Biden reveals lackluster new EV policy, no plans to phase out gasoline
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Public transit doesn’t mean Adreaver’s specific immediate circumstances transit.
When you build public transit, especially trains, you get development around the stations. People like being able to ride to work, businesses like being able to sell to people who can conveniently get to their store, and they like being able to hire people who can easily get to work.
That’s the long term. In the short term public transit just has to work for some people, enough to get some ridership and drive that long term change.
Upvote
5
(7
/
-2)
Which I'd agree with, if you couldn't win a presidential election with 24% of the electorate voting for you (like Trump did in 2016). Clinton got 26% and lost.
So, having 20%-25% of the population in your little cult is getting you pretty close to being able to take over. You only need to pull in a few more percent here or there.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Agreed, and in many areas that are either in close proximity to cities or other high traffic locations (universities for example), it can absolutely make sense.
In many other areas, there isn't a feasible place to put a train station convenient for the people you want to use it.
I'm happy to support the expansion of a public transit system with my tax dollars, even if I can't personally use it. I'm not happy to do it at the expense of the existing modes of transportation I rely on.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
True, but 2016 happened before the Republicans went full-on QAnon and started purging their party. Conservatives like LIz Cheney were fully part of the party in 2016 and now are pariahs.
And like I said, if a new, sane, Conservative party crops up, that 20%-25% splits a couple of ways.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
I think you're going to be pretty surprised about what happens in 2022 and 2024 if you think anything can split up that death cult short of Trump leaving to start his own party.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
The Tea Party morons will splinter the GOP and Democrats will be almost unopposed for several years starting 2012.
At least that's what I heard.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Right, anyone who is counting on a shred of humanity out of republicans is deluding themselves. The republicans right now are setting up the conditions for their authoritarian takeover of the democracy, and that's the mainstream of the party - not the trump voters, they're in lockstep.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
We'll see. The people I know who are still identifying as Republican are fully lost causes, but I also know conservatives who really don't know what to do. They despise Trump and the rest of the GQP but can't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat. And aren't sure if not voting is right either.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Which is currently a greater burden on climate?
A fast new Telsa that can do 0-60 in two seconds, or a slow Prius hybrid?
We are way behind on devising practical long term energy storage that would enable allow solar and wind to compose the vast majority of energy production. That is likely to be helped by electricity to hydrogen to methane production. Methane can utilize existing natural gas storage and transportation - there is existing natural capacity for several months of energy usage.
A fast new Telsa that can do 0-60 in two seconds, or a slow Prius hybrid?
We are way behind on devising practical long term energy storage that would enable allow solar and wind to compose the vast majority of energy production. That is likely to be helped by electricity to hydrogen to methane production. Methane can utilize existing natural gas storage and transportation - there is existing natural capacity for several months of energy usage.
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
In almost all cases, the Prius has higher carbon emissions. Unlike with ICEs, giving an EV supercar acceleration barely affects efficiency. The most efficient Model S is rated at 120 mpge, while the least efficient is rated at 96 mpge. Source
It's possible that in an extreme case with a nearly 100% coal electric grid that the Prius might have lower GHG emissions than the Model S, but this only applies to a few areas of the US.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Of course mass transit might require eminent domain. But saying “no eminent domain” isn’t a solution. You just need to eminent domain places that aren’t particularly valuable today.
I know what you’re thinking—who wants to live there? Well… no one, today.
Mass transit works best long-term when you build it to run well, and then build around it. This is what the Flushing Line in Queens, NY looked like when it was built:
This is the same area of Queens today:
Well … actually that’s a few years old, it doesn’t have the latest burst of high-rises being built along there now. But you get the idea, I hope. The borough of Queens, by itself, has over 2.2 million people living in it; the Flushing Line alone moves up to 500,000 people per day. The two are related. You could not have the population density of Queens without its mass transit.
You could not have the population of New York City, in the area of New York City, without mass transit. Period. If you want long-term success like that, you build mass transit that can scale up fo support it, and then people will build around it because they will want to live there.
Fun fact: In the late 1940s, to help increase the sale of automobiles, General Motors shelled out money on ailing trolley and commuter lines in multiple cities—not to maintain or operate them, but to buy them just to tear them out. The US has sparse mass transit due to the cartoon villain from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, except his real evil plot was to increase shareholder profits at the expense of lower class.
Now we have to face the higher costs of rebuilding what we lost there. But it still needs to be done. Or, we deal with having inefficient cities that can’t grow very well, forever.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
What utilities are you dealing with? Is this the same sort of "delighted" that PG&E and SCE are when it comes to fixing their transmission lines, which periodically start wildfires in CA? In that case they are mostly "delighted" in figuring out how to avoid fixing the problem, and if that fails, passing more than 100% of the cost onto their customers. (Because "we should be compensated for our work".) I expect the same treatment when the grid's capacity (local or otherwise) is exceeded by new demand from electric cars. That is, it will take forever and cost far more than it should to solve the problem.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
At midnight New Year's Eve, the US will quietly move its norther border10 miles north, bringing 90% of Canadians into the US. Then, you can vote for what you want!!
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
Yeah, and for any future cities I would 100% support building them out in this way.Of course mass transit might require eminent domain. But saying “no eminent domain” isn’t a solution. You just need to eminent domain places that aren’t particularly valuable today.
I know what you’re thinking—who wants to live there? Well… no one, today.
Mass transit works best long-term when you build it to run well, and then build around it. This is what the Flushing Line in Queens, NY looked like when it was built:
This is the same area of Queens today:
Well … actually that’s a few years old, it doesn’t have the latest burst of high-rises being built along there now. But you get the idea, I hope. The borough of Queens, by itself, has over 2.2 million people living in it; the Flushing Line alone moves up to 500,000 people per day. The two are related. You could not have the population density of Queens without its mass transit.
You could not have the population of New York City, in the area of New York City, without mass transit. Period. If you want long-term success like that, you build mass transit that can scale up fo support it, and then people will build around it because they will want to live there.
Fun fact: In the late 1940s, to help increase the sale of automobiles, General Motors shelled out money on ailing trolley and commuter lines in multiple cities—not to maintain or operate them, but to buy them just to tear them out. The US has sparse mass transit due to the cartoon villain from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, except his real evil plot was to increase shareholder profits at the expense of lower class.
Now we have to face the higher costs of rebuilding what we lost there. But it still needs to be done. Or, we deal with having inefficient cities that can’t grow very well, forever.
That doesn't do anything to help the people who need a car to get to their job today. To get those people to their jobs, either they need a car (and the available infrastructure to fuel/charge it), or there needs to be a robust bus network with frequent pickups and drop offs.
I'm happy to support any efforts to expand electric car charging infrastructure and/or public transit, but if you ban the car I drive today while electric cars are still too expensive or cumbersome for somebody in my situation, I won't have any tax dollars to support those efforts with, because I won't have a job.
Any solution to climate change needs to recognize and account for the economic realities on the ground for lower and middle class people who can't afford the massive and immediate change being demanded in this comment section. To do anything less would be perceived as the super rich telling the poor to sacrifice so that their lives aren't affected by climate change, and that's how you get guillotines in the street.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
With some intelligent planning? Yes indeed.
(And I've actually watched this unfold in and around the metropolitan Vancouver area -- there's a lot of grumbling about the change (especially while construction gets in the way of "normal") but the problems are better problems than the problems you'd have otherwise.)
Upvote
1
(2
/
-1)
Federal grant's for 0% interest rate loans for BEVs, freecharger installation, and a $500/yr tax rebate for an AGI under $100k might work. You'd need to do something similar for landlords as well, to pull them along. Just can't see that getting enough votes to happen. It'd make a lot more sense than Biden wasting $60B on passenger rail.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
For them, I'd suggest participating in their primaries and in every possible election. They don't have to vote Dem, they just have to boost the not-crazies.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The remote workplace: 1. Would reduce greenhouse gases in general. 2. Would ease the frenzy to mine toxic metals needed for lithium batteries.
Unfortunately, this simple idea would seriously disrupt cities and the money-go-round.
money-go-round > save planet hippy shit
Unfortunately, this simple idea would seriously disrupt cities and the money-go-round.
money-go-round > save planet hippy shit
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
WHAT did we expect from these out of touch OLD dinosaurs? President Sleepy Joe Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, the cackling hyena known as the Vice President... All of these people like their "opponents" on the Right, they are marching to the drum-beat set by the Rich and the Powerful and the Military Industrial (Corporate) Complex.
Upvote
-10
(2
/
-12)
Upvote
-5
(1
/
-6)
*laughs in Republican*
And before you try to tell us how she's less bad than the Trump wing of the party, may I remind you she voted to acquit in the first impeachment trial and has been lukewarm at best on Jan 6 issues, thanks to pressure from Trump loyalists in your state's party. The inability of her and lawmakers like her to push back against extremists in the party, combined with the Democrats' need to get the support of Republican moderates to do literally anything, is part of the reason that "bipartisan" has become synonymous with "ineffectual half-measures".
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Collins won a majority of the vote in the first round in 2020, the only election (so far) with RCV.
*laughs in Republican*
And before you try to tell us how she's less bad than the Trump wing of the party, may I remind you she voted to acquit in the first impeachment trial and has been lukewarm at best on Jan 6 issues, thanks to pressure from Trump loyalists in your state's party. The inability of her and lawmakers like her to push back against extremists in the party, combined with the Democrats' need to get the support of Republican moderates to do literally anything, is part of the reason that "bipartisan" has become synonymous with "ineffectual half-measures".
What was your point?
Upvote
-2
(1
/
-3)
"But if we make any significant changes, we'll end up with some significant changes!"
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I'll be happy to see significant changes, but those changes need to come with some assistance for those less able to embrace said changes at the drop of a hat.
Grid upgrades should be paid for by carbon taxes on industrial polluters, not by extra fees or rate hikes on consumer electric bills.
BEV subsidies should be expanded for those below a given income level, with additional trade in credit if they are trading in an ICE vehicle while purchasing the BEV.
Landlords should be eligible for subsidies to install chargers in their rental properties, so those costs aren't passed on to the tenants in terms of raised rents, or worse, the chargers just flat denied because the landlord doesn't want to spend the capital.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Collins won a majority of the vote in the first round in 2020, the only election (so far) with RCV.
*laughs in Republican*
And before you try to tell us how she's less bad than the Trump wing of the party, may I remind you she voted to acquit in the first impeachment trial and has been lukewarm at best on Jan 6 issues, thanks to pressure from Trump loyalists in your state's party. The inability of her and lawmakers like her to push back against extremists in the party, combined with the Democrats' need to get the support of Republican moderates to do literally anything, is part of the reason that "bipartisan" has become synonymous with "ineffectual half-measures".
What was your point?
Yes. If Collins won in the first round of a ranked choice ballot count, then she would have won in an old-fashion "First Past the Post" count, as well -- she had over 50% of the votes cast, either way.
(Any voting system that selects a single "winner"/fills a single "seat" is going to work out that way.)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
There might have been a point if she failed to get a plurality in the first round due to the right splitting its vote, but then ended up winning, showing that ranked choice voting can sometimes elect people I'd rather didn't get elected.Collins won a majority of the vote in the first round in 2020, the only election (so far) with RCV.
*laughs in Republican*
And before you try to tell us how she's less bad than the Trump wing of the party, may I remind you she voted to acquit in the first impeachment trial and has been lukewarm at best on Jan 6 issues, thanks to pressure from Trump loyalists in your state's party. The inability of her and lawmakers like her to push back against extremists in the party, combined with the Democrats' need to get the support of Republican moderates to do literally anything, is part of the reason that "bipartisan" has become synonymous with "ineffectual half-measures".
What was your point?
Yes. If Collins won in the first round of a ranked choice ballot count, then she would have won in an old-fashion "First Past the Post" count, as well -- she had over 50% of the votes cast, either way.
(Any voting system that selects a single "winner"/fills a single "seat" is going to work out that way.)
But I'm kind of a fan of democracy even when it makes the "wrong" choice (by my wishes).
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
There might have been a point if she failed to get a plurality in the first round due to the right splitting its vote, but then ended up winning, showing that ranked choice voting can sometimes elect people I'd rather didn't get elected.Collins won a majority of the vote in the first round in 2020, the only election (so far) with RCV.
*laughs in Republican*
And before you try to tell us how she's less bad than the Trump wing of the party, may I remind you she voted to acquit in the first impeachment trial and has been lukewarm at best on Jan 6 issues, thanks to pressure from Trump loyalists in your state's party. The inability of her and lawmakers like her to push back against extremists in the party, combined with the Democrats' need to get the support of Republican moderates to do literally anything, is part of the reason that "bipartisan" has become synonymous with "ineffectual half-measures".
What was your point?
Yes. If Collins won in the first round of a ranked choice ballot count, then she would have won in an old-fashion "First Past the Post" count, as well -- she had over 50% of the votes cast, either way.
(Any voting system that selects a single "winner"/fills a single "seat" is going to work out that way.)
But I'm kind of a fan of democracy even when it makes the "wrong" choice (by my wishes).
Agreed.
(I've been constantly surprised how often, in any in-depth discussion of electoral reform, many objections to a more representative voting system in the end essentially boil down to "but in a more truly representative system, *those* people --with perspectives that I object to-- might win some/some more seats!")
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
There might have been a point if she failed to get a plurality in the first round due to the right splitting its vote, but then ended up winning, showing that ranked choice voting can sometimes elect people I'd rather didn't get elected.Collins won a majority of the vote in the first round in 2020, the only election (so far) with RCV.*laughs in Republican*
And before you try to tell us how she's less bad than the Trump wing of the party, may I remind you she voted to acquit in the first impeachment trial and has been lukewarm at best on Jan 6 issues, thanks to pressure from Trump loyalists in your state's party. The inability of her and lawmakers like her to push back against extremists in the party, combined with the Democrats' need to get the support of Republican moderates to do literally anything, is part of the reason that "bipartisan" has become synonymous with "ineffectual half-measures".
What was your point?
Yes. If Collins won in the first round of a ranked choice ballot count, then she would have won in an old-fashion "First Past the Post" count, as well -- she had over 50% of the votes cast, either way.
(Any voting system that selects a single "winner"/fills a single "seat" is going to work out that way.)
But I'm kind of a fan of democracy even when it makes the "wrong" choice (by my wishes).
Agreed.
(I've been constantly surprised how often, in any in-depth discussion of electoral reform, many objections to a more representative voting system in the end essentially boil down to "but in a more truly representative system, *those* people --with perspectives that I object to-- might win some/some more seats!")
That was one of the arguments the Canadian government made against implementing the electoral reform they promised: "Do you really want a party composed of people like [the person who thinks new Canadians should have to take a values test]?"
Yes. It would get them out of influence in the larger Conservative Party and allow that party to steer back towards the political centre. If the centre-right party doesn't have to appease the people on the far right, they can compromise with the centre-left party. Fringe parties can only hold the balance of power if the big parties cede it to them by refusing to work together.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I knew Proportional Representation was a DOA from the moment it was announced. No political entity will want a system that disfavors them.
The Liberals want Ranked Ballots and only ranked ballots. As the "middle of the road" party, they are more likely to be the second choice for people on the right and the left. They get stronger under this system and weaker under others.
The Greens and NDP want pure proportional representation and only pure, they get stronger under this system and weaker under others.
The Conservatives want no form of proportional representation at all. The majority of the country is left of them, any form of proportional representation weakens their position.
It's completely DOA unless a party with a majority position, just forces it's position through. Which would lead to provincial revolt.
Think of Alberta which elects almost 100% conservatives, where under some form of Proportional it would be reduced instantly to 60-70%.
Proportional was never going to happen.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
And all the political parties hate STV because those damned voters might have the gall to disagree with the Party over which candidates, among the candidates offered by the Party, are actually the best candidates offered by the Party.
(And many of adherents of one or another Party (NDP-ers seem especially prone to this) are deeply offended by the possibility that voters might {gasp} deliberately divide their support among two or more Parties, and sometimes even explicitly just don't trust the voters to vote wisely, if faced with more options than simply which single Party/platform to support.)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
My ex-wife and I once owned an old mobile home. It had aluminum wiring. We'd have had to rip out all of the existing wiring from the walls and replace it in order to upgrade the electrical system. We just replaced the whole house.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)