|
On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions.
Only downtowns were planned before cars.
http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm
|
The people and businesses in richer countries are better placed to make sacrifices than people in China, it's pretty obvious. I don't know why people are discussing this thing like emerging powers need to be the ones taking one for the team. We are.
|
On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work.
America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars.
|
On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars.
Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work.
Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another.
|
I find the psychological implications of the fixation on this, in politics and peoples conversation, very disturbing. The actual ability for individual western nations to slow, let alone arrest or reverse the effects of global warming...dont exist. And the efforts to do so, as impact, tax the poor, slow the economy, hinder the ingenuity required to actually solve the problem, grow the government and create human suffering. And yet, despite the 'pissing in the wind while cutting yourself' aspect of global warming initiatives, they exist aplenty and by the very same people who cry from the rooftops about how we will all be certainly drowned by the rising oceans.
So not only does the impact and nature of this discussion trend towards essentially religious esque apocalyptic sentiments, but its a prototypical example of useless social mobilization.
|
One thing people are missing is that gas prices are much higher in Europe than in the US. It's simple economics that as the price for a commodity increases, demand for alternatives goes up. This goes a long way in explaining Europe's much better public transportation system and lower carbon emissions.
|
On September 28 2013 09:37 Dazed_Spy wrote:
I find the psychological implications of the fixation on this, in politics and peoples conversation, very disturbing. The actual ability for individual western nations to slow, let alone arrest or reverse the effects of global warming...dont exist. And the efforts to do so, as impact, tax the poor, slow the economy, hinder the ingenuity required to actually solve the problem, grow the government and create human suffering. And yet, despite the 'pissing in the wind while cutting yourself' aspect of global warming initiatives, they exist aplenty and by the very same people who cry from the rooftops about how we will all be certainly drowned by the rising oceans.
So not only does the impact and nature of this discussion trend towards essentially religious esque apocalyptic sentiments, but its a prototypical example of useless social mobilization.
Very well said!
|
On September 28 2013 09:38 Cheren wrote:
One thing people are missing is that gas prices are much higher in Europe than in the US. It's simple economics that as the price for a commodity increases, demand for alternatives goes up. This goes a long way in explaining Europe's much better public transportation system and lower carbon emissions.
Even then, it is more complicated. If US gas prices hit EU gas price levels things would be disastrous. It is cheaper to live farther from the city, so a lot of poor people live far from where they work. Higher prices = can't get to work = unemployment. If prices rise and you somehow subsidize huge amounts of public transportation so they can keep their jobs, taxes have to go up. Which could mean more issues again.
|
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC?
|
On September 28 2013 09:57 Danglars wrote:
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC?
Well, I thought they already said this like 10 years ago.
|
On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices.
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage.
|
A group of experts spend lots of money researching something then give the results. People react by saying, "you don't know what you're talking about. What I feel is right because I did no research and have no expertise in this field. That makes me right and you, who spent 6+ years focusing on this and scientific data related to this field of study, are wrong."
Why are scientists treated this way... It really hurts to see things like this when I am progressing into the field of medical research. 
I'm glad there is now definitive proof other than the simple UV B and C light interaction with Ozone and O2 and other substance's interaction with Ozone. Hopefully things progress towards scientists focusing on how to create more ozone to balance out what is lost via pollution.
|
On September 28 2013 09:57 Danglars wrote:
Was anyone expecting anything else out of the activist IPCC?
Do you realize that you're dismissing a paper written by hundreds of scientists, authors and editors; containing information drawn from thousands of scientific publications and devised using the fruits of more than 2 million gigabytes of numerical data about the climate?
Do you realize that you're dismissing this paper on the SOLE basis of the IPCC agreeing with their own opinion?
|
On September 28 2013 09:39 TheOneWhoKnocks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:37 Dazed_Spy wrote:
I find the psychological implications of the fixation on this, in politics and peoples conversation, very disturbing. The actual ability for individual western nations to slow, let alone arrest or reverse the effects of global warming...dont exist. And the efforts to do so, as impact, tax the poor, slow the economy, hinder the ingenuity required to actually solve the problem, grow the government and create human suffering. And yet, despite the 'pissing in the wind while cutting yourself' aspect of global warming initiatives, they exist aplenty and by the very same people who cry from the rooftops about how we will all be certainly drowned by the rising oceans.
So not only does the impact and nature of this discussion trend towards essentially religious esque apocalyptic sentiments, but its a prototypical example of useless social mobilization. Very well said!
Doesn't matter what the actual difficulty of fixing this is. The idea is to understand that humans are causing the issue. Whether we can fix the issue or not will be up to some genius invention. Overall average humans can't do anything to fix it. Why say "Humans are causing the issue," then? So some non-average human can figure out what the main issue is and work towards an inventive solution.
At this rate it probably won't be a "get people to stop using oil." invention but a "get something in the air to reverse or slow down the progression" type invention.
Another way of saying what was said. When humans started to figure out that moving away from people/friends made it near impossible to communicate with them they didn't say, "Oh we should just stay near everyone we know and don't worry about figuring out what's going on in the world." They instead said, "we should come up with a way to still communicate." And that is how mail came about (yea not super effective but stay with me.) Overtime they started using some scientific inventions and understandings to create the telegraph, (had to learn morse code or find someone to read it for you so that sucked.) Then more time passed and the phone was created (basic in the start but became what we now know as the cell phone. A very useful piece of technology.)
|
Our only real saviour now is technology.
What? No, a lot can be accomplished by simply not wasting so much shit on a daily basis.
|
On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage.
Yes, trains are LARGELY not viable. They are extremely expensive to install in places that they would be used heavily in (again, refer to Seattle for this) and in many more places it isnt really viable to use because of the spread of people. It doesnt matter that it is cheaper in your country. YOUR country is completely different than the US in terms of scale, growth, density, etc.
In regards to Australia:
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/08/are-you-driving-more-than-the-average/
"which works out at around 38 kilometres a day" or about 23 miles (which is comparable to the same amount that is driven in the UK).
It is readily apparent that you are extremely biased against the US regardless of what the actual real situation is. You have no clue how US cities are organized, you make baseless claims, you use biased metrics, and you use dramatic phrases like shedding tears when they are not even necessary OR relevant to what we are talking about.
|
On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage.
To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles.
One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn.
Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land .
Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern.
|
On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me.
|
On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me.
That's perfectly fine. The state doesn't have to do anything to make this happen. Eventually this type of living won't be sustainable economically. I predict this will start happening automatically, the impact will just be a lot harder if we're not proactive about it. As such, I would prefer to have planners address this sooner than later, as we have multiple professions designed specifically for planning out these kind of problems.
Additionally, I don't believe other first world countries are suffering from the same kind of unhappiness. Same goes for my friends and families living in cities, like 1/6 the population of South Korea.
|
On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:35 TheRabidDeer wrote:
Yes. Needing to drive farther for everyday goods adds up. So in comparison to EU the US needs higher carbon emissions. I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy. But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern.
I already highlighted urban sprawl as a problem earlier in the thread.
And yes, we do use a ton of oil. This is largely because we rely on it for power. I would be ecstatic if we could utilize more wind and nuclear power. Even moreso if Bill Gates project comes to fruition.
On September 28 2013 11:09 [Agony]x90 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 11:03 Dazed_Spy wrote:On September 28 2013 10:58 [Agony]x90 wrote:On September 28 2013 10:04 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:34 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:27 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 09:18 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 09:07 GhastlyUprising wrote:On September 28 2013 08:48 TheRabidDeer wrote:On September 28 2013 08:46 GhastlyUprising wrote:
[quote]I would have thought that Americans dwell and reside in incomparably, stupendously, even disgustingly greater luxury than the Chinese and you have a fucking cheek to seek reasons why Americans should get an exemption on carbon emissions. In fact, I would have thought it sufficiently clear that you're so shameless on this subject that it's cringe-worthy.
But then, I've always resisted the Americanization of my culture and I've never quite been at home with the injunction to "sell yourself". Where am I seeking an exemption? It is plain facts that when you have to travel further, you will emit more carbon. If you can introduce to the world a method to go farther and emit the same or less you would be a rich person. Can we improve? Sure. Are we? Yes. Now get off your preachy high horse. If there is any truth to this, it's more than balanced by the fact that you alluded to before: that in America, every member of the family often has a car. You can bet your boots that at least one of the cars in the garage is an item of luxury, not necessity. We're still left with the point that most cities in America were planned before cars were invented. Your country might take a while to readjust, but there's no reason to believe you'll be worse off than the Chinese, even during the process of readjustment. None of this talk even touches the point that electric-powered cars are perfectly good and workable. You can buy an electric-powered car right now and drive around the United States. The technology requires investment to get prices down. The established powers of big business will try their best to stop that, and they're aided and abetted by the US government when it refuses to sign treaties that would bind it to lowering carbon emissions. Only downtowns were planned before cars. http://geography.howstuffworks.com/terms-and-associations/urban-sprawl.htm Eh, well...in the north of England, we don't even rely on cars to get us around the "suburbs". Many of us take the train to work. America would quickly adjust to the new situation. In any case, adjustment mightn't be necessary if your government invests in renewable energy. There's nothing wrong with electric cars. Trains are largely not viable in America. We try them but in most cases it fails because of how expensive it is (in addition to how spread out 90% of the country is). Some cities (SF) use it to great effect, while others (Seattle) not so much. America also heavily utilizes Park and Rides. You, as an outsider, don't really know what it is like in the US on a day to day basis... let alone how the cities are set up and how pricing for places to live work. Also, electric cars still use energy. I dont know how different it is from between the car emitting carbon vs the electric plant emitting carbon but they still both emit in some form or another. Trains are largely not viable? In my country, commuting by car is vastly more expensive than by train. You're simply spoiled by low fuel prices and you don't realize it. Other countries like Australia, which have FAR more reason to worry about driving distances, signed the Kyoto Protocol. Everything you say speaks to a poverty of imagination, which in turn speaks to an unwillingness to contemplate anything which would require making a few sacrifices. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to shed tears for the most spoiled (and as might be turning out, the most selfish) human beings on the planet. The sacrifices being asked of you are pretty small potatoes compared with the economy-slowing version that the developing world will have to endure. It's their factories against your four cars in every garage. To add to this, a major issue with America is our massive failure living system. America is addicted to the suburbs. I live in one too, and suburbs kick ass for raising families. Just enough room to keep your neighbors far away and just close enough that every luxury and commodity is within 30 minutes. The result is our absolute dependence upon personal automobiles. One thing that I found very interesting about Europe is how their towns are set up. Despite the town I was in was completely surrounded by a crap ton of open land, the town itself was clustered. Now I didn't spend much time in Europe, but in this set up, you can get anywhere in town at the loss of your own personal land/lawn. Ultimately, cities are actually the best system for minimizing pollution. By living in cities, we can minimize the need for long distance transportation, increase efficiency of public transportation (such as trains and subways), and preserve more land . Edit: To guy above me. When it comes down to it, America basically just uses the most oil of any other country. There must be something wrong if countries of similar population/wealth do not consume the same as we do. Our situation is, therefore, different, but this difference is the major cause for concern. If you want to live in a poorly designed, huddled town that puts a premium on useless 'green' solutions over human happiness and family, be my guest. Just dont bring the state into it and punish me. That's perfectly fine. The state doesn't have to do anything to make this happen. Eventually this type of living won't be sustainable economically. I predict this will start happening automatically, the impact will just be a lot harder if we're not proactive about it. As such, I would prefer to have planners address this sooner than later, as we have multiple professions designed specifically for planning out these kind of problems. Additionally, I don't believe other first world countries are suffering from the same kind of unhappiness. Same goes for my friends and families living in cities, like 1/6 the population of South Korea.
You act like we arent doing anything to combat urban sprawl... meanwhile we are. Again, refer to previously linked article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
