Submitted by wicke_s t3_yiwf8p in UpliftingNews
H0vis t1_iun0nzo wrote
Reply to comment by Funktownajin in The shrinking ozone hole shows that the world can actually solve an environmental crisis by wicke_s
That's the neat thing, we don't shift to electric cars. Not en masse anyway.
Cities go to cycling. There's decades of work been done showing how this is done, and it works, it's proven tech. Won't be a one size fits all, won't work as a copy/paste of Amsterdam everywhere, but a majority of cities can make that switch and will be much better for it.
Intercity travel goes high speed rail. More freight to rail as well. This is how it used to be done before freight was handed off to trucks.
Maritime shipping, we just have to eat the pollution on that side of things, offset it as much as possible with more localised manufacturing, but its here to stay for now. The good news is we're not going to kill the planet just with container ships. Ditto medium/long range passenger aircraft.
The planet can take a certain amount of abuse, we don't have to turn into a planet of blue Avatar weirdos overnight to beat this thing.
Funktownajin t1_iun94x4 wrote
Pretty sure mass cycling is an overhaul of the developed countries lifestyle.
High speed rail takes decades to build, also requires lots of electricity and steel etc. Rail is more efficient that truck transport but not massively so. It still pollutes a lot.
Like I said, these aren't easy choices. And nothing you listed will stop climate change.
H0vis t1_iunf9jz wrote
I mean, it is an overhaul, but in a good way. Ten thousand people die to air pollution from cars in London alone.
High speed rail it depends on the country, most places have railway infrastructure, it just needs updating.
I never said this would be easy or comfortable, but to be clear this isn't a choice any more. Modern life is going to change whether we want it to or not because of climate change, so we might as well make some changes ourselves on the off chance that kids born right now don't die in a desert.
​
It's like, the scientists have been saying we can take maybe one or two degrees more temperature increase before we basically kill everything on the planet. And even now, where I am in southern England for example, temperature records were smashed in summer, we effectively haven't had an autumn in terms of the temperature dropping, and according to the weather forecast it's going to be at least a week into winter before we see the temperature drop below ten degrees Celsius.
Point is, it's already way too hot. If this is how the weather is going to stay (let alone if it gets worse) then that represents an overhaul of lifestyles either way, because everything is going to be on fire.
Funktownajin t1_iunhx2l wrote
Ok I'm actually advocating for an overhaul, and abandonment, of the developed world's lifestyle. That was the original point of the first comment you replied to when you said that wasn't necessary. High speed rail just means adopting the least efficient form of rail so we can continue our fast paced, travel everywhere lifestyles. It sounds good and easy that it could be a solution but it's not.
Where are the actual, difficult, questions? Things like embracing population decline/veganism, ending any and all subsides for animal agriculture and electricity, banning international tourism, construction moratoriums, and massive increases in taxes. They aren't really talked about because they actually require more sacrifice than people are willing to make. ive realized that almost anyone still eating animal products while talking about techno solutions to climate change is basically a massive hypocrite ignoring the easiest solution right in front of them.
H0vis t1_iunpo2c wrote
If all those measures are necessary then they will happen, or I guess we die trying, but you're right they are a much harder conversation.
The question of food is a big one and you're right it's going to probably be the hardest to swallow. The key will probably be in the economics of it. Ending factory farming as a viable business model by appropriate taxation for the land use and emissions will send meat prices through the roof, but that's kind of where they have to be. People tend to be more willing to accept the idea of 'I can no longer afford this thing' rather than 'this thing is banned'.
The benefit is that it will actually be easier to feed everybody in the world if we're not also trying to feed billions of livestock animals as well. Big efficiency saving.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments