I think we had a shot to reduce commuting related emissions when everyone was forced to work from home with COVID. I really hoped that more companies would make lasting changes to the idea that people had to drive into the office every day, not only because many of us like it and it's good for personal well being, but because we waste so much energy commuting. I think living near work is a great idea as a concept, but in a 2 job household (which is really most households these days), it's not always possible. My H and I both care about this stuff and used to be a 1 car household, but now we work in opposite directions and live in the middle. Both of us would prefer to have a short commute (and to live in the city and use public transit!) but it is impossible for that to happen with our current jobs. I guess a solution would be for one or both of us to actively pursue a job in the same town that the other works, and maybe more people should do that. But it's not always realistic that you are actually going to find a job in the same limited area as your spouse, especially if you work in a specialized field. Not to mention you never know when you'll be laid off or need to switch jobs for whatever reason, so basing your housing choices solely on your employer can backfire anyway. HOWEVER, if companies would prioritize WFH for many/most white collar jobs, that would eliminate pretty much all of that. There is no real reason why my H and both need to drive 45 minutes each way every day when we worked from home for over a year without any loss to our work output.
Yeah, I feel at this point we're just going to have to rely on invention to save us.
This is when I feel my most "eat the rich".
Invention is not going to fix this.
Sure, it will help some people with some problems, but we aren't going to be able to pay and invent our way out of catastrophic sea level rise and antennas air quality from smoke. At least not until we finish burning all our forests.
Post by goldengirlz on Aug 10, 2021 9:28:48 GMT -5
Actually, there IS a covid-related angle with climate change (unfortunately). Zoonotic disease outbreaks are occurring more frequently than in the past because of deforestation, habitat loss, climate change and extinction — all these factors interrupt animal habitats and bring them into closer proximity to humans.
Many of the same factors that are contributing to severe weather and global warming will also cause all kinds of other problems — like the potential for more frequent pandemics.
Yeah, I feel at this point we're just going to have to rely on invention to save us.
This is when I feel my most "eat the rich".
Invention is not going to fix this.
Sure, it will help some people with some problems, but we aren't going to be able to pay and invent our way out of catastrophic sea level rise and antennas air quality from smoke. At least not until we finish burning all our forests.
The goal for invention isn't to fix. It's to survive. There's a key semantic difference between what you're saying, and what ponybaloney (and myself) said.
Sure, it will help some people with some problems, but we aren't going to be able to pay and invent our way out of catastrophic sea level rise and antennas air quality from smoke. At least not until we finish burning all our forests.
The goal for invention isn't to fix. It's to survive. There's a key semantic difference between what you're saying, and what ponybaloney (and myself) said.
Sure, but we have a hard enough time conveying basic scientific principles to a wide audience. I worry that nuance will be lost on many people who will therefore just go about their lives and assume inventors will take care of their problems.
The goal for invention isn't to fix. It's to survive. There's a key semantic difference between what you're saying, and what ponybaloney (and myself) said.
Sure, but we have a hard enough time conveying basic scientific principles to a wide audience. I worry that nuance will be lost on many people who will therefore just go about their lives and assume inventors will take care of their problems.
And? I'm admittedly crotchety today, but I think we can have nuanced conversations here.
Post by neverfstop on Aug 10, 2021 18:08:10 GMT -5
I all for personal responsibility & everybody doing their part, but I'm pretty sure that even if every single human on planet earth took some action steps it wouldn't be enough without governments and industry acting. I hate feeling guilty every time I throw away a can or bottle that could be recycled in a place where there's no recycling bin. I've been known to carry empty bottles and cans home to recycle them.
It's just that we need government to act. Most citizens want climate protections and less pollution and a livable earth, yet our officials fail to take meaningful action because it will cost money- business could do away with plastics, they could build better products and buildings, but there's no financial incentive or penalty for them to do so. They are just going to keep keeping on with making all the money they can while creating a toxic planet. We need top-down leadership that will force the issue, not voluntary compliance by only the people that care.
I all for personal responsibility & everybody doing their part, but I'm pretty sure that even if every single human on planet earth took some action steps it wouldn't be enough without governments and industry acting. I hate feeling guilty every time I throw away a can or bottle that could be recycled in a place where there's no recycling bin. I've been known to carry empty bottles and cans home to recycle them.
It's just that we need government to act. Most citizens want climate protections and less pollution and a livable earth, yet our officials fail to take meaningful action because it will cost money- business could do away with plastics, they could build better products and buildings, but there's no financial incentive or penalty for them to do so. They are just going to keep keeping on with making all the money they can while creating a toxic planet. We need top-down leadership that will force the issue, not voluntary compliance by only the people that care.
We need both. Also if individual people actually valued this stuff maybe our elected officials would prioritize it. Chicken/egg.
I can tell you right now that people are going to be pissed when/if those government regulations ever do come down. What effects industry also effects individuals. A large part of our throw away/fast fashion culture would go away. Plastics (which make everything cheap and easy to produce and consume) should go away (1). Our food sources will change, as will the makeup of our food. (AKA, less meat [primarily red meat], less variety [out of season vegetables, and resource intense foods like almonds/avocados from CA], less sugar [sugar cane fields and HFCS/corn aka intensive monoagriculture]) (2). There's just... so much that is going to impact every day life that unless we start changing these things and our thinking now, we're never going to elect the officials that will make the changes needed at the industry level.
Not only where, but what type of development needs to be curbed. Will people really go for a hard core government moratorium on sprawling suburban new builds? Every time we have that convo here, people leave with hurt feelings.
Pixy - any suggestions on political giving on this issue? I want to support politicians who do more than lip service on the issue, and also, I want politicians to know they need to listen when environmental lobbyists show up.
I remember Molly Ivins showing in the late 90s or early 2000s just how cheap it is for corporations to buy political power. I feel like it’s time the people do the same (until we fix campaign financing). I don’t have a lot of funds, so I try to use them strategically.
I agree that a complete 180 overnight is a non-starter, but I think incremental change now can still have an impact. And I truly do think that as we adjust, these changes will be more bearable as our expectations change.
Not only where, but what type of development needs to be curbed. Will people really go for a hard core government moratorium on sprawling suburban new builds? Every time we have that convo here, people leave with hurt feelings.
LAND USE POLICY IS CLIMATE POLICY.
I don't love the statement "development needs to be restricted" though. It does, in specific ways. It needs to be opened up in others.
We can't keep making it easier for people to live in places that inherently require a higher impact lifestyle. Bigger houses, further away from everything, etc. But there are a LOT of places where there is insufficient housing for the people who want to live there and the prices reflect that. We do need to build more in those places, but it has to be right.
Places like Takoma Park Maryland, where they fight densification tooth and nail because it's "contrary to the neighborhood character" and is going to "destroy the charm" but are right on top of a metro station need to be infilled. Too bad, so sad, your house is adorable, but it's a 3 minute walk to metro, there's an empty lot here and it's gonna get an apartment building. At the VERY LEAST you get ADU's and triplexes by right so when a house flips it flips to more than one unit instead of a $2M monster of a SFH. People need places to live and most of those places need to be in places like this that are already proximate to resources and are walk/bike/transitable. And then on the other side of it, greenfield development 45 minutes outside the city has to stop. Development (and redevelopment) in known sensitive, flood and fire-prone areas has to stop.
But nooooooobody wants to hear that. Nobody at all. Conservative, liberal, etc. NOBODY LIKES THIS. Even my hardcore housing/transpo policy nerd twitter follows won't say that so flatly.
But guess what...most of these decisions are controlled at the county/city level. Where I know from my very own goddamn professional experience that if you show up repeatedly and make an utter clamour about it, you will have an effect. But tell me again how the only way to make change here is from the top down.
Not only where, but what type of development needs to be curbed. Will people really go for a hard core government moratorium on sprawling suburban new builds? Every time we have that convo here, people leave with hurt feelings.
LAND USE POLICY IS CLIMATE POLICY.
I don't love the statement "development needs to be restricted" though. It does, in specific ways. It needs to be opened up in others.
We can't keep making it easier for people to live in places that inherently require a higher impact lifestyle. Bigger houses, further away from everything, etc. But there are a LOT of places where there is insufficient housing for the people who want to live there and the prices reflect that. We do need to build more in those places, but it has to be right.
I agree and disagree. Such as places in CA, AZ, NM... etc that rely on the ever dwindling supply of water should not be allowed to expand. There are places where people just should not be that were developed purely because the technology became available for them to be comfortably colonized. The tech that is currently killing the planet. Granted, this is where climate philosophies diverge - do we try to save as much of our old lives as possible, or do we metaphorically slash and burn to mitigate the most damage? And how much of the human cost are we willing to pay?
I don't love the statement "development needs to be restricted" though. It does, in specific ways. It needs to be opened up in others.
We can't keep making it easier for people to live in places that inherently require a higher impact lifestyle. Bigger houses, further away from everything, etc. But there are a LOT of places where there is insufficient housing for the people who want to live there and the prices reflect that. We do need to build more in those places, but it has to be right.
I agree and disagree. Such as places in CA, AZ, NM... etc that rely on the ever dwindling supply of water should not be allowed to expand. There are places where people just should not be that were developed purely because the technology became available for them to be comfortably colonized. The tech that is currently killing the planet. Granted, this is where climate philosophies diverge - do we try to save as much of our old lives as possible, or do we metaphorically slash and burn to mitigate the most damage? And how much of the human cost are we willing to pay?
I think that falls under "Development (and redevelopment) in known sensitive, flood and fire-prone areas has to stop." So, we don't disagree. Just a question of how we define sensitive and disaster prone.
Climate change and tourism are really fucking Hawaii. Will the average joe schmoe be ok with tourism being restricted, especially to tourism hot spots?
Climate change and tourism are really fucking Hawaii. Will the average joe schmoe be ok with tourism being restricted, especially to tourism hot spots?
I’m not surprised your question sat here for a day plus without an answer… no one wants to talk about how we should probably travel less because of how taxing/carbon intense of a process it (usually) is. Despite that we all wish it weren’t true, getting on a plane is pretty much the single worst thing you can do to the planet in an afternoon. I do think at some point, maybe five or ten years from now, when the effects of the climate crisis are even more evident, society may reject the notion of extensive travel being the cool thing we’ve always considered it to be. We’re obviously not at that point yet - it’s still just flashy pics from faraway places, and lots of likes on Instagram and Facebook.
Not quite two years ago, I decided to take a break from flying and “participate” in flightfree2020 for environmental reasons, and I haven’t been on a plane since. Covid of course made that quite easy, and trust me, I’m no hero - I have flown extensively at earlier points of my life and I love exploring new places. I found out today that I may need to cross the country for work later this year, and I am having Feelings about it. At the moment, the guilt is a bigger factor for me than covid is. I want to do my job well, which means I ought to show up in person. I know if I don’t go, someone else likely will take my place. That I have family I haven’t seen in years near the destination, is the only thing keeping me from really pushing back on the idea of going. I guess time will tell if it’s a true decision I have to make.