81–90 of 185 posts
Now we need to start fining companies (per worker) that unnecessarily require people to commute to work.
Is anyone else wondering if the shutdown for COVID-19 will have a significant impact on carbon emissions? If it does, then it could actually save far more lives than it takes.
A population’s physical health is very highly correlated with their economic health. [1] If COVID-19 has a significant impact on carbon emissions it’s because it caused significant economic depression. A significant economic depression dramatically increases poverty levels, and increasing poverty would cost significantly more lives even than will be lost to COVID itself. [2] The life expectancy gap between the poores…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most people shouldn't be able to afford a car - they should be taking public transit - but they can obtain one because they take out loans. A car isn't a "want" for most people outside of major US cities. It's a need. Public transport has never been effective in most of the US. Hell, I'd have to cross an interstate on foot in order to reach work. How many weeks do you estimate it'd take me to get killed? Should I be…
Traffic infrastructure can be changed. It takes a couple of decades, but it has happened in other cities before.
I can believe the poor state of public transit in the older east coast cities is largely a failure of policy, but as you go further west, you see many more settlements built around cars from the ground up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't think Christmas is similar to these past two weeks in terms of volume driven. Many people still drive to work during Christmas, and some even drive more, to get to relatives' places. Not to mention, air travel probably rises significantly. Right now, car travel and air travel are low.
Yes. Actually during Christmas break, me and my friends in Michigan drive A LOT!! For breakfast coffees, then casual hangouts at places like zoos/museums, then for lunch, then for coffee again, then for dinner, all of us in separate cars. Of. course that's not everyday, but it's many days. When we're back home from college, it's nice to see the friends from back home, and often it will involve all of us driving separ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one's disputing that. It makes sense that if people who can work home do so, the environment will be better than if they don't work from home. Also, many people who cannot work from home at the moment are still driving to work (restaurant workers, grocery store workers, other retail). This current situation isn't too far off from a state where just those who can work from home do so, and the rest drive to work. An…
> This current situation isn't too far off from a state where just those who can work from home do so, and the rest drive to work. it seems pretty very far off to me. I'm having a nice time working from home, but all my friends that don't work at a grocery store (restaurant workers, tutors, social workers, theater techs) are sitting at home not getting paid. I'm not sure how to estimate what fraction of the workforce…
However, where I live, a majority of the restaurants are open (just doing drive through). Tutoring is possibly something that can be done online. I've known many high quality tutors running business entirely from home. Theater techs, social workers, and other similar jobs probably make up a very small fraction of the workforce compared to restaurant, retail (I believe the majority of retail stores in my area are open), and grocery workers. So I still think the current situation can give us a decent idea of what driving volume and pollution levels will look like in a situation where people that can work from home do so. The current situation is definitely biased towards less driving though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Actually during Christmas break, me and my friends in Michigan drive A LOT!! For breakfast coffees, then casual hangouts at places like zoos/museums, then for lunch, then for coffee again, then for dinner, all of us in separate cars. Of. course that's not everyday, but it's many days. When we're back home from college, it's nice to see the friends from back home, and often it will involve all of us driving separ…
Why don't you just walk around instead of all that driving?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All great points, and the time to start taxing carbon is now at this low price, as the shock to consumers won’t be as great.
But it's not a great point. The oil industry has had a 100 year head start on the art of money, power, and influence. Human power dynamics are the primary drivers of societal and global change. That is to say, the reality is you have a zilch chance of passing a carbon tax in the US government sufficient enough to facilitate the change you are hoping to see. The only way oil and gas goes for a carbon tax is if it ends…
But you start off with a dividend that would end up paying out more to the majority of voters than it would cost them to fund (because a significant fraction of the money would come from corporations and foreign oil interests), and that gets you a lot of support. Then you get all the companies that profit from the transition because they get to sell solar panels and electric heat pumps and stuff. Then you get all the people who are paying attention and notice that even if their current carbon footprint is above average, they could buy an electric car and switch to electric heat right away and still end up with a net profit from the dividend (which is still coming in large part from corporations and foreign oil).
You add up all those people and it's basically the whole country lined up against the oil and coal industries. It's the kind of coalition that can get a bill passed -- but only if people care enough to demand it. Majorities get screwed over left and right when they can't be bothered to organize.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the next looming crisis: Climate Change. On Bloomberg radio a few weeks ago, an analyst / money manager was talking about how his firm was looking at satellite imagery of pollution in China to measure their economic recovery. More pollution == “better”. Something is clearly unsustainable with that formula. Like the virus, the longer we wait to take action, the more expensive it is and t…
I also have hope that this tragedy brings humanity forward. Not only with climate change, but a lot of other things. More contacts between people (video calls to friends and family far away). Doctors are increasing the use of video calling and sending prescriptions via email already. Bill Gates' 2015 TED now doesn't seem just a faraway prediction now, so hopefully governments will form a "health NATO". Seeing Venice…
I’ve been thinking a lot about the next looming crisis: Climate Change. On Bloomberg radio a few weeks ago, an analyst / money manager was talking about how his firm was looking at satellite imagery of pollution in China to measure their economic recovery. More pollution == “better”. Something is clearly unsustainable with that formula. Like the virus, the longer we wait to take action, the more expensive it is and t…
> The world has pressed the pause button for a moment. Well so far it has only been 1 or 2 weeks, comparable to the annual X-mas break in duration. So I'm curious: are the effects really significantly different here so far?
Just because office workers get a holiday, doesn't mean the whole world is on pause. This is nothing like Christmas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So many people and businesses are able to live beyond their means because of access to credit. If we eliminate the ability to create credit, then consumption would drop to a sustainable level and pollution would also drop and we would see an end to wasteful businesses, products, processes, and ways of life. What about housing? A mortgage is going to be the only way for a lot of people to ever afford their own home.
Well, to question your premise - Why is universal home ownership desirable or necessary?