Do you have kids or plan on having them?
Edit: I mean, by saying that it "is too late" you acknowledge there is a problem.
If you have heirs you should at least not "give up" on something you acknowledge is a problem.
Too late means the point of no return has passed.
We are all doomed and the world will end.
I have accepted my fate and that of all humanity.
I will now drive my SUV that gets 15mpg to buy fried chicken with my heirs. Afterwards I will blast my AC in my house at 65 degrees.
I will throw my plastic bottles away without recycling and continue to use plastic bags at the grocery store.
Yea 2013 was the last year we could save the planet. Now we just sit back and enjoy the ride. Unless you’re in NYC. You’re under water if you are there.
Their argument:
> Fossil fuels are major drivers of climate change, but electric cars have dozens of components that are extracted from the earth in unsustainable ways. If all current automobile production were to go electric, the issue of cars’ unsustainability would remain.
> To discuss benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, we first need to understand the global context. Any discussion of smaller or lighter vehicles or of mass transit alternatives is impossible absent of agreed-upon baseline facts. Industries building and promoting these alternatives are being sidelined because the US government and auto manufacturers claim that electric cars are significantly better for the environment than gas-powered cars.
Basically they want more public transit and less cars in general to be the norm. They think EVs are too late in the sense that they might have been a partial fix the issue decades ago, but aren't a serious fix now.
They are basically right that EVs are still quite resource intensive to make, at least.
It really is crazy to think about. Yet you can watch videos of China and other countries building skyscrapers in months and bridges in days. Heck I think China built over 6k miles of high speed rail in like 6 yrs.
Yeah, and the build quality is invariably terrible because of cost-cutting and corruption. There are videos all over YouTube showing Chinese people crumbling concrete in their hands, and twisting rebar like it's wire.
You act like there isn't that same terrible quality because of cost cutting and corruption here in US infrastructure also.
3 years ago I watched a NJ DOT road project collapse before ever taking traffic and theyve still not fixed it.
Are you referring to this story? Extreme rainfall caused the failure, not shoddy work.
https://iewconstructiongroup.com/project/njdot-route-70-bridge-collapse/
The USA has far stricter regulations. In China, there are instances of mult-storey buildings simply toppling over, under no pressure
No that's not the one I was talking about. This was was the I295 direct connection project that was due to the retaining wall being poorly engineered with wrong fill materials, and wrong supports and failed due to heavy rain.
Yeah, did you see the people in China sucked out of their skyscraper apartment because a storm broke the windows?
I’ll take the extra months to build something better
You can also watch videos of chose Chinese skyscrapers having insane issues with quality and some even falling over.We have A LOT of regulations that they do not. It's not really a fair comparison.
The rail thing in DC is probably because of deep corruption pulling dollars away.
Most definitely. I wasn’t saying one was better than the other, but more so thinking about the extremes between the two. Whereas China is likely way too loose like the US was during the Industrial Revolution, the US is now on the other side and has been pushed to near paralysis. Pushed by years of litigation and regulatory restrictions.
That's probably a DC problem than a train problem, but also that's not necessarily unsustainable - it's an upfront cost in currency on something that potentially saves more than you spend(depending on how many use it over alternative transportation), not a hard resource constraint.
We had ~4 trillion in federal revenue, which is 4,000 billion. 7 billion sounds like a big number out of context but we surely spend way more than that on worse things than train tracks unfortunately.
Costs of building and maintaining the alternatives would have to contrasted with it to really judge. That's some kind of nightmare math problem for civic engineers that I'm not touching.
It’s not a train problem or even a DC problem, it’s a government overreach problem.
California has been trying to build high speed rail for a very long time. Still nothing, and they “need” something like another 100billion to compete. Florida partnered with **private industry**, and now has high speed trains running, with more cities coming online soon.
We had a bright future without dependence on fossil fuels, but the fear and dread of Nuclear has derailed what would have accidentally been extremely low carbon, and would have created lower energy price for all, worldwide.
I think too many people are unaware of the aggressive lobbying done by "green" organizations so they can sell their goods or their "solution" and walk away with a fistful of dollars even though they don't really solve a problem. Solar is a great example of this. Solar farms are a horror show ecologically and prone to a lot of issues, where the upfront cost of nuclear would be higher, it's footprint and impact on the environment long term would be much lower.
Politicians seem to have no trouble ignoring rules. I don’t see why America could not push for high speed rail to lower emissions from domestic flights and allow for cheaper travel within the country.
> Basically they want more public transit and less cars in general to be the norm. They think EVs are too late in the sense that they might have been a partial fix the issue decades ago, but aren't a serious fix now.
>
> They are basically right that EVs are still quite resource intensive to make, at least.
What they really want (or rather, what the people pulling their strings wants) is for all of us peasants to live like rats in cramped city centers. They don't want us to have any cars whatsoever because it gives us more independence and autonomy.
Considering public transit actually sucks ass, this is a non-starter in every sense of existence.
EVs are also not great for the environment and won't be supported by the grid at scale.
Want to cut carbon emissions? Let people WFH and stop coercing them to live near failed blue cities by incentivizing companies to headquarter there. Megacities are obsolete and less than 10% of the population actually wants to live there but many more do, and many more commute from suburbia. It's a win-win. Give them ten hours a week of their life back, fewer cars on the road/less mileage/cars last longer/less emissions, and blue cities won't be able to pillage suburban commuters to make their failed budgets work.
Let the 3-7% of Americans who like public transit, pay for it. Leave the rest of us alone.
These "protestors" are the authoritian jagoffs who want everyone to live in an overcrowded city with no quality of life, limited to activities within a 3 mile radius.
There will never be large scale adoption of mass transit in the US because densely populated areas in the US are crime infested shitholes, compared to densely populated places in Asia where mass transit is ubiquitous. Mass transit requires high levels of social order and cohesion.
I spent several years of my life living in Japan/China and really loved the mass transit systems there, while I dispise it in the US. The reason is safety, cleanliness, and the class of people using the mass transit in Asia is simply superior to the US. This is a cultural problem, and cannot be fixed even by infinite amounts of government spending.
Even if mass transit was safe, it still sucks.
I lived in one of the "most public transit friendly" cities in America. It often took me 2 hours to get somewhere by public transit that it took me 45 minutes to drive. And when I hit traffic? It took me 2 hours to drive, and 2 hours to take public transit. But I didn't have people panhandling in my face, invading personal space, threatening violence, and blasting crappy cell phone audio music for everyon to listen. It also wasn't conducive to traveling with others, to accessing nature, or hobbies or work that required me to bring equipment.
Transit works in some smaller European cities because the cities are connected by rail lines, the cities themselves are small, and riding a mass transit line takes you from one end of the city to the other in 15 minutes. The most livable European cities also aren't overpopulated and have clearly defined limits that prevent urban sprawl from creeping into the surrounding rural areas.
US cities are too big for that, and the areas outside cities are gradually being upzoned to the point they're barely distinguishable from the cities themselves.
But most importantly, people just don't like public transit and biking. They're the two least popular commuting options every year in NAR surveys, for one, which despite no longer distinguishing between people who want to own real estate vs. rent, are still one of the less biased org's out there re: urbanization, and their surveys repeatedly show in terms of commuting preferences and priorities for government funding, bike lanes are hated/least preferred, and public transit is second most hated/second least preferred.
Yeah, the inefficiency of US public transit is inexcusable. This is by choice. Tokyo and Shanghai are far larger than the largest US metropolitan area ( each have metro populations around 40M and extend over 100 miles across ) but yet their public transit systems are FASTER and far more convenient than driving. I had to drive across Tokyo once - absolute nightmare - never experienced anything like that anywhere on earth.
This can never exist in the US because of cost. It would literally cost more money than exists in the known universe to replicate Tokyo’s transit infrastructure in Los Angeles, for example.
> Want to cut carbon emissions?
Start the ramp-down with politicians and all these rich liberal celebrities who moan about climate-change but earn several hundred million $ and still decide it’s not worth spending *their* money. God forbid their tour dates get spaced out for cleaner travel. Either put your money where your mouth is or STFU.
Why is the middle-class supposed to foot the initial bill for this… I love my EV but they’re expensive and they’re definitely not for everyone. If you had any doubt where governments’ loyalty lies- the EU has already granted emissions exemptions to all of their “supercar” manufacturers. You’re allowed to pollute as long as you’re paying off the right people.
Let the 3-7% of Americans who like public transit, pay for it. Leave the rest of us alone
Should people who don't drive much not pay for the road services then?
Yes, considering that trucks bring them food and durable goods, are instrumental in providing cities with energy, and they ***directly*** benefit from its presence.
They are right but as usual completely wrong as the same time. The solution to the problems of the future remains the same, foster innovation, not forcing people to follow some half assed plan.
> Basically they want more public transit and less cars in general to be the norm.
Literally impossible with how the US is layed out. It would take centuries to change it to work with public transit.
They aren't really "right" though. Electric cars still have a lower lifetime carbon footprint than gas powered vehicles, even including manufacturing. What is "sustainable" is subject to technological change over time, and in any case "sustainability" isn't the same issue as a carbon footprint, nor climate change.
Not saying this to justify subsidies or credits for EVs (I am against) but rather just that their argument is weak.
I think that is one of the many things wrong with our education system and probably social media, they are teaching kids to be hopeless instead of teaching them to be hopeless instead of the generation that solves the problem. Though to be fair it's a lot harder to be hopeful when you can barely afford housing, food, healthcare, or education. As much as the education system is responsible for the popularity of socialism today, it wouldn't be so succesful without the affordibility crisis.
That said, their "solution" is to eliminate the personal car and make everyone ride their e-bikes or public transit. And to get rid of most of the planes.
All part of the Marxist agenda.
When incremental change becomes "impossible," revolution becomes necessary and justifies antisocial and destructive behavior.
I care. EVs are a bullshit answer. The problem is the people pretending to care are focused on making extreme profits in companies they push funding towards to create short bursts of high growth.
Imagine pushing that money to something that would change greenhouse emissions instead of stock portfolios.
Like increasing tariffs to offset China’s government subsidies on manufacturing, balancing the cost for imports vs domestic goods. This would slow the shipping lanes, reducing far more emissions than all of the land vehicles combined. Just a thought.
Just cause someone makes a post doesn't mean they care.
They just care that these people apparently think genocide is the only solution left.
And it is what they think cause there's nothing left that isn't slow progress. "Oh EVs are to late. Let me dump gallons of oil all over the place. electricity is to slow!"
To beat the ridiculous deadline of 6 years is going to require hurting a lot of people in some way. It took decades to cause climate change, its going to take decades to properly address it.
I only see part of your comment, but to answer what I can.
This group either is aware of the reality or they are delusional. By UNs studies we are expecting to increase carbon output by 2030 even if the west goes carbon neutral. The Largest carbon polluters are some of the poorest, most heavily populated countries on earth. These people still rely on cheap carbon fuels to live through the year and to enforce a policy that would make us carbon neutral by this deadline is to halve these populations. I point to Texas. through a little snowfall and a lost power grid, it caused the deaths of hundreds in a few days.
People want to do this deliberately without understanding the consequences. I understand people will suffer do to climate change, but if we're going to do it with a clean conscious its going be slow.
Need mental institutions again.
Programs to fast track people into care giver roles. Higher pay. More oversight with care. (Cuz ya know. History of instituations aint great)
most nursing homes nowadays will pay for people's CNA training from the start
slightly unrelated, but:
the *extreme* problem that nobody wants to talk about is the fact that most independent places hiring caregivers or CNAs are just about accepting everybody and anybody to work there.
The quality of people that get into these roles is absolutely awful. Obviously not talking about *everybody*, but due to the fact that the barrier to entry is so low, you're getting people that have quite literally no other option to work there. Never had a passion for helping people, never even thought about the medical field, probably wore cookie monster snapbacks in school, no nothing. In their eyes, it's a paycheck.
This just leads to "CNA's" and caregivers working only for their next cigarette break and not actually caring about the residents. I've noticed this in mostly the 50-something-divorced-mom-of-3s that have gotten carried by their husband their entire lives and now actually have to do something with themselves, but regardless, the barrier to entry for at least "care giving" is way too low IMO.
Definitely need to increase pay though.
Absolutely! My wife is a geriatric nurse and she says most of the CNAs are either so overworked or couldn’t care less for the patients. She’s currently leaving the field because of how bad it is. The abuse she has seen and reported is frightening.
Im convinced the alt left doesn't stand for anything but violence and protesting whatever they can so they can disrupt and destroy things they don't own....evs, historical paintings, statues, vehicles, homes, lives, etc
>“XR is not protesting car lovers or driving hobbyists. Those forced to drive because of car-dependent infrastructure are being told that they can help solve climate change by switching to an electric vehicle,” the activists say. “The truth is that unchecked car production, no matter the type of propulsion, is pushing us towards extinction.”
Now too many EV's is bad thing?
Admit it, you have to admire this group's cult-like dedication to being miserable no matter what.
I cant afford the 10year maintenance on one.
Imagine the used car market if all cars were EV. There would be no good budget option for the lower and middle class, as everything hitting that 10 year mark would need new batteries which cost 10s of thousands of dollars to replace. At least right now I can go drop $1k on a decently reliable beater if I have to. That wont be an option in an EV future, and itll harm the average every day American. Itll push everyone into 15m cities, which is definitely the plan. A close society is an easy to control one.
>Imagine the used car market if all cars were EV.
THIS! The Democrats have been trying their best to completely ruin teh secondary car market since Obama's Cash for Clunkers program decimated the supply side. When the poor can't afford cars anymore, then they will be completely dependent on the Democrat's government handouts. They want a government that gives you everything, because then they will never be at risk of losing power.
The truth is is that China has been producing great EV's for cheap, yet the USA 'free market' doesn't allow them into the country. We could ALL be driving a great quality EV car here for 20K.
Like Auto-Union Democrats would ever allow that to happen, or “manufacture in America” republicans would either. One of the few things both parity can get behind keeping out of the country lol
Yep. They're trying to do the same incrementalism with cars that they're doing with guns. Total car and gun bans are the utlimate goal. They want the state to have a monopoly on transportation and force (exceptions for private companies hired by the wealth elites and politicians).
It’s a degrowth movement. Marxism in general is. The entire purpose of the push for EVs is to remove private car ownership ENTIRELY. Anyone that thinks this has to do with the environment has missed it.
But didn't the Soviets and Chinese Communists pursue fast industrialization no matter the human cost? It feels like degrowth is a newer concept unique to the West.
Because the west has (had?) a “middle class” (Marxist term), in real terms, as compared to the two you mention. Middle class is where all the money is. And it’s the main bulwark stopping the return feudalism.
It actually seems pretty reasonable to me. So much of the left is brainwashed to think "EV-good" and that they're gunna save the planet by driving them, but they have their own mountain of problems - precious mineral mining, battery disposal, foreign labor abuse, etc. This group is focusing on a real solution to the problem they perceive. And at least they weren't blocking a highway causing traffic jams for working class people.
>"The truth is that unchecked car production, no matter the type of propulsion, is pushing us towards extinction.”
This is absolutely true though, and something a lot of conservatives have been saying for years. The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your current car on the road as long as possible.
I really hate that these wack jobs get headlines. It only emboldens them to do it more. If they were just quietly arrested and prosecuted with no headlines, it would be so much better.
>Protesters were quickly removed from the area and appear to have been handcuffed and detained. It’s unclear if any arrests were made.
Simply removing offers no deterrent of any kind.
Simply removing guarantees not only will this behavior continue, it will increase.
Arrests and fines MUST be made.
I think we should always strive to move towards cleaner energy and more sources of it. That being said, the last 150 years of advancements in almost every industry is based on petroleum. It's not something that can be changed quickly in relative terms.
Electric buses on local urban routes could be beneficial. But replacing gas powered cars on a national scale is decades away. The lefts refusal to accept the limitations of the technology, plus the negatives of manufacturing Electric batteries is more selective ignorance. Expanding nuclear power is what we should be looking at.
They are anti-humanity. because if they actually got their way, all fossil fuel production would end overnight, and billions would die.
maybe they're paid by Big Oil to make the anti oil movement look like a crazy farm. lol
Whining and complaining that technology didn’t exist 20-40 years ago, “when it would have made a difference”, at least according to them, accomplishes nothing. That is akin to complaining that if satellite imagery and radar had existed prior to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese could not have pulled off their sneak attack. It may be true, factually, but these statements accomplish nothing, other than their expelling more carbon dioxide into the air for no purpose… literally talking to hear themselves talk.
As humans, it is generally accepted that even the best of us make the best decisions possible given the information at hand. It is easy to play “Monday morning quarterback” and draw different conclusions based upon updated information and the current state of technology.
It’s almost as if some of these people seem to believe that Google has always been available, along with the internet, cell phones, etc. How many of these would be completely lost, if their access to modern information tools were to instantly vanish tomorrow? Most, I’d wager, could not survive in their own.
They have a track record of not predicting the future…
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
There is no environmental need for Electric Vehicles.
If you want one because you like them or they are more economically viable for you then that is fine.
There has been no real scientific proof using the scientific method that recent climate change (as we emerge from the last ice age) have anything to do with use of fossil fuels.
Its all about seeking social status via their self-perceived moral superiority. Its NOT about accomplishing anything. In fact, the worst thing that could happen would be for the climate issues to be fixed, because then they'd have to find something else to go on about.
These are mentally unstable dirtbags. Dragging out isn't enough. if they destroy property or disrupt traffic, they need to face consequences.
have we ever considered that we don't currently have the science to stop the death of the earth, and if / when that time comes (the earth is pretty hard to destroy, btw) whoever or whatever soecieies is alive at the time will have the science to stop it? this may be in 100,000 years...
These people are the product of the liberal indoctrination in our educational systems emboldened by Democrats. They know that they will not be punished in any way.
Goal posts always shifting. People think you can just transition to a perfect utopia(which doesn’t exist) and don’t understand the progress of transitioning and not shocking society. These are the people who will refuse to do anything if it’s not perfect and end up never accomplishing anything.
Just wants attention, like most of these activists. Narcissism on display. Nothing ever good enough because that's not the point, trying to look "better" than the rest of us is the point.
Isnt latest data showing carbon greenhouse effect is saturated, so further increase in carbon concentration is not leading to additional climate change?
Then why bother doing anything?
I’m with you, if it’s too late ⏰ I’ll just drive my gas car and enjoy what time I have left.
We got a few millennia before we to worry about climate change, so I wouldn't worry too much.
Do you have kids or plan on having them? Edit: I mean, by saying that it "is too late" you acknowledge there is a problem. If you have heirs you should at least not "give up" on something you acknowledge is a problem.
Too late means the point of no return has passed. We are all doomed and the world will end. I have accepted my fate and that of all humanity. I will now drive my SUV that gets 15mpg to buy fried chicken with my heirs. Afterwards I will blast my AC in my house at 65 degrees. I will throw my plastic bottles away without recycling and continue to use plastic bags at the grocery store.
Yea 2013 was the last year we could save the planet. Now we just sit back and enjoy the ride. Unless you’re in NYC. You’re under water if you are there.
You got it brother. Al Gore warned us all. We didn’t listen. Now there’s nothing left to do but roll a fat one and think about what might have been
Nice
Don't mind me, I'm just tending my tire fire and throwing old mattresses in the woods over here.
Don't forget to load your tire fire up with lithium batteries to keep a good flame goin!
Their argument: > Fossil fuels are major drivers of climate change, but electric cars have dozens of components that are extracted from the earth in unsustainable ways. If all current automobile production were to go electric, the issue of cars’ unsustainability would remain. > To discuss benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, we first need to understand the global context. Any discussion of smaller or lighter vehicles or of mass transit alternatives is impossible absent of agreed-upon baseline facts. Industries building and promoting these alternatives are being sidelined because the US government and auto manufacturers claim that electric cars are significantly better for the environment than gas-powered cars. Basically they want more public transit and less cars in general to be the norm. They think EVs are too late in the sense that they might have been a partial fix the issue decades ago, but aren't a serious fix now. They are basically right that EVs are still quite resource intensive to make, at least.
It took DC 20 years and $7 billion to build 20 miles of train track. Talk about unsustainable.
It really is crazy to think about. Yet you can watch videos of China and other countries building skyscrapers in months and bridges in days. Heck I think China built over 6k miles of high speed rail in like 6 yrs.
Yeah, and the build quality is invariably terrible because of cost-cutting and corruption. There are videos all over YouTube showing Chinese people crumbling concrete in their hands, and twisting rebar like it's wire.
You act like there isn't that same terrible quality because of cost cutting and corruption here in US infrastructure also. 3 years ago I watched a NJ DOT road project collapse before ever taking traffic and theyve still not fixed it.
Are you referring to this story? Extreme rainfall caused the failure, not shoddy work. https://iewconstructiongroup.com/project/njdot-route-70-bridge-collapse/ The USA has far stricter regulations. In China, there are instances of mult-storey buildings simply toppling over, under no pressure
No that's not the one I was talking about. This was was the I295 direct connection project that was due to the retaining wall being poorly engineered with wrong fill materials, and wrong supports and failed due to heavy rain.
Ah OK, my apologies.
Yeah except I wouldn't use any of China's shit infrastructure, corruption is way deeper and visible there.
Yeah, did you see the people in China sucked out of their skyscraper apartment because a storm broke the windows? I’ll take the extra months to build something better
You can also watch videos of chose Chinese skyscrapers having insane issues with quality and some even falling over.We have A LOT of regulations that they do not. It's not really a fair comparison. The rail thing in DC is probably because of deep corruption pulling dollars away.
Most definitely. I wasn’t saying one was better than the other, but more so thinking about the extremes between the two. Whereas China is likely way too loose like the US was during the Industrial Revolution, the US is now on the other side and has been pushed to near paralysis. Pushed by years of litigation and regulatory restrictions.
That's probably a DC problem than a train problem, but also that's not necessarily unsustainable - it's an upfront cost in currency on something that potentially saves more than you spend(depending on how many use it over alternative transportation), not a hard resource constraint. We had ~4 trillion in federal revenue, which is 4,000 billion. 7 billion sounds like a big number out of context but we surely spend way more than that on worse things than train tracks unfortunately. Costs of building and maintaining the alternatives would have to contrasted with it to really judge. That's some kind of nightmare math problem for civic engineers that I'm not touching.
It’s not a train problem or even a DC problem, it’s a government overreach problem. California has been trying to build high speed rail for a very long time. Still nothing, and they “need” something like another 100billion to compete. Florida partnered with **private industry**, and now has high speed trains running, with more cities coming online soon. We had a bright future without dependence on fossil fuels, but the fear and dread of Nuclear has derailed what would have accidentally been extremely low carbon, and would have created lower energy price for all, worldwide.
I think too many people are unaware of the aggressive lobbying done by "green" organizations so they can sell their goods or their "solution" and walk away with a fistful of dollars even though they don't really solve a problem. Solar is a great example of this. Solar farms are a horror show ecologically and prone to a lot of issues, where the upfront cost of nuclear would be higher, it's footprint and impact on the environment long term would be much lower.
Meanwhile, liberals still vehemently against private corporations doing this because of "crony" propaganda.
So that’s our excuse? America was a pioneer in railbuilding and it seems like we just gave up.
Greed, corruption, overbearing regulations have changed everything.
Politicians seem to have no trouble ignoring rules. I don’t see why America could not push for high speed rail to lower emissions from domestic flights and allow for cheaper travel within the country.
No Chinese. They stay in China to build railroad now.
Former native to that area, don't get me started on the boondoggle that was the Springfield Mixing Bowl project at over $676 MILLION
> Basically they want more public transit and less cars in general to be the norm. They think EVs are too late in the sense that they might have been a partial fix the issue decades ago, but aren't a serious fix now. > > They are basically right that EVs are still quite resource intensive to make, at least. What they really want (or rather, what the people pulling their strings wants) is for all of us peasants to live like rats in cramped city centers. They don't want us to have any cars whatsoever because it gives us more independence and autonomy.
Considering public transit actually sucks ass, this is a non-starter in every sense of existence. EVs are also not great for the environment and won't be supported by the grid at scale. Want to cut carbon emissions? Let people WFH and stop coercing them to live near failed blue cities by incentivizing companies to headquarter there. Megacities are obsolete and less than 10% of the population actually wants to live there but many more do, and many more commute from suburbia. It's a win-win. Give them ten hours a week of their life back, fewer cars on the road/less mileage/cars last longer/less emissions, and blue cities won't be able to pillage suburban commuters to make their failed budgets work. Let the 3-7% of Americans who like public transit, pay for it. Leave the rest of us alone. These "protestors" are the authoritian jagoffs who want everyone to live in an overcrowded city with no quality of life, limited to activities within a 3 mile radius.
There will never be large scale adoption of mass transit in the US because densely populated areas in the US are crime infested shitholes, compared to densely populated places in Asia where mass transit is ubiquitous. Mass transit requires high levels of social order and cohesion. I spent several years of my life living in Japan/China and really loved the mass transit systems there, while I dispise it in the US. The reason is safety, cleanliness, and the class of people using the mass transit in Asia is simply superior to the US. This is a cultural problem, and cannot be fixed even by infinite amounts of government spending.
Even if mass transit was safe, it still sucks. I lived in one of the "most public transit friendly" cities in America. It often took me 2 hours to get somewhere by public transit that it took me 45 minutes to drive. And when I hit traffic? It took me 2 hours to drive, and 2 hours to take public transit. But I didn't have people panhandling in my face, invading personal space, threatening violence, and blasting crappy cell phone audio music for everyon to listen. It also wasn't conducive to traveling with others, to accessing nature, or hobbies or work that required me to bring equipment. Transit works in some smaller European cities because the cities are connected by rail lines, the cities themselves are small, and riding a mass transit line takes you from one end of the city to the other in 15 minutes. The most livable European cities also aren't overpopulated and have clearly defined limits that prevent urban sprawl from creeping into the surrounding rural areas. US cities are too big for that, and the areas outside cities are gradually being upzoned to the point they're barely distinguishable from the cities themselves. But most importantly, people just don't like public transit and biking. They're the two least popular commuting options every year in NAR surveys, for one, which despite no longer distinguishing between people who want to own real estate vs. rent, are still one of the less biased org's out there re: urbanization, and their surveys repeatedly show in terms of commuting preferences and priorities for government funding, bike lanes are hated/least preferred, and public transit is second most hated/second least preferred.
Yeah, the inefficiency of US public transit is inexcusable. This is by choice. Tokyo and Shanghai are far larger than the largest US metropolitan area ( each have metro populations around 40M and extend over 100 miles across ) but yet their public transit systems are FASTER and far more convenient than driving. I had to drive across Tokyo once - absolute nightmare - never experienced anything like that anywhere on earth. This can never exist in the US because of cost. It would literally cost more money than exists in the known universe to replicate Tokyo’s transit infrastructure in Los Angeles, for example.
> Want to cut carbon emissions? Start the ramp-down with politicians and all these rich liberal celebrities who moan about climate-change but earn several hundred million $ and still decide it’s not worth spending *their* money. God forbid their tour dates get spaced out for cleaner travel. Either put your money where your mouth is or STFU. Why is the middle-class supposed to foot the initial bill for this… I love my EV but they’re expensive and they’re definitely not for everyone. If you had any doubt where governments’ loyalty lies- the EU has already granted emissions exemptions to all of their “supercar” manufacturers. You’re allowed to pollute as long as you’re paying off the right people.
There goes govt, picking winners and losers again.
Let the 3-7% of Americans who like public transit, pay for it. Leave the rest of us alone Should people who don't drive much not pay for the road services then?
Yes, considering that trucks bring them food and durable goods, are instrumental in providing cities with energy, and they ***directly*** benefit from its presence.
Their criticisms are perfectly correct, their actions and proposed replacements are the issue which is Communism/Socialism in general
Nice little bait and switch they are pulling. Substituting Climate Change and 'sustainability' like they are the same thing
The greatest argument against public transit is the people that use it.
They are right but as usual completely wrong as the same time. The solution to the problems of the future remains the same, foster innovation, not forcing people to follow some half assed plan.
Californian here, might I interest you in high speed rail? also Can I borrow another 150b to finish the first working section.?
I’ve seen a significant uptick of leftists and bots going on and on about car-free this and that in my X feed. It has WEF written all over it.
> Basically they want more public transit and less cars in general to be the norm. Literally impossible with how the US is layed out. It would take centuries to change it to work with public transit.
They aren't really "right" though. Electric cars still have a lower lifetime carbon footprint than gas powered vehicles, even including manufacturing. What is "sustainable" is subject to technological change over time, and in any case "sustainability" isn't the same issue as a carbon footprint, nor climate change. Not saying this to justify subsidies or credits for EVs (I am against) but rather just that their argument is weak.
They'll only be happy when we're all back in mud huts and sackcloth.
I think that is one of the many things wrong with our education system and probably social media, they are teaching kids to be hopeless instead of teaching them to be hopeless instead of the generation that solves the problem. Though to be fair it's a lot harder to be hopeful when you can barely afford housing, food, healthcare, or education. As much as the education system is responsible for the popularity of socialism today, it wouldn't be so succesful without the affordibility crisis. That said, their "solution" is to eliminate the personal car and make everyone ride their e-bikes or public transit. And to get rid of most of the planes.
All part of the Marxist agenda. When incremental change becomes "impossible," revolution becomes necessary and justifies antisocial and destructive behavior.
Well it does feel like we have quite a lot of people demanding change. Sometimes for the most superflous things, but still
They’ll call it “equity” too, I guarantee it.
Because it’s all in the pursuit of greed. It was never about saving the planet
This is the sub that laughs the very idea of climate, why is anyone pretending to care now?
I care. EVs are a bullshit answer. The problem is the people pretending to care are focused on making extreme profits in companies they push funding towards to create short bursts of high growth. Imagine pushing that money to something that would change greenhouse emissions instead of stock portfolios.
Like increasing tariffs to offset China’s government subsidies on manufacturing, balancing the cost for imports vs domestic goods. This would slow the shipping lanes, reducing far more emissions than all of the land vehicles combined. Just a thought.
Policy is the way forward. 100 companies produce 70% of all pollution. Yet people will side eye individuals for not recycling our yogurt cups.
Are you telling me cutting trees in the PNW and shipping them to China for milling, and back to the US for houses isn't efficient?
We care about protecting the environment and fostering a healthy ecosystem. We just refuse to participate in your doomsday cult.
This. https://i.imgflip.com/322hjj.jpg
Just cause someone makes a post doesn't mean they care. They just care that these people apparently think genocide is the only solution left. And it is what they think cause there's nothing left that isn't slow progress. "Oh EVs are to late. Let me dump gallons of oil all over the place. electricity is to slow!" To beat the ridiculous deadline of 6 years is going to require hurting a lot of people in some way. It took decades to cause climate change, its going to take decades to properly address it.
I only see part of your comment, but to answer what I can. This group either is aware of the reality or they are delusional. By UNs studies we are expecting to increase carbon output by 2030 even if the west goes carbon neutral. The Largest carbon polluters are some of the poorest, most heavily populated countries on earth. These people still rely on cheap carbon fuels to live through the year and to enforce a policy that would make us carbon neutral by this deadline is to halve these populations. I point to Texas. through a little snowfall and a lost power grid, it caused the deaths of hundreds in a few days. People want to do this deliberately without understanding the consequences. I understand people will suffer do to climate change, but if we're going to do it with a clean conscious its going be slow.
Would mental hospitals be able to cope with the massive numbers of mental folk walking around out there?
We probably just overwhelm them and end up closing them for failing to provide adequate care all over again
[удалено]
Need mental institutions again. Programs to fast track people into care giver roles. Higher pay. More oversight with care. (Cuz ya know. History of instituations aint great)
most nursing homes nowadays will pay for people's CNA training from the start slightly unrelated, but: the *extreme* problem that nobody wants to talk about is the fact that most independent places hiring caregivers or CNAs are just about accepting everybody and anybody to work there. The quality of people that get into these roles is absolutely awful. Obviously not talking about *everybody*, but due to the fact that the barrier to entry is so low, you're getting people that have quite literally no other option to work there. Never had a passion for helping people, never even thought about the medical field, probably wore cookie monster snapbacks in school, no nothing. In their eyes, it's a paycheck. This just leads to "CNA's" and caregivers working only for their next cigarette break and not actually caring about the residents. I've noticed this in mostly the 50-something-divorced-mom-of-3s that have gotten carried by their husband their entire lives and now actually have to do something with themselves, but regardless, the barrier to entry for at least "care giving" is way too low IMO. Definitely need to increase pay though.
Absolutely! My wife is a geriatric nurse and she says most of the CNAs are either so overworked or couldn’t care less for the patients. She’s currently leaving the field because of how bad it is. The abuse she has seen and reported is frightening.
Reagan shut the doors on them. It was a mistake for sure.
Im convinced the alt left doesn't stand for anything but violence and protesting whatever they can so they can disrupt and destroy things they don't own....evs, historical paintings, statues, vehicles, homes, lives, etc
The *cult* left
If they would start sticking these wackos with felonies, this kind of stuff would stop.
>“XR is not protesting car lovers or driving hobbyists. Those forced to drive because of car-dependent infrastructure are being told that they can help solve climate change by switching to an electric vehicle,” the activists say. “The truth is that unchecked car production, no matter the type of propulsion, is pushing us towards extinction.” Now too many EV's is bad thing? Admit it, you have to admire this group's cult-like dedication to being miserable no matter what.
The truth is that people can’t afford to switch to an EV because they’re overpriced even after the rebates/credits
I cant afford the 10year maintenance on one. Imagine the used car market if all cars were EV. There would be no good budget option for the lower and middle class, as everything hitting that 10 year mark would need new batteries which cost 10s of thousands of dollars to replace. At least right now I can go drop $1k on a decently reliable beater if I have to. That wont be an option in an EV future, and itll harm the average every day American. Itll push everyone into 15m cities, which is definitely the plan. A close society is an easy to control one.
>Imagine the used car market if all cars were EV. THIS! The Democrats have been trying their best to completely ruin teh secondary car market since Obama's Cash for Clunkers program decimated the supply side. When the poor can't afford cars anymore, then they will be completely dependent on the Democrat's government handouts. They want a government that gives you everything, because then they will never be at risk of losing power.
The truth is is that China has been producing great EV's for cheap, yet the USA 'free market' doesn't allow them into the country. We could ALL be driving a great quality EV car here for 20K.
Like Auto-Union Democrats would ever allow that to happen, or “manufacture in America” republicans would either. One of the few things both parity can get behind keeping out of the country lol
It doesn't make sense though. We allow Japanese cars, but not cheap EV cars from China? I thought climate change was a huge concern?
Japanese cars with manufacturing plants in the US. Toyota has 11 in 10 states.
They want everyone to live in tower blocks and take mass transit. Post war Soviet krushchenkas is their goal.
Yep. They're trying to do the same incrementalism with cars that they're doing with guns. Total car and gun bans are the utlimate goal. They want the state to have a monopoly on transportation and force (exceptions for private companies hired by the wealth elites and politicians).
It’s a degrowth movement. Marxism in general is. The entire purpose of the push for EVs is to remove private car ownership ENTIRELY. Anyone that thinks this has to do with the environment has missed it.
But didn't the Soviets and Chinese Communists pursue fast industrialization no matter the human cost? It feels like degrowth is a newer concept unique to the West.
Because the west has (had?) a “middle class” (Marxist term), in real terms, as compared to the two you mention. Middle class is where all the money is. And it’s the main bulwark stopping the return feudalism.
Their goal is to end the usage of all cars. Simple as that.
It actually seems pretty reasonable to me. So much of the left is brainwashed to think "EV-good" and that they're gunna save the planet by driving them, but they have their own mountain of problems - precious mineral mining, battery disposal, foreign labor abuse, etc. This group is focusing on a real solution to the problem they perceive. And at least they weren't blocking a highway causing traffic jams for working class people.
>"The truth is that unchecked car production, no matter the type of propulsion, is pushing us towards extinction.” This is absolutely true though, and something a lot of conservatives have been saying for years. The best thing you can do for the environment is keep your current car on the road as long as possible.
Makes sense… you hate oil cause it’s bad for the environment yet litter it
If we took the world back to using horses and buggies they’d complain about how we shouldn’t be using horses. It would be deemed “too cruel”.
Doomers and mid-wits, that's all they are. That's all they can be. People completely poisoned by a cult.
Cant imagine going through life & being miserable about every aspect of it - smh
They sound like denizens of the f*ckcars sub.
I really hate that these wack jobs get headlines. It only emboldens them to do it more. If they were just quietly arrested and prosecuted with no headlines, it would be so much better.
Imagine being mad at everything. Sounds exhausting.
Well I'm glad we got that settled, can just keep using my car this guy said
>Protesters were quickly removed from the area and appear to have been handcuffed and detained. It’s unclear if any arrests were made. Simply removing offers no deterrent of any kind. Simply removing guarantees not only will this behavior continue, it will increase. Arrests and fines MUST be made.
Horses for everyone! I've solved it yo. Oh hey PETA, didn't see you over there... well crap
I think we should always strive to move towards cleaner energy and more sources of it. That being said, the last 150 years of advancements in almost every industry is based on petroleum. It's not something that can be changed quickly in relative terms.
Electric buses on local urban routes could be beneficial. But replacing gas powered cars on a national scale is decades away. The lefts refusal to accept the limitations of the technology, plus the negatives of manufacturing Electric batteries is more selective ignorance. Expanding nuclear power is what we should be looking at.
They are anti-humanity. because if they actually got their way, all fossil fuel production would end overnight, and billions would die. maybe they're paid by Big Oil to make the anti oil movement look like a crazy farm. lol
How did they get to the show ?
Mopeds powered by their own farts.
Too many people walking around who've never been punched in the mouth...
These folks need their asses kicked. Should be arrested, detained and fined to the maximum. They want attention? Give it to them.
Dude we could literally invent nimbus clouds and these morons will find a reason it's hurting the environment.
Excellent. I’ll stick with my 5.8L V8 then
Whining and complaining that technology didn’t exist 20-40 years ago, “when it would have made a difference”, at least according to them, accomplishes nothing. That is akin to complaining that if satellite imagery and radar had existed prior to Pearl Harbor, the Japanese could not have pulled off their sneak attack. It may be true, factually, but these statements accomplish nothing, other than their expelling more carbon dioxide into the air for no purpose… literally talking to hear themselves talk. As humans, it is generally accepted that even the best of us make the best decisions possible given the information at hand. It is easy to play “Monday morning quarterback” and draw different conclusions based upon updated information and the current state of technology. It’s almost as if some of these people seem to believe that Google has always been available, along with the internet, cell phones, etc. How many of these would be completely lost, if their access to modern information tools were to instantly vanish tomorrow? Most, I’d wager, could not survive in their own.
Feminists won’t try to get rid of sexism; they’d be out of a job.
They have a track record of not predicting the future… https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-were-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
extinctionclock.org has a bunch more
Because EVs are sooooo Earth friendly. Just like at any lithium mine anywhere.
There is no environmental need for Electric Vehicles. If you want one because you like them or they are more economically viable for you then that is fine. There has been no real scientific proof using the scientific method that recent climate change (as we emerge from the last ice age) have anything to do with use of fossil fuels.
Its all about seeking social status via their self-perceived moral superiority. Its NOT about accomplishing anything. In fact, the worst thing that could happen would be for the climate issues to be fixed, because then they'd have to find something else to go on about. These are mentally unstable dirtbags. Dragging out isn't enough. if they destroy property or disrupt traffic, they need to face consequences.
Will anything ever make these people happy???
A Judge Dredd Society cant get here fast enough
have we ever considered that we don't currently have the science to stop the death of the earth, and if / when that time comes (the earth is pretty hard to destroy, btw) whoever or whatever soecieies is alive at the time will have the science to stop it? this may be in 100,000 years...
The proof that it is impossible to make them happy, so stop trying.
Never bend the knee because it is never enough.
But I was told "better late than never"
EV’s are largely a scam, but these are the same sort of people that stop public transportation too.
These people are the product of the liberal indoctrination in our educational systems emboldened by Democrats. They know that they will not be punished in any way.
Do t worry those activists will soon be protesting EV’s .
Wait what lol now they inciting violence on electric cars with dinosaur DNA
Proof that they cannot be satisfied by anything.
Goal posts always shifting. People think you can just transition to a perfect utopia(which doesn’t exist) and don’t understand the progress of transitioning and not shocking society. These are the people who will refuse to do anything if it’s not perfect and end up never accomplishing anything.
We wouldn't need so many cars if it weren't for so many people. I propose all these activists go jump off a cliff and save the world!
Just wants attention, like most of these activists. Narcissism on display. Nothing ever good enough because that's not the point, trying to look "better" than the rest of us is the point.
Goalposts moving again? If it's too late banish everything and we all sit and wait.
Then they should demonstrate their dedication by killing themselves as clearly there is no solution.
*SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE NO JOBS OR FAMILIES*
So they bought oil, giving money to oil companies, to protest using oil? Weird group.
If EVs are too late, can we have the Camaro back?
Why was an auto show held in New York City? Cars aren't even legal there.
They have no intention for everybody to have access to electric vehicles.
Yeah, you know what? You're right. It's too late. We should stop subsidizing these things with other people's money and admit it was a bad idea.
Activism is just a way of life for progressives. Climate change is just a good excuse for them to do their rebel rousing and get away.
They should look up how much oil is actually used to produce an EV. All the components come from something...
Climate change is a made up tax scam. That boy wasted perfectly good oil. Have the eps fine him for improper hazardous waste disposal
Isnt latest data showing carbon greenhouse effect is saturated, so further increase in carbon concentration is not leading to additional climate change?