I said much the same earlier today on another thread. Lib or con, too many are not willing to sacrifice to prevent what is coming. It’s easy to pawn this off on just the cons, but take a close look at your own surroundings and your lib friends and see who is walking the walk.
Paper straws and bicycles won’t solve the climate crisis. What my lib friends and I are doing doesn’t really matter when just a handful of entities make up so much more of the environmental impact.
We could stop those entities…if it weren’t for the cons constantly blocking any attempt to help the greater good.
More specifically, not with that disingenuous attitude that implies giving folks bicycles and changing nothing else, trying to shame them into using a mode that’s worse for them in order to altruistically help everybody else. Of-fucking-course that’s never gonna work!
Instead, what actually has to change is the zoning laws that shape the built environment the bicycles are operate in. We have to stop limiting density and mandating parking requirements, which not only physically force destinations farther apart (putting fewer within walking or biking distance) and cause the space between to be filled with car-infested asphalt (making walking and biking unpleasant), but also subsidize driving by forcing an oversupply of parking, driving down the price.
Removing the regulations and allowing developers to build as compactly as the market would dictate would cause people to freely choose bicycling because it would become more convenient than driving, and that is what would help solve the climate crisis!
The vast majority of the pain and sacrifice would be on the rich—they’re the ones who own bunker-fuel-burning cargo ships and fly everywhere on private jets—so there isn’t much reason for the rest of us to be overly worried.
I feel the opposite. Most environmental issues affect the poor. The rich have much more flexibility than the rest of us.
You can’t pick up farmland and move it. As climate zones shift and hit those mega monoculture farms (see rice as a current example) we see increased risk of famine. The rich can go somewhere less affected. They can import their own food. They can crank up their AC. They can swim in their pools. Can you move or double your cooling bill?
Once famine hits, you will see mass migration. See how well we deal with that now across the world. Rich people don’t plead for asylum. Why do you think they hoard that money? They don’t need it now. But when push comes to shove, that money carries a ton of weight.
We dont really know what areas will get hit either, because environmental variable are hard to predict. Countries that fight refugees today could be asking those very people for help tomorrow.
They were saying that it is the rich would would feel the sacrifice IF we were to actually try and do something. They are the ones who would have to change the most. They weren’t implying that the rich will suffer the effects of climate change more than the poor.
Yes, top down solutions are required for significant change. The more time we let go by, the harsher the austerity is going to be when we have no choice.
I said much the same earlier today on another thread. Lib or con, too many are not willing to sacrifice to prevent what is coming. It’s easy to pawn this off on just the cons, but take a close look at your own surroundings and your lib friends and see who is walking the walk.
Paper straws and bicycles won’t solve the climate crisis. What my lib friends and I are doing doesn’t really matter when just a handful of entities make up so much more of the environmental impact.
We could stop those entities…if it weren’t for the cons constantly blocking any attempt to help the greater good.
I could tell you how to stop them, but I don’t look good in orange
Not with that attitude!
More specifically, not with that disingenuous attitude that implies giving folks bicycles and changing nothing else, trying to shame them into using a mode that’s worse for them in order to altruistically help everybody else. Of-fucking-course that’s never gonna work!
Instead, what actually has to change is the zoning laws that shape the built environment the bicycles are operate in. We have to stop limiting density and mandating parking requirements, which not only physically force destinations farther apart (putting fewer within walking or biking distance) and cause the space between to be filled with car-infested asphalt (making walking and biking unpleasant), but also subsidize driving by forcing an oversupply of parking, driving down the price.
Removing the regulations and allowing developers to build as compactly as the market would dictate would cause people to freely choose bicycling because it would become more convenient than driving, and that is what would help solve the climate crisis!
The vast majority of the pain and sacrifice would be on the rich—they’re the ones who own bunker-fuel-burning cargo ships and fly everywhere on private jets—so there isn’t much reason for the rest of us to be overly worried.
Trouble is, most people worship the rich…
I feel the opposite. Most environmental issues affect the poor. The rich have much more flexibility than the rest of us.
You can’t pick up farmland and move it. As climate zones shift and hit those mega monoculture farms (see rice as a current example) we see increased risk of famine. The rich can go somewhere less affected. They can import their own food. They can crank up their AC. They can swim in their pools. Can you move or double your cooling bill?
Once famine hits, you will see mass migration. See how well we deal with that now across the world. Rich people don’t plead for asylum. Why do you think they hoard that money? They don’t need it now. But when push comes to shove, that money carries a ton of weight.
We dont really know what areas will get hit either, because environmental variable are hard to predict. Countries that fight refugees today could be asking those very people for help tomorrow.
They were saying that it is the rich would would feel the sacrifice IF we were to actually try and do something. They are the ones who would have to change the most. They weren’t implying that the rich will suffer the effects of climate change more than the poor.
It’s industry, not individuals. So yeah, look to see who’s voting to fix shit.
Yes, top down solutions are required for significant change. The more time we let go by, the harsher the austerity is going to be when we have no choice.