|
"Adequate public transit," is a huge stretch my dude, and I don't think there's a lot of overlap between the "we need more bike lanes and bus options" and "why are you taking away my lanes" crowds. We can absolutely target the 2 tonne SUV soy latte (this feels worn out, is cold brew the new wasteful middle class reference?) drivers while building better transit infrastructure, without demonizing the working-class healthy people who need a car to reliably get to their lovely jobs. Once the options are in place and proven reliable, then you can start in on converting that demographic (probably through recreational access first to convince them its a valid option for work).
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Yeah sorry my "half of drivers" estimate comes from a super urban perspective, that probably doesn't pan out for the rest of Canada.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
I really wish I could, I already live a 30 minute drive from my work place (of which I need my husband to drive me because of stupid drive test snafu poo poo resulting in no license for me) and public transit stops a good way out from it. So neither biking no busing are viable, though I have considered doing both, I have yet to obtain a bike though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Isn't industry by far the biggest contributor though? Not that we shouldn't reduce personal vehicle usage.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
Argas posted:Isn't industry by far the biggest contributor though? Not that we shouldn't reduce personal vehicle usage. Woah hold up there buddy we cant go after our benevolent job creators. Gotta squeeze what little is left out of the middle and lower class first.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Woah hold up there buddy we cant go after our benevolent job creators. Gotta squeeze what little is left out of the middle and I think you mean "those trying to join the middle class"
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Argas posted:Isn't industry by far the biggest contributor though? Not that we shouldn't reduce personal vehicle usage. not really  Maybe you combine oil+gas and "heavy industry", but still not "by far".
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
less than three posted:I think you mean "those trying to join the middle class" Not trying, "working hard", big difference.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
lol I was wondering is someone would post @waub's Mayochup tweet.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Jehde posted:Yeah sorry my "half of drivers" estimate comes from a super urban perspective, that probably doesn't pan out for the rest of Canada. Weird thing though, the rest of Canada doesn't exist outside of urban areas, population wise. No one likes to hear that, but it's true
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Syfe posted:I really wish I could, I already live a 30 minute drive from my work place (of which I need my husband to drive me because of stupid drive test snafu poo poo resulting in no license for me) and public transit stops a good way out from it. So neither biking no busing are viable, though I have considered doing both, I have yet to obtain a bike though. This is why a long while ago we moved out of Calgary, the sprawl, lovely people, everything, I couldn’t do it anymore We specifically moved to places where we could afford to live and work near/in the downtown area so we could walk more My parents still to this day ask me how can you live in an apartment!!!!??? How can you raise kids in an apartment!? One time I asked them how many people they thought lived in New York City and the boroughs and how many families live in apartments they just couldn’t get it Apparently not owning a house with a yard is child abuse to them and a lot of people regardless that we live biking distance from some amazing hikes and trails
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 02:33
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:not really Is that just Canada? I meant overall.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
If anything given our large oil industry/small population, Canada probably has one of the highest shares of emissions attributable to industry in the world. If you're thinking of the "just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions" thing that occasionally floats around, that's bullshit. You get that number if you attribute 100% of the ghgs from fossil fuel to the company that extracted the resource from the ground, so that all the emissions from transport etc are blamed on Exxon or Shell or whatever instead of on the people driving.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:If anything given our large oil industry/small population, Canada probably has one of the highest shares of emissions attributable to industry in the world. I mean, I do feel like attributing the transportation of poo poo as part of industry to be valid (though still needs to be separated from other industrial processes) but I did not realize things were skewed a bit due to how they classed that.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:not really I think this is a little misleading because it doesn't provide a breakdown of who's consuming what within these categories, and how you define "industry". I'm pretty sure the poster who said industry is the bulk of emissions didn't mean literal manufacturing, they meant medium and large corporate enterprises, because their complaint was that we're continually blaming individual consumers for their emissions while giving a pass to corporations that are the largest polluters. In this breakdown "heavy industry" obviously counts as industry, and "oil and gas" almost certainly does too. Most of our agriculture is industrial farming, which I would count in that category. You could probably do a breakdown of "buildings" as well, where personal consumption will be contributing a lot in aggregate but the largest individual consumers are almost certainly large enterprises. Transportation, which is what we've been discussing here, is probably the largest aggregate producer of CO2 emissions by individuals, but even there transportation that I would count as part of industry emissions is still a pretty large share. I haven't been able to find a breakdown by ownership of vehicles, but there are a number of breakdowns by type of vehicle, which I found for both the EU and the US. In both cases, while small vehicles (cars and small vans) are the majority of emissions, there's a substantial chunk on top of that that comes from heavy truck and van traffic, and airplanes. In fact in both those breakdowns light vehicle emissions have been roughly declining since about the mid-2000s (I would guess due to improved fuel efficiency, because it started before the 2008 crash), but truck traffic hasn't, and has been increasing at a faster rate. In the US, while passenger cars and light trucks increased from 967 Tg CO2 equivalent in 1990 to 1106 in 2016, medium and heavy truck traffic increased from 230 to 426--almost doubling, and going from roughly a quarter of small vehicle traffic to over a third. My guess based on all this would be that "industry" as a concept, i.e. medium and large corporations, are actually responsible for far more emissions than individuals who are heating their homes and driving to work. Of course you can counter that a lot of these emissions are businesses meeting individual demand, growing food for people to eat, shipping in goods for them to buy and offering them flights to vacation destinations. But regardless, the source of those emissions is corporate and industrial rather than individual. And that means that as long as we continue trying to police CO2 emissions by focusing on individuals, shaming people for driving their cars to get to work or heating their homes, but letting corporations do whatever they want, then we will continue to fail at overall reductions in CO2. We absolutely need to reduce individual car use, switch to electric cars, and all that. But we also need to crack down on emissions generated by corporations and industry, and we need to do so fast, because we could all lead perfect carbon-neutral lifestyles at one with nature and it wouldn't make a bit of difference as long as industry is allowed to keep burning oil and coal to produce and transport their goods. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 05:31 on May 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Not strictly politics, but does anyone recall or have a link to that gif/video about McDonalds coffee being a part of our history? I think it was somewhere in the bowels of the old thread.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 14:37
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Transportation, which is what we've been discussing here, is probably the largest aggregate producer of CO2 emissions by individuals, but even there transportation that I would count as part of industry emissions is still a pretty large share. I haven't been able to find a breakdown by ownership of vehicles, but there are a number of breakdowns by type of vehicle, which I found for both the EU and the US. In both cases, while small vehicles (cars and small vans) are the majority of emissions, there's a substantial chunk on top of that that comes from heavy truck and van traffic, and airplanes. In fact in both those breakdowns light vehicle emissions have been roughly declining since about the mid-2000s (I would guess due to improved fuel efficiency, because it started before the 2008 crash), but truck traffic hasn't, and has been increasing at a faster rate. In the US, while passenger cars and light trucks increased from 967 Tg CO2 equivalent in 1990 to 1106 in 2016, medium and heavy truck traffic increased from 230 to 426--almost doubling, and going from roughly a quarter of small vehicle traffic to over a third. EC has the equivalent breakdown for Canada, and the levels/trends are similar.  quote:My guess based on all this would be that "industry" as a concept, i.e. medium and large corporations, are actually responsible for far more emissions than individuals who are heating their homes and driving to work. Of course you can counter that a lot of these emissions are businesses meeting individual demand, growing food for people to eat, shipping in goods for them to buy and offering them flights to vacation destinations. But regardless, the source of those emissions is corporate and industrial rather than individual. And that means that as long as we continue trying to police CO2 emissions by focusing on individuals, shaming people for driving their cars to get to work or heating their homes, but letting corporations do whatever they want, then we will continue to fail at overall reductions in CO2. We absolutely need to reduce individual car use, switch to electric cars, and all that. But we also need to crack down on emissions generated by corporations and industry, and we need to do so fast, because we could all lead perfect carbon-neutral lifestyles at one with nature and it wouldn't make a bit of difference as long as industry is allowed to keep burning oil and coal to produce and transport their goods. I feel like that's a false dichotomy, but yes of course the solution isn't individual action. Nothing's getting solved by taking the one-tonne challenge or whatever and we need to radically transform our society and economy. Tackling freight transport in a serious way doesn't just mean that "industry" needs to change, it probably also means that Loblaws needs to change its product mix and Amazon packages take five days to arrive instead of two and a lot of conveniences we take for granted have to change. I do think it's important to push back against the "71% of emissions - 100 companies" number because I feel like it's often wielded to mean "climate change is something that *the corporations* do", and I think that really obscures the scale of the challenge and the fact that we have to collectively make a decision to change how we live, not just keep living our lives as they are while cracking down on the corporations that are responsible. (This is kinda dunking on a rando but this is literally the most recent twitter search result for "71%, corporations" and is illustrative of the discourse I think: https://twitter.com/marvelsoup/status/1130331837128163335 )
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
While I do try to encourage my peeps to use accurate data to inform their perception and ignore conspiracy theory-esque thinking, if that's what gets them to accept that the rich are their enemies then fine good enough
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Albino Squirrel posted:Not strictly politics, but does anyone recall or have a link to that gif/video about McDonalds coffee being a part of our history? I think it was somewhere in the bowels of the old thread. http://i.imgur.com/B17sFKi.gifv
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
loving 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
lmao holy gently caress
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:EC has the equivalent breakdown for Canada, and the levels/trends are similar. lol the truck section gently caress everyone with a truck
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
RBC posted:lol the truck section But you need a pickup truck to do work.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
RBC posted:lol the truck section Light trucks as a vehicle class presumably includes all SUVs, all minivans, most CUVs. In absolute numbers there are quite possibly more of these on the road than "cars" by now anyway, making emissions roughly proportionate.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
James Baud posted:Light trucks as a vehicle class presumably includes all SUVs, all minivans, most CUVs. In absolute numbers there are quite possibly more of these on the road than "cars" by now anyway, making emissions roughly proportionate. According to the source the category includes "trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles".
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
My parkade-neighbour has bought a RAM that is so large it does not fit in his parking space properly length- or width-wise. In a downtown Calgary condo. I assume his penis length can be most appropriately measured in angstroms.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:My parkade-neighbour has bought a RAM that is so large it does not fit in his parking space properly length- or width-wise. In a downtown Calgary condo. I assume his penis length can be most appropriately measured in angstroms. If I had a 1L Fiesta you could see it from the Moon.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Guess who's libbing? https://twitter.com/james_m_wilt/status/1130553514965516288
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Who needs a source of clean freshwater anyway? That poo poo's unlimited and it's not like people are buying it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
SilverMike posted:Who needs a source of clean freshwater anyway? That poo poo's unlimited and it's not like people are buying it.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
how is this legal The sentence makes no loving sense and the Os in 0NTARI0 are zeroes, while OUR has a regular O. Doug Ford is literally using typography to trick idiots into believing the debt is 10 trillion dollars. Angela Lansburial fucked around with this message at 03:03 on May 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
lol that is so loving weird.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
I too think we should protect the debt  Unrelated: cool thread https://twitter.com/Colettod/status/1130552113916981256?s=19
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
EvidenceBasedQuack posted:I too think we should protect the debt They really need a brief description of what each of those groups represent. Are left-cosmopolitans neo-liberals? Are right-populists incels, alt-right or religious? How do they differ from the conservatives? Is the classic liberal based on the current federal government or is it the Jordan Peterson 18th century definition of it?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Entorwellian posted:They really need a brief description of what each of those groups represent. Are left-cosmopolitans neo-liberals? Are right-populists incels, alt-right or religious? How do they differ from the conservatives? Is the classic liberal based on the current federal government or is it the Jordan Peterson 18th century definition of it? The questions you're asking don't really fit what he's doing here. He took a poll and asked a bunch of people about their policy preferences and used statistical techniques to group them into five groups in order to minimise differences/have "similar" people in each group. (He doesn't say if the number five was preordained or if he constrained the groups to be of roughly equal sizes) He let the algorithm create the groups, and the names are the ones he's giving based on the responses of each group. There's no actual ideological rigour here, it's just all a spitballing exercise.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 02:42
|
|
|
He's got a PhD in Political Science so
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
incontinence 100 posted:He's got a PhD in Political Science so There's probably like 50 arbitrary choices in method that he might or might not have made to arrive at those groupings, any of those choices may or may not be important in determining the groupings he came up with, and there's no transparency in any of his choices or in showing how cogent his groupings actually are  It's probably just fancy astrology
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
Somewhere, Eric Grenier has the weirdest boner
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:There's probably like 50 arbitrary choices in method that he might or might not have made to arrive at those groupings, any of those choices may or may not be important in determining the groupings he came up with, and there's no transparency in any of his choices or in showing how cogent his groupings actually are I don't actually think PhDs in Poli Sci are worth much. I'm on your side.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
I want to the grocery store today and my bill was $14.88. I'm now questioning my life choices.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2019 03:37
|
|