[Pants-of-dog]

Next few years. BTW, if that figure is from before the pandemic we're already halfway done.

No, I greatly doubt it.

There is almost no chance that a quarter of the US population has given up cars since December 2019.

How will nationalizing Exxon accomplish that?

Easy, we take the money, the company, all the assets, and use it to distribute fossil fuels at a reduced rate and only as needed while using the money to put together alternative energy systems to take over ASAP.

[wat0n]

No, I greatly doubt it.

There is almost no chance that a quarter of the US population has given up cars since December 2019.

They don't need to. They just need to drive less, with commuting to work being one of the key uses for cars:

SEPT. 15, 2022 – Between 2019 and 2021, the number of people primarily working from home tripled from 5.7% (roughly 9 million people) to 17.9% (27.6 million people), according to new 2021 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year estimates released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Nearly half (48.3%) of workers in the District of Columbia worked from home, the highest percentage of home-based workers among states and state equivalents in 2021. In addition to the District of Columbia, states with the highest percentage of home-based workers were Washington (24.2%), Maryland (24.0%), Colorado (23.7%) and Massachusetts (23.7%). (These four states were not statistically different from each other.) 2021 marked the highest number and percentage of people working from home recorded since the ACS began in 2005.

The process already begun, hopefully it will go further.

Easy, we take the money, the company, all the assets, and use it to distribute fossil fuels at a reduced rate and only as needed while using the money to put together alternative energy systems to take over ASAP.

These two goals are in contradiction with each other. In fact, the complaints about gas prices are also evidence that many would prefer governments to take action for it to become cheaper over changing their driving-intensive lifestyles.

Not that I berate them for it, but it illustrates the problem.

[Pants-of-dog]

They don't need to. They just need to drive less, with commuting to work being one of the key uses for cars:

Not if you want to claim that the US is already halfway to reducing car emissions by 50%.

The process already begun, hopefully it will go further.

These two goals are in contradiction with each other. In fact, the complaints about gas prices are also evidence that many would prefer governments to take action for it to become cheaper over changing their driving-intensive lifestyles.

Not that I berate them for it, but it illustrates the problem.

What two goals are you talking about?

I am not talking about providing gas at a lower cost. I am discussing providing less gas. Weaning people off.

[wat0n]

Not if you want to claim that the US is already halfway to reducing car emissions by 50%.

Why? Commuting represented ~30% of miles driven in the US, of course it helps if less people need to commute:

Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled

Live closer to work. Driving to/from work represents 30% of vehicle miles driven, and the average commute is 12 miles.3 Consider telecommuting or working from home if possible.

In 2020, 74.9% of workers in the U.S. commuted by driving alone, and only 9% of workers carpooled (a drop from 19.7% in 1980).3 Joining a carpool can help lower household fuel costs, prevent GHG emissions, and reduce traffic congestion.

Roughly one-fifth of vehicle trips are shopping-related. Combine errands (trip chaining) to avoid unnecessary driving.3

In 2019, traffic congestion caused Americans to spend an extra 8.7 billion hours on roads and buy an additional 3.5 billion gallons of gas. Using alternative modes of transportation, such as bikes, buses, or trains can reduce GHG emissions and decrease wasted time and money.13

Micromobility (e.g., bikes, scooters, etc.) and shared transportation services (e.g., bike shares) have grown rapidly in recent years. In 2019, 136 million trips were taken by shared micromobility users.3

Also not driving so often to get groceries (instead, walking, taking public transportation/ride sharing or just getting them delivered home) would help a lot. And yes, you can keep your car if you want.

What two goals are you talking about?

I am not talking about providing gas at a lower cost. I am discussing providing less gas. Weaning people off.

Cheap fuel and making people stop using it. These two are fundamentally at odds.

If you want to wean people off, I'd advice raising gas taxes/cutting fuel subsidies and incentivizing living in the cities with good services (education, healthcare, transportation), affordable housing and low crime. The latter would necessarily involve a debate on housing and zoning, including if it's possible to have more densely populated neighborhoods with good quality of life and housing (which for Americans means living in a large house/apartment).

I personally wouldn't like to move to a suburb but I'd do so if I had children because children come first and suburbs tend to have better schools. So not only I'd buy a house but also a car (absolutely necessary in most suburbs) and accept walking isn't an option, even if I don't want to do any of this.

Am I to believe individual lifestyle preferences and the corresponding decisions have no bearing in any of this?

I mean, I'm pretty damn sure the vast majority of Americans, Canadians or Europeans would rather vote for a political party promising cheap gas and/or affordable housing without densifying (which is materially impossible unless sprawl increases with the corresponding increase in emissions due to an even higher need to drive to do pretty much anything outside your home) over a political party promising lower emissions...

[Pants-of-dog]

Why? Commuting represented ~30% of miles driven in the US, of course it helps if less people need to commute:

So this does not reduce car ownership and only reduces usage by a third.

How is this going to even come close to 9%, which equals getting rid of all cars in the USA.

Also not driving so often to get groceries (instead, walking, taking public transportation/ride sharing or just getting them delivered home) would help a lot. And yes, you can keep your car if you want.

And this is why you are not going to reduce emissions significantly.

Cheap fuel and making people stop using it. These two are fundamentally at odds.

If you want to wean people off, I'd advice raising gas taxes/cutting fuel subsidies and incentivizing living in the cities with good services (education, healthcare, transportation), affordable housing ….

I do not want cheap fuel.

And you have now come over to my original point: in order to have significant change away from fossil fuels, we need politicians “raising gas taxes/cutting fuel subsidies and incentivizing living in the cities with good services (education, healthcare, transportation), affordable housing”.

I personally wouldn't like to move to a suburb but I'd do so if I had children because children come first and suburbs tend to have better schools. So not only I'd buy a house but also a car (absolutely necessary in most suburbs) and accept walking isn't an option, even if I don't want to do any of this.

Am I to believe individual lifestyles have no bearing in any of this?

So, if someone wants to do these things you propose and have a family, they basically have to be wealthy.

[wat0n]

So this does not reduce car ownership and only reduces usage by a third.

How is this going to even come close to 9%, which equals getting rid of all cars in the USA.

How did you arrive to that figure?

And this is why you are not going to reduce emissions significantly.

Why?

I do not want cheap fuel.

And you have now come over to my original point: in order to have significant change away from fossil fuels, we need politicians “raising gas taxes/cutting fuel subsidies and incentivizing living in the cities with good services (education, healthcare, transportation), affordable housing”.

And even then, there are no guarantees. You forgot the part where I said Americans like living in large dwellings.

So, if someone wants to do these things you propose and have a family, they basically have to be wealthy.

Yes and no. Plenty of wealthy people also don't like living in cities and sending their children to schools there. Likewise, there are cities with good public schools - but they are selective. I have no idea if my future children would make the cut.

[Pants-of-dog]

How did you arrive to that figure?

I read a few articles and did some math.

Why?

And even then, there are no guarantees. You forgot the part where I said Americans like living in large dwellings.

Yea, exactly.

Yes and no. Plenty of wealthy people also don't like living in cities and sending their children to schools there. Likewise, there are cities with good public schools - but they are selective. I have no idea if my future children would make the cut.

Fine, what is the going price for a condo in an environmentally friendly building with, say, three bedrooms in Chicago?

Then figure out how much money you need to make to pay for that and figure out what percentage of families can afford it.

It will almost certainly be prohibitively expensive for over 60% of all families in the city,

[Steve_American]

I saw a YouTube video about how cities are looking at solving 2 problems (lots of empty office buildings and not enough housing) with the same action. Some are already converting office buildings into apartment/condo buildings. Many others are thinking about it.

This seems like a great idea.

On a different point, Peter Zeihan keeps harping on the fact that most developed nations have too few kids to replace the current workers. He says that mostly this is a result of living in cities, because when they lived on a farm, kids were free labor, but they are just a drain in a city.
He says that France and Scandinavian nations are doing better because they subsidize kids, like free day care, etc. Not good enough, just better.
He says that most developed nations are going to have huge problems over the next several/many years as their old people retire and there are not even half as many teenagers to replace them in the labor pool. The US is his big exception; China, Japan, and Germany are a few of his worst cases for this.

.

[wat0n]

I read a few articles and did some math.

Please elaborate.

Yea, exactly.

...Itself a lifestyle choice. "You'll need to downsize for the environment" doesn't sound too appealing.

Fine, what is the going price for a condo in an environmentally friendly building with, say, three bedrooms in Chicago?

Then figure out how much money you need to make to pay for that and figure out what percentage of families can afford it.

It will almost certainly be prohibitively expensive for over 60% of all families in the city,

You'd need to be more specific:

1) What does it mean for a building to be "environmentally friendly"?
2) Where in the city would this building be? I've seen houses for under $200,000 in Chicago but in the south side of the city (aka "the bad part of town") and I don't know if it's "environmentally friendly". I know because I rented a room in one when I was a student, and our landlord got a foreclosure notice stating the house's mortgage (I moved out after).

Given my landlord was a PhD student, I think many Chicagoans would have been able to afford mortgage at the pre-COVID rates (no idea about now).

As for apartments, you can find a 3 BR/2 BA right next to Hyde Park (in the south side, but not a bad neighborhood - although this one is close to the border between Hyde Park and Englewood, the latter of which is not like Hyde Park) for $150,000

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5418 ... 2524_zpid/

While a 3 BR/3 BA in Lincoln Park (one of the best neighborhoods in the city) can sell for $395,000:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/601- ... 8322_zpid/

So, please elaborate...?

[Pants-of-dog]

Please elaborate.

...Itself a lifestyle choice. "You'll need to downsize for the environment" doesn't sound too appealing.

Yes, I also think that depending on people making drastic lifestyle choices is not a good plan to avoid four degrees of warming.

You'd need to be more specific:

1) What does it mean for a building to be "environmentally friendly"?

By that I mean that the building incorporates those individual choices that you and @XogGyux have argued as being the best way to solve climate change, such as installing solar or wind or buying green energy off the grid.

2) Where in the city would this building be? I've seen houses for under $200,000 in Chicago but in the south side of the city (aka "the bad part of town") and I don't know if it's "environmentally friendly".

As for apartments, you can find a 3 BR/2 BA right next to Hyde Park (in the south side, but not a bad neighborhood - although this one is close to the border between Hyde Park and Englewood, the latter of which is not like Hyde Park) for $150,000

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5418 ... 2524_zpid/

While a 3 BR/3 BA in Lincoln Park (one of the best neighborhoods in the city) can sell for $395,000:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/601- ... 8322_zpid/

So, please elaborate...?

And how much does a person need to make in order to pay for a 275,000 mortgage?

[XogGyux]

Nukes will have to be part of the mix.

How? Explain to me, how nukes play any role in this discussion at all. It seems like you just want to insert some other topic via a trojan horse.

Get a dictionary.

Uh?

"The U.S. has sustained 338 weather and climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustment to 2022). The total cost of these 338 events exceeds $2.295 trillion." (That's not only different, those costs keep going up)
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/

I agree that it is important to address it. What is your point? I think you are arguing something totally different here. I am confused now.

But there is a sh*t ton of crap we can do now

That is what I have said, but you seem to think that is too little so why bother?

Europe could easily have avoided this problem by subsidizing only renewable energy decades ago.

Do you mean like Germany did and now they are fucked? I remember a thread a couple of years ago that basically contrasted France's vs Germany's approach. History has not been kind to Germany's approach of doubling down on wind and solar (really? germany's gets enough sunlight to justify solar? seems odd to me). Solar and Wind are not the answer, they might be PART of the answer, but they are NOT the answer. The two combined accounts for less than 5% of the global energy production in the world today, the mining of minerals, the industrially complex (and CO2 releasing) process for manufacturing of these devices (and the batteries that will be needed to store the energy) will lead to a rapid release of CO2, contamination and usage of our fresh water supply, disruption of ecosystems, etc. Long before they can pay for themselves on the elimination of CO2 into the atmosphere. We need nuclear, we need it badly. Ideally, we'd also get fusion, and perhaps we will, but that is half a century into the future, right now we need conventional fission.

Many cities already do this.

The Cities that are doing this, are doing it for other reasons, not for CO2 emissions. The reasons vary. I am not going to discuss the merits of banning cars in cities for other reasons too much. It might be necessary for smog reasons and other pollutants (NOT CO2), or because of need for increased pedestrian/cyclist safety, or for other reasons. All of these are good reasons, have merits but not all cities are equally equipped to deal with this in the same fashion so this kind of throws a wrench at doing large scale interventions for reduction of CO2 emissions.
Furthermore, if you claim that the rationale to "ban" cars from city centers is CO2 emissions (or even smog for that matter), then you put yourself into a situation in which you have absolutely no reason to ban electric cars... since... well, they don't produce emissions once they are made. Do you want a 2 class system in which the rich can buy expensive electric cars so they drive on the streets of Manhattan unchallenged while the plebs need to take the metro, walk or cycle. Or do you just want to say it screw it... ban everything out of spite, even though it does not make much sense?

It would get rid of the profit incentives amd make it easier to end these companies and their fossil fuel extraction entirely.

Doubtful. When you have the government doing this kind of crap, you start getting metrics... weird, shitty, sometimes arbitrary metrics that oftentimes can easily be manipulated in a way that ends up screwing you in the long run. Say for instance, congress nationalizes all the oil industry in the US... Congress also wants its constituents to be happy right? So they don't want them to pay $5 in the pump... we already saw what happend last year when this very thing happened... guess what, the idiot they will put in charge will say "drill baby drill" and all of the sudden, despite not having corporate profit incentive... you still have an incentive. The oposite can also occur, say congress puts arbitrary metrics that say "no more than x can be drilled/pumped" and all of the sudden you are dealing with crazy high energy prices and rolling blackouts everywhere.
But this is just a useless thought experiment, because what you suggest kind of already exists and is not really doing much of an impact. In fact, quite the oposite. Who owns energy companies in Russia? China? Iran? Venezuela? Saudi? Aren't they all a version of state-owned enterprise already? Is it really doing anything at all? This sounds to me like another Trojan horse to insert some other anti-capitalistic item into an otherwise unrelated debate. I am not interested in evaluating the merits in any other context other than the impact on CO2 emissions and your overall theory is flimsy at best.

From the science I have read, hydro-electric requires less energy investment per unit of energy created when measured over the entire life cycle of the project, when compared to nuclear.

I don't dispute that it might be the case. And I support its use as much as possible. But this is not going to power the US. For one... we are already having trouble with water, and water rights are going to be a major issue in the future. You put a dam in colorado or Utah, and Nevada, Arizona, California are probably not going to be very happy. Not to mention the disruptions to agriculture, forrestation, fresh water life, and other wildlife. And this is all within the US. The problem amplifies 100x when the waters cross countries' borders... check the egypt/sudan/ethiopia dam conflict. Damns increase water loss due to evaporation, it increases surface area of water and thus evaporation. First you fix climate change, next you will have to find a way to fix drought .
Tell me... why are you so reluctant to embrace nuclear? You see my point? You are your worse enemy.

We can do both.

Imagine if we had helped China develop green tech thirty years ago. They would not be the main emitter now.

There is a solution for this. 1# build nuclear plants in the US. 2# move factories from china to the USA and use clean energy to produce shit. It follows that once there is no demand for china to burn coal, they will stop doing it.
Actually it does not even have to be in the US, you can potentially get some nice renewable set up in central america... you know near the Ecuador, or in the atacama desert.... where putting a solar panel actually makes sense (instead of Germany) and have the factories there. You fix so many problems: 1.) Cleaner energy, 2.) More resources to these poor areas, 3.) Less migrants because they can actually find decent jobs in their countries, 4.) A weaker Geopolitical China that is less likely to be bullying its neighbors... Beautiful!

Strawman.

It is not a strawman, it is sarcasm. Jeez Elon, do you need a fucking warning every time?

Anyway, you do not seem to disagree that people who are not homeowners cannot choose to do any of the individual actions associated with significant home renovation.

Well, that is a given. At any level, individual, community, city, state, country, or world... there will have to be MAJOR sacrifices. This is kind of obvious. You are putting some pushback because I am saying individuals can get started with all of this... you say it is not feasible or not enough.
Again, this will be a slow process. Unfortunately, it cannot possibly be fast. Even if today congress passed the most green bill ever, just producing the green infrastructure would take decades, it would be gradual and slow transition. Guess what... we can already do a gradual and slow transition by individuals doing the right thing right now and being the early adopters and more people will join later, and more legislation will follow through in the same fashion. Yes, I want legislation, and don't get me wrong, I will not stop voting for it and/or demanding it from my representatives... but I am also a realist. If you are just going to ask for unrealistic shit like "banning cars", "wear your underwear without washing it for a whole week straight to save on electricity cost"... , if you are just going to be wishing for those unrealistic shit... why don't you do us a favor and go all the way and wish for a fairy to just fix the problem with a wand and spare us the trouble. You have to play with the cards that you have been dealt.

Those of us who do not have cars and already live in urban centres are already doing that and more.

Well, lucky you. Some of us don't have the luxury to live in a nice walkable city with excellent public transportation. My work is 30miles from where I live, it is florida so exept for 2 weeks ago with the cold weather, the temperature outside is often in the 80+ average in the shadow, oftentimes it goes way above 90+, it is foking humid and disgusting. So much so, that the walk from the exit of my building, to where my car is parked (just ~30meters away), is enough to start sweating, and that is on a roofed parking garage. It is foking insane. When it is cold, iguanas fall asleep and fall from trees, because the poor creatures cannot sleep through the year because of how focking hot is outside.

The fact that individuals can so some less significant changes does not, in any way, change the fact that politicians are doing almost nothing.

I keep asking @XogGyux to provide an example of something individuals can do that compares to political action and all the two of you have provided is a limited set of options restricted to those with a bit of money.

This is a strawman. It is not my position that individuals have the same or more power to impact climate change. My position is, it will take time regardless, individuals should get started while politicians catch up. The reason politicians have not fully embraced the need... is that their voters are not caring that much for it. If you are voting for a Manchin, you clearly don't care very much for climate policy or at least it is not very high. He reflects the reality of the shity state that he represents. It is tragic, but it is true.

Those with "a bit of money" represent the majority of the middle and upper classes. Anything politicians do will effectively change their lifestyles so they'll pollute less.

They could just change it themselves, but they don't because they don't want to.

I wouldn't necessarily word it as "they don't want to". They might want to, but not enough to do the sacrifice that must be done. I want to be a vegetarian, but every time I put some green shit in my mouth my body rejects it violently and I start vomiting if I keep trying to swallow it Sorry cows, I do love you, and I am sorry I will eat you, but lettuce has not been kind to me.

9% is not insignificant at all.

I don't see how would nationalizing Exxon do any of that. There is zero evidence of nationalized oil companies being less pollutant than private ones.

Yeah, he keeps bringing this idea which makes no sense. A barrel of oil that was extracted by exxon will produce the exact same amount of CO2 when burned as a barrel of oil extracted by "state-owned enterprise X".
You want the state to control production... didn't work very well with the soviets. What you need to do is reduce demand.... not cut supply. The end effect is the same, but one path leads to chaos, destruction, civil unrest (perhaps even civil war?), conflict between nations, wars, etc.
Top tip, approach this equation from the demand side... I promise you, it will work better.

[XogGyux]

OMFG, there is a whole new page with dozens of dozens of lines in just the time that it took me to reply to the old stuff.

[Pants-of-dog]

How? Explain to me, how nukes play any role in this discussion at all. It seems like you just want to insert some other topic via a trojan horse.


Uh?



I agree that it is important to address it. What is your point? I think you are arguing something totally different here. I am confused now.


That is what I have said, but you seem to think that is too little so why bother?


Do you mean like Germany did and now they are fucked?

No, I mean if they had really done it instead of this weird right wing meme that you are now repeating.

I remember a thread a couple of years ago that basically contrasted France's vs Germany's approach. History has not been kind to Germany's approach of doubling down on wind and solar (really? germany's gets enough sunlight to justify solar? seems odd to me). Solar and Wind are not the answer, they might be PART of the answer, but they are NOT the answer. The two combined accounts for less than 5% of the global energy production in the world today, the mining of minerals, the industrially complex (and CO2 releasing) process for manufacturing of these devices (and the batteries that will be needed to store the energy) will lead to a rapid release of CO2, contamination and usage of our fresh water supply, disruption of ecosystems, etc. Long before they can pay for themselves on the elimination of CO2 into the atmosphere. We need nuclear, we need it badly. Ideally, we'd also get fusion, and perhaps we will, but that is half a century into the future, right now we need conventional fission.

The Cities that are doing this, are doing it for other reasons, not for CO2 emissions. The reasons vary. I am not going to discuss the merits of banning cars in cities for other reasons too much. It might be necessary for smog reasons and other pollutants (NOT CO2), or because of need for increased pedestrian/cyclist safety, or for other reasons. All of these are good reasons, have merits but not all cities are equally equipped to deal with this in the same fashion so this kind of throws a wrench at doing large scale interventions for reduction of CO2 emissions.
Furthermore, if you claim that the rationale to "ban" cars from city centers is CO2 emissions (or even smog for that matter), then you put yourself into a situation in which you have absolutely no reason to ban electric cars... since... well, they don't produce emissions once they are made. Do you want a 2 class system in which the rich can buy expensive electric cars so they drive on the streets of Manhattan unchallenged while the plebs need to take the metro, walk or cycle. Or do you just want to say it screw it... ban everything out of spite, even though it does not make much sense?

None of this contradicts my claim that it is politicians who are failing to move forward with significant action on climate change.

Doubtful. When you have the government doing this kind of crap, you start getting metrics... weird, shitty, sometimes arbitrary metrics that oftentimes can easily be manipulated in a way that ends up screwing you in the long run. Say for instance, congress nationalizes all the oil industry in the US... Congress also wants its constituents to be happy right? So they don't want them to pay $5 in the pump... we already saw what happend last year when this very thing happened... guess what, the idiot they will put in charge will say "drill baby drill" and all of the sudden, despite not having corporate profit incentive... you still have an incentive. The oposite can also occur, say congress puts arbitrary metrics that say "no more than x can be drilled/pumped" and all of the sudden you are dealing with crazy high energy prices and rolling blackouts everywhere.
But this is just a useless thought experiment, because what you suggest kind of already exists and is not really doing much of an impact. In fact, quite the oposite. Who owns energy companies in Russia? China? Iran? Venezuela? Saudi? Aren't they all a version of state-owned enterprise already? Is it really doing anything at all? This sounds to me like another Trojan horse to insert some other anti-capitalistic item into an otherwise unrelated debate. I am not interested in evaluating the merits in any other context other than the impact on CO2 emissions and your overall theory is flimsy at best.

If it already exists, please show that it does and exactly how it does not work,

I don't dispute that it might be the case. And I support its use as much as possible. But this is not going to power the US. For one... we are already having trouble with water, and water rights are going to be a major issue in the future. You put a dam in colorado or Utah, and Nevada, Arizona, California are probably not going to be very happy. Not to mention the disruptions to agriculture, forrestation, fresh water life, and other wildlife. And this is all within the US. The problem amplifies 100x when the waters cross countries' borders... check the egypt/sudan/ethiopia dam conflict. Damns increase water loss due to evaporation, it increases surface area of water and thus evaporation. First you fix climate change, next you will have to find a way to fix drought .
Tell me... why are you so reluctant to embrace nuclear? You see my point? You are your worse enemy.

Please show that converting to hydro would cause drought.

There is a solution for this. 1# build nuclear plants in the US. 2# move factories from china to the USA and use clean energy to produce shit. It follows that once there is no demand for china to burn coal, they will stop doing it.
Actually it does not even have to be in the US, you can potentially get some nice renewable set up in central america... you know near the Ecuador, or in the atacama desert.... where putting a solar panel actually makes sense (instead of Germany) and have the factories there. You fix so many problems: 1.) Cleaner energy, 2.) More resources to these poor areas, 3.) Less migrants because they can actually find decent jobs in their countries, 4.) A weaker Geopolitical China that is less likely to be bullying its neighbors... Beautiful!

Your fantasies do not refute my point.

It is not a strawman, it is sarcasm. Jeez Elon, do you need a fucking warning every time?

Well, that is a given. At any level, individual, community, city, state, country, or world... there will have to be MAJOR sacrifices. This is kind of obvious. You are putting some pushback because I am saying individuals can get started with all of this... you say it is not feasible or not enough.
Again, this will be a slow process. Unfortunately, it cannot possibly be fast. Even if today congress passed the most green bill ever, just producing the green infrastructure would take decades, it would be gradual and slow transition. Guess what... we can already do a gradual and slow transition by individuals doing the right thing right now and being the early adopters and more people will join later, and more legislation will follow through in the same fashion. Yes, I want legislation, and don't get me wrong, I will not stop voting for it and/or demanding it from my representatives... but I am also a realist. If you are just going to ask for unrealistic shit like "banning cars", "wear your underwear without washing it for a whole week straight to save on electricity cost"... , if you are just going to be wishing for those unrealistic shit... why don't you do us a favor and go all the way and wish for a fairy to just fix the problem with a wand and spare us the trouble. You have to play with the cards that you have been dealt.

This is a lot of writing to say that you do not disagree that your examples are only for those few who can afford it, and note that this puts these actions out of the grasp of many people.

Well, lucky you. Some of us don't have the luxury to live in a nice walkable city with excellent public transportation. My work is 30miles from where I live, it is florida so exept for 2 weeks ago with the cold weather, the temperature outside is often in the 80+ average in the shadow, oftentimes it goes way above 90+, it is foking humid and disgusting. So much so, that the walk from the exit of my building, to where my car is parked (just ~30meters away), is enough to start sweating, and that is on a roofed parking garage. It is foking insane. When it is cold, iguanas fall asleep and fall from trees, because the poor creatures cannot sleep through the year because of how focking hot is outside.

Then I seem to have it harder than you in terms of getting around and I still do it. This seems to suggest that people will not choose any significant change if it means they might be inconvenienced.

This is a strawman. It is not my position that individuals have the same or more power to impact climate change. My position is, it will take time regardless, individuals should get started while politicians catch up. The reason politicians have not fully embraced the need... is that their voters are not caring that much for it. If you are voting for a Manchin, you clearly don't care very much for climate policy or at least it is not very high. He reflects the reality of the shity state that he represents. It is tragic, but it is true.

Please show evidence that the only reason for the fact that the politicians do nothing is because the voters do not care.

Please start by showing how the survey already quoted does not contradict your point.

Yeah, he keeps bringing this idea which makes no sense. A barrel of oil that was extracted by exxon will produce the exact same amount of CO2 when burned as a barrel of oil extracted by "state-owned enterprise X".
You want the state to control production... didn't work very well with the soviets. What you need to do is reduce demand.... not cut supply. The end effect is the same, but one path leads to chaos, destruction, civil unrest (perhaps even civil war?), conflict between nations, wars, etc.
Top tip, approach this equation from the demand side... I promise you, it will work better.

Since I have already explained this three times at least, I am going to assume the idea is not going to be critically examined.

Go ahead: How do you cut all demand for fossil fuels in the next thirty years or so with only individual actions? Please. Enlighten me.

[XogGyux]

@Pants-of-dog
I am done with you. You are not sincere in a debate. I spent the whole day away from home reading all your BS over the phone thinking about answers, etc... Whole day to think answers. Took me 2 hours to put a semi-decent reply to your nonsense. From 7pm that I arrived home to 9:10pm (timestamp) I took the time to answer (what I had already have given hours of thought throughout the day) so that you come and 15m later just throw everything under the bus, clearly without any sort of thought, analysis or reflection from your part.
And all you did was "I am right, you are wrong". Listen, at @wat0n already spends quite a bunch of time entertaining your circular arguments. Sorry I will not be joining him in this nonsensical spiral of circular nonsense that you enjoy doing so much, you know... computers consume electricity and that generates CO2, I'll do my part not reading your crap, now do yours not writing it.

[wat0n]

Yes, I also think that depending on people making drastic lifestyle choices is not a good plan to avoid four degrees of warming.

Your proposals would lead them to do that, however. Why deny this fact?

By that I mean that the building incorporates those individual choices that you and @XogGyux have argued as being the best way to solve climate change, such as installing solar or wind or buying green energy off the grid.

That's unnecessary when using nuclear though. 56% of electricity in this state is generated using nuclear energy, which may have its own problems (so do other alternatives) yet CO2 emissions are not one of them.

And how much does a person need to make in order to pay for a 275,000 mortgage?

$87,000 at the pre-pandemic rates (now it's substantially higher - around $106,000), which is not insignificant when the median household income in the city is around $65,700.

But this misses the point. There are plenty of people in the suburbs who can afford to buy a home in in the city but prefer to live where they are. If anything, this speaks more of how lifestyle choices are relevant, i.e. many prefer to stay in the city no matter what over moving in while others would rather stay out even though they can perfectly move in.

Just leaving everything as being the fault of politicians is to greatly underestimate how relevant individual choices are. And these are not explained solely by taxation or prices.

[Pants-of-dog]

@XogGyux

Yes, you do write a lot, and a lot of it is about your life. Please note that I focus on what is relevant to my argument.

Different strokes for different folks.

————————

@wat0n

1. Yes, my proposals are about significantly changing people’s lives in ways that will help us avoid some of the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change.

2. If 50% of the energy is already nuclear, then the politicians can easily stop subsidies to the fossil fuel companies serving the rest.

3. So we see that the individual actions that are reserved for homeowners are out of price for most residents. This makes it unlikely that most people will choose these alterations in their lives.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. Yes, my proposals are about significantly changing people’s lives in ways that will help us avoid some of the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change.

But if they don't want to then they'll vote against politicians who want to do just that.

2. If 50% of the energy is already nuclear, then the politicians can easily stop subsidies to the fossil fuel companies serving the rest.

It's more of a federal issue. Illinois is also the most nuclearized state.

3. So we see that the individual actions that are reserved for homeowners are out of price for most residents. This makes it unlikely that most people will choose these alterations in their lives.

It depends, I would guess most of the driving is done by the middle and upper classes.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

Yes, you do write a lot, and a lot of it is about your life. Please note that I focus on what is relevant to my argument.

Different strokes for different folks.

Nothing of what I have said is about my life.

This is foolish. You know... this.... Do then think? the same kind of crap that you are exhibiting, not reading what I have said and then blindly saying "you are wrong I am right" is how you end up with a country such as Germany, that has mediocre sunlight, pushing for foking solar panels, that are built in china using coal, while decommissioning clean energy nuclear power plants and then being forced to use natural gas and reopen coal plants when russia turns down the supply.
The energy subsidies in the US. And yes, energy, because we subsidize fossil fuels but we also subsidize (at even greater magnitude) renewables, prevents us from suffering the political blunder that Germany is going through right now.
Electric car manufacturers are already producing as fast as they can... have you seen the waiting list for most electric vehicles? They are absurd, they are being produced and sold as fast as they can and companies are fully embracing this. It won't be fast, it couldn't possibly be fast but demands already exists and it is moving in the right direction. You want it faster... you cannot have it, we should have started this 60 years ago. Too foking late for that. Now... unless you want your planet to go in flames, you (and others) have to accept realistic timeframes and compromises. We need focking nuclear.

[Pants-of-dog]

@XogGyux

I think Germany’s reliance on green energy has been overstated.

For example, your claim that they have been getting rid of clean nuclear energy as a way of going green has led them to this. But Germany’s relationship with nuclear power has always been weird. They initially wanted to distance itself from it because of Cold War concerns. Then they brought it back. Then Fukushima happened, so they planned to shut it down, but never did, so when the current Russian invasion happened, they still had (and have nuclear power. Whether or not it is clean, I have no idea.

Considering how it has always used incredible amounts of coal, it is hard to claim this country painted itself into a corner with renewables. And note that it would not be in this mess if it did not have a longstanding contract to buy Russian oil and gas.

And it is doubtful that oil and gas is subsidized less than renewables, except perhaps in direct subsidies. Indirect subsidies to oil and gas, as well as paying for the externalities of oil and gas, almost certainly bump the fossil fuel subsidies far higher.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

I think Germany’s reliance on green energy has been overstated.

For example, your claim that they have been getting rid of clean nuclear energy as a way of going green has led them to this. But Germany’s relationship with nuclear power has always been weird. They initially wanted to distance itself from it because of Cold War concerns. Then they brought it back. Then Fukushima happened, so they planned to shut it down, but never did, so when the current Russian invasion happened, they still had (and have nuclear power. Whether or not it is clean, I have no idea.

Considering how it has always used incredible amounts of coal, it is hard to claim this country painted itself into a corner with renewables. And note that it would not be in this mess if it did not have a longstanding contract to buy Russian oil and gas.

And it is doubtful that oil and gas is subsidized less than renewables, except perhaps in direct subsidies. Indirect subsidies to oil and gas, as well as paying for the externalities of oil and gas, almost certainly bump the fossil fuel subsidies far higher.

Well, it is not overstated if they are getting f.ucked the way they are. Bad press is all that it takes to handicap a technology. Look at Fukushima... one of the worse nuclear accidents and still only 1 person died as a direct result, compared to the thousands that die every day due to mining of fossil, respiratory illness, and here is the kicker, burning fossil fuels also release radiation into the air we breathe. People go berserk because they think having a couple tons pellet on the ground, safely store is a big deal... but apparently they don't care the coal they burning is releasing radioactive shit into the air we breathe. Perception is 2/3rd of the battle, that is why it is important to try to get it right the first time. Fukushima was a terrible accident, presumably, the people that invented the word tsunami did not think a earthquake and a tsunami would occur at the same time? Weird... but hey, humanity is plagued by accidents such as this... such as planes that fall because of insufficient fuel by using metric instead of stupid US units or O rings on the space shuttle failing and causing the whole thing to explode. We can either roll on the floor and cry, or we can stand up and try again.