And EV tire wear is a real problem … maybe not 2000% more particulate matter worse, but it's definitely worse because of frictional coefficients between a car's mass and its tire wear.
You have chosen a particular heavy EV there - the average EV weight is about 1800Kg or 4000lbs. So only about 200 lbs average ICE to average EV.
Which in the real world is the same.
"And EV tire wear is a real problem" Real world data is showing that EV tyres are lasting on average 25% longer that their ICE equivalents due to the effect of the dynamic breaking that EV; s do. So, I suspect you are completely wrong.
Here's an independent article refuting your claim about weight. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/jun/21/carry-that-weight-electric-vehicles-outweigh-gas-c/#:~:text=Civil%20and%20environmental%20engineering%20professor,;%20gas%2Dpowered%2C%203%2C726%20pounds
Here's an article about EV tire wear from an industry source. Where are you getting your data? https://www.cars.com/articles/do-evs-wear-through-tires-more-quickly-than-gasoline-cars-481973/#:~:text=Electric%20vehicles%20tend%20to%20wear,softer%20tires%20for%20better%20grip.
Here's a presentation about the toxic brew being emitted by tires into our air, water, soil, food. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a9400b37e3c3a8c47522029/t/6401654ea9f21d70a4dc9040/1677813072073/BTAS-website-presentation.pdf
None of those are independent. They are all media articles.
They are written based on what an editor wants them to say!
I get my info from reading basic research reports.
Your first article has nothing to do with emissions from EV tyres.
Your second one says other factors May outweigh the weight factor. They quite correctly state that high performance cars get though their tyres faster. Many EV's such as the Tesla's are high performance rides so if you want to compare them you need to compare a high-performance EV with a similar high performance ICE not an average one.
Your third reference refers to emissions from all tyres nothing to do with EV vs ICE tyre use.
Initial studies for tyre emissions from EV's vs ICE only modeled weight differences. This has since be found to be a poor way of modeling as it does not take into account that the stresses of EV's tyres are different from ICE tyres, so their tyre wear patterns are different.
A similar thing happened with brake pads with initial reports stating that EV;s would wear out their brake pads faster as they weighed more - but because EV's do dynamic breaking despite the higher weight (compared with an ICE equivalently) they use their brake pads less and hence the pads actually last longer.
But again, most of these "media" reports fail because they are not comparing like with like.
Honest question: Can you please point me to the research that you're looking at as a counterpoint?
Emissions Analytics is a totally independent testing org. Their presentation is "media" only insofar as a presentation is on paper. The other articles are simply reporting on underlying research, which is linked. Here's another one. https://jalopnik.com/tire-dust-is-the-ddt-of-our-generation-1850024765#:~:text=A%20growing%20body%20of%20research,substance%20scientists%20call%206PPD%2DQuinone.
Again, a lot of anger there. Not sure I follow the logic.
I do have an ideological bent but it is not inflexible in the face of reasoned argument that reveals an error in my own reasoning or facts that demand it be reconsidered. Can you say the same?
When I speak of shared needs and desires I am not trying to delve into the detailed specifics of what creates a happy place for you or any particular individual, I am talking about the fundamentals. Things like food shelter, personal security, a chance to live and be loved, an opportunity to do productive work. There is room for plenty of difference in the details.
Wow. That got angry fast. Interesting how when I suggested that an unnamed political party was actively dehumanizing their chosen other as a war monger might you assumed it was the GOP. Not sure I have the energy to engage with that kind of hostility tonight. Is that your resting state and you just get more wound up from there or did I just hit a raw nerve with the political party reference? Any chance of a civil conversation?
Overshoot is killing us. A literal plague of large primates, heretofore unimaginable. Ultrafine particles, climate change, the sixth great extinction... these are all mere side dishes to the main entree of human overshoot.
I wonder, if we could have known the costs of automobiles long ago—injuries and deaths from collisions, injuries and deaths from pollution, etc.—would we have created the modern car-centered world?
No. We wouldn't be living in the modern world, we'd be living in a version of the year 1623 where we rely on horses, oxen, and human-pulled carts for transportation of goods and services, as well as wind-powered sails on wooden boats for long, dangerous trips overseas.
In other words, we wouldn't have developed into the modern Western societies we currently love and enjoy. Hard stop.
Yes, we would, because the benefits outweigh the costs.
You sit presumably in a reasonable constructed house, warm/cool (Delete as required) typing on some sort of Internet terminal. These are the benefits of a high energy civilisation.
Once you have a high energy civilisation something like cars are inevitable. Did we botch their implementation and use. Yes, I believe firmly we did but we were 100% going to do something like that,
For context, in 2024 we are probably about 90% along the timeline from London England in the 1800’s to a future where we no longer “Burn Stuff”…
How the hell do you make that out?
We still get more power from burning stuff than any other way. Thats not changing soon no matter what is said. Industry runs on burning stuff, as does travel.
We are not even 10% of the way there in practise. Have you failed to notice that our fossil fuel consumption is still rising?
… based on what, exactly? Your supposition? Great stuff.
For the record, I just slit a cock rooster's throat and let it run around the backyard, studied the blood spatter patterns, and can now definitively say we're going to suffer a very cold and snowy winter this year.
Thanks for bringing some added attention to this topic.
Our love of growing stuff and our love of burning stuff are what differentiates us from the rest of life on this planet (with perhaps an exception for a few farming ants and fire spreading birds). Our passion for these pursuits has led us, and the planet in general to the brink, and will push us over if we don't get better at both how we grow and how we burn (the planet will carry on).
The ultrafine particulates problem points again to the need to take a holistic and truly scientific approach (science for the purpose of learning, not for the purpose of obfuscating) to solving the myriad problems that our exceptional technical success as a species has spawned. By focusing on larger particle pollution and ignoring or under appreciating the impacts of processes like photochemical nucleation we risk jumping out of the pot into the fire like we have done while implementing so many of our "fixes". Approaching problems in a way that takes into account downstream impacts of any proposed solution is more complicated, hard work, more expensive and fraught with uncertainty but not doing so almost always seems to end up imposing new and often worse problems on the future. "Penny wise, pound foolish" is probably the entry under "human" in the intergalactic dictionary.
All those embracing vaping as a solution to the evils of smoking may want to pay attention here.
Do you know what produces an enormous quantity of ultrafine particles? Combusted candle wax. While smoke from a smouldering cigarette or a snuffed-out candle has a lot of mass, that's in "larger" (but still very small) particles.
Ultrafine particles can't even be detected with a typical consumer PM 2.5 meter, or any optical particle counter. A condensation particle counter will work, and hence the need for less expensive accessible technology like the open source hardware from OpenAeros.
I am getting a real education here about UFPs, thank you for pointing me to OpenAeros. Glad to know you are on top of this!
Lloyd. Your space has been taken over by Trump supporters who aren't willing to use their real names.
I am not sure if this is targeted at me or the others but just to be clear
1) Not a trump supporter or an USAnian
2) I use my real name
3) I have been frequently accused of not using my real name because it appears in the Bible
4) I am indeed a little devil!!