The other thing is when you have an electric car, any time the grid is cleaner so is your car. For free. The reverse is also true but rarely happens unless you move to a state with dirtier power.
Here's an article with a map of MPG-equivalent emissions from charging.
I'm not sure the idea that we're in thrall forever to petro interests really holds up in a world where Tesla has a $1.01T valuation and basically every manufacturer is churning out EVs as fast as they can make them and most have committed to being ICE free (we'll see...) at some point in the next 10-15 years.
Like the technology simply wasn't there 15 years ago to go to a full EV personal transportation infrastructure. Aside from edge cases it should be there in the next 10-15 and is rapidly moving that way.
Since Americans have repeatedly proven that we are not going to give up our cars (for reasons legitimate and bullshit) focusing on making that travel as efficient as possible and that alternatives are available when possible is...kinda by definition incrementalism?
The problem is that much like other systems I could name, things are too far gone at this point for incrementalism to be able to fix anything. Change needed to happen gradually decades ago and it didn't, so now it needs to happen quickly and decisively otherwise the point of no return is hit, if it hasn't been already, and while that's bad enough it just gets even worse after that point. It's the difference between humanity in turmoil over rising oceans, water crises, and refugees and humanity slowly dying out over time with all that also happening because most of the planet is now actively hostile to our existence. The equator goes first once it hits wet bulb conditions, creating a literal death zone for humans, and it only spreads from there.
This is why Democrats of any kind stymying environmental legislation is beyond frustrating.
My understanding is that due to how inefficient combustion engines are, an EV powered by a coal plant has a better carbon footprint than a gasoline powered car
It does yes. Cars in NA (which are the worst) are 200g per km
Electric cars do about 0.2kwh per km
US power (which is bad) is about 380g per kwh so 76g per km
So an electric car charged by the US grid is still about 3x better
Also, trace the carbon footprint of the EVs all the way back to the source, which I don't really have the bandwidth to do right now, and look into where the power for chafing your EV cones from, it's probably a coal fired power plant
Also, trace the carbon footprint of the EVs all the way back to the source, which I don't really have the bandwidth to do right now, and look into where the power for chafing your EV cones from, it's probably a coal fired power plant
“There are no areas of the country where electric vehicles have higher global warming emissions than the average new gasoline vehicle,” the campaign group claims in its paper, State of Charge, which calculates the emissions equivalent of an electric vehicle using the makeup of the local energy supply. Using UCS’s formula, a Tesla Model X charging in the Los Altos Whole Foods garage achieves a fuel efficiency equivalent to 81 miles per gallon – far higher than a gas-powered car.
Yet not all scientists agree with that approach. “All of the action is in the hourly,” says Graff Zivin. It’s not only the region that an electric vehicle plugs into that matters. The hour of the day is equally critical. “The cheapest power is not the greenest power.”
In California, the cheapest power is produced at night, mostly from natural gas, hydroelectric dams and nuclear. Night is when many people will charge their electric cars. However, the greenest power gets generated during the day, when solar power can feed the grid; solar doesn’t work in the dark, windmills stop spinning if there’s no wind and, in today’s grid, there is almost no capacity to store solar and wind-generated electricity to use later. Grid storage is slowly expanding, but most electricity has to be used as it is produced.
Units of electricity also can’t be tagged according to where and how they were generated, so nobody can verify whether the electricity they use is from a sustainable source – unless they plug directly into their own solar panel or windmill.
But those smokestacks, many attached to coal-fired power plants, are the single-largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., at two billion metric tons of CO2 per year. That source would grow as electric cars demand more and more electricity, unless tighter pollution controls are placed on power plants or electric utilities shift to less polluting sources such as solar. As it stands, a conventional Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle, which burns gasoline when its batteries are not engaged, and the all-electric Nissan Leaf produce roughly the same amount of greenhouse gas pollution: 200 grams per mile, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy.
That's an average across the U.S. In California, which has one of the highest proportions of clean electricity in the country, the electric vehicle would produce only 100 grams per mile, half that of the hybrid. Ditto for Texas and even Florida. But in the Midwest and South, where coal fuels the bulk of electricity generation, a hybrid produces less CO2 than an electric car. In fossil fuel–dependent Minnesota an electric car would actually emit 300 grams per mile of greenhouse gases. As a result, some researchers suggest that a regional approach to clean vehicle standards makes more sense than national standards that effectively require electric cars across the board. Minnesota could go for hybrids and California could go for electric vehicles.
…
The same argument applies worldwide. Driving an electric car in China, where coal is by far the largest power plant fuel, is a catastrophe for climate change. And if the coal plant lacks pollution controls—or fails to turn them on—it can amplify the extent of smog, acid rain, lung-damaging microscopic soot and other ills that arise from burning fossil fuels. The same is true in other major coal-burning countries, such as Australia, India and South Africa.
The good news: the U.S. is making a tectonic shift from burning coal to produce the majority of its electricity to using cleaner natural gas. The changeover produces less CO2, making electric cars cleaner across the country, roughly equivalent to a hybrid. On the other hand, the primary constituent of natural gas—methane—is itself a potent greenhouse gas. If methane leaks from the wells where it is produced, the pipelines that transport it or the power plants that burn it, the climate doesn't necessarily benefit.
In short, electric cars are only as good as the electricity that charges them. (A fuel’s source also matters for conventional cars; gasoline derived from tar sands is more polluting than that from most other petroleum resources, for example.) In the absence of clean electricity, hybrid cars that can travel 50 or more miles on a gallon of gasoline produce the least emissions.
In other words, we can’t rely on just switching to electrics without forcing a change away from carbon-based electricity generation, and that means we have to fight the bastards whose wealth relies on carbon fuel infrastructure
Although rising natural gas prices have resulted in more U.S. coal-fired generation than last year, this increase in coal generation will most likely not continue. The electric power sector has retired about 30% of its generating capacity at coal plants since 2010, and no new coal-fired capacity has come online in the United States since 2013. In addition, coal stocks at U.S. power plants are relatively low, and production at operating coal mines has not been increasing as rapidly as the recent increase in coal demand. For 2022, we forecast that U.S. coal-fired generation will decline about 5% in response to continuing retirements of generating capacity at coal power plants and slightly lower natural gas prices.
Coal is dropping steadily already. Brief uptick recently but like the one around 2013 it won't last.
Although rising natural gas prices have resulted in more U.S. coal-fired generation than last year, this increase in coal generation will most likely not continue. The electric power sector has retired about 30% of its generating capacity at coal plants since 2010, and no new coal-fired capacity has come online in the United States since 2013. In addition, coal stocks at U.S. power plants are relatively low, and production at operating coal mines has not been increasing as rapidly as the recent increase in coal demand. For 2022, we forecast that U.S. coal-fired generation will decline about 5% in response to continuing retirements of generating capacity at coal power plants and slightly lower natural gas prices.
Coal is dropping steadily already. Brief uptick recently but like the one around 2013 it won't last.
Again, from the thing I just quoted:
On the other hand, the primary constituent of natural gas—methane—is itself a potent greenhouse gas. If methane leaks from the wells where it is produced, the pipelines that transport it or the power plants that burn it, the climate doesn't necessarily benefit.
You do not solve global warming by switching from Coal to Natural Gas
Another issue with electric cars is the environmental and social devastation wrought by the extractive industries (including fossil fuels) involved in their manufacture. Certainly switching to electric cars is still good and necessary but it is true that America in particular needs to redesign itself to use far fewer cars regardless. And I think it's less a question of "will we or won't we" or "can we be persuaded to" and more "can the state make it happen in a semi-controlled fashion before material reality forces it to happen in an uglier way."
Natural Gas is significantly cleaner than coal in almost every dimension and releases about half as much CO2.
Eliminating all coal use in exchange for natural gas doesn't 'solve' global warming but there is no silver bullet and it's silly to pretend any single thing will 'fix' it. It is a major step in the right direction.
Although rising natural gas prices have resulted in more U.S. coal-fired generation than last year, this increase in coal generation will most likely not continue. The electric power sector has retired about 30% of its generating capacity at coal plants since 2010, and no new coal-fired capacity has come online in the United States since 2013. In addition, coal stocks at U.S. power plants are relatively low, and production at operating coal mines has not been increasing as rapidly as the recent increase in coal demand. For 2022, we forecast that U.S. coal-fired generation will decline about 5% in response to continuing retirements of generating capacity at coal power plants and slightly lower natural gas prices.
Coal is dropping steadily already. Brief uptick recently but like the one around 2013 it won't last.
Again, from the thing I just quoted:
On the other hand, the primary constituent of natural gas—methane—is itself a potent greenhouse gas. If methane leaks from the wells where it is produced, the pipelines that transport it or the power plants that burn it, the climate doesn't necessarily benefit.
You do not solve global warming by switching from Coal to Natural Gas
Also your source is six years old and the energy mix is, as I just pointed out, changing quickly. The amount of solar generation has increased by over three times since that article was written and coal has dropped by about 25%. NG is up, but by less than coal dropped.
Natural Gas is significantly cleaner than coal in almost every dimension and releases about half as much CO2.
Eliminating all coal use in exchange for natural gas doesn't 'solve' global warming but there is no silver bullet and it's silly to pretend any single thing will 'fix' it. It is a major step in the right direction.
America’s carbon dioxide emissions have fallen consistently over the last 15 years in large part because power companies have swapped coal for natural gas. Now it appears that those CO2 reductions might be smaller than previously thought.
A recent study by the Environmental Defense Fund found that 3.7% of natural gas produced in the Permian Basin leaked into the atmosphere. That’s enough to erase the greenhouse gas benefits of quitting coal for gas in the near term.
“The first thing to say is the 3.7% number really jumps off the page,” said Daniel Raimi, a researcher at Resources for the Future. “It is a really high emission rate. It is yet another indicator that the U.S. oil and gas system emits more than current EPA estimates would suggest.”
The study by EDF is significant on several fronts. Methane, the primary component of natural gas, produces about half the emissions of coal when burned, but it’s a much more powerful greenhouse gas when leaked into the atmosphere.
Scientists have long struggled to pinpoint just how much methane is being released into the atmosphere. A series of earlier studies coordinated by EDF and hundreds of other researchers indicated that the U.S. oil and gas system leaked on average 2.3% of all the gas it produced. That’s about 60% more than the leakage rate reported by EPA, at 1.4%.
…
“When we think about the benefits of using natural gas, we usually talk in national average. I think that masks a lot of nuances in this issue,” Ravikumar said. “There are basins where methane emissions are a real problem, whereas there are basins where it is not as much of a problem.”
The analyses by EPA and EDF differ in important ways. Federal emission projections are based on a “bottom-up” approach, which relies on estimates of how much oil and gas equipment leaks over time.
Comparing the climate impact of methane and CO2 is also difficult. Methane is a relatively short-lived gas, staying in the atmosphere for roughly a decade, while carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. In practical terms, that means generating electricity from natural gas can have a greater climate impact in the short term than coal in the short term if leakage rates are high but less impact in the long run.
So a more potent greenhouse gas, which is more impactful in the near term as we’re staring down the barrel of catastrophic climate change in the near term, and we’re relying on companies being honest about how much of it they’re putting into the atmosphere after decades of lying to the public about the scope of their problem and their role in it.
Real goddamn solutions there, sure.
This sounds less like a “step in the right direction” and yet another way for oil and gas to scam us into enriching their coffers on the path to us getting out into coffins from climate change
- increase mass transit and decrease reliance on individual cars
- switch to renewables and nuclear
- Shut down existing carbon infrastructure and do not reopen it
- Start doing these thing immediately, because we have already started to run out of time to avert the worst of this shit
But those would involve angering rich donors, plus even existing party members, so whoops!
- increase mass transit and decrease reliance on individual cars
- switch to renewables and nuclear
- Shut down existing carbon infrastructure and do not reopen it
- Start doing these thing immediately, because we have already started to run out of time to avert the worst of this shit
But those would involve angering rich donors, plus even existing party members, so whoops!
Hey guess what's in the guidelines that started the current conversation.
- increase mass transit and decrease reliance on individual cars
- switch to renewables and nuclear
- Shut down existing carbon infrastructure and do not reopen it
- Start doing these thing immediately, because we have already started to run out of time to avert the worst of this shit
But those would involve angering rich donors, plus even existing party members, so whoops!
Pretty sure the yellow jackets in France wasn't a rich-led protest. And yes, those actions would make things expensive
- increase mass transit and decrease reliance on individual cars
- switch to renewables and nuclear
- Shut down existing carbon infrastructure and do not reopen it
- Start doing these thing immediately, because we have already started to run out of time to avert the worst of this shit
But those would involve angering rich donors, plus even existing party members, so whoops!
Pretty sure the yellow jackets in France wasn't a rich-led protest. And yes, those actions would make things expensive
France is much better at organizing a protest than America is. The whole driving thing is because we're all spread out, too hard to organize that kind of mass gathering for everything.
I'm not sure the idea that we're in thrall forever to petro interests really holds up in a world where Tesla has a $1.01T valuation and basically every manufacturer is churning out EVs as fast as they can make them and most have committed to being ICE free (we'll see...) at some point in the next 10-15 years.
Like the technology simply wasn't there 15 years ago to go to a full EV personal transportation infrastructure. Aside from edge cases it should be there in the next 10-15 and is rapidly moving that way.
Since Americans have repeatedly proven that we are not going to give up our cars (for reasons legitimate and bullshit) focusing on making that travel as efficient as possible and that alternatives are available when possible is...kinda by definition incrementalism?
It's not really that people won't give up their cars, but that American cities are designed so you need a car to get around in them.
But American sprawl is designed in part to allow everyone to drive privately to avoid interacting with people that are different from them
It's not just suburbs though. If you don't live in one of the 10 largest cities in America it become increasingly difficult to consider public transit. I live in Indianapolis, a decent sized city, and taking the bus would double to triple my commute. No one that can avoid that should be expected to ditch their car.
I'm not sure the idea that we're in thrall forever to petro interests really holds up in a world where Tesla has a $1.01T valuation and basically every manufacturer is churning out EVs as fast as they can make them and most have committed to being ICE free (we'll see...) at some point in the next 10-15 years.
Like the technology simply wasn't there 15 years ago to go to a full EV personal transportation infrastructure. Aside from edge cases it should be there in the next 10-15 and is rapidly moving that way.
Since Americans have repeatedly proven that we are not going to give up our cars (for reasons legitimate and bullshit) focusing on making that travel as efficient as possible and that alternatives are available when possible is...kinda by definition incrementalism?
It's not really that people won't give up their cars, but that American cities are designed so you need a car to get around in them.
But American sprawl is designed in part to allow everyone to drive privately to avoid interacting with people that are different from them
It's not just suburbs though. If you don't live in one of the 10 largest cities in America it become increasingly difficult to consider public transit. I live in Indianapolis, a decent sized city, and taking the bus would double to triple my commute. No one that can avoid that should be expected to ditch their car.
Seems like ya'll absolutely should have a rail on the 465 with at least 2 north/south and 2 east/west lines running inward from it.
The thing with incrementalism is that even if one believes in it generally, it is not a viable approach in a situation with a time limit. Climate change is obviously an example of that situation. Incrementalism in the current context is hoping you will drive off of the cliff at 90mph instead of 100mph.
The thing with incrementalism is that even if one believes in it generally, it is not a viable approach in a situation with a time limit. Climate change is obviously an example of that situation. Incrementalism in the current context is hoping you will drive off of the cliff at 90mph instead of 100mph.
But we’re going to hit net global zero by 2050*
*do nothing thru 2047 then Magic those last 3 years**
**this is the actual, real truth, actual fucking plan from the last climate conference
The thing with incrementalism is that even if one believes in it generally, it is not a viable approach in a situation with a time limit. Climate change is obviously an example of that situation. Incrementalism in the current context is hoping you will drive off of the cliff at 90mph instead of 100mph.
But we’re going to hit net global zero by 2050*
*do nothing thru 2047 then Magic those last 3 years**
**this is the actual, real truth, actual fucking plan from the last climate conference
By the end of COP26, 151 countries had submitted new climate plans to slash their emissions by 2030. To keep the goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C within reach, we need to cut global emissions in half by the end of this decade. In contrast, the United Nations calculates that these plans, as they stand, put the world on track for 2.5 degrees C of warming by the end of the century.
Bad news: a lot of it depends on fucking assholes keeping their promises and we should be going faster. :rotate:
If you take into account countries’ commitments to reach net-zero emissions by around mid-century, analysis shows temperature rise could be kept to around 1.8 or 1.9 degrees C. But some major emitters’ 2030 targets are so weak (particularly those from Australia, China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Russia) that they don’t offer credible pathways to achieve their net-zero targets.
First graph is important. It shows what countries have agreed to, but also shows the business-as-usual path that lying puts us on. Which is 2.7C. This is extremely bad but most likely doesn't cross the "welp, fucked now" lines.
If california can't make a high speed rail, I've got little hope for a mass transit revolution anywhere else
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).
This citation heavy article reflects the feeling I am more and more coming to each day.
The democrats will not save us. And it is because the democrats do not want to save us. By and large the center of power in the party wants to keep the American oligarchy they serve happy, while making vague motions of support for the social status quo while doing little to fight revanchist fascist attempts by the right to drag us back to the antebellum South as a nation.
The only thing, truly, that will save us will be ourselves.
The following is the conclusion to the much longer piece (albeit without all the citations because I am mobile posting and that is a shitton of links to format with unfriendly BBcode UI)
And so here we are, arriving at Jokerfied America — a conflagration that Franklin Roosevelt feared, where more and more people don’t believe in democratic government at all.
If this inferno feels familiar, that’s because it is. It was not long ago that Obama’s Wall Street fealty, Hillary Clinton’s “it will never, ever happen” campaign, and the Democratic establishment’s corruption helped Republican nihilists so disenchant voters that the country elected an actual edgelord Joker to the presidency.
That could have been temporary — and for an instant, it seemed like it might be when Schumer acknowledged mistakes that were made during Obama’s presidency. But it now looks like the 2020 election may end up being merely a momentary rest stop on a road trip hurtling toward 2022 and beyond.
That journey doesn’t mean all is lost or that nothing good is on the horizon. In fact, the accelerated disillusionment with politicians and electoralism may end up prompting a different, more direct kind of constructive politics outside the two-party system.
For example, it is no coincidence that as young people and workers lose faith in the political system, America has experienced an upsurge of labor organizing campaigns, and the population’s approval of unions has hit record highs. The same trend may happen with the climate movement and ballot activism for economic causes that actually help workers. In Joker America, more and more people now know that there’s no Bruce Wayne oligarch with a Batman suit coming to save us, and so they are taking collective action on their own — which is good news and long overdue.
But those positive developments will compete for attention, resources, and power with the noxious effects of the Joker pill — bigotry, xenophobia, self-centric greed, misinformation, right-wing vigilantism, and incitements to violence.
With Donald Trump as its clown face, the MAGA movement is already catalyzing those toxins with its grievance politics. The right is channeling mass disaffection into ever-more-malicious culture wars that demonize minorities, the LGBTQ community, socialists, unionists, academics, protesters, and anyone else who can be other-ized and scapegoated. And on economics, the right now sees Democrats becoming an affluent party as a new opportunity for the old Reagan trick — call it “worker-washing” — that launders oligarchs’ reactionary agenda with populist blue-collar lingo and jeremiads against “woke capital.”
Those right-wing tactics are so cynical they almost seem like a gag. But as Joker reminds us, there is no punchline. In a country where “I don't believe in anything” is fast becoming the zeitgeist, the scheme is likely to work — unless those currently in power start delivering for the working class.
C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range).
UN climate panel disagrees with you.
Thank you for the correction on that, I misremembered which deadline had which.
But I also misphrased. Because it's Biden's pledge to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030. The measures he has proposed are going to fall short of the actions that need to be taken to undertake that goal and set the stage for the zero emissions target of 2050.
I'm not sure the idea that we're in thrall forever to petro interests really holds up in a world where Tesla has a $1.01T valuation and basically every manufacturer is churning out EVs as fast as they can make them and most have committed to being ICE free (we'll see...) at some point in the next 10-15 years.
Like the technology simply wasn't there 15 years ago to go to a full EV personal transportation infrastructure. Aside from edge cases it should be there in the next 10-15 and is rapidly moving that way.
Since Americans have repeatedly proven that we are not going to give up our cars (for reasons legitimate and bullshit) focusing on making that travel as efficient as possible and that alternatives are available when possible is...kinda by definition incrementalism?
It's not really that people won't give up their cars, but that American cities are designed so you need a car to get around in them.
But American sprawl is designed in part to allow everyone to drive privately to avoid interacting with people that are different from them
It's not just suburbs though. If you don't live in one of the 10 largest cities in America it become increasingly difficult to consider public transit. I live in Indianapolis, a decent sized city, and taking the bus would double to triple my commute. No one that can avoid that should be expected to ditch their car.
Seems like ya'll absolutely should have a rail on the 465 with at least 2 north/south and 2 east/west lines running inward from it.
They've been building dedicated lanes and stations for electric buses to go to downtown but there isn't enough parking around them for anyone that doesn't live close to the stations to use. It's a step in the right direction but a long way from changing much.
I'm not sure the idea that we're in thrall forever to petro interests really holds up in a world where Tesla has a $1.01T valuation and basically every manufacturer is churning out EVs as fast as they can make them and most have committed to being ICE free (we'll see...) at some point in the next 10-15 years.
Like the technology simply wasn't there 15 years ago to go to a full EV personal transportation infrastructure. Aside from edge cases it should be there in the next 10-15 and is rapidly moving that way.
Since Americans have repeatedly proven that we are not going to give up our cars (for reasons legitimate and bullshit) focusing on making that travel as efficient as possible and that alternatives are available when possible is...kinda by definition incrementalism?
It's not really that people won't give up their cars, but that American cities are designed so you need a car to get around in them.
But American sprawl is designed in part to allow everyone to drive privately to avoid interacting with people that are different from them
It's not just suburbs though. If you don't live in one of the 10 largest cities in America it become increasingly difficult to consider public transit. I live in Indianapolis, a decent sized city, and taking the bus would double to triple my commute. No one that can avoid that should be expected to ditch their car.
Seems like ya'll absolutely should have a rail on the 465 with at least 2 north/south and 2 east/west lines running inward from it.
They've been building dedicated lanes and stations for electric buses to go to downtown but there isn't enough parking around them for anyone that doesn't live close to the stations to use. It's a step in the right direction but a long way from changing much.
"Not enough public parking for people to use mass transportation" sounds like a headline from The Onion.
I'm not sure the idea that we're in thrall forever to petro interests really holds up in a world where Tesla has a $1.01T valuation and basically every manufacturer is churning out EVs as fast as they can make them and most have committed to being ICE free (we'll see...) at some point in the next 10-15 years.
Like the technology simply wasn't there 15 years ago to go to a full EV personal transportation infrastructure. Aside from edge cases it should be there in the next 10-15 and is rapidly moving that way.
Since Americans have repeatedly proven that we are not going to give up our cars (for reasons legitimate and bullshit) focusing on making that travel as efficient as possible and that alternatives are available when possible is...kinda by definition incrementalism?
It's not really that people won't give up their cars, but that American cities are designed so you need a car to get around in them.
But American sprawl is designed in part to allow everyone to drive privately to avoid interacting with people that are different from them
It's not just suburbs though. If you don't live in one of the 10 largest cities in America it become increasingly difficult to consider public transit. I live in Indianapolis, a decent sized city, and taking the bus would double to triple my commute. No one that can avoid that should be expected to ditch their car.
Seems like ya'll absolutely should have a rail on the 465 with at least 2 north/south and 2 east/west lines running inward from it.
They've been building dedicated lanes and stations for electric buses to go to downtown but there isn't enough parking around them for anyone that doesn't live close to the stations to use. It's a step in the right direction but a long way from changing much.
"Not enough public parking for people to use mass transportation" sounds like a headline from The Onion.
Unless there is a train stop in everyone’s neighborhood trains need parking. People with the option not to, in general, won’t walk a couple miles to the station (primary reason again is that our cities/suburbs aren’t designed for it but also general laziness and when the weather is poor). Those same people with the option not to also will not take a bus to get to the train to get to their destination.
+8
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure the idea that we're in thrall forever to petro interests really holds up in a world where Tesla has a $1.01T valuation and basically every manufacturer is churning out EVs as fast as they can make them and most have committed to being ICE free (we'll see...) at some point in the next 10-15 years.
Like the technology simply wasn't there 15 years ago to go to a full EV personal transportation infrastructure. Aside from edge cases it should be there in the next 10-15 and is rapidly moving that way.
Since Americans have repeatedly proven that we are not going to give up our cars (for reasons legitimate and bullshit) focusing on making that travel as efficient as possible and that alternatives are available when possible is...kinda by definition incrementalism?
It's not really that people won't give up their cars, but that American cities are designed so you need a car to get around in them.
But American sprawl is designed in part to allow everyone to drive privately to avoid interacting with people that are different from them
It's not just suburbs though. If you don't live in one of the 10 largest cities in America it become increasingly difficult to consider public transit. I live in Indianapolis, a decent sized city, and taking the bus would double to triple my commute. No one that can avoid that should be expected to ditch their car.
Seems like ya'll absolutely should have a rail on the 465 with at least 2 north/south and 2 east/west lines running inward from it.
They've been building dedicated lanes and stations for electric buses to go to downtown but there isn't enough parking around them for anyone that doesn't live close to the stations to use. It's a step in the right direction but a long way from changing much.
"Not enough public parking for people to use mass transportation" sounds like a headline from The Onion.
Unless there is a train stop in everyone’s neighborhood trains need parking. People with the option not to, in general, won’t walk a couple miles to the station (primary reason again is that our cities/suburbs aren’t designed for it but also general laziness and when the weather is poor). Those same people with the option not to also will not take a bus to get to the train to get to their destination.
Also being within a mile of a of a train station is very expensive.
In my area the difference between being near the MARC station and a couple miles away is about 80k. Metro stations it’s closer to a 100k premium. So yeah stations can use parking.
I'm not sure the idea that we're in thrall forever to petro interests really holds up in a world where Tesla has a $1.01T valuation and basically every manufacturer is churning out EVs as fast as they can make them and most have committed to being ICE free (we'll see...) at some point in the next 10-15 years.
Like the technology simply wasn't there 15 years ago to go to a full EV personal transportation infrastructure. Aside from edge cases it should be there in the next 10-15 and is rapidly moving that way.
Since Americans have repeatedly proven that we are not going to give up our cars (for reasons legitimate and bullshit) focusing on making that travel as efficient as possible and that alternatives are available when possible is...kinda by definition incrementalism?
It's not really that people won't give up their cars, but that American cities are designed so you need a car to get around in them.
But American sprawl is designed in part to allow everyone to drive privately to avoid interacting with people that are different from them
It's not just suburbs though. If you don't live in one of the 10 largest cities in America it become increasingly difficult to consider public transit. I live in Indianapolis, a decent sized city, and taking the bus would double to triple my commute. No one that can avoid that should be expected to ditch their car.
Seems like ya'll absolutely should have a rail on the 465 with at least 2 north/south and 2 east/west lines running inward from it.
They've been building dedicated lanes and stations for electric buses to go to downtown but there isn't enough parking around them for anyone that doesn't live close to the stations to use. It's a step in the right direction but a long way from changing much.
"Not enough public parking for people to use mass transportation" sounds like a headline from The Onion.
Unless there is a train stop in everyone’s neighborhood trains need parking. People with the option not to, in general, won’t walk a couple miles to the station (primary reason again is that our cities/suburbs aren’t designed for it but also general laziness and when the weather is poor). Those same people with the option not to also will not take a bus to get to the train to get to their destination.
Also being within a mile of a of a train station is very expensive.
In my area the difference between being near the MARC station and a couple miles away is about 80k. Metro stations it’s closer to a 100k premium. So yeah stations can use parking.
The solution that I've seen is having special buses with a route exclusively to take people to a feeder station. Found an article about it:
For Astrid Bunt, Director of Stations at ProRail, the ideal scenario would be to have stations in towns and cities as urban parks, and feeder stations outside the centres of larger towns and cities. “By doing this you can relieve the large stations, where there are high volumes of traffic and enormous pressures on parking. At the same time, you are keeping it easy to reach the suburbs.” In this regard, Bunt is envious of cities such as Paris and Copenhagen. “There they have feeder stations. These have required a large investment, but they have succeeded in creating seamless public transport networks. This requires courage and speed, which we sometimes lack. We have a fantastic system in the Netherlands, but it takes a long time to get things done.”
And is not limited to trains, building busways is a lot easier and can set up feeder stations for the end of the network. I'm taking the Lima Metropolitano to work and it turns public transit from impossible to somewhat functional. Granted, all of that is on countries without the insanity that are US zoning laws, but it can be done, there's proof.
TryCatcher on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Why are we talking about trains and not the excellent article that Lanz posted?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+6
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
It’s a good article. However the article calls on the people in power to do something. That is how we get crumbs. It should be a call for workers to organize into a large enough group to remove the decay from power.
It’s a good article. However the article calls on the people in power to do something. That is how we get crumbs. It should be a call for workers to organize into a large enough group to remove the decay from power.
That article pointed out that the obvious trend is that as faith on the political system wanes, things like union participation go up. That set up indicates that we are already looking at the start of a confrontation between unions and the political system.
TryCatcher on
+3
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
It’s a good article. However the article calls on the people in power to do something. That is how we get crumbs. It should be a call for workers to organize into a large enough group to remove the decay from power.
Thankfully we're seeing a new wave of unionization sweep the country the likes of which has not been seen for... well, for generations. If workers are finally starting to realize that they have a lot more power in their hands than what their superiors have previously told them, we might start to see that realization spill over into the local and state party level where said organizing is happening.
Workplaces are, without a doubt, the most authoritarian places in America, with unions being one of the only methods by which any form of democracy can be imposed upon them. Perhaps these workers, fresh off their victories and intoxicated by success, will look to the constitutional halls of legal power as the next destination for their conquest.
Will we finally see a dictatorship of the proletariat??? I hope so! Having lived in a dictatorship of the aristocracy/oligarchy for my whole life, I'd welcome the change with open arms.
I find organizing around work in the internet age, where everyone has super specialized and super diverse jobs that are almost irrelevant to their chosen community, kind of outdated. Before I knew better I thought PACs were much more in line with modern collective power instead of being shameless money grab scams.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Organizing your workplace will always be relevant, as we're seeing in the videogames sector. Office professionals would also stand to benefit from unionization, diversity of responsibilities or not.
Hell, my own union represents a plethora of different tasks, professions, and skillsets that all come together under the umbrella of Behind The Scenes Work. If we, a bunch of barely-washed working class jamokes can do it, so too can the white collar workers of the world.
Find the willpower to do so and you will find yourself richly rewarded for your efforts. Trust me.
Posts
Here's an article with a map of MPG-equivalent emissions from charging.
https://electrek.co/2018/03/13/electric-cars-greener-grid/
Even if you live in the worst grid (which is fucking Honolulu for some reason?) you're still getting Prius level emissions at most.
The problem is that much like other systems I could name, things are too far gone at this point for incrementalism to be able to fix anything. Change needed to happen gradually decades ago and it didn't, so now it needs to happen quickly and decisively otherwise the point of no return is hit, if it hasn't been already, and while that's bad enough it just gets even worse after that point. It's the difference between humanity in turmoil over rising oceans, water crises, and refugees and humanity slowly dying out over time with all that also happening because most of the planet is now actively hostile to our existence. The equator goes first once it hits wet bulb conditions, creating a literal death zone for humans, and it only spreads from there.
This is why Democrats of any kind stymying environmental legislation is beyond frustrating.
It does yes. Cars in NA (which are the worst) are 200g per km
Electric cars do about 0.2kwh per km
US power (which is bad) is about 380g per kwh so 76g per km
So an electric car charged by the US grid is still about 3x better
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/09/04/analysis/canadian-cars-are-worlds-dirtiest-ev-age-essential
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11#:~:text=In 2020, total U.S. electricity,CO2 emissions per kWh.
Not to plug my own post, but I did the math.
https://www.reddit.com/r/theydidthemath/comments/agmgyr/self_how_much_coal_does_it_take_to_charge_a_tesla/
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/08/electric-car-emissions-climate-change
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/
In other words, we can’t rely on just switching to electrics without forcing a change away from carbon-based electricity generation, and that means we have to fight the bastards whose wealth relies on carbon fuel infrastructure
Coal is dropping steadily already. Brief uptick recently but like the one around 2013 it won't last.
Again, from the thing I just quoted:
You do not solve global warming by switching from Coal to Natural Gas
Eliminating all coal use in exchange for natural gas doesn't 'solve' global warming but there is no silver bullet and it's silly to pretend any single thing will 'fix' it. It is a major step in the right direction.
In 2010, we generated 94 billion kwh from wind, and 1.2 from solar. In 2021 that's 379 and 114. In 2016, 226 and 36.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us-generation-capacity-and-sales.php
Also your source is six years old and the energy mix is, as I just pointed out, changing quickly. The amount of solar generation has increased by over three times since that article was written and coal has dropped by about 25%. NG is up, but by less than coal dropped.
you don't solve global warming by doing one "yay we won!" action either. Nor is night automatically dirty, because the wind blows at night.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46617
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-leaks-erase-some-of-the-climate-benefits-of-natural-gas/
So a more potent greenhouse gas, which is more impactful in the near term as we’re staring down the barrel of catastrophic climate change in the near term, and we’re relying on companies being honest about how much of it they’re putting into the atmosphere after decades of lying to the public about the scope of their problem and their role in it.
Real goddamn solutions there, sure.
This sounds less like a “step in the right direction” and yet another way for oil and gas to scam us into enriching their coffers on the path to us getting out into coffins from climate change
- increase mass transit and decrease reliance on individual cars
- switch to renewables and nuclear
- Shut down existing carbon infrastructure and do not reopen it
- Start doing these thing immediately, because we have already started to run out of time to avert the worst of this shit
But those would involve angering rich donors, plus even existing party members, so whoops!
Hey guess what's in the guidelines that started the current conversation.
Pretty sure the yellow jackets in France wasn't a rich-led protest. And yes, those actions would make things expensive
France is much better at organizing a protest than America is. The whole driving thing is because we're all spread out, too hard to organize that kind of mass gathering for everything.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
It's not just suburbs though. If you don't live in one of the 10 largest cities in America it become increasingly difficult to consider public transit. I live in Indianapolis, a decent sized city, and taking the bus would double to triple my commute. No one that can avoid that should be expected to ditch their car.
Seems like ya'll absolutely should have a rail on the 465 with at least 2 north/south and 2 east/west lines running inward from it.
But we’re going to hit net global zero by 2050*
*do nothing thru 2047 then Magic those last 3 years**
**this is the actual, real truth, actual fucking plan from the last climate conference
https://www.wri.org/insights/cop26-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-glasgow
Good news: not really.
Bad news: a lot of it depends on fucking assholes keeping their promises and we should be going faster. :rotate:
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/cop26-heres-what-countries-have-pledged
First graph is important. It shows what countries have agreed to, but also shows the business-as-usual path that lying puts us on. Which is 2.7C. This is extremely bad but most likely doesn't cross the "welp, fucked now" lines.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But his plan as it stands is likely to not reach that goal, much less set the groundwork for the further target of zero emissions by 2050.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Starting it in the Central Valley was one of the stupidest ways to go about it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
UN climate panel disagrees with you.
This citation heavy article reflects the feeling I am more and more coming to each day.
The democrats will not save us. And it is because the democrats do not want to save us. By and large the center of power in the party wants to keep the American oligarchy they serve happy, while making vague motions of support for the social status quo while doing little to fight revanchist fascist attempts by the right to drag us back to the antebellum South as a nation.
The only thing, truly, that will save us will be ourselves.
The following is the conclusion to the much longer piece (albeit without all the citations because I am mobile posting and that is a shitton of links to format with unfriendly BBcode UI)
Thank you for the correction on that, I misremembered which deadline had which.
But I also misphrased. Because it's Biden's pledge to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030. The measures he has proposed are going to fall short of the actions that need to be taken to undertake that goal and set the stage for the zero emissions target of 2050.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
They've been building dedicated lanes and stations for electric buses to go to downtown but there isn't enough parking around them for anyone that doesn't live close to the stations to use. It's a step in the right direction but a long way from changing much.
"Not enough public parking for people to use mass transportation" sounds like a headline from The Onion.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Unless there is a train stop in everyone’s neighborhood trains need parking. People with the option not to, in general, won’t walk a couple miles to the station (primary reason again is that our cities/suburbs aren’t designed for it but also general laziness and when the weather is poor). Those same people with the option not to also will not take a bus to get to the train to get to their destination.
In my area the difference between being near the MARC station and a couple miles away is about 80k. Metro stations it’s closer to a 100k premium. So yeah stations can use parking.
The solution that I've seen is having special buses with a route exclusively to take people to a feeder station. Found an article about it:
And is not limited to trains, building busways is a lot easier and can set up feeder stations for the end of the network. I'm taking the Lima Metropolitano to work and it turns public transit from impossible to somewhat functional. Granted, all of that is on countries without the insanity that are US zoning laws, but it can be done, there's proof.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That article pointed out that the obvious trend is that as faith on the political system wanes, things like union participation go up. That set up indicates that we are already looking at the start of a confrontation between unions and the political system.
Thankfully we're seeing a new wave of unionization sweep the country the likes of which has not been seen for... well, for generations. If workers are finally starting to realize that they have a lot more power in their hands than what their superiors have previously told them, we might start to see that realization spill over into the local and state party level where said organizing is happening.
Workplaces are, without a doubt, the most authoritarian places in America, with unions being one of the only methods by which any form of democracy can be imposed upon them. Perhaps these workers, fresh off their victories and intoxicated by success, will look to the constitutional halls of legal power as the next destination for their conquest.
Will we finally see a dictatorship of the proletariat??? I hope so! Having lived in a dictatorship of the aristocracy/oligarchy for my whole life, I'd welcome the change with open arms.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Hell, my own union represents a plethora of different tasks, professions, and skillsets that all come together under the umbrella of Behind The Scenes Work. If we, a bunch of barely-washed working class jamokes can do it, so too can the white collar workers of the world.
Find the willpower to do so and you will find yourself richly rewarded for your efforts. Trust me.