Teenage Climate Change Activist "I want you to panic"

[Darth Wedgius]

To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.

So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.

As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.

And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.

There are a lot of places in the US, especially in the south and the midwest, where public transit is minimal and the cities are sprawling with large amounts of suburban style housing in the city limits.

One, the primary thing that moved industry out of the US is the cost of labor, not environmental regulations. Two, the energy efficiency of the factory would be far less of an issue if the grid was cleaner. A deeply energy inefficient factory getting it's power from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear will be infinitely cleaner than a factory 10 times as efficient that runs on coal.

Which of these cities don't have buses?

One, yes, but that doesn't change my point that consumers want cheaper goods, will buy from less ecology-friendly places to get it, and that this will become worse if regulations here push business toward those places. Two, yes, but that doesn't change my point, unless that cleaner grid delivers power at the same price or cheaper.

They have busses, but often ones that run on a limited schedule and only operate in or near the city center, were only a minority of people live. If work outside of the nine to five you need a car, if you own a home, you need a car, if there is a suburban area between you and your work you need a car. To put it in prospective San Antonio has a similar population to Philadelphia, but occupies three times the amount of land.

And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.

And I'm telling you that large portions of the country have very little high density housing and often have miles of suburban housing between areas with high density housing. And many of those areas purposefully don't have bus routes going through them.

And who at Davros campaigned against high-density housing? Or was there just not as much demand for that because people wanted to live in suburbs?

[Antiboyscout]

San Fransisco has height restrictions on all buildings

[Draco Dracul]

To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.

So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.

As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.

And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.

There are a lot of places in the US, especially in the south and the midwest, where public transit is minimal and the cities are sprawling with large amounts of suburban style housing in the city limits.

One, the primary thing that moved industry out of the US is the cost of labor, not environmental regulations. Two, the energy efficiency of the factory would be far less of an issue if the grid was cleaner. A deeply energy inefficient factory getting it's power from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear will be infinitely cleaner than a factory 10 times as efficient that runs on coal.

Which of these cities don't have buses?

One, yes, but that doesn't change my point that consumers want cheaper goods, will buy from less ecology-friendly places to get it, and that this will become worse if regulations here push business toward those places. Two, yes, but that doesn't change my point, unless that cleaner grid delivers power at the same price or cheaper.

They have busses, but often ones that run on a limited schedule and only operate in or near the city center, were only a minority of people live. If work outside of the nine to five you need a car, if you own a home, you need a car, if there is a suburban area between you and your work you need a car. To put it in prospective San Antonio has a similar population to Philadelphia, but occupies three times the amount of land.

And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.

And I'm telling you that large portions of the country have very little high density housing and often have miles of suburban housing between areas with high density housing. And many of those areas purposefully don't have bus routes going through them.

And who at Davros campaigned against high-density housing? Or was there just not as much demand for that because people wanted to live in suburbs?

And what does that have to do with the necessity of the a car now?

[Robovski]

Public transport needs density, much like other services do. Public transport works fairly well in Chicago and New York, but doesn't in LA as it is less a city and more a collection of suburbs looking for a city.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Funny thing is, beef agriculture does a lot more to the environment than consumer cars.

[ProfessorDetective]

Funny thing is, beef agriculture does a lot more to the environment than consumer cars.

Yeah, apperently methane is a stronger greenhouse gas then carbon dioxcide. And we all know that America will NEVER give up their hamburgers.

Although, if that meatless patty Burger King is shopping around turns out to be legit...

[Admiral X]

You can have my burgers and steaks when you pry them from my cold dead hands!

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Funny thing is, beef agriculture does a lot more to the environment than consumer cars.

Yeah, apperently methane is a stronger greenhouse gas then carbon dioxcide. And we all know that America will NEVER give up their hamburgers.

Although, if that meatless patty Burger King is shopping around turns out to be legit...

I've heard nothing but good things about it, but only from a handful of sources. Most people I've talked to about it are at a loss as far as not being convinced, but aren't totally sure themselves for different reasons.

[ProfessorDetective]

Funny thing is, beef agriculture does a lot more to the environment than consumer cars.

Yeah, apperently methane is a stronger greenhouse gas then carbon dioxcide. And we all know that America will NEVER give up their hamburgers.

Although, if that meatless patty Burger King is shopping around turns out to be legit...

I've heard nothing but good things about it, but only from a handful of sources. Most people I've talked to about it are at a loss as far as not being convinced, but aren't totally sure themselves for different reasons.

Given the fact that it's being confined to St. Louis before going nationwide likely explains the small coverage.

For reference to anyone uninformed:
youtu.be/ng4C2HMH664

[Darth Wedgius]

To attain the necessities of life, in most cases, you need a car. Being a consumer isn't really optional in this late capitalist hellscape.

So, if it's putting the blame on people who have the dreadful corkscrew of necessity poking into their prostate, or putting the lions share of it on people who have enough money to do just about anything they could conceivable want to do, including bribing policy makers with multi-million dollar campaign contributions, I'm going with the varblenecking klorbags who own all these carbon-spewing factories and oil-extraction machines and could, by their own hand, make clean energy much more viable, but don't because they'd rather make $2,017 an hour instead of $2,012 an hour.

As ABS pointed out, you don't need a car. And carpooling is a thing. And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.

And being rich doesn't make you responsible for someone else's actions. Those klorbags could be OK with more energy-efficient factories because they could pass the cost to the consumers, if consumers didn't have a choice. But those consumers would rather have goods cheaper, which often means made overseas where environmental controls aren't quite so stringent.

There are a lot of places in the US, especially in the south and the midwest, where public transit is minimal and the cities are sprawling with large amounts of suburban style housing in the city limits.

One, the primary thing that moved industry out of the US is the cost of labor, not environmental regulations. Two, the energy efficiency of the factory would be far less of an issue if the grid was cleaner. A deeply energy inefficient factory getting it's power from solar, wind, hydro, or nuclear will be infinitely cleaner than a factory 10 times as efficient that runs on coal.

Which of these cities don't have buses?

One, yes, but that doesn't change my point that consumers want cheaper goods, will buy from less ecology-friendly places to get it, and that this will become worse if regulations here push business toward those places. Two, yes, but that doesn't change my point, unless that cleaner grid delivers power at the same price or cheaper.

They have busses, but often ones that run on a limited schedule and only operate in or near the city center, were only a minority of people live. If work outside of the nine to five you need a car, if you own a home, you need a car, if there is a suburban area between you and your work you need a car. To put it in prospective San Antonio has a similar population to Philadelphia, but occupies three times the amount of land.

And, as I've mentioned, people didn't have to move to the suburbs.

And I'm telling you that large portions of the country have very little high density housing and often have miles of suburban housing between areas with high density housing. And many of those areas purposefully don't have bus routes going through them.

And who at Davros campaigned against high-density housing? Or was there just not as much demand for that because people wanted to live in suburbs?

And what does that have to do with the necessity of the a car now?

Is it corporate executives to fix other people's mistakes? C'mon on.