Do you worry about climate change?

[frogger]

This thread has shown me more than ever that housing needs to be solved at the local level. Maybe the Fed's could tie incentives to new building, density, etc. 

[Carol in Cal.]

13 minutes ago, frogger said:

Yes, everyone wants everything to be exactly same but make changes. 

No, mostly people want incremental change that feels like progress rather than regression.  I think that is reasonable.  Moving a military barracks into a community of modest homes is neither.

[Carol in Cal.]

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

This thread has shown me more than ever that housing needs to be solved at the local level. Maybe the Fed's could tie incentives to new building, density, etc. 

You know, many of the things advocated in this thread were a disaster during Covid.  High density created easy disease transmission.  The busses were stopped, just stopped dead, and those who depended on them were left without any transportation except what they could scrounge.  The libraries closed, as did the senior and community centers, so free internet and job search help did not continue.  The central food bank advised their branches, largely staffed by senior/retired volunteers, to close for their own safety, and many of them did.  

Low income folks were largely furloughed or forced to work with the public in frightening crowds.  

People got so desperate for food that there were holdups for groceries at gunpoint in supermarket parking lots, unheard of before.  

I hate to think what an earthquake would do if we had even higher density housing here.  This is not NIMBY.  It’s just common sense.

[bolt.]

43 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You know, many of the things advocated in this thread were a disaster during Covid.  High density created easy disease transmission.  The busses were stopped, just stopped dead, and those who depended on them were left without any transportation except what they could scrounge.  The libraries closed, as did the senior and community centers, so free internet and job search help did not continue.  The central food bank advised their branches, largely staffed by senior/retired volunteers, to close for their own safety, and many of them did.  

Low income folks were largely furloughed or forced to work with the public in frightening crowds.  

People got so desperate for food that there were holdups for groceries at gunpoint in supermarket parking lots, unheard of before.  

I hate to think what an earthquake would do if we had even higher density housing here.  This is not NIMBY.  It’s just common sense.

Are you really saying that "It's just common sense" that nowhere in the world should have any kind of higher density housing, ever? Anything other than a single family dwelling is fundamentally too unsafe to exist?

[frogger]

48 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

You know, many of the things advocated in this thread were a disaster during Covid.  High density created easy disease transmission.  The busses were stopped, just stopped dead, and those who depended on them were left without any transportation except what they could scrounge.  The libraries closed, as did the senior and community centers, so free internet and job search help did not continue.  The central food bank advised their branches, largely staffed by senior/retired volunteers, to close for their own safety, and many of them did.  

Low income folks were largely furloughed or forced to work with the public in frightening crowds.  

People got so desperate for food that there were holdups for groceries at gunpoint in supermarket parking lots, unheard of before.  

I hate to think what an earthquake would do if we had even higher density housing here.  This is not NIMBY.  It’s just common sense.

There is not here. I don't even know where you live. This is EXACTLY why I do not want the Federal gov't controlling things. Voters think the whole world looks like their neighborhood and do major damage because of their ignorance. 

 

You keep responding like I am trying to solve your housing crisis. If you don't have a housing crisis. Fine. Just stay there. Meanwhile we have tons of camping in all our green spaces and it is starting fires because there simply aren't enough homes. I had young friends who couldn't find a place for a year. Some stayed with friends, crashing on coaches etc. 2 RN's and an HR MANAGER are WELL paid, with good credit and ought to be able to find a place but they would be one of 30 applicants for a rental within a day or so. 

 

We no real buildable land left in our city. We are hemmed in by mountains, an ocean, and a military base. If you don't increase density you at some point are saying I want sprawl or I want homelessness. Those are your options outside of increasing density. What are you Thanos and you want to just make 1/2 the people just disappear so it won't be crowded in case there is a pandemic? Are they building their homes in tunnels under the ground so your home can keep its character. 🙄  At some point you have to deal with reality. You can't just wish people didn't exist. 

 

 

 

 

[Innisfree]

1 hour ago, frogger said:

Yes, everyone wants everything to be exactly same but make changes. 

This exactly. Not to pick on @Carol in Cal., because how many things have we said people really have valid needs for in this thread, just today? People need trucks because hauling or towing, or because it’s cultural. They need cars because of busy lifestyles. They need to be able to drive long distances, they need to do things for recreation. But we can’t always get what we want. 

56 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, mostly people want incremental change that feels like progress rather than regression.  I think that is reasonable.  Moving a military barracks into a community of modest homes is neither.

I do understand. It’s reasonable to want gradual change, not change that’s fast enough to feel uncomfortable. But, again, we’ve already spent the time in which we could have had gradual, comfortable change, and we didn’t make adequate use of it. Most people didn’t understand that we needed to, but thirty years ago was when we could have started making changes on that schedule. Now that time is gone.

@prairiewindmomma is right that there’s much climate change, really serious change, which is now inevitable. But there’s always a continuum, right? We’ve probably already blown past the limits to warming we had wanted to achieve , but there are still different degrees of bad outcomes possible. We need to accept that some changes will be uncomfortable, but that doesn’t make them the wrong thing to do.

52 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

many of the things advocated in this thread were a disaster during Covid.

You’re absolutely right, and I remember thinking about that at the time.

Societies have periods which are disastrous. Pandemics last for a few years, hopefully not too often (though climate change will mean they happen more often). Climate change itself, though, is essentially forever from this point on. It’s not getting cooler again for thousands of years. Societal unrest because of drought, famine, inadequate water supplies: that’s baked in, pardon the word choice. So our decisions need to be what makes sense for most of the time, not for the exceptional circumstances like pandemics.

Actually, the denser our housing, and the more local our businesses, the more accessible they will be even without public transportation. The corner grocery store used to be a place lots of people could walk to. We need walkable neighborhoods which include the necessities of life: housing, schools, businesses, local government, libraries, parks. All that should be within walking distance of people’s homes. There will be times in history when being too dense is a disadvantage, but more often, it will be an advantage.

 I don’t actually think we’ll manage to make the changes we need, on the schedule we need, though. So, probably the change most of us will see will be gradual, even though still uncomfortable at times. Most of us don’t live in areas which will experience severe change during our lives. During our children’s lives, or grandchildren’s, will be a different matter.

Earlier @prairiewindmomma asked what end of thread we’d choose to pull. I’d try to get us to a shared recognition of reality, including climate change, but going beyond it too. We don’t have that now, but it’s essential that a voting majority of us recognize reality when we see it, and make decisions based on it. I’m not sure this is achievable.

 

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, mostly people want incremental change that feels like progress rather than regression.  I think that is reasonable.  Moving a military barracks into a community of modest homes is neither.

Honestly, having lived on this military base I can tell you a 4 plex there looks just like a 4-plex off the base. Military housing is pretty regular housing now days.

[prairiewindmomma]

With re: to covid......had we all had availability to N95 masks, and been willing to wear them, things could have gone very, very differently.  We only had to shut down because we didn't have sufficient access to protective masks and air filtration.  

FWIW, public transport did keep running here, and food banks moved their services outside.  Our school district did bus drop off of meals at every usual bus pickup spot for everyone and also had pickup spots in certain schools and parks. They also gave laptops to every student and hotspots to kids who needed them. Libraries closed briefly, then moved to outdoor pickup. You could still book access to computers (they limited it to 6 computers, spaced very far apart), or you could "borrow" a hotspot and laptop or kindle. Our city hooked up WiFI access in a number of areas, including some low income housing complexes. IOW, our community adapted pretty quickly. I realize that this was not the case everywhere---but I think this points to the importance of living in a community that is resilient and adaptive.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, bolt. said:

Are you really saying that "It's just common sense" that nowhere in the world should have any kind of higher density housing, ever? Anything other than a single family dwelling is fundamentally too unsafe to exist?

No, what I am saying is that there would be significant risks to crowding up San Jose, where I live, much more than it is now.  It’s already crowded.  There is already not enough water to go around.  During the drought before this last one, draconian charges for water overuse were so fierce that people went from $100 for water to $1000, quite literally—because there is not physically enough for the number of residents here.  People are very quick here on WTM to say that there should not be any more construction in a desert, but now all of the sudden it’s not just favored but almost required!  There is already extreme dependency on outside resources coming in regularly.  There are already infrastructure issues with gas and electricity as well as water.  And we have significant earthquake danger, including a significant risk of liquifaction in vast swaths of the city, and meager city services already.  Just saying that we should allow infill here as if it’s obviously true ignores all of that.  

There are places that can absorb a lot of infill, but SJ has already tried that and it made things worse for everyone.    My neighborhood switched from R1 to R4 some years back, and later switched back because it was such a mess, with families jammed into tiny apartments, no place for kids to play except at school, insane traffic, insufficient parking, misery all around.  Now the state has mandated that no municipality can turn down folks from wanting to build an ‘in-law house’ on their property, in an effort to encourage infill.  I live on a street that is so narrow that parking is only allowed on one side of it.  If a bunch of neighbors build in-law quarters and rent them out, each one adds 1-2 cars to an already barely tolerable parking situation, but the city will only require one parking spot, and not necessarily one that isn’t directly down the same one lane driveway as the primary house there, so people will want to park on the street for sure.

SJ is one of the less affluent parts of Silicon Valley and already pretty crowded, although we do have some McMansions in some areas.  I don’t see anyone stopping tech CEOs from buying multiple big homes in Palo Alto and just taking them out of use, but by gosh SJ must have infill.  It’s ridiculous.  Not in my backyard but definitely in yours is the prevailing attitude.  Like many things, infill is great in theory, and works well in some places, but as a blanket policy it hits hard on those who are already somewhat borderline.

 

[frogger]

5 hours ago, frogger said:

This is why localized solutions are optimal. We all have our own problems. 😉

I find it extremely strange that you would get the idea that you are required to build in the desert. I went ahead grouped all the quotes that said places were different and whenever I shared you quoted to respond. It sounded like you were arguing with me about what my town should do but maybe you just had to mention yourself with all my comments quoted about my own area in your post? I think I misunderstood you. 

 

Obviously, from the sound of it they did a very poor job of putting your town together, especially with the transportation. People shouldn't need cars in dense areas. My daughter in Chicago has no problem not having a car for example. Of course, your area is not trully dense by any real cities standards but if it is designed as a suburb it will feel worse then if you designed it as a city.

 

First quote (above) was in response to your mentioning the water issue. This next quote was in response to you  explaining your city and I was trying to differentiate.

4 hours ago, frogger said:

That is great. Most American towns are anti walkability. They are low density, need a car for everything, keep any low income people as far away as possible. I do see change but it is like pulling teeth.

.

 

 

3 hours ago, frogger said:

This thread has shown me more than ever that housing needs to be solved at the local level. Maybe the Fed's could tie incentives to new building, density, etc. 

 

2 hours ago, frogger said:

There is not here. I don't even know where you live. This is EXACTLY why I do not want the Federal gov't controlling things. Voters think the whole world looks like their neighborhood and do major damage because of their ignorance. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by frogger

[Heartstrings]

55 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, what I am saying is that there would be significant risks to crowding up San Jose, where I live, much more than it is now.  It’s already crowded.  There is already not enough water to go around.  During the drought before this last one, draconian charges for water overuse were so fierce that people went from $100 for water to $1000, quite literally—because there is not physically enough for the number of residents here.  People are very quick here on WTM to say that there should not be any more construction in a desert, but now all of the sudden it’s not just favored but almost required!  There is already extreme dependency on outside resources coming in regularly.  There are already infrastructure issues with gas and electricity as well as water.  And we have significant earthquake danger, including a significant risk of liquifaction in vast swaths of the city, and meager city services already.  Just saying that we should allow infill here as if it’s obviously true ignores all of that.  

There are places that can absorb a lot of infill, but SJ has already tried that and it made things worse for everyone.    My neighborhood switched from R1 to R4 some years back, and later switched back because it was such a mess, with families jammed into tiny apartments, no place for kids to play except at school, insane traffic, insufficient parking, misery all around.  Now the state has mandated that no municipality can turn down folks from wanting to build an ‘in-law house’ on their property, in an effort to encourage infill.  I live on a street that is so narrow that parking is only allowed on one side of it.  If a bunch of neighbors build in-law quarters and rent them out, each one adds 1-2 cars to an already barely tolerable parking situation, but the city will only require one parking spot, and not necessarily one that isn’t directly down the same one lane driveway as the primary house there, so people will want to park on the street for sure.

SJ is one of the less affluent parts of Silicon Valley and already pretty crowded, although we do have some McMansions in some areas.  I don’t see anyone stopping tech CEOs from buying multiple big homes in Palo Alto and just taking them out of use, but by gosh SJ must have infill.  It’s ridiculous.  Not in my backyard but definitely in yours is the prevailing attitude.  Like many things, infill is great in theory, and works well in some places, but as a blanket policy it hits hard on those who are already somewhat borderline.

 

Saying the my town in the middle of Arkansas, with no electrical issues, too much rain for wildfires and plenty of water should grow denser is NOT saying that San Jose needs to. It’s also not saying we should build more in flood plains in Houston, or in any other unique place.  
 

  I ❤️ Cali and grew up there in the desert (Victorville). It has unique challenges, and solutions for the rest of the country aren’t going to necessarily work there.   Even other desert towns like Phoenix don’t have to worry about Earthquakes.   
 

As a general rule…if it don’t apply, let it fly.  California is wonderful in many ways but it’s not the center of universe.  

Edited May 4, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Carol in Cal.]

FROGGER!  I did not write that post in answer to one of yours, and I have noted prior to your last one that you’ve been careful to specify the conditions under which something might or might not make sense.  

[frogger]

5 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

FROGGER!  I did not write that post in answer to one of yours, and I have noted prior to your last one that you’ve been careful to specify the conditions under which something might or might not make sense.  

I'm sorry. With the military barracks one I got muddled. I didn't see many others.

Edited May 4, 2023 by frogger

[Laura Corin]

9 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

Oh no, I am definitely not the smartest person on this subject matter.  I have done more reading in the past year than I have my whole life about it, so I am becoming more aware of the issues.  That is a great point that high prices lead to innovation! 

Another thought. Countries become used to all kinds of normal, but it's worth rethinking them to see their effects.  For example - in the UK petrol taxes are high but local property taxes are low in comparison to what my relatives in the States pay ( I don't know how much that varies by location). Even for the largest house in my county, you would pay around USD 5,000 per year and that charge includes rubbish/recycling collection and water supply/sewerage. 

So we don't pay much tax to have a home, but we do pay a lot to drive a large vehicle. 

[popmom]

No. 

And I think it's borderline child abuse the way that some people feel compelled to "educate" their young children about climate change (doom). I was borderline traumatized by the idea of nuclear war. All for nothing. If grown adults want to worry about it, that's okay. Just don't traumatize the children over stuff they have zero control over. That's not okay. Because it WILL traumatize them. 

There are ways to impart our values of being good stewards of our environment and natural resources to our children without the unnecessary fear mongering/ indoctrination. 

Edited May 4, 2023 by popmom

[Innisfree]

9 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

Saying the my town… with no electrical issues, too much rain for wildfires and plenty of water should grow denser is NOT saying that San Jose needs to. It’s also not saying we should build more in flood plains in Houston, or in any other unique place.  

Yes, this. Some places need fewer people, not more. Hopefully some residents of those areas will make that decision as they become less livable. Moving is tough for lower-income people, though, so I’d support assistance for those who want to leave areas that really can’t support as many people as they have, or areas that are facing rapid climate change effects. I’d say fire-prone areas in California meet that description, just like areas of the Gulf Coast do.

6 hours ago, popmom said:

 If grown adults want to worry about it, that's okay. Just don't traumatize the children over stuff they have zero control over.

Fwiw, I wouldn’t speak to children the way I speak here. We are, as you say, adults. I still hesitated a few hours before posting what I’d written a couple of times, because I felt the posts were pretty dark. 

The problem is that so many people still insist that either climate change isn’t happening, or that it’s not caused by human activities. Or they act as if we have all the time in the world to do things scientists were warning us we should do decades ago. It’s not just maddening, it’s a fundamental avoidance of reality. I’m not going to hesitate to point that out to adults who are taking part in a discussion about climate change. I don’t want to be cruel to individuals, though, so I hope that’s not how I’m coming across.

 I agree that it’s traumatic, probably to all of us when we really stop and think about possibilities. I’d argue that highlights the urgency of our paying attention and acting.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Innisfree
Word choice

[Ting Tang]

6 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

Another thought. Countries become used to all kinds of normal, but it's worth rethinking them to see their effects.  For example - in the UK petrol taxes are high but local property taxes are low in comparison to what my relatives in the States pay ( I don't know how much that varies by location). Even for the largest house in my county, you would pay around USD 5,000 per year and that charge includes rubbish/recycling collection and water supply/sewerage. 

So we don't pay much tax to have a home, but we do pay a lot to drive a large vehicle. 

Sadly, we have some of the highest property taxes where I live, and I am in the state with one of the highest gas taxes.  

[prairiewindmomma]

My kids are mostly late teens and early 20s…they came to their conclusions themselves. We do turn the news off around our 10yo and shield her as much as we can…but in her lifetime we have had to evacuate due to flooding, do tornado cleanup, watched our lawn die because irrigation was banned due to a water shortage, do hurricane prep and then walk in 100F heat places after Hurricane Harvey due to a gas shortage, evacuate due to wildfire smoke twice (the sky glowed orange and we had HEPA filters going but her asthma would not stay controlled), had a heatwave of 118 that killed probably 1/3 of the trees in this town (we watched them cutting the trees when we were at the pool last…), and had a snowstorm where we couldn’t get out for a week because there were no plows. When we go to the beach, it is different. When we go to the forest, it is different. We drove at highway speeds for 40 minutes through burned out trees to go someplace last summer. 
 

Like, maybe your kids are young enough they don’t ask questions, but Youngest does. I frame the answers carefully, but she isn’t dumb. This *waves around wildly at the world around me* doesn’t look normal here. 
 

It’s like when we went to the store in 2021 and they had no chicken, no lactose free milk, no lettuce, and not her favorite snacks. When we roll up to an empty shelf and she sees it is empty, she noticed there was a problem. 
 

Maybe you live somewhere not as impacted?

[KSera]

21 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

Well, these people might regularly haul trailers, boats, RVs (perhaps they own things that need to be towed on a regular basis).  I think we are definitely crossing the line of "freedom" when you start to tell people they can't live life enjoyably.  You might live in the city where recreation is found in buildings, but in rural areas, it is found outdoors. Of course, you want to be a good steward of the environment. So, making vehicles that can do these things in a more earth-friendly way seems to be the way to go. I think things seem to be going in this direction.  I'm not trying to be combative. I used to live suburban and traveled urban. I've done the commuter train thing, but I now have a different perspective now that I live here.  I miss conveniences, too, but sometimes I appreciate less traffic and quietness.  It's hard to tell the rural man who enjoys taking his boat  out to go fishing he is doing life wrong.  Fishing is a great pasttime--taking kids out into nature to actually see and appreciate it. That is somewhat of a classical education right there. 

I might have missed some thing in the middle of this discussion, because I had intended to address some of the EV battery discussion yesterday morning, but I was never able to come back to it. I may still do that, because the oil industry has been very successful in promoting their talking point that batteries are worse than oil, Which is not so (for starters, batteries are recyclable, oil not so. The exploitation issues with mining or particularly to do with cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and it’s definitely an issue and EV vehicle manufacturers have already been moving rapidly away from cobalt-based batteries. The percentage of cobalt in them has dropped dramatically and newer batteries are being made that don’t contain it at all. These issues go for batteries in electronic devices such as cell phones and computers and all kinds of other things as well.) There are issues to still improve with batteries, not the least of which is actually making sure that the batteries are all being reclaimed and recycled since they can be, but the industry is working hard on those issues.

All that said, my point in replying to your post, Ting Tang, was just to say there are increasing choices of EV trucks that can do all the things that you’re talking about (and do it better than an ICE vehicle). Supply has not been able to keep up with demand recently, but that is improving a lot now, especially as there are more options. So the choice isn’t to either not have outdoor hobbies or to pollute the environment.

In the long term, there are a lot of solutions that may up being better than EVs for solving the large issue of the transportation sector contribute significantly to global warming, but it’s a way that we’re able to do something about now without requiring completely re-configuring housing and lifestyles overnight, which just isn’t going to happen fast enough.

 

 

 

[MercyA]

10 hours ago, popmom said:

And I think it's borderline child abuse the way that some people feel compelled to "educate" their young children about climate change (doom). I was borderline traumatized by the idea of nuclear war. All for nothing. If grown adults want to worry about it, that's okay. Just don't traumatize the children over stuff they have zero control over. That's not okay. Because it WILL traumatize them. 

This is a good reminder. I spent probably a year of elementary school with a feeling of dread hanging over me, constantly looking out the window for mushroom clouds and the end of the world. All because one teacher told us nuclear war was coming. I don't think I shared my fear with my parents for a long time--they probably had no idea what was bothering me. 😞 

I think children's questions should be answered truthfully and accurately, but we do need to be careful about tone and word choices and the amount and type of information shared. 

[prairiewindmomma]

Fwiw, if you do have young kids with questions and need some gentle, science based books, Let’s Read and Find Out level 2 has a series of weather related books with titles like Drought, Flood Warning, Why Are the Ice Caps Melting, and so on. Max Axiom (graphic novel science series) also has environmental science topics that are well done and not fear mongering.

[SKL]

43 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean that worrying about it was worthless.

IMO worrying is generally worthless ... at best.

[Carol in Cal.]

I didn't see anyone saying that worrying about nuclear war was for nothing.  Rather, I saw references to the belief that crap in the atmosphere would cool the earth rather than heat it, expected in the aftermath of a nuclear war, and also a caution not to terrify children about something they can't do anything about anyway.

[Matryoshka]

11 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I didn't see anyone saying that worrying about nuclear war was for nothing.  Rather, I saw references to the belief that crap in the atmosphere would cool the earth rather than heat it, expected in the aftermath of a nuclear war,

You are conflating two very different things. What kind of 'crap' is in the atmosphere is very important.

Dust in the air, whether from large volcanoes or thrown up by giant bombs or a large meteor, will indeed cool the planet - hence 'nuclear winter'. The dust blocks the sun's light so it doesn't reach the ground, which causes cooling of the atmosphere. 

Greenhouse gasses allow solar radiation to reach the ground, but don't let the longer wavelengths (heat) radiate back into space, causing heating of the atmosphere. Two totally different scenarios, both true. 

[Laura Corin]

7 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

Sadly, we have some of the highest property taxes where I live, and I am in the state with one of the highest gas taxes.  

I don't know about your local prices, but the average UK petrol price is around 80% higher than the average in the US. I suspect a large part of that is tax.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing

[Carol in Cal.]

4 hours ago, Matryoshka said:

You are conflating two very different things. What kind of 'crap' is in the atmosphere is very important.

Dust in the air, whether from large volcanoes or thrown up by giant bombs or a large meteor, will indeed cool the planet - hence 'nuclear winter'. The dust blocks the sun's light so it doesn't reach the ground, which causes cooling of the atmosphere. 

Greenhouse gasses allow solar radiation to reach the ground, but don't let the longer wavelengths (heat) radiate back into space, causing heating of the atmosphere. Two totally different scenarios, both true. 

Burning gasoline and propane gas also pollutes the air with long lasting particulates.  Natural gas is mostly free of that effluent, but gasoline certainly is not.

[Matryoshka]

8 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Burning gasoline and propane gas also pollutes the air with long lasting particulates.  Natural gas is mostly free of that effluent, but gasoline certainly is not.

Not the same kinds of particulate that are sent airborne by blasting huge chunks of earth's crust into the atmosphere.  No amount of car will ever bury (and that's just the small part that came right down) or vaporize cities.

There's documentation of volcanic activity that threw up so much thick dust that it dimmed the sun and crop failures for something like three years.  Also, scrubbers on smokestacks and catalytic converters have cut way back on particulates, which is why smog is so much better in countries that have regulated it (yes, I know it's still a huge problem in China and India,  but still nothing close the amount to bury their cities Pompeii style).

[Ting Tang]

5 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

I don't know about your local prices, but the average UK petrol price is around 80% higher than the average in the US. I suspect a large part of that is tax.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing

I think these are state/local taxes making ours much higher than the US average. They get the EV owners in other fees. 🙃😔

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Matryoshka said:

Not the same kinds of particulate that are sent airborne by blasting huge chunks of earth's crust into the atmosphere.  No amount of car will ever bury (and that's just the small part that came right down) or vaporize cities.

There's documentation of volcanic activity that threw up so much thick dust that it dimmed the sun and crop failures for something like three years.  Also, scrubbers on smokestacks and catalytic converters have cut way back on particulates, which is why smog is so much better in countries that have regulated it (yes, I know it's still a huge problem in China and India,  but still nothing close the amount to bury their cities Pompeii style).

The point is, there was a time when it was considered current science to believe that petroleum consumption of various kinds was going to contribute to global cooling, more so than to global warming.  It is correct than an ancillary benefit of smog reduction activities is reduction in particulate contamination of the atmosphere, but the expectation of global warming and the green house effect has trailed that of expected global cooling.  That doesn't mean that anyone was per se wrong, just incomplete, and it lends itself to the question of what is incomplete now.

That is almost always the case with a complex, multivariable problem like this one, with lots of somewhat conflicting feedback loops.  

We should act on what we know, IMO, and we should also keep studying what we don't know yet in parallel.

[KSera]

1 minute ago, Carol in Cal. said:

We should act on what we know, IMO, and we should also keep studying what we don't know yet in parallel.

We should, I just don't think there's uncertainly about increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere trapping heat. It's something testable and observable and that is actually happening and measurable, as opposed to the theorized "what might happen if we have a nuclear winter" scenario. So the importance of decreasing carbon emissions is one thing we know that we can act on.

[Matryoshka]

9 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

The point is, there was a time when it was considered current science to believe that petroleum consumption of various kinds was going to contribute to global cooling, more so than to global warming.  It is correct than an ancillary benefit of smog reduction activities is reduction in particulate contamination of the atmosphere, but the expectation of global warming and the green house effect has trailed that of expected global cooling.  That doesn't mean that anyone was per se wrong, just incomplete, and it lends itself to the question of what is incomplete now.

That is almost always the case with a complex, multivariable problem like this one, with lots of somewhat conflicting feedback loops.  

We should act on what we know, IMO, and we should also keep studying what we don't know yet in parallel.

No, on the contrary, the point is that there never was a consensus or even a big thing about global cooling being an outcome of petroleum consumption.   That was literally never a thing.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

Quote

 

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

...

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

 

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Matryoshka

[prairiewindmomma]

2 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

One reason that I hate discussions about what is "realistically achievable" is that the overton window shifts and how does that happen? Maybe we don't succeed now but we lay a foundation for the future? Was ending slavery realistically feasible in 1850? Was ending Jim Crow realistically feasible in 1950? 

It's a cliche but it's true, "free your mind." Most people are framing the murder of Jordan Neely as a choice between murdering poor mentally ill people and feeling unsafe on public transit. Those aren't the only possible choices. 

It costs over $500K a year to house someone at Riker's Island (jail in NYC) and it costs $50K a year to place someone in subsidized housing. Let's say we lock up the Jordan Neely's of the world- how much will that cost us? Why do think that increased criminal enforcement is more realistically feasible when it costs so much more? 

 

I don’t think most people think of this as a black and white dichotomy.

I actually support housing first with wrap around services. Wrap around needs to include case management with addiction recovery, mental health, medical, and social work with the option to pair with legal and whomever else needs to be brought in.

This exists. It can work.

But, this only works with motivated clients who are capable of making the change. When someone doesn’t want to change, or someone doesn’t have the capacity to change on their own (thinking of some of my schizophrenic and bipolar clients here), your hands are tied  in the current system.

And, beyond that, it only exists as long as it is funded. Generally it’s cheaper than judicial custodial care or frequent flier ER visits. 

[Carol in Cal.]

57 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I don’t think most people think of this as a black and white dichotomy.

I actually support housing first with wrap around services. Wrap around needs to include case management with addiction recovery, mental health, medical, and social work with the option to pair with legal and whomever else needs to be brought in.

This exists. It can work.

But, this only works with motivated clients who are capable of making the change. When someone doesn’t want to change, or someone doesn’t have the capacity to change on their own (thinking of some of my schizophrenic and bipolar clients here), your hands are tied  in the current system.

And, beyond that, it only exists as long as it is funded. Generally it’s cheaper than judicial custodial care or frequent flier ER visits. 

Homelessness reminds me of cancer in that early on in cancer treatments there was an assumption that cancer was cancer, and it was one disease, and now we know that it is a blanket term for many very different diseases that benefit from treatments that are quite different.  Homelessness is a blanket term for many different sets of people, and each set benefits from different treatments/plans.  I like the housing first approach for many such situations, and I also know that there are specific PTSD, drug abuse, and other mental health issues that sometimes make the housing first approach counterproductive in some ways.  I've been impressed with the results locally from charities that pick *a* demographic of homeless folks and finetune how to help them, but inevitably that means that others are excluded.    It's really a mess, locally.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

We should, I just don't think there's uncertainly about increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere trapping heat. It's something testable and observable and that is actually happening and measurable, as opposed to the theorized "what might happen if we have a nuclear winter" scenario. So the importance of decreasing carbon emissions is one thing we know that we can act on.

I don't either, but again I think that we can justify decreasing carbon emissions from a standpoint of their accelerated use militating for moderation from a practical standpoint even for those who disagree with you and I about that.

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, Matryoshka said:

No, on the contrary, the point is that there never was a consensus or even a big thing about global cooling being an outcome of petroleum consumption.   That was literally never a thing.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

 

I remember it from the 70s, it was in the popular press as 'the science' whether or not it was truly 'a big thing in scientific circles'.  

[Matryoshka]

29 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I remember it from the 70s, it was in the popular press as 'the science' whether or not it was truly 'a big thing in scientific circles'.  

Sounds like you may not have been reading the most reliable sources, since the actual retrospective study said that was a fringe idea that flew in the face of what most scientists were saying even then. It was not 'the science'.  I remember the 70s too, and the popular press I was consuming was not saying that at all, quite the opposite. Did you read the article?  

[Heartstrings]

38 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I remember it from the 70s, it was in the popular press as 'the science' whether or not it was truly 'a big thing in scientific circles'.  

I’m sure “we’re headed for an ice age” was great tabloid fodder and a great special interest story on slow news days, so I’m sure your memory is correct. I’m not sure that’s useful to today though.  

[Corraleno]

I don't think the "global warming" and "new Ice Age" ideas are opposing theories, or a case of "scientists can't make up their minds," as it's often portrayed by climate change deniers — they are more like two different stages of the same phenomenon. The science has always predicted increasing temperatures in the short & medium term (like the next century). But one theory is that as temperatures increase and the ice sheets melt, the influx of fresh water plus changing ocean temperatures could lead to a collapse of the Gulf Stream and the whole Atlantic current system; this has happened before and is believed to have been behind the last ice age.

And there actually is evidence that the Atlantic current system is slowing down as temperatures rise, although even if the worst case scenario were to happen and the current system collapses, that wouldn't happen for another 200-300 years. So it's not a case of either the world will get hot or it will get cold, it's more like  if temperatures get too high it will disrupt really fundamental systems that could then tip it in the opposite direction.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Corraleno

[bookbard]

Just saw an interesting study which surveyed over 2,000 people, half from Australia and half from the USA. Apparently around 80% of Australians felt tackling climate change was very important, vs 68% of Americans. This was done after the terrible 2019-2020 Australian bushfires - I wonder if that had an effect on attitudes?

[BeachGal]

Microalgae are capable of sequestering large amounts of carbon. A British company, Brilliant Earth, has created and tested microalgae-sequestering facilities and they are expected to roll out soon. The process is pretty cool and appears to be environmentally friendly.

https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2022/05/10-algae-carbon-capture-technology.htm