Do you worry about climate change?

[SKL]

I wonder if people are misunderstanding each other because of differences in what is said and what is heard.

A person or company can "not worry about" environmental realities and still learn about and make responsible choices.  I can't think of an industry that hasn't done a lot to reduce energy use, emissions, and various kinds of waste.

I also observe that this whole thread has ignored the fact that there are societal costs to environmental measures.  There's a point beyond which environmental measures will push people into poverty, and people in poverty can't make certain choices that could improve the world.

I ignore the silly things young people say, but I hope that more mature adults can analyze the not-so-simple reality and make balanced decisions.

[ArteHaus]

1 hour ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

"Many" is a vague descriptor. Certainly not the majority of scientists and medical experts believe this. This supposed belief of "many" scientists and medical experts was not the consensus. 

Then you should disregard anything that would contend with the “majority”. Have you read Tocqueville? I am sure you haven’t but, maybe would benefit you. I don’t think Tyranny is a good thing, you and I would probably disagree.

It used to be the consensus in the scientific/medical community that cannibalism was a treatment plan. Hmm. I probably would have been a lone wolf there too.

”Science” also convinced itself and the “majority” that Drapetomania was a real thing. I would say the consensus here was wrong. Samuel Cartwright’s “ideas” still linger today (albeit not as blatantly).

So go on, vaccinate…wear a mask indoors, in your car, while you shower. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Follow the majority and believe the consensus. 

[OH_Homeschooler]

1 minute ago, ArteHaus said:

It used to be the consensus in the scientific/medical community that cannibalism was a treatment plan. Hmm. I probably would have been a lone wolf there too.

...

So go on, vaccinate…wear a mask indoors, in your car, while you shower. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Follow the majority and believe the consensus. 

Please share your evidence on the cannibalism thing. I have never hear that. Sounds fascinating.

As far as vaccinating, yes, I am vaccinated many times over. I caught Covid last summer as a fat lady. I went a couple of days without treatment and it was uncomfortable but manageable. Then I took Paxlovid and felt much, much better within hours. I credit my quick recovery to science. But I don't wear masks in my car or when I shower. As I said, I'm a fat lady and save mask wearing for when I really need it, because it gets hot under there. 

Simply following people because they go against mainstream science is not the flex you think it is.

[ArteHaus]

6 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

Please share your evidence on the cannibalism thing. I have never hear that. Sounds fascinating.

As far as vaccinating, yes, I am vaccinated many times over. I caught Covid last summer as a fat lady. I went a couple of days without treatment and it was uncomfortable but manageable. Then I took Paxlovid and felt much, much better within hours. I credit my quick recovery to science. But I don't wear masks in my car or when I shower. As I said, I'm a fat lady and save mask wearing for when I really need it, because it gets hot under there. 

Simply following people because they go against mainstream science is not the flex you think it is.

I don’t “follow” anyone, I simply think and use my brain, as we all should. We question everything in our family and teach our children to not swallow every pill handed to them. This is called critical thinking, it isn’t a flex, lol. Although, that is an interesting way of looking at it. Maybe I should think of it as a flex:)

Once upon a time, homeschooling was NOT mainstream, but some people had to do some non-mainstream thinking to do what is best for their family—

[frogger]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

 

I also observe that this whole thread has ignored the fact that there are societal costs to environmental measures.  There's a point beyond which environmental measures will push people into poverty, and people in poverty can't make certain choices that could improve the world.

.

I am curious about this. Was there a specific poster you are thinking of? Obviously, the sociatal cost of a changing climate where I live is pretty big both economically, sea food is a huge driver of our economy, and societal , people can't get their subsistence food and deaths from falling through the ice. These things are dramatically affected by climate change.   The other major economic driver in Alaska is oil 😂, and the tribes that depend on on or the other will have different views depending on their own self interest which is perfectly rational. 

 

It seems that discussion should be centered on getting the most bang for your buck and not demanding uniformity. In the South where things are very spread out and little towns dot the landscape and nuclear power is available, EVs totally make sense. Major cities should be more multi modal and have more public transportation. Higher gas taxes would incentivize both this things while allowing choices. Where I live a mix of more public transportation plus hybrids makes more sense. It will get more and more expensive to add to our capacity to produce electricity for EVs and unlike the south we don't have nuclear.

 

This is just transportation which is only one of many factors but I think whenever people talk about climate change rather than starting to discuss solutions with max benefit and the least societal costs we always go back to broad generalities. "Those people hate the planet and don't care" or "those people aren't thinking of societal costs". Or if you propse a good idea for Alaska, it will be considered bad if it isn't good  in Florida or Phoenix. 🙄 Problem solving should include societal costs for sure and we should also remember climate change has societal costs.  

Edited May 2, 2023 by frogger

[MercyA]

nm

Edited May 2, 2023 by MercyA

[KSera]

1 hour ago, MercyA said:

I think an open mind is a good thing, in general, but don't be duped yourself by propaganda, from either side of the political aisle. 

Mercy, the poster you are replying to is a conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier.

[Heartstrings]

5 hours ago, frogger said:

Major cities should be more multi modal and have more public transportation.

It’s been really hard to get public transportation done in most cities.  In a lot of cases it’s because the people making a killing off of cars, roads and fossil fuels are throwing millions into fighting public transportation because it hurts their bottom line.  I don’t know how we fight that as a country.  
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/koch-activists-phoenix-ban-light-rail

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s been really hard to get public transportation done in most cities.  In a lot of cases it’s because the people making a killing off of cars, roads and fossil fuels are throwing millions into fighting public transportation because it hurts their bottom line.  I don’t know how we fight that as a country.  
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/koch-activists-phoenix-ban-light-rail

That is true. Anyone who claims to understand economics and isn't for higher gas taxes and paid parking is a hypocrite. The amount of money that goes towards welfare for cars is crazy. But there is a large group that does want to continue to subsidize vehicles and to hell with everyone else. 

 

I do think back lash is picking up steam. Every city is different and it is a battle but I know more people are getting fed up and joining the battle in my city and we have made some progress, precious little but some. 

[frogger]

I must add that I really despise Biden's push for EVs. Alaska does not have the ability to expand its infastructure. Yes we can get charging stations up. The problem is the fuel used to power them. Hybrids would be way more feasible. The other thing is, we need LESS vehicles in our cities. Want to have more room for housing, build over all those stinking parking lots that soak up heat and release it making heat islands. This will be done by having fewer vehicles and turning parking areas into housing, planting trees along roads because with fewer vehicles means fewer lanes and room for greenery. You get what you subsidize and for Biden that has been more cars. He wants gas cheaper, bigger transportation budgets for highway projects, and subsidizing EV's means more vehicles on the roads that need lanes and parkings. Biden is not a very green candidate. 😕

Edited May 3, 2023 by frogger

[Faith-manor]

5 hours ago, frogger said:

I must add that I really despise Biden's push for EVs. Alaska does not have the ability to expand its infastructure. Yes we can get charging stations up. The problem is the fuel used to power them. Hybrids would be way more feasible. The other thing is, we need LESS vehicles in our cities. Want to have more room for housing, build over all those stinking parking lots that soak up heat and release it making heat islands. This will be done by having fewer vehicles and turning parking areas into housing, planting trees along roads because with fewer vehicles means fewer lanes and room for greenery. You get what you subsidize and for Biden that has been more cars. He wants gas cheaper, bigger transportation budgets for highway projects, and subsidizing EV's means more vehicles on the roads that need lanes and parkings. Biden is not a very green candidate. 😕

The younger generations think more clearly about things like public transport, car reliance in urban environments, the cost of car welfare, issues of stress on an aging grid, and what not. They are more interested in a variety of solutions, and do not a one size fits all. We need to get rid of the people in power who simply cannot think creatively. That said, I suspect that the politics behind ev's is to keep the automakers profitable. Public transport and car welfare benefit them greatly. Still ev's have a place in the solution, just a limited one where the grid is being upgraded and a reasonable portion of the electricity produced is coming from alternative energy. Nuclear isn't the only option, but definitely one to look at. For us, we can actually produce enough solar energy at both of our houses to cover the home charging station. We can keep a gas power car/hybrid minivan for road trips and van camping, but do all of our regular driving, the bulk of our driving, on an ev charged at home without increasing our power draw on the grid. If this country had been investing in solar beginning in the 80's instead of continuing to back oil companies, we would be in much better shape. It isn't a one size fits all plan, and certainly isn't going to work for northern climes so well, however, letting the perfect become the enemy of the good seems to be the norm in this nation. 

One thing to consider is just the upgrading of the power grid. 10% of electricity, and in some areas more due to how old the lines are, is lost in transmission. Our old, above ground lines produce a lot of heat, and require a ton of maintenance which in and of itself then uses a tremendous amount of fossil fuels to fix when one considers all the trucks transporting tools and crew, the manufacturing of replacement parts and lines, etc. Leadership at state and federal levels were warned about this 30 years ago. But they just passed the buck along, no action taken, and the powrr companies for whom greed is their only incentive, didn't volunteer to start fixing the mess. Sigh. Making the grid more durable with up to date technology is a win win for everyone in the long term, and does save power and emissions.

There are so many things that while not being an individual solution, when combined, become a powerful tool for reducing emissions, producing higher oxygen environment and reducing pollution, and making us less fossil fuel reliant. From insulation in houses, new building techniques and materials, geothermal heat/cooling, green roofs (biomoss filtration) that reduce heat and bind heavy metals from car exhaust, ripping up parking lots and creating green parking which mitigates temperatures in urban heat islands, investing in rail which saves about 75% in emissions per ton of freight moved by truck,  so many things that could be done. And we do have the money to do it, but instead of spending it on nine million ways to kill people with the D.O.D. while not taking care of veterans, we need to spend it at home on our infrastructure and helping home and building owners make these expensive changes. For 2024, just about half of all discretionary spending will be military, and it will total nearly 1 trillion dollars, 842 billion is the current estimate. Something to think about. 

I think every single president we have had has been nothing but pro big 3 automakers backed by a congress funded by oil and oil consuming hogs. Until that changes, we aren't going to get real action.

All I can do is make my own home a bit of a haven, a place to enjoy as things get worse, a place with higher oxygenation and a home that is way easier to heat and cool just for the well being of our own family. I have no ability to solve it for everyone.  More insulation for both houses, changing out some windows, earth tubes since we can't put in true geothermal due to the locations of the well and septic fields at each property, supplement with solar energy where we can, ripping out the lawn and growing moss in shade, heat resistant oxygen producing ground covers in the sunny spots so eventually we do not mow and produce more oxygen, have an EV which we produce the alternative energy to charge, and a hybrid for long distance driving, garden for our own health (it is amazing to me how much puttering with my raised bed gardens makes me happy and content, and makes me happy to just stay home), and advocate locally for more and more green spaces which helps sequester carbon and makes the local air cleaner. I don't have any candidates at a level of power who can actually make a difference to vote for, not until the old guard who will only ever advocate for status quo is forced out due to health or unfortunately, death. The things we are doing personally are not a one size fits all prescription for everyone, please do not take it that way.

[frogger]

You are right that it is mostly a subsidy to keep the automakers happy. If you read my earlier post you will see that I do claim EVs are useful in some places.

ETA- and rich people. EV subsidies help rich people while the poor and disabled have to risk walking across miles of asphalt to get to lame transit. 

 

I do think that without a government push there would actually be more variety including ebikes (much more enviromentally friendly and cheaper for the average person), hybrids (easier transition for our infastructure), and public transit. The Fed's work at huge scale and help specific manufactureres more than anything. Grants to states and cities are more versatile. 

The number one thing the government could do to encourage transition is raise gas taxes but politically that is a no go. Therefore we will continue to subsidize giant trucks commuting 60 miles to work every morning with one person in them. 🙄

Edited May 3, 2023 by frogger

[SKL]

I'm no big fan of auto makers, but I'm old enough to remember what happened to our economy when the US auto industry was in severe crisis.  Many areas are still in poverty triggered by that.

Yes it was a lot of dumb decisions that led up to it, but as usual, the little guy, who didn't have any control over those big decisions, was the one who suffered most.

I don't believe in killing big industries.  It makes more sense to have a long-term plan and gradually evolve to better ways.  Which is what has been happening for at least several decades.  Technology can help this process move faster without additional fallout.  But there must be incentives to develop the technology, and killing industry is not the kind of incentive that does that.

[frogger]

22 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm no big fan of auto makers, but I'm old enough to remember what happened to our economy when the US auto industry was in severe crisis.  Many areas are still in poverty triggered by that.

Yes it was a lot of dumb decisions that led up to it, but as usual, the little guy, who didn't have any control over those big decisions, was the one who suffered most.

I don't believe in killing big industries.  It makes more sense to have a long-term plan and gradually evolve to better ways.  Which is what has been happening for at least several decades.  Technology can help this process move faster without additional fallout.  But there must be incentives to develop the technology, and killing industry is not the kind of incentive that does that.

I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean you want to protect companies that happen to be large or actual specific industries?

 

Would you want to subsidize an industry like carriage building or ice delevery like they had before their were refrigerators to keep the jobs?

Or do you mean you want government to prop up large corporations because they employ people?

 

Not trying to go back in time. I'm just trying to seperate industry from companies and see which one you want government to support at taxpayer expense. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by frogger

[prairiewindmomma]

Some states do have higher gas taxes. Alaska is the lowest at .14/gallon, but California’s is somewhere in the .60 range. It was .68 is 2021–can’t find the current number. The west coast, PA, IL, MD, NC…all are in the higher range. It’s not anything approaching the true cost of gas—but it’s not as bleak as in Alaska. Alaska runs on oil revenue, and until it diversifies its economy, I don’t see things changing much there.
 

Public transport will only be used if it is safe. As I mentioned, ds has been car free, planned to be car free for life, but people openly smoking fentanyl on public transport has become an issue all along the west coast.
 

There’s no way we will have universal EV adoption. Even if everyone wanted one and could afford one, there simply aren’t enough rare minerals out there for current battery technology to build them. A lot of our buses are converting over, though, including our school buses, and I really support that. I’d rather see one green bus out on the road than 40 cars driving the same kids to school.

[frogger]

27 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Some states do have higher gas taxes. Alaska is the lowest at .14/gallon, but California’s is somewhere in the .60 range. It was .68 is 2021–can’t find the current number. The west coast, PA, IL, MD, NC…all are in the higher range. It’s not anything approaching the true cost of gas—but it’s not as bleak as in Alaska. Alaska runs on oil revenue, and until it diversifies its economy, I don’t see things changing much there.
 

Public transport will only be used if it is safe. As I mentioned, ds has been car free, planned to be car free for life, but people openly smoking fentanyl on public transport has become an issue all along the west coast.
 

There’s no way we will have universal EV adoption. Even if everyone wanted one and could afford one, there simply aren’t enough rare minerals out there for current battery technology to build them. A lot of our buses are converting over, though, including our school buses, and I really support that. I’d rather see one green bus out on the road than 40 cars driving the same kids to school.

I was talking about the Feds since they actually pay for most of our roads so it seems like gas should be taxed accordingly. I know some states do pay for a larger percentage of their roads then we do. Rural states get way more road welfare than urban states for sure.

 

Most of Alaska's major arteries have military origins, so that does affect things. 

I would rather see one (any kind)bus on the road than 40 cars but I see giant pick up lines at all the schools when school gets out. 🤷‍♀️ An EV bus may be good but not if it is empty. I don't know how to change that. 

 

The bike bus idea does look fun. 😁 

[frogger]

I do not understand what has happened to the west coast as far as crime. Is it because they don't enforce anything? My daughter takes public transportation in Chicago and in visiting Chicago versus the West coast, it is just so different. 

[Ting Tang]

44 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Some states do have higher gas taxes. Alaska is the lowest at .14/gallon, but California’s is somewhere in the .60 range. It was .68 is 2021–can’t find the current number. The west coast, PA, IL, MD, NC…all are in the higher range. It’s not anything approaching the true cost of gas—but it’s not as bleak as in Alaska. Alaska runs on oil revenue, and until it diversifies its economy, I don’t see things changing much there.
 

Public transport will only be used if it is safe. As I mentioned, ds has been car free, planned to be car free for life, but people openly smoking fentanyl on public transport has become an issue all along the west coast.
 

There’s no way we will have universal EV adoption. Even if everyone wanted one and could afford one, there simply aren’t enough rare minerals out there for current battery technology to build them. A lot of our buses are converting over, though, including our school buses, and I really support that. I’d rather see one green bus out on the road than 40 cars driving the same kids to school.

I'm in Illinois. Gas prices are very high, even in my rural area.  I need to drive.  Public transportation would not be practical for us for many reasons.  But you bring up such a great point about the battery situation. America is a big, wide country! I know many have looked into electric vehicles, but they were worried about long trips and not having enough places to charge. Ironically, we do have that technology in my rural area.  We see a lot of teslas here!  I don't think the answer is we should all live urban; I think the answer is that yes, we should be creative.  I still have faith many of the answers haven't come to light or haven't even been developed.  That is why we need to do well with k-12 education.

I see every so often that those who are mining the materials for batteries are being exploited. I do not know enough about the technology, but could we end up with no net benefit if we moved entirely to that technology?  (Not only thinking environmentally, but also, how we are getting the materials and how much of those materials exist.)  Is there a big human rights factor here?

I have no comment on cannibalism. lol  Sorry, saw that yesterday, and I exited out, lol.

Also, this is not my area of expertise, so I might sound stupid and ill-informed.  

Edited May 3, 2023 by Ting Tang

[Faith-manor]

In our area to, we need to seriously regulate pick up trucks that practically nothing for gas mileage. They are everywhere, big ego machines. Something like 90% of them are not registered to farms or small businesses. It is absolutely ridiculous. I wish people would be more responsible with their choices, and I hate legislating this kind of choice all the tike, but something has to be done. I wish that for those not registered for actual businesses, the tax penalty on them was so cross prohibitive people would stop buying them. But again, the interests of the Big 3 will likely continue to "win" which means we, as a country continue to lose.

[prairiewindmomma]

5 minutes ago, frogger said:

I do not understand what has happened to the west coast as far as crime. Is it because they don't enforce anything? My daughter takes public transportation in Chicago and in visiting Chicago versus the West coast, it is just so different. 

It is so multi-factoral and layered in problems. Mental health is a big issue. For some, that is drug induced psychosis (someone literally bit off someone’s ear at Christmastime on a train platform), for some it’s straight up schizophrenia or other very serious break with reality type of stuff. People who talk to themselves and aren’t violent don’t bother me. There aren’t enough mental health treatment facilities here—either to access meds or to hold people. Requiring treatment is considered coercive and if they aren’t a risk to self or others, they are not held. (Decades ago a lot of the most troublesome people would have been in residential treatment.) If they are held, they often stabilize, but then when released, they stop taking meds and the cycle starts again.

Another and related thread is that a lot of people who can’t hold jobs due to mental illness or other things become homeless and then self medicate with illegal substances…or use them recreationally. We have a huge amount of fentanyl sweeping into the US—and this is true everywhere across the US—and so what we see in the community is what we see on the trains and buses.

They decriminalized fare evasion here and while on one hand that helps the working poor and homeless from having fare evasion on a criminal record, on the other hand it means the police have largely abandoned policing public transit and have left security to transit to manage. They have a limited number of fare checkers though ds reports they are checking more.

The prosecutor’s office and public defenders’ offices are greatly overburdened. There is a lot of catch and release going on with repeat offenders. It’s not that they want to be weak on crime so much as they aren’t funded and staffed deep enough to do much. 
 

IDK….catching a bus in my neck of the woods to the community college is nearly incident free always. It’s really when we have to deal with trains that the risk goes higher because we have people that ride trains all day to stay warm and dry.

[Ting Tang]

19 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

In our area to, we need to seriously regulate pick up trucks that practically nothing for gas mileage. They are everywhere, big ego machines. Something like 90% of them are not registered to farms or small businesses. It is absolutely ridiculous. I wish people would be more responsible with their choices, and I hate legislating this kind of choice all the tike, but something has to be done. I wish that for those not registered for actual businesses, the tax penalty on them was so cross prohibitive people would stop buying them. But again, the interests of the Big 3 will likely continue to "win" which means we, as a country continue to lose.

Some buy these vehicles because they might need to tow something, or some buy bigger vehicles because they have larger families. (I personally choose a minivan over a large SUV, but it is not the most efficient vehicle, either.) I do think alternative ways to power a vehicle are becoming more attractive to many of us, but they are hesitant because of the "what ifs."  Aren't they making EV trucks now?  

ETA Oh yes, they are.  See, things are going to get better. And hopefully the technology will address some of the what-ifs.  

Best Electric Trucks for 2023, Tested - Car and Driver

 

My husband only drives his truck for work.  He drives the minivan whenever he can.  The only time it is used for unrelated work is to tow a boat---it is rare.  He might also tow a lawn mower, snow blower, etc.   He doesn't drive it to be or look cool.  He'd rather have a corvette for that, but we don't have that, LOL

Edited May 3, 2023 by Ting Tang

[frogger]

 I see some of that in Chicago too and we have had our biggest sports stadium here in Alaska housing homeless since Covid started.  But the west coast seems to be busting wide open and I am just curious (in a problem solving, looking for clues way) what is holding it more at bay in other places or if they will just follow suit. I used to work in downtown Seattle 20+ years ago and I would have called it a fun vibrant city. The last time we walked through it, it was just sad. 

But I suppose I am getting off topic. 

[Laura Corin]

5 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

Some buy these vehicles because they might need to tow something

An alternative is to buy a more energy efficient car for every day and rent a truck as necessary: probably no more expensive and better for the environment.

[frogger]

34 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

In our area to, we need to seriously regulate pick up trucks that practically nothing for gas mileage. They are everywhere, big ego machines. Something like 90% of them are not registered to farms or small businesses. It is absolutely ridiculous. I wish people would be more responsible with their choices, and I hate legislating this kind of choice all the tike, but something has to be done. I wish that for those not registered for actual businesses, the tax penalty on them was so cross prohibitive people would stop buying them. But again, the interests of the Big 3 will likely continue to "win" which means we, as a country continue to lose.

I agree. I think legislating people's choices away doesn't always work well. This is where I think gas taxes would make a difference. Of course, there are people who will buy super expensive large EVs but I do think incentives work better than just a flat rule for everyone when we don't know their circumstances. My son slept in his truck with a canopy when working road construction one year. To make that illegal would be a huge tax on him. Of course, it was an older smaller vehicle but still.

 

ETA- he saved a ton of gasoline by not having to drive an hour or two to the nearest residence. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by frogger

[prairiewindmomma]

Frogger—I don’t think housing prices are helping the west coast. The median house price in Seattle in 2013 was $420k. Ten years later, it is now $730k. Average household income is right at $100k )$96-105 across most suburbs). Moving from housing as x4 your income to x7 has consequences. Those that already owned are ok, but anyone who was a renter or who is launching is not having an easy go of things….which feeds the house less population. 
 

On the environmental aspect of that…the changing of the residential code to allow infill has been good. Additionally, almost all new housing here is not single family. While I support the building of the rowhouses, it is frustrating to me that so many of the apartments are corporate owner, rather than condos. I wish people had more opportunities for ownership and therefore wealth building.

ETA: I just looked at Chicago. Median house price is $335k. Average household income is $100,347. A house is x3 income.

Edited May 3, 2023 by prairiewindmomma

[Spryte]

15 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

An alternative is to buy a more energy efficient car for every day and rent a truck as necessary: probably no more expensive and better for the environment.

This is our solution to any truck needs, and also to second car needs.

We keep one car, deliberately, to reduce our footprint, and have for maybe fifteen years. Since DH works from home we can manage the juggling most days. For the occasional times we can’t — two appointments? Teen has class at campus while we need the car? DH needs to drive to the airport? — we use Uber or rent a second car. Even with teen using Uber for class twice weekly, and a rental to/from the airport twice monthly, it’s less than a car payment and maintenance on a second vehicle. And it keeps us mindful about usage. 

We live near a major interstate, and one thing I’d like to see is no commercial vehicles or large guzzling Ego-Trucks in the left lanes or on EZ Pass lanes. 

[Heartstrings]

2 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

t. I’d rather see one green bus out on the road than 40 cars driving the same kids to school.

Honestly this goes back to safety, like you mentioned.  40 kids only being supervised by one adult who is actually paying attention to the driving not the kids, is a recipe for awful things.  Kids are having oral sex, violence, harassment, etc. Districts putting a monitor on each bus to assure safety would go a long way. No one that I know with kids in public school will let their kids ride the buses and we live in a good area with good schools.  Bus monitors are an out of the box way to achieve lower emissions, it doesn’t always have to be tech.  A security person on each public transmit bus would go a long way too.  

Edited May 3, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Heartstrings]

55 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

or those not registered for actual businesses, the tax penalty on them was so cross prohibitive people would stop buying them.

I live in Texas and I don’t know if there is a cost high enough. 🤣.  It’s so cultural, you can’t be a “real man” without a gas guzzling truck.   It’s ridiculous, listening to some of them, apparently sitting in a car turns one immediately gay or transgender, definitely turns you into a “sissy” and there is *nothing* worse to these guys.  

[Matryoshka]

13 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

It’s been really hard to get public transportation done in most cities.  In a lot of cases it’s because the people making a killing off of cars, roads and fossil fuels are throwing millions into fighting public transportation because it hurts their bottom line.  I don’t know how we fight that as a country.  
 

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/26/koch-activists-phoenix-ban-light-rail

Well, and we also shouldn't have sold public transit systems to a private company with a conflict of interest (General Motors).  They pretty much systematically disassembled the public transit that was already in place in many California cities.

http://www.moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html

As I've done more and more reading on these topics, what has shocked me is that so much of this was not poor planning or organic growth but very purposefully done.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean you want to protect companies that happen to be large or actual specific industries?

 

Would you want to subsidize an industry like carriage building or ice delevery like they had before their were refrigerators to keep the jobs?

Or do you mean you want government to prop up large corporations because they employ people?

 

Not trying to go back in time. I'm just trying to seperate industry from companies and see which one you want government to support at taxpayer expense. 

Well this kind of comment is why it's hard to have an actual discussion.  Instead of making a good faith effort to understand the actual words I wrote, you spun them in an apparent effort to assign motives, attack my character, and add to the polarization which impedes progress throughout the world.

I'm too old and too busy to play these games.

[prairiewindmomma]

20 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Honestly this goes back to safety, like you mentioned.  40 kids only being supervised by one adult who is actually paying attention to the driving not the kids, is a recipe for awful things.  Kids are having oral sex, violence, harassment, etc. Districts putting a monitor on each bus to assure safety would go a long way. No one that I know with kids in public school will let their kids ride the buses and we live in a good area with good schools.  Bus monitors are an out of the box way to achieve lower emissions, it doesn’t always have to be tech.  A security person on each public transmit bus would go a long way too.  

Agree.

Nearly everyone buses here, including my kids. No monitor, generally, but there are cameras on the bus. School buses very rarely have incidents here….I have heard of one fight in the last five years. Mostly they torture their drivers with Disney sing alongs at full volume. 😂 By high school everyone just watches videos or listens to music on their phones.

Principals and vice principals greet each bus daily and monitor student loading…so it is high maintenance I think compared to what I experienced in rural busing growing up, but it seems to work well. 

[Matryoshka]

2 hours ago, frogger said:

I want to make sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean you want to protect companies that happen to be large or actual specific industries?

 

Would you want to subsidize an industry like carriage building or ice delevery like they had before their were refrigerators to keep the jobs?

Or do you mean you want government to prop up large corporations because they employ people?

Not trying to go back in time. I'm just trying to seperate industry from companies and see which one you want government to support at taxpayer expense. 

I'd like the government to have a strong universal health care system so people aren't tied to corporate jobs.  They always say they're 'pro-business', but really only the big corporate stuff.  So many people who are laid off or want to retire early would happily start their own businesses or consult or pick up part time work, but the costs of healthcare mean that it's untenable, or if they do try it, the first health crisis someone in the family has shuts it all down.  When a plant shuts down, workers would have a lot more flexibility if they weren't tied to full-time jobs for healthcare.  

The most pro-entrepreneurship and innovation policy the gov't could make is universal healthcare - one that really covers things, not some crappy patchwork nightmare with big holes.

[frogger]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well this kind of comment is why it's hard to have an actual discussion.  Instead of making a good faith effort to understand the actual words I wrote, you spun them in an apparent effort to assign motives, attack my character, and add to the polarization which impedes progress throughout the world.

I'm too old and too busy to play these games.

How did I attack your character? The reason I responded to you and not some of the other posters is because you seemed more reasonable.

 

I was trying to understand if you meant industry or corporations because it sounded like you meant corporations but you said industry so I was curious which you were trying to support. 

Free market requires businesses fail and it sounds like you don't want any type of failure because people will become unemployed? I assume the motivation is you don't want people to be unemployed but maybe I assumed wrong?  Your post seemed to imply it was unemployment you were worried about. I am sorry if I misunderstood. 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

38 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Well, and we also shouldn't have sold public transit systems to a private company with a conflict of interest (General Motors).  They pretty much systematically disassembled the public transit that was already in place in many California cities.

http://www.moderntransit.org/ctc/ctc06.html

As I've done more and more reading on these topics, what has shocked me is that so much of this was not poor planning or organic growth but very purposefully done.

This is fascinating to me because I grew up in SF and we go back several generations there.  There used to be a lot more street car lines there, and they extended out of the city directly rather than requiring system to system transfers like they do now.  

For instance, the graveyards are all in Colma, south of the city, and there used to be rail or streetcar lines to Colma from SF.  Families would hop on the train to visit gravesites on weekends, bringing flowers and having picnics there, routinely.  And if there was a funeral, instead of today’s ‘hearse, family limos, and lines of cars’ people would charter a set of rail cars for the day.  Those rail lines are mostly asphalted over now, and there are no public transit lines to the graveyards anymore.  

[Carol in Cal.]

I have to say, I think EVs for general use outside of major cities are not as wise as hybrids.  We have Public Safety Power Shutdowns of 3-5 days here in CA several times per year, and that would strand EVs except for those folks who have solar.  Too risky in a high fire danger situation, which is what drives the PSPS’s in the first place.  You HAVE TO have reliable transportation to flee fast if necessary if there is a wildfire approaching your area.  

[prairiewindmomma]

@OrdinaryShoes, do you ride public transport? 
 

Neely had 44 prior arrests, including for assault. We’ve had several incidents here were people are repeat assaulters on the train.  

What is the right answer? I am not condoning his death…but what should have been done? What is your ideal solution?

[MercyA]

9 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

WRT to safety on public transportation and mental illness, I have to mention the killing of Jordan Neely on the NYC subway. 

Thank you. This poor man said he didn't have food, he didn't have water, he was tired, and he didn't care if he went to jail. He was yelling and throwing trash. And for that a Marine put him in a headlock and *killed* him? And the Marine is not going to be charged???

You are right about dehumanization. 😞 

[MercyA]

3 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

@OrdinaryShoes, do you ride public transport? 
 

Neely had 44 prior arrests, including for assault. We’ve had several incidents here were people are repeat assaulters on the train.  

What is the right answer? I am not condoning his death…but what should have been done? What is your ideal solution?

Not OrdinaryShoes (obviously 😉) but I do not ride public transport.

Questions for those who do: Can people not go to a different car if there is someone mentally unwell aboard? Is there an emergency button that can be pushed, and how long does it take for someone to respond? Could people be somehow banned from riding the train? (Like, through a card reader system or something like that?)

[Innisfree]

8 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

Well, and we also shouldn't have sold public transit systems to a private company with a conflict of interest (General Motors).  They pretty much systematically disassembled the public transit that was already in place in many California cities.

Not just in California. Lots of cities had street car lines that were intentionally removed, but never replaced adequately by buses. Railroads had a much wider network, and could have carried most freight, but the Rockefellers (and probably others) successfully lobbied for freight to travel on trucks over the roadways instead. Many miles of rail lines have been abandoned. We actually had built much public transportation infrastructure, then threw it away, because of oil money interests. 

That’s water under the bridge now, but it helps explain the resentment and mistrust many of us feel about industry and corporations today. They don’t have a history of prioritizing the broader public welfare— and why would they? Their priority is earning money. They may be making baby steps toward transitions to less harmful practices, but the climate situation is genuinely urgent right.now.

At the same time, @SKL is right that people depend on employment in industries like car manufacturing and fossil fuel production. I don’t like the idea of harming those communities either. 

We’re in a bind, though. Yes, some gradual progress is being made. But yes, the climate situation is moving closer to significant, irremediable harm. We had more opportunity to make gradual changes several decades ago, but what we’ve done, while better than nothing, isn’t nearly enough. We’ve squandered our time, and we’re still squandering what remains.

Because we didn’t make changes faster, people are absolutely going to suffer more. Mostly, right now, they’re people in hotter places, and places closer to sea level. If we aren’t comfortable with harm to industries or corporations in this country, we need to remember that we allow the status quo to continue at direct cost to people in other countries. Soon we’ll see more direct consequences here, in areas like the gulf coast and Florida. @frogger has pointed out that there’s already significant impact in Alaska. We may need to accept rapid transitions, rather than gradual ones, because the alternative is going to be worse.

I know that sounding urgent risks sounding like a crank, but truly, making these changes is urgent. There’s going to come a tipping point when we can all look around and add up the financial costs of climate change in our economy, and on our society. There will be a dawning realization that by avoiding *the costs of transition to a more climate-friendly economy*, which seemed overwhelming and perhaps unnecessary, we have condemned ourselves to *the costs of experiencing climate change*, which are vastly greater. I feel like Cassandra. 

 

 

[Heartstrings]

26 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I have to say, I think EVs for general use outside of major cities are not as wise as hybrids.  We have Public Safety Power Shutdowns of 3-5 days here in CA several times per year, and that would strand EVs except for those folks who have solar.  Too risky in a high fire danger situation, which is what drives the PSPS’s in the first place.  You HAVE TO have reliable transportation to flee fast if necessary if there is a wildfire approaching your area.  

I agree with the idea, but some of that’s a very California specific thing.  My house hasn’t lost power for more than an hour in years, blackouts aren’t really a thing, wildfire isn’t a thing here.  I rarely drive outside of the range of a EV.

[Carol in Cal.]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Not OrdinaryShoes (obviously 😉) but I do not ride public transport.

Questions for those who do: Can people not go to a different car if there is someone mentally unwell aboard? Is there an emergency button that can be pushed, and how long does it take for someone to respond? Could people be somehow banned from riding the train? (Like, through a card reader system or something like that?)

Not on a bus.  

When I was a kid, bus drivers had a certain expectation that they would kind of keep order on busses.  They could order someone off the bus, or pull over and not move unless rambunctious kids settled down, or tell someone to stop threateningly bothering someone else, or even physically intervene if necessary.  But despite that, I and others got robbed on busses pretty often, and guys exposed themselves/masturbated in public on them, or felt girls up.  But physical attacks were fairly uncommon.  (Although I do recall a bunch of kids putting lit matches in my best friend’s hair once.). 

However, now the bus drivers mostly don’t intervene at all, and people know they won’t so it’s a free for all.  They might radio for help, in which case if there is a transit officer in the area they will hop on that bus and TCB, but there are very few TO’s around and so that help is rather rare.  

I’ve never heard of anyone being banned from riding a train but generally the ticketing systems would not support that as they are not usually linked to an identification system.  It’s just not realistic to implement something like that.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

3 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I agree with the idea, but some of that’s a very California specific thing.  My house hasn’t lost power for more than an hour in years, blackouts aren’t really a thing, wildfire isn’t a thing here.  I rarely drive outside of the range of a EV.

Right, but ironically it is California that is headed that way.  

[prairiewindmomma]

10 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Not OrdinaryShoes (obviously 😉) but I do not ride public transport.

Questions for those who do: Can people not go to a different car if there is someone mentally unwell aboard? Here, no you cannot. You are in the compartment with them u til the next stop. Depending on where you are in the line, that can be 15 minutes.  Is there an emergency button that can be pushed, and how long does it take for someone to respond? There is a button, but IME, good luck on a response. One of the concerning stretches for my commute involves a tunnel. Even if the train stopped, there is no width in the tunnel to really access help. Could people be somehow banned from riding the train? (Like, through a card reader system or something like that?) No. They have public alert bulletins for bus riders and bus drivers can turn away riders (though they have been assaulted here for doing so). Most trains are simply get on/get off. The driver is in a separate locked compartment for their safety. They are not interacting with passengers.

 

[prairiewindmomma]

The last train I rode had someone ranting on it, and throwing trash. He was pacing and yelling. It’s not uncommon. So, something different happened on this train for the marine to act the way he did. The fact that he intervened is surprising to me. I don’t know if he saw a weapon or if things looked like they were about to get physical….but the armchair response of “we just don’t care about the mentally ill” isn’t ringing true to me.

Seriously, y’all, if you are ever in my town, pm me, we can go ride public transport together. I think it may be eye opening for you.

[prairiewindmomma]

Please don’t quote these links as I will delete in a bit to remove my location:

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by prairiewindmomma

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

 

These are just the top ones off of my head. There is stuff that goes down every day on the trains. 

To be fair, this is the sort of thing that happens in America every single day, train, plane, automobile, grocery store, mall, ringing peoples doorbells.  
 

 

I completely quoted after it said not to, 🤦‍♀️.  I’ll fix it.  

Edited May 3, 2023 by Heartstrings
Fix quote

[frogger]

I think policy issues get harder the closer you get to actual implementation.

 

Mental illness is one of those tricky ones. Some of it is directly because of underfunding of services which should be an easier fix than it is. It should be a priority and the lack of funding affects everyone.

Commiting someone who is unwilling though is a freedom issue. A mentally ill person is not always going to make a wise decision willfully. The best I have is that once they have assaulted someone they should lose that freedom. I think institutions that are focused on mental health are more appropriate than prison. I know that in the past there were abuses and sadly any vulnerable population is always at risk of abuse. Having transparency and people unaffiliated to the institution to oversee it is the best I can think of. 

I'm not sure there are perfect solutions.

[prairiewindmomma]

Heartstrings, fair point. 
 

But the thing is, when we are asking people who currently have cars (right, the people already not on public transport), how many of them are actually going to do so when they feel unsafe on the transport?

My curvy teen is way more safe riding in my car downtown than they are on a train. Do I really want them taking a 9pm train home by themselves from campus? Or would I rather that they drive themselves? If I have the money for both, what am I likely to choose? 
 

That’s my point. We aren’t going to have widespread adoption because people often make these choices on an individual level, looking at their family and what is best for them.

I took midnight trains all of the time when I lived in Europe. No problems. There were houseless people there, including in the stations, but I was never harassed ever and I never felt unsafe. What was different? Can we do that here? I think a huge part of that was that there was security on the trains more. On soccer match days, when there were lots of intoxicated people = heavy police presence.

But, as Ordinary stated above, we don’t trust police here. So ??? 
 

It’s complicated and multi factoral… and that’s why I think we continue to hamper ourselves in making changes that would be more environmentally friendly.

 

 

[Ting Tang]

2 hours ago, Laura Corin said:

An alternative is to buy a more energy efficient car for every day and rent a truck as necessary: probably no more expensive and better for the environment.

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. 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Ting Tang

[Laura Corin]

Just now, Ting Tang said:

Well, these people might regularly haul trailers (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 buidings, 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 didn't say anyone 'couldn't ' drive a truck every day if they wanted to. But there are other ways of living if people want to think about the options.

I  live in the countryside. Very few trucks here - some Land Rovers on farms but otherwise most every day vehicles are cars