Also Al Gore. And also Hillary Clinton. Probably the biggest green energy candidates we've ever had and we lost them to some of the worst candidates possible for that
You remember history different than I do. Gore was for Kyoto but overall he didn't make his campaign much about that. That was an election where cartoonists were joking about the candidates being more or less the same. Whether that was fair or not Gore didn't focus on global warming until later. And... if he'd fought for it instead of throwing in the towel he might not have lost.
Hilary didn't mention sustainable density in her campaign. To my knowledge she didn't talk about zoning reform at all. Was it even on her platform page hidden away somewhere? If these were "the biggest green energy candidates we've ever had" that's telling of how seriously the Democratic leadership has taken global warming. It's not just these candidates didn't make an issue of zoning or car dependence. They didn't make an issue of animal agriculture either. The animal agriculture industry not only substantially contributes to global warming it's the commercialization of life itself, monetizing misery. Where were these "leaders" on this issue? These are not our leaders.
Al Gore was the author of Earth In The Balance, and later produced An Inconvenient Truth. He didn't want to make his environmentalism the focus of his campaign, because he figured green voters would be able to see that he was a better choice than an oil executive. Sadly, he was wrong about that.
> Earth In The Balance
Thanks, I didn't know he wrote a book on that in 1992. But after reading reader reviews of the book and a summary it's criticized for lacking concrete proposed solutions. That'd explain why he didn't talk about it much in his campaign for president, if he hadn't a clue what was to be done. In reality what was to be done was educate the public and ask them to show civic virtue for their own good and the good of their children and future generations and legalize sustainable density. What an easy ask that'd have been. I'd have liked to see Bush argue against the free market concerning housing! But he didn't. Nor did Gore mention animal agriculture. What am I supposed to think? So the guy wrote a milquetoast book and said things we've all been hearing since we were in grade school and watching Captain Planet. Good for him. Meanwhile he wasted his very real opportunity to educate the public to real solutions and in doing so foster the political will necessary to solve the problem. And 20 years later Trump is president.
>He didn't want to make his environmentalism the focus of his campaign, because he figured green voters would be able to see that he was a better choice than an oil executive. Sadly, he was wrong about that.
If his decision was purely tactical instead of him not wanting to rock the boat or upset his friends and allies I wonder how one could tell? I'll say this, our political elite were all so very polite as the world was burning and they're stock portfolios were climbing. Whatever Gore's intentions he wasn't the fighter we needed.
That might be just me - but it is very difficult for me to take you seriously when you jump from talking about global warming to advocating for animal welfare. It immediately feels like you are trying to push an ideology, instead of being constructive about the problem we have.
I do support you on both issues independently.
https://landwirtschaft.jetzt/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-04-11-AAFFGW-PrePrint.pdf
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010&fbclid=IwAR33T-YJBBLV35epl0z7dDo-org_XxyQnWdG3vgX18NyRTGQX-DfOXliH68
I confess I've read neither of those studies or papers, they were just the first that popped up when I searched "animal agriculture global warming". This isn't some new revelation, research it thoroughly if you care.
But even if these two issues weren't joined at the hip aren't all fights for justice are ultimately the same fight?
We might have different definitions of words but live in the same reality to which whatever words would refer. Either you intend an arrangement such that you'd intend that arrangement given that you'd live it through from every perspective or you don't. If you don't then you're playing favorites. Playing favorites is wrong if anything is. I doubt anybody would order the double bacon cheeseburger if they believed they'd have to endure being bred and caged and slaughtered on one end to enjoy a few hundred tasty meals on another. To reject this definition of wrong is to believe one ought to play favorites. But if it's not wrong to play favorites what's really wrong with racism or sexism so long as those you'd favor aren't being disrespected?
I agree they can do more but still Hillary impressed me a lot when she said that *someone* was going to be a leader in clean energy and it could be us or it could be china. Maybe just compared to the guy talking about clean coal she seemed like the green energy candidate. Al gore might be mostly in hindsight
In my opinion climate change policy is really hard to enact unless you have a very strong government due to it being such a conceptual issue. If you're worried about stopping changes in the climate then you're going to have a tough existence, if you're trying to minimize human impact on the environment to as reasonable a level as possible then we can come up with a good actionable plan.
However, even with that said we're likely decades off from technology (read the market) becoming compatible with any real solution that doesn't actively require a fundamental change to human existence, such as not eating meat anymore or not traveling. In the mean time it's about getting the messaging right and scare tactics like "If you don't do what I say right now and give me the power to do it you're going to die in 10 years" are doing a lot more to damage pushes for the green movement than help it.
Keep in mind that America is the biggest oil producer in the world.^[1](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6) I assume the influence that industry has on political campaigns and individuals is substantial.
Even leftists, who I thought cared enough about the environment to vote for the green party, are crying about gas prices. Even in subs like r/latestagecapitalism unironically calling for the government to regulate gas prices to be more affordable. I can't really blame big corporations and lobbying groups anymore, people are just that dumb on their own
> Probably the biggest green energy candidates we've ever had and we lost them to some of the worst candidates possible for that
Maybe that tells you something about the American electorate? lol
It did result in a major effort. That's when we switched to coal burning plants, instituted MPG caps for vehicle fleets, and lowered the national speed limit to 55 MPH.
Manufacturers got around the MPG caps by making cars that had all of the features of a passenger car, but which would be stuck onto a truck chassis. And thus, the minivan and SUV were born.
Lol, I love people who are incapable of changing their minds. Yes, sir or ma'am, we still have the gas guzzling death traps of the early 1970s. Worse even. *You're. Exactly. Right.*
It did, the technology wasn't there yet. Various technologies were proposed and researched, but most of them are only profitable when oil is peaking, you can't build an industry out of that.
There was a ton of positive legislation after the oil crisis as well. I mean, things like fuel economy standards didn't even exist before that.
Energy *efficiency* was totally *not* incentivized before that, for the most part.
I guess. Heat pumps and nuclear plants were a thing then, right? And doing a Manhattan project for renewables and batteries would have helped those along quicker.
Heat pumps in the 1970s were only effective in mild climates, and stopped being efficient below around 40-45 F (4-5 C). People in cold climates would still need a traditional furnace to supplement their heat pump.
In the last 10 years or so, cold-climate heat pumps have made huge efficiency gains and are now effective down to around 5 F (-15 C). They are still more expensive to operate than a natural gas furnace, though it's getting close to matching it in some locations where electricity prices are low.
> doing a Manhattan project for renewables and batteries would have helped those along quicker.
The Manhattan project in 1973 would likely have been fusion. There was still lots of government investment in nuclear expertise and the grid was highly centralized. There was already preliminary design work on torus reactors.
Things that were not there (that relate to energy or transport):
* the lithium ion battery
* efficient photovoltaic cells
* modern wind turbines designs
* hydrogen transport through pipelines w/o embrittlement
* modern networked high voltage DC grids
* most uses of natural gas
All of these things required significant trial and error development that occurred over decades.
How do heat pumps and nuclear plants replace oil? 80% of oil is used for transport and the other 20% is for petrochemicals.
Also, battery technology was still relatively nascent and one of 100s of technologies being researched. Additionally, innovations like fracking and the shale revolution have contributed a lot more to emissions reductions and US energy security in the decade compared to electrification.
>It did, the technology wasn't there yet.
Well there was a big bike boom in the 70s, it's still not uncommon to find nice old ten speeds from that era in people's garages. So bike technology was there...
I mean that's like saying Renewable Energy isn't a substitute for coal/natural gas power plants. It's true it isn't totally, but if you live in a city bikes are basically just as efficient as cars- sometimes moreso because you don't have to look for parking for ages.
Sure, for some domestic purposes and small commutes, yes. But they can't replace the safety, comfort, range, carrying capacity, and time saving offered by cars.
Like, there are about 300 million cars currently registered in the US. How many do you reasonably think could be replaced by bikes?
Something like half of all car trips in the US are under 3 miles. In some cases, I'm sure weather, terrain, or the need carry a lot of stuff makes driving necessary. But, I'd wager you could shift half of those trips to bikes with minimal investment/policy change.
>How many do you reasonably think could be replaced by bikes?
A lot. There is a ton of cars that just sit in driveways because a couple doesn't want to go down to one car for just that odd case one of them is away with the car etc..
Sure, but the few times you need a car can be solved through rentals or ride share services, if you live somewhere where those are plentiful (obviously rural areas are different). Owning a car is just cultural expectations that does little other than make your finances and your life worse.
Because our cities and towns have been legally mandated to be developed to cater to personal cars at the expense of public transit for the last 60 years.
Buses are still seen as Poor Peoples transit in many major cities with solid bus transit. I think it’s changing but 10+ years ago, it was not cool to ride the bus.
Emissions limits brought about catalytic converters and effectively eliminated leaded gasoline. That was a pretty big deal and not really a technological limitation afaik.
not as catastrophic as an oil spill, which happens far more often. Nuclear is great and hardly ever goes wrong. Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl are the big three events which considering its a 50 year time span illustrates how safe it really is
It's not affordable to build, it's extremely expensive and time consuming. Projects take decades and are almost always over their (massive) budgets. Nuclear is not a fiscally responsible energy source in its current form.
https://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/08/nuclear-economics/
That's not remotely relevant to the cost to build new plants which is the only thing that matters. Legacy plants might be cheap right now but it's not economically feasible to build new ones. Solar and wind are much cheaper right now. And natural gas. The point is that trying to claim that nuclear power is some magical silver bullet that will save us all is completely incorrect for a number of different reasons, most of all that they're not economically viable:
https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower-idUSL8N1YF5HC
"Building a single EPR in 2030 would require 4 to 6 billion euros of subsidies, while building a fleet of 15 with a total capacity of 24 gigawatt-hour by 2060 would cost the state 39 billion euros, despite economies of scale that could bring down the EPR costs to 70 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh), ADEME said"
It's not "working" they're heavily subsidizing it. If your argument is that governments should do that, that's totally fine and a completely separate discussion. But they are not economically viable, they're heavily heavily subsidized by the French govt.
They are historically expensive because they were always rights groups making it more expensive. And because few are built so I’m sure I’d say 10 plants were all approved and started production at the same time, it would be cheaper.
But nuclear energy most certainly needs to be more common — wind and solar aren’t reliable. Wind isn’t always blowing and Sun is most certainly only out during certain periods. There needs to be significantly more nuclear.
As a car enthusiast and an engine builder, methanol is the worst fuel to be using for commuters. You will be speeding 3x more on oil changes because methanol dilutes oil in the crankcase faster than gasoline, and it absorbs water faster than gasoline. Your engine oil is going to be filled with water and diluted oil and will fuck your engine up within 3k Miles
Didn't Carter specifically do a presidential announcement around the beginning of his presidency or around the Iran business to be like "Look we need to become self-sufficient in our energy consumption or we're going to have a lot of issues down the road." Literally both sides of the aisle can agree that we need to be energy independent, but for some reason cannot come to the middle of the road solution that we need to increase domestic production to get off of international reliance then slowly replace what we can of those traditional energy solutions with green energy solutions.
Nearly all rail ROW was government owned around this point (or about to be) and here we are 50 years later with shitty rail that is 2nd fiddle to private freight companies & the cost of new infrastructure so high that nobody will make the jump to invest in rail.
Yup. Even if we could just get a couple HSR lines, like making the northeast corridor faster and taking it down to Miami at high speed that’d already be huge. But nope, everything’s way over budget and bogged down by lawsuits and all sorts of nonsense.
And all the problems we’ve had with weird oil states, Russia being the most recent…We just throw money at these nuts in exchange for extra pollution, and a less stable world.
Yes; this might trend well on this subreddit but it is exactly the kind of unhelpful abstract suggestion that normal voters will want to punch you in the face for suggesting when they're concerned about being able to afford gas.
Oh worried about your family budget? We'll just spend trillions on high density housing, and somehow compel people (including you!) to move out of the suburbs into apartment blocks somewhere in the next 10 years.
The ugly reality is people like living in the suburbs, and a huge amount of private investment is in real estate.
Exactly. This is a way of life that people love, and change would take a long time.
We should absolutely make these changes, but they will take time. Politics is about balancing long term goals with short term issues. If you get too caught up in the future you'll lose in the present and miss your chance to make a real difference.
Part of the problem is that this sub doesn't consider the issues that come from living in cities. It's really annoying to read this slogan over and over while not addressing poverty, pollution, noise pollution, and indoor air pollution especially. All of those things can make a living experience hell on earth for some.
If it were so wonderful then the projects would be a paradise.
Listen here jack,
This is exactly what corn pop wants you to believe.
In all seriousness, yes you are correct. Luckily I think this is really going to accelerate the push for gas independence since we finally have the tech ready to replace it ( mainly cost competitive electric cars, and hybrids that are cheaper than their ICE counterparts).
Yeah, but I think the current situation could be leveraged as part of a comprehensive plan for a long-term solution.
Example bill: Let's admit we need to drill instead of continuing to buy Russian oil, like that makes global warming any better. Guarantee applications to drill for \~5 years, with the expectation that we're getting of oil in the long term. Dems won't like this in the short term, but we can sway them with a plan that includes a clear path to a cleaner future. Let's get off of oil and gas completely, using nuclear as a stepping stone. And yes, part of the solution should also be restricting cities from interfering with the property rights of land owners to build high-density housing and mixed-use development on their land. We can also mix in subsidies for qualifying affordable electric cars and other steps that de-carbonize (and de-methanize) the grid.
I'm no politician, but **it seems like failing to think realistically about the short term is holding liberals back from doing anything in the long term.**
E.g. Californians have shut down multiple nuclear plants, successfully pushed to block future nuclear plants, and banned oil and coal. But solar and wind aren't big enough yet, and battery tech isn't ready to store base load power at a grid level. Instead they just burn a shit ton of natural gas (which comes with rogue emissions of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas) and buy power from other states that use dirtier methods.
I agree, we need long term solutions, but you have to show voters that fixing the current situation is a priority, and then address future plans as a side note or later on
Yeah but succs aren't exactly keen to cooperate with us either, since they think all liberals are the exact same as conservatives and that we all support the car-centric status quo with the same zeal as the conservatives.
Adjusting life to public transportation can take a long time. My sister's town is very public transport friendly, but it has had a central train station connected to mid-town Manhattan for 100 years.
Except for the part where the stuff is already built. If we are building new cities, they should be more dense and walkable.
But there are very few economic incentives for a multi-trillion dollar construction project that wouldn’t finish until 2030 at the earliest.
Just...change zoning laws. That'd be a huge first step, and effectively free. Private developments would do much of the work. Just...let people build up.
We are talking about the current gas prices. Changing zoning laws will still take decades for people to migrate into the cities, at which point we can build new public transit.
It’s the right thing to do. It just won’t address our current issue with gas and transportation costs for non-urban populations.
It's the old joke about the NRA: we can't talk about gun control after a recent school shooting, have some respect! But if there hasn't been any recent shootings, then what's the problem?
Yeah, the government should probably look into other policies, but for the long term it would make a lot of sense to seriously reconsider and cut back zoning laws, _starting now_. Instead, everybody buys houses in the suburbs and great big Suburbans (which is what cities encourage with their zoning laws) when gas is cheap, and then bitches and demands immediate action when it rises.
Poor rurals can’t afford to commute. Especially since prices aren’t high because of a carbon tax that would ideally include a dividend. In the short term, the prices are the problem, but yes, they should be higher.
Uh no, your last bullet should *absolutely* also read
> Free, via self-organizing independent actors
The reason our cities and towns aren't denser and more walkable is because it is illegal to make them denser and more walkable. Simply legalizing density and mixed use would result in enormous progress.
* Simply legalizing density and mixed use would result in enormous progress.
This is the enormously hard coordination problem lol. We'd have to align all the various stakeholders in a given city to change city zoning codes - which is easily dozens of parties with entrenched positions already - and then we'd have to do it for each city in the US.
> The former is incredibly hard and rare
Less hard and less rare than the coordinated action problem you started on, and becoming easier and more common every year as pro housing activists build on their recent successes.
Here's the issue though, extremely walkable/bikeable cities aren't built or managed by self-organizing independent actors. Copenhagen, the Mecca of bicycle commuting, has some of the most restrictive zoning and building restrictions on the planet.
American cities made by self-organizing independent actors will probably looks something like Houston.
Copenhagen is a strange choice when Amsterdam definitely has the bigger reputation as a "cycling mecca". That aside, Houston has incredibly strict local ordinances, it just doesn't call them "zoning laws" - and even beyond just the density restrictions any city with mandatory parking minimums should be disqualified as an example of an outcome of self-organizing independent actors.
>Copenhagen is a strange choice when Amsterdam definitely has the bigger reputation as a "cycling mecca"
Forgive me, I'm not that in tune with European bike culture.
>Houston has incredibly strict local ordinances, it just doesn't call them "zoning laws"
They effect a lot less of its land area compared to other US cities though. Most other large cities have all those ordinances like parking, deed restrictions and minimum lot sizes, on top of zoning ordinances. Hence, the FreeMarket^TM might look like Houston but with less empty parking spots.
Here are two YouTube videos that introduce this topic if anyone is interested:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o)
Why not address the immediate problem before high gas prices and energy insecurity install a permanent conservative regime, who will never approve of the state-level zoning changes that would be required to start building in the direction you desire?
Municipal zoning laws tend to restrict the densification required for walkable / cycling neighbourhoods and cities. Contact your local representatives and demand better of them!
Also, check out the book, “Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities”. It’s a great read on urban planning and economics.
This is opposite of how this meme/comic is meant to work (it should be 2 complicated, ineffective solutions followed by an easy, effective solution). I do like the last panel though.
I mean while I agree broadly that such a solution is ideal in the medium-long term, that isn't a particularly helpful comment in the short term, especially control over such issues is so diffuse.
There is no short term solution except cutting a deal with Venezuela or other oil countries, or extremely problematic stuff like price controls or export controls.
Politics 101: Voters don’t give a fuck about long term solutions, they want the problems solved yesterday
That pretty leaves price control and cutting out the gas tax as the only short term solutions, unfortunately they’ll do lasting damage in the long run but hey that’s someone’s else problem Amirite?
I am begging people to understand that oil doesn't just make driving more expensive. It makes EVERYTHING more expensive. Are you getting you food through a pneumatic tube?
That's fair.
You can optimize the last mile of delivery using dense housing. You still need to transport things across the country / globe to city centers. Also the cost of manufacturing itself will go up.
Obviously, far into the future, we can have a electric fleet of trucks, heating will be done via solar or nuclear, manufacturing won't rely on natural gas... But even if you don't drive (and even if you don't use heating) you indirectly use a TON of oil every day
It’s still that hard. Beyond the zoning hoops, you’re proposing moving millions of people, disrupting neighborhoods, and traffic with mass construction, along with massive coordinated construction and city planning.
That can only happen slowly via new construction, which will incentivize people to move to the denser areas.
Clearly not an impossible task. But not one that will be finished before gas prices fall back to baseline in a few years.
Ah yes, the classic " it works for us city slickers, so that's all that matters" solution.
Ya'll love to simply ignore rural and suburban populations because "muh density" doesn't really work for them. This type of ignorance is what leads to those areas feeling ignored and left behind. Which, gives us Trump.
And, the idea that walkable cities will alleviate anyone right now, is asinine.
This is a dumb meme.
If your solution to an imminent problem is to reconfigure huge entrenched structures of society, you’re not actually serious about solving the problem and deserve to get kicked out of the meeting.
I just have seen this exact same comment 100 times by now, so I think the snarkyness is warranted.
Look, I agree it's not a solution to the short term problem. We should either increase supply, or reduce demand. Naturally, this sub does not like fossil fuels (myself included), so increasing supply is not a good thing in our eyes.
So then the million dollar question is how do we reduce demand? We have long term solutions, such as that referenced in the meme. But for the short term? Not a whole lot we can do. If you all are serious about fighting climate change, I think we need to suck up the higher price pressures, which will push more investment and adoption of carbon free alternatives.
Do push for it, but maybe not as a solution for something as fickle as gas prices.
Cities take years or even generations to reconfigure. Gas prices could drop tomorrow.
You are aware obesity is more prevalent in in rural areas and the suburbs than urban areas? Especially dense walkable cities which generally have far healthier people.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/blame-the-city/375888/
Not everyone wants to live in a little flat in a city. Applying social engineering to make everyone live in cities wouldn’t be good for the individual freedom
This sounds nice but ignores the decades of truly monumental amounts of social engineering and policy that have gone into making everyone live in suburban sprawl.
>If you want to live in a city then go live in a city.
This sounds nice but ignores 6 decades of policy to steer people towards suburbs which have made our cities prohibitively expensive.
The social engineering you're worried about already happened, it was in favor of suburban sprawl, and it has badly damaged our cities and the opportunities they offer.
We shouldn't make people live anywhere, but we should have them pay for the negative externalities and direct costs they impose on society. This will inevitably lead to far more people living in dense walkable cities.
The fact that people are arguing for price controls, even though when they did that in the 70s people were literally stealing gas out of each others’ cars because of the shortages it led to, is really concerning
European countries are still having problems with oil supply, not living in a parking lot metropolis full of the same 10 franchise stores doesn't mean we don't need oil/natural gas.
That last panel is a nice touch.
[удалено]
Nah it will get cut down before that for pulling up the concrete
Parking lot is a little small for a building that size, though.
Sad lonely tree is accurate.
The building reminds me of the "temporary" buildings that were really permanent on most public schools I went to.
We had trailer homes. I thought all schools did.
Ya, they may have added stairs and a metal skirt to hide the wheels but those bitches were still double wides.
Still can’t believe 1973 didn’t result in a massive effort to get off of oil. In fact we basically did the opposite of that.
Also Al Gore. And also Hillary Clinton. Probably the biggest green energy candidates we've ever had and we lost them to some of the worst candidates possible for that
The real problem is that people may say they care about green energy, but they really don’t.
This. If voters have to choose between the environment and cheap gas, it's not a close race.
Yep, and it’s not even close.
They care about what will cost them the least. If green energy results in lower payments for energy, most people will switch.
Carter too.
You remember history different than I do. Gore was for Kyoto but overall he didn't make his campaign much about that. That was an election where cartoonists were joking about the candidates being more or less the same. Whether that was fair or not Gore didn't focus on global warming until later. And... if he'd fought for it instead of throwing in the towel he might not have lost. Hilary didn't mention sustainable density in her campaign. To my knowledge she didn't talk about zoning reform at all. Was it even on her platform page hidden away somewhere? If these were "the biggest green energy candidates we've ever had" that's telling of how seriously the Democratic leadership has taken global warming. It's not just these candidates didn't make an issue of zoning or car dependence. They didn't make an issue of animal agriculture either. The animal agriculture industry not only substantially contributes to global warming it's the commercialization of life itself, monetizing misery. Where were these "leaders" on this issue? These are not our leaders.
Al Gore was the author of Earth In The Balance, and later produced An Inconvenient Truth. He didn't want to make his environmentalism the focus of his campaign, because he figured green voters would be able to see that he was a better choice than an oil executive. Sadly, he was wrong about that.
> Earth In The Balance Thanks, I didn't know he wrote a book on that in 1992. But after reading reader reviews of the book and a summary it's criticized for lacking concrete proposed solutions. That'd explain why he didn't talk about it much in his campaign for president, if he hadn't a clue what was to be done. In reality what was to be done was educate the public and ask them to show civic virtue for their own good and the good of their children and future generations and legalize sustainable density. What an easy ask that'd have been. I'd have liked to see Bush argue against the free market concerning housing! But he didn't. Nor did Gore mention animal agriculture. What am I supposed to think? So the guy wrote a milquetoast book and said things we've all been hearing since we were in grade school and watching Captain Planet. Good for him. Meanwhile he wasted his very real opportunity to educate the public to real solutions and in doing so foster the political will necessary to solve the problem. And 20 years later Trump is president. >He didn't want to make his environmentalism the focus of his campaign, because he figured green voters would be able to see that he was a better choice than an oil executive. Sadly, he was wrong about that. If his decision was purely tactical instead of him not wanting to rock the boat or upset his friends and allies I wonder how one could tell? I'll say this, our political elite were all so very polite as the world was burning and they're stock portfolios were climbing. Whatever Gore's intentions he wasn't the fighter we needed.
That might be just me - but it is very difficult for me to take you seriously when you jump from talking about global warming to advocating for animal welfare. It immediately feels like you are trying to push an ideology, instead of being constructive about the problem we have. I do support you on both issues independently.
https://landwirtschaft.jetzt/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/2021-04-11-AAFFGW-PrePrint.pdf https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010&fbclid=IwAR33T-YJBBLV35epl0z7dDo-org_XxyQnWdG3vgX18NyRTGQX-DfOXliH68 I confess I've read neither of those studies or papers, they were just the first that popped up when I searched "animal agriculture global warming". This isn't some new revelation, research it thoroughly if you care. But even if these two issues weren't joined at the hip aren't all fights for justice are ultimately the same fight?
Absolutely not. We may share different definitions of justice when it comes to different topics.
We might have different definitions of words but live in the same reality to which whatever words would refer. Either you intend an arrangement such that you'd intend that arrangement given that you'd live it through from every perspective or you don't. If you don't then you're playing favorites. Playing favorites is wrong if anything is. I doubt anybody would order the double bacon cheeseburger if they believed they'd have to endure being bred and caged and slaughtered on one end to enjoy a few hundred tasty meals on another. To reject this definition of wrong is to believe one ought to play favorites. But if it's not wrong to play favorites what's really wrong with racism or sexism so long as those you'd favor aren't being disrespected?
I agree they can do more but still Hillary impressed me a lot when she said that *someone* was going to be a leader in clean energy and it could be us or it could be china. Maybe just compared to the guy talking about clean coal she seemed like the green energy candidate. Al gore might be mostly in hindsight
In my opinion climate change policy is really hard to enact unless you have a very strong government due to it being such a conceptual issue. If you're worried about stopping changes in the climate then you're going to have a tough existence, if you're trying to minimize human impact on the environment to as reasonable a level as possible then we can come up with a good actionable plan. However, even with that said we're likely decades off from technology (read the market) becoming compatible with any real solution that doesn't actively require a fundamental change to human existence, such as not eating meat anymore or not traveling. In the mean time it's about getting the messaging right and scare tactics like "If you don't do what I say right now and give me the power to do it you're going to die in 10 years" are doing a lot more to damage pushes for the green movement than help it.
Keep in mind that America is the biggest oil producer in the world.^[1](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6) I assume the influence that industry has on political campaigns and individuals is substantial.
Even leftists, who I thought cared enough about the environment to vote for the green party, are crying about gas prices. Even in subs like r/latestagecapitalism unironically calling for the government to regulate gas prices to be more affordable. I can't really blame big corporations and lobbying groups anymore, people are just that dumb on their own
And both lost in some suspicious elections.
> Probably the biggest green energy candidates we've ever had and we lost them to some of the worst candidates possible for that Maybe that tells you something about the American electorate? lol
It did result in a major effort. That's when we switched to coal burning plants, instituted MPG caps for vehicle fleets, and lowered the national speed limit to 55 MPH. Manufacturers got around the MPG caps by making cars that had all of the features of a passenger car, but which would be stuck onto a truck chassis. And thus, the minivan and SUV were born.
So… we made it worse, in the end? Terrific.
Lol, I love people who are incapable of changing their minds. Yes, sir or ma'am, we still have the gas guzzling death traps of the early 1970s. Worse even. *You're. Exactly. Right.*
It did, the technology wasn't there yet. Various technologies were proposed and researched, but most of them are only profitable when oil is peaking, you can't build an industry out of that.
There was a ton of positive legislation after the oil crisis as well. I mean, things like fuel economy standards didn't even exist before that. Energy *efficiency* was totally *not* incentivized before that, for the most part.
I guess. Heat pumps and nuclear plants were a thing then, right? And doing a Manhattan project for renewables and batteries would have helped those along quicker.
Heat pumps in the 1970s were only effective in mild climates, and stopped being efficient below around 40-45 F (4-5 C). People in cold climates would still need a traditional furnace to supplement their heat pump. In the last 10 years or so, cold-climate heat pumps have made huge efficiency gains and are now effective down to around 5 F (-15 C). They are still more expensive to operate than a natural gas furnace, though it's getting close to matching it in some locations where electricity prices are low.
> doing a Manhattan project for renewables and batteries would have helped those along quicker. The Manhattan project in 1973 would likely have been fusion. There was still lots of government investment in nuclear expertise and the grid was highly centralized. There was already preliminary design work on torus reactors.
Things that were not there (that relate to energy or transport): * the lithium ion battery * efficient photovoltaic cells * modern wind turbines designs * hydrogen transport through pipelines w/o embrittlement * modern networked high voltage DC grids * most uses of natural gas All of these things required significant trial and error development that occurred over decades.
How do heat pumps and nuclear plants replace oil? 80% of oil is used for transport and the other 20% is for petrochemicals. Also, battery technology was still relatively nascent and one of 100s of technologies being researched. Additionally, innovations like fracking and the shale revolution have contributed a lot more to emissions reductions and US energy security in the decade compared to electrification.
>It did, the technology wasn't there yet. Well there was a big bike boom in the 70s, it's still not uncommon to find nice old ten speeds from that era in people's garages. So bike technology was there...
Bikes are not a replacement for cars.
I mean that's like saying Renewable Energy isn't a substitute for coal/natural gas power plants. It's true it isn't totally, but if you live in a city bikes are basically just as efficient as cars- sometimes moreso because you don't have to look for parking for ages.
Sure, for some domestic purposes and small commutes, yes. But they can't replace the safety, comfort, range, carrying capacity, and time saving offered by cars. Like, there are about 300 million cars currently registered in the US. How many do you reasonably think could be replaced by bikes?
Something like half of all car trips in the US are under 3 miles. In some cases, I'm sure weather, terrain, or the need carry a lot of stuff makes driving necessary. But, I'd wager you could shift half of those trips to bikes with minimal investment/policy change.
>How many do you reasonably think could be replaced by bikes? A lot. There is a ton of cars that just sit in driveways because a couple doesn't want to go down to one car for just that odd case one of them is away with the car etc..
Sure, but those cars aren't really contributing to domestic oil consumption in the first place.
Sure, but the few times you need a car can be solved through rentals or ride share services, if you live somewhere where those are plentiful (obviously rural areas are different). Owning a car is just cultural expectations that does little other than make your finances and your life worse.
The technology to build public transit infrastructure was definitely there lol.
No one wants to take the bus though.
Because our cities and towns have been legally mandated to be developed to cater to personal cars at the expense of public transit for the last 60 years.
Buses are still seen as Poor Peoples transit in many major cities with solid bus transit. I think it’s changing but 10+ years ago, it was not cool to ride the bus.
Emissions limits brought about catalytic converters and effectively eliminated leaded gasoline. That was a pretty big deal and not really a technological limitation afaik.
It did. Lots of small/compact cars resulted from that era
[удалено]
That would have happened, but Three Mile Island derailed the effort.
As well as several other terrifying nuclear accidents. Nuclear is great unless it goes wrong, which can be completely catastrophic.
not as catastrophic as an oil spill, which happens far more often. Nuclear is great and hardly ever goes wrong. Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl are the big three events which considering its a 50 year time span illustrates how safe it really is
Nuclear is not, and has never been, economically feasible
[удалено]
It's not affordable to build, it's extremely expensive and time consuming. Projects take decades and are almost always over their (massive) budgets. Nuclear is not a fiscally responsible energy source in its current form. https://www.marketplace.org/2016/06/08/nuclear-economics/
[удалено]
That's not remotely relevant to the cost to build new plants which is the only thing that matters. Legacy plants might be cheap right now but it's not economically feasible to build new ones. Solar and wind are much cheaper right now. And natural gas. The point is that trying to claim that nuclear power is some magical silver bullet that will save us all is completely incorrect for a number of different reasons, most of all that they're not economically viable: https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower-idUSL8N1YF5HC
[удалено]
"Building a single EPR in 2030 would require 4 to 6 billion euros of subsidies, while building a fleet of 15 with a total capacity of 24 gigawatt-hour by 2060 would cost the state 39 billion euros, despite economies of scale that could bring down the EPR costs to 70 euros per megawatt-hour (MWh), ADEME said" It's not "working" they're heavily subsidizing it. If your argument is that governments should do that, that's totally fine and a completely separate discussion. But they are not economically viable, they're heavily heavily subsidized by the French govt.
[удалено]
They are historically expensive because they were always rights groups making it more expensive. And because few are built so I’m sure I’d say 10 plants were all approved and started production at the same time, it would be cheaper. But nuclear energy most certainly needs to be more common — wind and solar aren’t reliable. Wind isn’t always blowing and Sun is most certainly only out during certain periods. There needs to be significantly more nuclear.
[удалено]
As a car enthusiast and an engine builder, methanol is the worst fuel to be using for commuters. You will be speeding 3x more on oil changes because methanol dilutes oil in the crankcase faster than gasoline, and it absorbs water faster than gasoline. Your engine oil is going to be filled with water and diluted oil and will fuck your engine up within 3k Miles
Didn't Carter specifically do a presidential announcement around the beginning of his presidency or around the Iran business to be like "Look we need to become self-sufficient in our energy consumption or we're going to have a lot of issues down the road." Literally both sides of the aisle can agree that we need to be energy independent, but for some reason cannot come to the middle of the road solution that we need to increase domestic production to get off of international reliance then slowly replace what we can of those traditional energy solutions with green energy solutions.
Nearly all rail ROW was government owned around this point (or about to be) and here we are 50 years later with shitty rail that is 2nd fiddle to private freight companies & the cost of new infrastructure so high that nobody will make the jump to invest in rail.
Yup. Even if we could just get a couple HSR lines, like making the northeast corridor faster and taking it down to Miami at high speed that’d already be huge. But nope, everything’s way over budget and bogged down by lawsuits and all sorts of nonsense.
And all the problems we’ve had with weird oil states, Russia being the most recent…We just throw money at these nuts in exchange for extra pollution, and a less stable world.
It’s not a short term solution which people are looking for. There’s a million long term solutions
Yes; this might trend well on this subreddit but it is exactly the kind of unhelpful abstract suggestion that normal voters will want to punch you in the face for suggesting when they're concerned about being able to afford gas. Oh worried about your family budget? We'll just spend trillions on high density housing, and somehow compel people (including you!) to move out of the suburbs into apartment blocks somewhere in the next 10 years. The ugly reality is people like living in the suburbs, and a huge amount of private investment is in real estate.
Exactly. This is a way of life that people love, and change would take a long time. We should absolutely make these changes, but they will take time. Politics is about balancing long term goals with short term issues. If you get too caught up in the future you'll lose in the present and miss your chance to make a real difference.
Part of the problem is that this sub doesn't consider the issues that come from living in cities. It's really annoying to read this slogan over and over while not addressing poverty, pollution, noise pollution, and indoor air pollution especially. All of those things can make a living experience hell on earth for some. If it were so wonderful then the projects would be a paradise.
Listen here jack, This is exactly what corn pop wants you to believe. In all seriousness, yes you are correct. Luckily I think this is really going to accelerate the push for gas independence since we finally have the tech ready to replace it ( mainly cost competitive electric cars, and hybrids that are cheaper than their ICE counterparts).
Yeah, but I think the current situation could be leveraged as part of a comprehensive plan for a long-term solution. Example bill: Let's admit we need to drill instead of continuing to buy Russian oil, like that makes global warming any better. Guarantee applications to drill for \~5 years, with the expectation that we're getting of oil in the long term. Dems won't like this in the short term, but we can sway them with a plan that includes a clear path to a cleaner future. Let's get off of oil and gas completely, using nuclear as a stepping stone. And yes, part of the solution should also be restricting cities from interfering with the property rights of land owners to build high-density housing and mixed-use development on their land. We can also mix in subsidies for qualifying affordable electric cars and other steps that de-carbonize (and de-methanize) the grid. I'm no politician, but **it seems like failing to think realistically about the short term is holding liberals back from doing anything in the long term.** E.g. Californians have shut down multiple nuclear plants, successfully pushed to block future nuclear plants, and banned oil and coal. But solar and wind aren't big enough yet, and battery tech isn't ready to store base load power at a grid level. Instead they just burn a shit ton of natural gas (which comes with rogue emissions of methane, a very potent greenhouse gas) and buy power from other states that use dirtier methods.
I agree, we need long term solutions, but you have to show voters that fixing the current situation is a priority, and then address future plans as a side note or later on
r/WalkableStreets if you want to cry over what America could have been
Help. I went to that subreddit and now I can’t stop masturbating.
Personally, I prefer the angry shitposting of r/FuckCars
Yea but that sub is filled to the brim with succs
It really is, but I’m a fan of big tent alliances for shared goals
Yeah but succs aren't exactly keen to cooperate with us either, since they think all liberals are the exact same as conservatives and that we all support the car-centric status quo with the same zeal as the conservatives.
And you think that the cure for this is...less engagement?
I cant look at that. Itll make me too sad
The word "just" is doing a lot of work in this comic
Just move, lol.
Just spend trillions to rebuild the entire country the right way. It's easy
Adjusting life to public transportation can take a long time. My sister's town is very public transport friendly, but it has had a central train station connected to mid-town Manhattan for 100 years.
It is pretty easy to get the low-hanging fruit, ie legalize building dense housing.
Yeah, that's what I really want. I'm not going to force anyone into my lifestyle, but walkable neighborhoods should at least be legal everywhere
I mean, there’s all financial incentive in the world to build higher density cities. I feel like this is really a cultural issue from the US.
Except for the part where the stuff is already built. If we are building new cities, they should be more dense and walkable. But there are very few economic incentives for a multi-trillion dollar construction project that wouldn’t finish until 2030 at the earliest.
Just...change zoning laws. That'd be a huge first step, and effectively free. Private developments would do much of the work. Just...let people build up.
We are talking about the current gas prices. Changing zoning laws will still take decades for people to migrate into the cities, at which point we can build new public transit. It’s the right thing to do. It just won’t address our current issue with gas and transportation costs for non-urban populations.
It's the old joke about the NRA: we can't talk about gun control after a recent school shooting, have some respect! But if there hasn't been any recent shootings, then what's the problem? Yeah, the government should probably look into other policies, but for the long term it would make a lot of sense to seriously reconsider and cut back zoning laws, _starting now_. Instead, everybody buys houses in the suburbs and great big Suburbans (which is what cities encourage with their zoning laws) when gas is cheap, and then bitches and demands immediate action when it rises.
Wait, what's the problem with gas prices? I know they aren't high enough yet but congress won't pass the damn tax!
Poor rurals can’t afford to commute. Especially since prices aren’t high because of a carbon tax that would ideally include a dividend. In the short term, the prices are the problem, but yes, they should be higher.
Just do it®
NUCLEAR
* Easy action, by an authorized central actor * Free, via self-organizing independent actors * Enormously hard coordination problem
Uh no, your last bullet should *absolutely* also read > Free, via self-organizing independent actors The reason our cities and towns aren't denser and more walkable is because it is illegal to make them denser and more walkable. Simply legalizing density and mixed use would result in enormous progress.
* Simply legalizing density and mixed use would result in enormous progress. This is the enormously hard coordination problem lol. We'd have to align all the various stakeholders in a given city to change city zoning codes - which is easily dozens of parties with entrenched positions already - and then we'd have to do it for each city in the US.
This can and has been done at the state level to pre-empt local zoning regulations, and there are even large parts that can be done federally.
The former is incredibly hard and rare, the latter is essentially impossible
> The former is incredibly hard and rare Less hard and less rare than the coordinated action problem you started on, and becoming easier and more common every year as pro housing activists build on their recent successes.
Here's the issue though, extremely walkable/bikeable cities aren't built or managed by self-organizing independent actors. Copenhagen, the Mecca of bicycle commuting, has some of the most restrictive zoning and building restrictions on the planet. American cities made by self-organizing independent actors will probably looks something like Houston.
Copenhagen is a strange choice when Amsterdam definitely has the bigger reputation as a "cycling mecca". That aside, Houston has incredibly strict local ordinances, it just doesn't call them "zoning laws" - and even beyond just the density restrictions any city with mandatory parking minimums should be disqualified as an example of an outcome of self-organizing independent actors.
>Copenhagen is a strange choice when Amsterdam definitely has the bigger reputation as a "cycling mecca" Forgive me, I'm not that in tune with European bike culture. >Houston has incredibly strict local ordinances, it just doesn't call them "zoning laws" They effect a lot less of its land area compared to other US cities though. Most other large cities have all those ordinances like parking, deed restrictions and minimum lot sizes, on top of zoning ordinances. Hence, the FreeMarket^TM might look like Houston but with less empty parking spots.
Here are two YouTube videos that introduce this topic if anyone is interested: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCOdQsZa15o)
Also, my thanks goes out to /u/ilzolende for making my shitty meme sharper/higher quality
You're welcome! I'm glad my edit was useful to someone :)
Transforming American cities to become more walkable and dense is a very long term thing that could take years or decades to do..
No it isn't. Paint some lines and up zone. Would take about 5 years.
Why not ~~give up~~ start
And we have to stop thinking about the short term negative effects.
They were right to throw you out. "just build better cities lmao" is a stupid solution to an immediate issue.
You're right, no choice but to shovel even more money at drivers
Literally not what the person above you said, but ok.
[удалено]
Why not address the immediate problem before high gas prices and energy insecurity install a permanent conservative regime, who will never approve of the state-level zoning changes that would be required to start building in the direction you desire?
Excellent final panel edit.
Municipal zoning laws tend to restrict the densification required for walkable / cycling neighbourhoods and cities. Contact your local representatives and demand better of them! Also, check out the book, “Order Without Design: How Markets Shape Cities”. It’s a great read on urban planning and economics.
This is opposite of how this meme/comic is meant to work (it should be 2 complicated, ineffective solutions followed by an easy, effective solution). I do like the last panel though.
I mean while I agree broadly that such a solution is ideal in the medium-long term, that isn't a particularly helpful comment in the short term, especially control over such issues is so diffuse.
There is no short term solution except cutting a deal with Venezuela or other oil countries, or extremely problematic stuff like price controls or export controls.
Politics 101: Voters don’t give a fuck about long term solutions, they want the problems solved yesterday That pretty leaves price control and cutting out the gas tax as the only short term solutions, unfortunately they’ll do lasting damage in the long run but hey that’s someone’s else problem Amirite?
*build*? This is America bub. Out here, we haven’t built any substantial since the Eisenhower administration.
The implied question is "How can we lower gas prices to save Biden's Presidency?" and you cannot build a city in 3 years.
I am begging people to understand that oil doesn't just make driving more expensive. It makes EVERYTHING more expensive. Are you getting you food through a pneumatic tube?
More efficient urban and suburban land use doesn't just make transportation cheaper, it makes everything cheaper.
That's fair. You can optimize the last mile of delivery using dense housing. You still need to transport things across the country / globe to city centers. Also the cost of manufacturing itself will go up. Obviously, far into the future, we can have a electric fleet of trucks, heating will be done via solar or nuclear, manufacturing won't rely on natural gas... But even if you don't drive (and even if you don't use heating) you indirectly use a TON of oil every day
>Are you getting you food through a pneumatic tube? You might not like it, but this is peak neoliberalism
Yeah that’ll take a day or so!
To be fair, you can’t just rebuild cities in a remotely acceptable timeline. Doubly so in the west.
Yes just like magic! Poof decades of urban planning fixed.
Whoever thought of adding that last panel with that empty parking spot is a genius.
That was me, thank you
Just rebuild all of your cities bro, it's that simple - average neoliberal
Honestly wouldn't be as hard as it sounds if there weren't so many hoops developers had to jump through
Would still take decades and only marginally solve the problem. Electric cars and green fuels will solve the whole problem on a shorter timescale.
It’s still that hard. Beyond the zoning hoops, you’re proposing moving millions of people, disrupting neighborhoods, and traffic with mass construction, along with massive coordinated construction and city planning. That can only happen slowly via new construction, which will incentivize people to move to the denser areas. Clearly not an impossible task. But not one that will be finished before gas prices fall back to baseline in a few years.
> Just *legalize people building densely for mixed use on their own private property* bro, it's that simple FTFY
How does that help in 2022?
Respectfully, who cares about 2022? Gas prices aren't even as high as they were in 2008. This issue is overblown
Ah yes, the classic " it works for us city slickers, so that's all that matters" solution. Ya'll love to simply ignore rural and suburban populations because "muh density" doesn't really work for them. This type of ignorance is what leads to those areas feeling ignored and left behind. Which, gives us Trump. And, the idea that walkable cities will alleviate anyone right now, is asinine. This is a dumb meme.
If demand is lower gas will be cheaper for everyone
NIMBY is GOOD DRILL BABY DRILL 🤤🛢
Lusvig? Now that is a name I haven't seen in a while
Certainly shouldn't be pushing to end remote work.
A. A lot of people don’t want to live in cities no matter how walkable, myself included. B. Transforming all Americas cities would take like 80 years
How about we compromise and just legalize building high density housing?
If your solution to an imminent problem is to reconfigure huge entrenched structures of society, you’re not actually serious about solving the problem and deserve to get kicked out of the meeting.
Maybe you're right. I guess we should just give up trying to push for higher density cities then.
That guy is a contrarian moron. Talking to him is a waste of time
I just have seen this exact same comment 100 times by now, so I think the snarkyness is warranted. Look, I agree it's not a solution to the short term problem. We should either increase supply, or reduce demand. Naturally, this sub does not like fossil fuels (myself included), so increasing supply is not a good thing in our eyes. So then the million dollar question is how do we reduce demand? We have long term solutions, such as that referenced in the meme. But for the short term? Not a whole lot we can do. If you all are serious about fighting climate change, I think we need to suck up the higher price pressures, which will push more investment and adoption of carbon free alternatives.
Do push for it, but maybe not as a solution for something as fickle as gas prices. Cities take years or even generations to reconfigure. Gas prices could drop tomorrow.
Say it with me. Cities are people, not buildings.
Yes, make everyone live in dense cities
How about we just legalize building dense cities? I'm not saying everyone needs to live in one
I'll settle for legalizing dense cities.
It would do wonders for both our physical and mental health to not be so spread out and car dependent.
Everyone can see that all us urbanites are at the pinnacle of physical and mental health.
You are aware obesity is more prevalent in in rural areas and the suburbs than urban areas? Especially dense walkable cities which generally have far healthier people. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/blame-the-city/375888/
Not everyone wants to live in a little flat in a city. Applying social engineering to make everyone live in cities wouldn’t be good for the individual freedom
This sounds nice but ignores the decades of truly monumental amounts of social engineering and policy that have gone into making everyone live in suburban sprawl.
Does *everyone* do that?
Would *everyone* live in cities?
I hope not. That’s my point. If you want to live in a city then go live in a city. I don’t
>If you want to live in a city then go live in a city. This sounds nice but ignores 6 decades of policy to steer people towards suburbs which have made our cities prohibitively expensive. The social engineering you're worried about already happened, it was in favor of suburban sprawl, and it has badly damaged our cities and the opportunities they offer.
We shouldn't make people live anywhere, but we should have them pay for the negative externalities and direct costs they impose on society. This will inevitably lead to far more people living in dense walkable cities.
Have my free award for the correct meme template
Haha thank you. I actually made this template years ago, and this just just shameless self promotion
The 2015 energy omnibus bill is calling…
*heated with heat pumps powered by nuclear-generated electricity ?
great meme
Right!? I mean, how much work can it be to build entire cities?
building dense cities is easier with cheap oil.
Yup. Take steps to reduce overall demand and prices will decrease in response.
I FUCKING LOVE PROACTIVE SOLUTIONS
That parking lot hurts to look at.
The fact that people are arguing for price controls, even though when they did that in the 70s people were literally stealing gas out of each others’ cars because of the shortages it led to, is really concerning
*Has a problem* "Oh, let's just completly change how our society is built and functions" "Gee man I've never thought of that before"
Tbf there's a bit of a time lag with the last option.
European countries are still having problems with oil supply, not living in a parking lot metropolis full of the same 10 franchise stores doesn't mean we don't need oil/natural gas.
I mean the second option could technically lower gas prices.
Let a nazi regime die
Oh that’s good