High fossil fuel prices are good for the planet—here’s how to keep it that way
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
This is insane. A dose of realism would help especially when considering the well being of billions of people against the goal of modifying the percentage of a gas in the atmosphere for dubious reasons and totally ineffective means, except for very politically-loaded virtue signalling.
Upvote
-5
(8
/
-13)
Back when I lived in Houston, my house was close enough to the office that I could walk to work. In the year that I lived there, cars ran into me five times even though I always stayed on the sidewalk and only crossed at the crosswalk with the light. Fortunately, there was only one time that they were going fast enough to do any real harm.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Given the current market, that would lead to issuing massive tax credits.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that bringing my bike into my office is a no-go. And I'd love to use a bike rack....if there was one. Not to mention, again, the daily 90-100 degree weather.
Upvote
19
(21
/
-2)
Public transportation isn't the same as driving. Driving takes your full undivided attention for 10 minutes. Public transportation allows you an hour of time to do whatever you can on a portable device.
Bikes can have baskets, bags, etc. Also, even biking during the 1/3rd of the year which is neither summer not winter would significantly decrease your carbon emissions over a year (and also lead to significant savings, just not right now, maybe in a few months when it's cooler). There are also nice folding bikes that would easily fit under a desk, popularised by various countries allowing bikes on public transportation and folding bikes being nicer for that.
Upvote
-18
(6
/
-24)
Also, just as a practical matter bikes aren't an option in my area for about half the year, maybe more. It's just too damn cold and there's too much snow for a few months, and then there's rain even when it's otherwise warm enough to ride.
Upvote
16
(18
/
-2)
The figures in https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... hy-people/ suggest that the US mean in 2019 of 20t CO2 emitted per capita is made of a blend of the poorest 5 deciles contributing 10t per capita, and the richest decile contributing 70t per capita.
You could thus impose a financial cost of $110/t CO2 emitted on US emissions, paired with a per-resident rebate of $100/t times the US mean emissions for that year, and end up with both an extra income source for spending on "green" grants *and* the average American being $900 better off ($2,000 rebate, $1,100 in extra costs) at the expense of the richest 10% ($2,000 rebate, $7,700 in extra costs). This puts financial pressure on the rich to reduce their impact (reduce your emissions by 1t/year, save $110 over and above what you'd save today), *and* benefits the poor at the same time because they get extra money in their pockets.
It'd be politically difficult - it'll have huge side effects on the middle classes, who can currently afford to fly more than once a year - but it puts the pain firmly on those who consume more than the mean, which happens to be dominated by those who do things like keep a private jet on standby, or take a helicopter to bypass traffic.
You could thus impose a financial cost of $110/t CO2 emitted on US emissions, paired with a per-resident rebate of $100/t times the US mean emissions for that year, and end up with both an extra income source for spending on "green" grants *and* the average American being $900 better off ($2,000 rebate, $1,100 in extra costs) at the expense of the richest 10% ($2,000 rebate, $7,700 in extra costs). This puts financial pressure on the rich to reduce their impact (reduce your emissions by 1t/year, save $110 over and above what you'd save today), *and* benefits the poor at the same time because they get extra money in their pockets.
It'd be politically difficult - it'll have huge side effects on the middle classes, who can currently afford to fly more than once a year - but it puts the pain firmly on those who consume more than the mean, which happens to be dominated by those who do things like keep a private jet on standby, or take a helicopter to bypass traffic.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
If only there was a way to have higher prices on and less demand for climate-damaging fossil fuels... without the dollars going to petro-dictators and exploitative corporations... I don't know, like maybe a tax on said fuels? Maye one that was actually correlated to the price of the fuel, like a percentage or something? Instead of a fixed number of cents that has been relegated to near irrelevance by 29 years worth of inflation? Could we have that?
Upvote
-1
(3
/
-4)
How long until people snap and heads roll? I don't mean riots, I mean full on rebellion.
Upvote
-9
(2
/
-11)
I'll be honest, we don't have one at work but the people who do bike leave their bikes tucked out of the way in a couple places at work. But other than that things like sign poles, railings, and other things can work as bike racks if your employer doesn't provide one.
Upvote
-4
(3
/
-7)
yet another tone deaf article from someone who doesn't have to worry about how to get to work to pay their bills
being aware of how tone deaf you are doesn't excuse it. electric cars are not affordable, biking in most areas of the US is nearly guaranteed suicide, and public transit doesn't exist outside of metro areas
being aware of how tone deaf you are doesn't excuse it. electric cars are not affordable, biking in most areas of the US is nearly guaranteed suicide, and public transit doesn't exist outside of metro areas
Upvote
7
(18
/
-11)
You would waste an hour of your life to avoid driving 10 minutes? Twice a day?
Upvote
23
(29
/
-6)
I know, I know. I just wish I was literally even alive 30 years ago when I could have supported doing something to make these options more viable. But now I just have to watch my expenses rise and get it called whining when I complain about it.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Dubious reasons?
Really? That science is settled. Has been, for a long time. The oil companies knew in the 1980s that increases in CO2 increase global temperature. Lots and lots of people know that now. It's science, yo.
Are you suggesting that, what, all the scientists are wrong? That because you can find 98% of scientists who agree that carbon dioxide emissions lead directly to climate change, and 2% don't, that we should give equal weight to the 2% -- the vast majority of whom are funded by carbon dioxide emitters?
If you survey the entire world, and also survey the ghost of Jeffrey Dahmer, are we to believe that cannibalism is okay? After all, there's one person wholly in favor. Both sides!
Upvote
9
(14
/
-5)
Jesus Christ, glad you didn't get hurt badly. I've lived in walkable cities or neighborhoods for about the past 15 years and I've had a lot of close calls when walking, but I've fortunately never been hit, much less multiple times. Literally every close call I've had has been when I was behaving legally. Drivers are fucking idiots around pedestrians and cyclists and I'm sure the modern supersized SUVs/trucks make that even worse.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Exactly. It's not ever simple. For example in many large cities, public transit terminals have turned into homeless shelters and/or places for junkies to shoot up. So that's a whole slew of other social issues which have to get resolved just to make the Transit option palatable for most people.
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
if you take electricity.. i don't think consumers have much of a choice. they get charged basically the same price whoever provides the juice however. higher prices might incentivise utilities to invest in renewables for longer term gain... but that's out of the hands of consumers.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Wow a plethora of people who apparently never learned that the, "Let them eat cake", attitude never ends well.
When lower and lower middle class families have a hard time filling the tank to get to work, how can then ever afford to double the cost of the least expensive vehicle by making it plug in electric or hybrid?
So much for, "It's for your own good."
Let alone driving The Grid to collapse where CA has to ask it's ev owners to not charge their cars.
When lower and lower middle class families have a hard time filling the tank to get to work, how can then ever afford to double the cost of the least expensive vehicle by making it plug in electric or hybrid?
So much for, "It's for your own good."
Let alone driving The Grid to collapse where CA has to ask it's ev owners to not charge their cars.
Upvote
8
(17
/
-9)
We can feed everyone on this planet right now. Our governments just have more of a vested interest in making sure there's a poverty class than changing that.
Upvote
6
(11
/
-5)
Only if you're an idiot or a troll and didn't read the actual fucking article which addresses this point.
Upvote
-1
(9
/
-10)
I am not American but I live in a small-ish midwestern town. (in the 10k-50k pop. range)
I have options. I walk as much as I can. I made the conscious choice years ago to live near work. I go to the grocery stores close to my home, even though there are nicer ones a bit further out that I would prefer (because, as we all know, in American cities big box stores are build on the edge of cities). I also try to take busses for long distance trips whenever there's a route, and there often are routes, especially to the bigger cities.
Sure, walking and cycling is hard; sometimes in the US sidewalks just disappear or lead to nowhere, and bikes are often not allowed on sidewalks. Sure, long distance busses like Greyhounds are often taken by lower income people, and most Ars commenters probably consider these busses to be beneath them. And sure, many people do not have the option to move. However, there are always at least some options. There is often significant elasticity in the amount of driving. The problem is that driving is the easiest thing, and people want climate change to solve itself with no pain.
Upvote
-7
(6
/
-13)
Depends. That might be true in Texas, but many states have commissions that control rates on behalf of consumers, in exchange for near-monopoly status for suppliers. It's not an ideal mix, but there is or at least can be some measure of consumer control exerted.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
The thing is, biking would be an option. If I was going to continue living where I do right now. But life circumstances have changed, and my distance to work is about to double from 20-30 minutes by bike to an hour by bike. I just don't think I'm cut out for that, not to mention the time loss.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
Upvote
-8
(3
/
-11)
I used to live in a bigger city where I didn't have a car (and unlike now I couldn't walk to work), and I did commute 1.5 hours by public transportation daily. I got plenty of work or reading done during those 1.5 hours, so I am not sure what you mean by waste. I seriously think the US has been car-centric for so long that people don't understand the alternatives anymore, because what kind of question is this?
Upvote
-8
(4
/
-12)
So essentially what I was saying. It's not that you don't have options, but that you want problems to solve themselves with zero pain. It's not like we are facing a climate emergency or something.
Upvote
-11
(2
/
-13)
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Sickening to read so many bitchfests being posted over and over without the awareness that they're pre-debunked by the article they're being shoved under.
Upvote
-7
(6
/
-13)
There are also a lot of cities where if we actually brought public transit up to standard it wouldn't take them 1 hour to replace a 10 minute drive. There are a lot of places that have public transit, but haven't invested enough for it to be usable.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Reducing driving by 50% is a huge reduction to your carbon footprint, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe just don't drive for that half the year then.
Upvote
-8
(4
/
-12)
Especially when the solution the article proposes to keep fuel costs high actually is extremely progressive, benefiting the poorest people the most, because rich people spend a lot more on fuel in general.
Upvote
-2
(7
/
-9)
Seems like a waste to me. You could leave home 50 minutes later and get home 50 minutes earlier by driving. For 10 minutes each way, you have to drive. Personally, I like driving, but even if you didn't, do you not have anything to do at home that would benefit from those extra 100 minutes each day? And even if you didn't, you could do whatever it is you're doing on the bus. Or hell, get an extra hour of sleep every morning.
You don't get paid for time you spend getting to work. I'm not extending my work day by almost two hours just getting to work.
Upvote
20
(24
/
-4)