Climate change and human responsibility

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blender

Here's the problem in a nutshell. As long as we have the attitude that we get to choose how we live and the options are there, then we won't see any improvement. People aren't good at making self-sacrificing choices. Take away the choice and people will fall into line.

We are in love with a whole bunch of bad ideas; in fact we are so smitten that we believe we are entitled to these bad ideas.

You don’t take away choice, you charge for externalities.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

This is the biggest thing for me. I always think back to an example I have of this. My car was in a specialty shop getting some work done. They called and told me it was done. My ride to the shop fell through, so I took transit.

It took me 2 1/2 hours between busses, trains and walking to get to the shop.

It took me 20 minutes to drive home.

Why don't I take transit? That's why.

Transit in industrial areas is often poor compared to residential. Transit to my old office in the Blackfoot industrial area was a non starter for me compared to driving. However my previous office downtown I could be there quicker by transit than driving.

[blender]

Originally Posted by GGG

You don’t take away choice, you charge for externalities.

That's the typical capitalist approach, but it isn't sufficient as capitalism is one of the bad ideas we are desperately in love with.

[blender]

On public transit: I lived in Sydney Australia for a while, and I am still amazed at how efficient the transit system was. I've never seen anything remotely like it in North America, certainly not Calgary which is a pathetic joke by comparison.

To me it is proof that it CAN be done if it is planned and funded properly.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I'm guessing that this has already been discussed somewhere in here, or in the science thread, but the Canadian fusion reactor now has a test site in the UK.



https://www.dezeen.com/2021/08/02/wo...-plant-ala-uk/

I know I'm a debbie downer on this tuff, but Nuclear Fusion has been 10-20 years away for at least 40 years and we're in the same spot.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by blender

Here's the problem in a nutshell. As long as we have the attitude that we get to choose how we live and the options are there, then we won't see any improvement. People aren't good at making self-sacrificing choices. Take away the choice and people will fall into line.

Take away too many of the popular choices and the people may find new leaders who won't.

We are in love with a whole bunch of bad ideas; in fact we are so smitten that we believe we are entitled to these bad ideas.

Who get's to decide what "bad ideas" are?

Originally Posted by blender

On public transit: I lived in Sydney Australia for a while, and I am still amazed at how efficient the transit system was. I've never seen anything remotely like it in North America, certainly not Calgary which is a pathetic joke by comparison.

Not really a fair comparison given Sydney is much bigger than Calgary. Compare it to Toronto, the TTC+GO easily match Sydney's transit ridership and both are dwarfed by NYC.

To me it is proof that it CAN be done if it is planned and funded properly.

Yet even with that transit system in Sydney, the car remains king. Transit can be highly competitive transporting people to jobs in the central core, but those are only a fraction of trips that people make.

Private transport – mostly cars – out-competes public transport in Australian cities for the great bulk of trips in terms of travelling time, convenience, privacy and comfort. Private transport accounts for 84% of all motorised travel in metropolitan Sydney and 89% across all capital cities.

Travellers value the attributes of private transport highly and they’re prepared to pay a lot for them e.g. the average motorist pays over $10,000 p.a. to own and operate a car, rather than the circa $2,000 p.a. it costs for an annual unlimited public transport pass.

Public transport was once the dominant urban mode in Australia, supported by a huge network of publicly provided train and tram infrastructure. It was effectively annihilated by the car in a handful of decades. Its (mode) share of urban transport collapsed from 90% of motorised passenger kms in 1920 to 25% by 1960.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurban...of-our-cities/

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blender

On public transit: I lived in Sydney Australia for a while, and I am still amazed at how efficient the transit system was. I've never seen anything remotely like it in North America, certainly not Calgary which is a pathetic joke by comparison.

To me it is proof that it CAN be done if it is planned and funded properly.

Public transit in North America has one main goal. Get people to the stores and restaurants to spend money. It is useless for most people for any other purpose. The office building I work in in Surrey is about a 10-20 minute drive depending on the time of day (11 km one-way), but about 2.5 hours by public transit. Thousands of people commute to work in that same area every day. Yet I can be in downtown Vancouver on Saturday to go shopping in about 45 minutes which is about 30 km away.

It was even worse when I lived in the GTA.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Take away too many of the popular choices and the people may find new leaders who won't.


Who get's to decide what "bad ideas" are?


Not really a fair comparison given Sydney is much bigger than Calgary. Compare it to Toronto, the TTC+GO easily match Sydney's transit ridership and both are dwarfed by NYC.



Yet even with that transit system in Sydney, the car remains king. Transit can be highly competitive transporting people to jobs in the central core, but those are only a fraction of trips that people make.



https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurban...of-our-cities/

This is all because of city planning however. If you spend zillions of dollars building highways and roads all over the place, then the car becomes the preferred model because it's faster, more efficient and more convenient. If you had spent the same zillions of dollars to set up your city to make public transit faster and more convenient it would be used more.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Take away too many of the popular choices and the people may find new leaders who won't.

I suspect one of the bad ideas blender feels we should move on from is popular democracy.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Public transit in North America has one main goal. Get people to the stores and restaurants to spend money. It is useless for most people for any other purpose. The office building I work in in Surrey is about a 10-20 minute drive depending on the time of day (11 km one-way), but about 2.5 hours by public transit. Thousands of people commute to work in that same area every day. Yet I can be in downtown Vancouver on Saturday to go shopping in about 45 minutes which is about 30 km away.

It was even worse when I lived in the GTA.

depends where you live.
For me, Public transit seems to exist only for people to get to work or school and back.
outside of that, if you're not on a LRT route, it's useless.

outside of peak hours, the route closest to my house runs once per hour and only until 11:00.

[blender]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I suspect one of the bad ideas blender feels we should move on from is popular democracy.

Not at all.
But I do think it is a bad idea to allow such close ties between government and business.

There is a significant difference in a democracy that is operating in the interests of the general population and a democracy that is operating in the interests of large multinational corporations.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by blender

There is a significant difference in a democracy that is operating in the interests of the general population and a democracy that is operating in the interests of large multinational corporations.

And yet you say giving the general population a choice in where and how they live is a bad idea.

[Azure]

Everyone is right, it will take a zillion dollars to have a proper transit system in place.

Will everything be better then?

If it isn't practical, cost effective and gets people to actually use it versus using their cars, perhaps it isn't the best approach?

Cause the world is rapidly shifting towards EVs. We'll look pretty smart with the trillions we spent on public transit and not on nuclear energy, etc, etc once everyone is actually driving a zero emissions vehicle.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Everyone is right, it will take a zillion dollars to have a proper transit system in place.

Will everything be better then?

If it isn't practical, cost effective and gets people to actually use it versus using their cars, perhaps it isn't the best approach?

Cause the world is rapidly shifting towards EVs. We'll look pretty smart with the trillions we spent on public transit and not on nuclear energy, etc, etc once everyone is actually driving a zero emissions vehicle.

ZEV's don't solve traffic.

[blender]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And yet you say giving the general population a choice in where and how they live is a bad idea.

It's not about allowing people to choose; It's about what choices are available.

Honestly though, what I am really talking about is a cultural issue, not a political issue. Western cultures are hyper-individualistic, elevating the individual above all else. Further, we have managed to conflate our ideas about individualism with ideas about corporatism and property ownership and commodification of resources.

I've got to get to work, (lol, yes; make some money so I can continue to be part of the system), but maybe I'll circle back in some more detail later. It is a topic I find fascinating.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And yet you say giving the general population a choice in where and how they live is a bad idea.

That choice is becoming more and more limited by pricing as it is.

And cities/provinces are already dictating where you can live with zoning, servicing etc. Wouldn't be anything new, just a change in how the current policies are implemented.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

ZEV's don't solve traffic.

True.

But no emissions are no emissions.

I think we'd be better off trying to figure out carbon capture than spending billions on inefficient public transit.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

True.

But no emissions are no emissions.

I think we'd be better off trying to figure out carbon capture than spending billions on inefficient public transit.

You can argue about dollar amounts but I agree with your general point. Transit spending at this point should be long term plays. The spending you do now should help the current system but be more focused on getting into a place where big spending down the road actually makes sense and people will use it. In-fill development near transit hubs,etc.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by blender

It's not about allowing people to choose; It's about what choices are available.

Honestly though, what I am really talking about is a cultural issue, not a political issue. Western cultures are hyper-individualistic, elevating the individual above all else. Further, we have managed to conflate our ideas about individualism with ideas about corporatism and property ownership and commodification of resources.

I've got to get to work, (lol, yes; make some money so I can continue to be part of the system), but maybe I'll circle back in some more detail later. It is a topic I find fascinating.

If you want more people congested into urban areas where there is transit available, you need to build more multi unit housing. There are a lot of cities that choose to build suburban sprawl instead.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you want more people congested into urban areas where there is transit available, you need to build more multi unit housing. There are a lot of cities that choose to build suburban sprawl instead.

Most Canadian cities have a glut of condos. Urban planners like them because they create density. Developers like them because they’re cheap and efficient to build. Turns out buyers don’t actually like them much, though.

I understand the reasoning behind densification. The efficiencies and systemic benefits. But we shouldn’t kid ourselves - it will be carried out against the strong preferences of the public.

Remember when everyone was saying Millennials were turning their backs on the suburbs and were going to usher in a new era of dense urbanization? That turned out to be almost comically wrong. Millennials were happy enough to live in urban centres in their 20s and early 30s. But once they started having kids they’ve been flooding into the suburbs and (with the help of the bank of mom and dad) are paying eye-watering prices to raise their families in a detached home - a preference held by 78 per cent of Millennials in Toronto and Vancouver.

So sure, impose higher and higher costs on detached homes. But don’t be surprised when buyers react in ways planners don’t anticipate, like continuing to pay those higher and higher prices, or moving out of major centres (and public transit hubs) altogether in search of more affordable detached homes in smaller cities and towns. And know that policy that runs so strongly against the wishes of the public always imposes a political cost on the leaders pushing the policy.