Mike, when one country with a fraction of the world's population can use natural resources at a level that exceeds that of most of the rest of the people on earth, your statement sounds pretty hollow. The US alone has contributed the bulk of what is already causing climate change that impacts most of all the people who had literally not…
Mike, when one country with a fraction of the world's population can use natural resources at a level that exceeds that of most of the rest of the people on earth, your statement sounds pretty hollow. The US alone has contributed the bulk of what is already causing climate change that impacts most of all the people who had literally nothing to do with it but who are paying the price for our actions. I agree that EVs are not a solution: it is merely a way for people to avoid making real changes in how they live. In Greta's memorable words, it is all blah blah blah. And so is your claim that the problem is too many people. The actual problem is culture of people who do not want to give up their entitlements.
Is it not a matter of both? There are thresholds of unsuitability and both the number and size of the footprints contribute to total impact. Both the number and size of dried beans limit how many you can force into a jar.
Please keep our transportation history in mind. By the time automobiles became widely available large cities were drowning in horse manure.
The public transportation system built around trolleys and commuter rail was undone by auto manufactures and tax dollars spent on roads. That we did not evolve more available, convenient, and flexible public transport was obviously a missed opportunity in hindsight. However, the fact remains that creating those systems that could compete with consumers’ desires that automobiles fulfilled were and would be very expensive.
I’m not clear about what you consider an “entitlement.” Healthcare including pharmaceuticals, safe and plentiful food, robust education options, social/economic mobility — these things are possible only due to abundant energy resources. We won’t willingly go back to a largely agrarian lifestyle.
Breaking the plutocratic political roadblock to high speed rail would be a step in the right direction. Total travel time between some major US cities would be reduced compared to air by fast rail. Poor, unreliable Amtrak takes a backseat to freight. I got around urban and rural Japan with ease on a variety of trains, so it is not a pipedream. Modern Republicanism puts corporate profits first and public (including environmental) interests last.
I had the same experience living in Germany. I could seamlessly travel from a small village on the western edge of Germany to the Frankfurt airport. One change of trains with about a 20 minute wait. Step off the train in the basement of the airport. If we put a dollar value on the lives lost to traffic accidents, rail would look cheap by comparison without even considering the environmental costs.
But would the existing rail system be able to accommodate high speed trains? Or would an entirely new rail system be necessary, or at least wholesale replacement of existing rails?
A lot of expensive new rail infrastructure would be required. The cost to build roads in Virginia 12 years ago are in the above link. You will be shocked.
Oil certainly allowed the development of industrial level farming- which is actually one of the most energy intensive and inefficient forms of farming. I follow developments in farming closely (habit left over from my professional life), and it is encouraging that the trend is toward small farms using sustainable practices. Possible even with grain: there are a number of small grain growers in my state, and this trend is not unusual. Even larger grain farmers have swung to the same lower-input methods. All in all, higher productivity, and lower costs. Add in the increasing growth of alternative methods of delivery to consumers. We are reversing the Earl Butz approach to farming (he was the worst thing that ever happened to American farming, and by extension, destroyed traditional and efficient ways of food production all over the world).
BTW, I would posit that the promotion of industrial farming was a factor in forcing people to move to cities, among other factors. Now there are programs to enable young people who want to farm to have access to farms and markets. Including within cities, as used to be the case.
Mike, when one country with a fraction of the world's population can use natural resources at a level that exceeds that of most of the rest of the people on earth, your statement sounds pretty hollow. The US alone has contributed the bulk of what is already causing climate change that impacts most of all the people who had literally nothing to do with it but who are paying the price for our actions. I agree that EVs are not a solution: it is merely a way for people to avoid making real changes in how they live. In Greta's memorable words, it is all blah blah blah. And so is your claim that the problem is too many people. The actual problem is culture of people who do not want to give up their entitlements.
Is it not a matter of both? There are thresholds of unsuitability and both the number and size of the footprints contribute to total impact. Both the number and size of dried beans limit how many you can force into a jar.
😊. A good summary of our challenge.
Please keep our transportation history in mind. By the time automobiles became widely available large cities were drowning in horse manure.
The public transportation system built around trolleys and commuter rail was undone by auto manufactures and tax dollars spent on roads. That we did not evolve more available, convenient, and flexible public transport was obviously a missed opportunity in hindsight. However, the fact remains that creating those systems that could compete with consumers’ desires that automobiles fulfilled were and would be very expensive.
I’m not clear about what you consider an “entitlement.” Healthcare including pharmaceuticals, safe and plentiful food, robust education options, social/economic mobility — these things are possible only due to abundant energy resources. We won’t willingly go back to a largely agrarian lifestyle.
Breaking the plutocratic political roadblock to high speed rail would be a step in the right direction. Total travel time between some major US cities would be reduced compared to air by fast rail. Poor, unreliable Amtrak takes a backseat to freight. I got around urban and rural Japan with ease on a variety of trains, so it is not a pipedream. Modern Republicanism puts corporate profits first and public (including environmental) interests last.
I had the same experience living in Germany. I could seamlessly travel from a small village on the western edge of Germany to the Frankfurt airport. One change of trains with about a 20 minute wait. Step off the train in the basement of the airport. If we put a dollar value on the lives lost to traffic accidents, rail would look cheap by comparison without even considering the environmental costs.
But would the existing rail system be able to accommodate high speed trains? Or would an entirely new rail system be necessary, or at least wholesale replacement of existing rails?
https://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/gasb-roadway_values.pdf
A lot of expensive new rail infrastructure would be required. The cost to build roads in Virginia 12 years ago are in the above link. You will be shocked.
Correct. We are unlikely to return to an agrarian lifestyle.
But even that is too high of an impact.
Farming is really the root cause of global warming.
Just look at the former “Fertile Crescent” of the world where farming originated.
Desert now.
Only when humans were unvaccinated hunter gatherers were they in harmony with nature.
Ok. Rational point taken and I agree.
But. I would also argue that the high density living that occurs in all countries in cities, occurs as a result of farming.
And. Industrial farming occurs because of oil.
Oil certainly allowed the development of industrial level farming- which is actually one of the most energy intensive and inefficient forms of farming. I follow developments in farming closely (habit left over from my professional life), and it is encouraging that the trend is toward small farms using sustainable practices. Possible even with grain: there are a number of small grain growers in my state, and this trend is not unusual. Even larger grain farmers have swung to the same lower-input methods. All in all, higher productivity, and lower costs. Add in the increasing growth of alternative methods of delivery to consumers. We are reversing the Earl Butz approach to farming (he was the worst thing that ever happened to American farming, and by extension, destroyed traditional and efficient ways of food production all over the world).
BTW, I would posit that the promotion of industrial farming was a factor in forcing people to move to cities, among other factors. Now there are programs to enable young people who want to farm to have access to farms and markets. Including within cities, as used to be the case.
You use the word use loosely, it in fact should be waste. We spend a dollar to save a dime