US Why an energy crisis and $5 gas aren’t spurring a green revolution - As high prices move consumers to rethink their attachment to oil and gas, America is struggling to meet the moment


1655428700620.png

Electric power lines and wind turbines along Interstate 10 in Palm Springs, Calif. The United States' goal is for all carbon pollution to be gone from the electricity sector by 2035.

Big solar projects are facing major delays. Plans to adapt the grid to clean energy are confronting mountains of red tape. Affordable electric vehicles are in short supply.

The United States is struggling to squeeze opportunity out of an energy crisis that should have been a catalyst for cleaner, domestically produced power. After decades of putting the climate on the back burner, the country is finding itself unprepared to seize the moment and at risk of emerging from the crisis even more reliant on fossil fuels.

The problem is not entirely unique to the United States. Across the globe, climate leaders are warning that energy shortages prompted by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and high gas prices driven by inflation threaten to make the energy transition an afterthought — potentially thwarting efforts to keep global temperature rise under 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“The energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine has seen a perilous doubling down on fossil fuels by the major economies,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said at a conference in Vienna on Tuesday, according to prepared remarks. He warned governments and investors that a failure to immediately and more aggressively embrace clean energy could be disastrous for the planet.

U.S. climate envoy John F. Kerry suggested that nations are falling prey to a flawed logic that fossil fuels will help them weather this period of instability, which has seen gas prices climb to a record-high national average of $5 per gallon. “You have this new revisionism suggesting that we have to be pumping oil like crazy, and we have to be moving into long-term [fossil fuel] infrastructure building,” he said at the Time100 Summit in New York this month. “We have to push back.”

1655428756055.png

Climate envoy John F. Kerry attends the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles on June 8. Kerry has criticized the tendency to turn toward fossil fuels in times of uncertainty.

In the United States — the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China — the hurdles go beyond the supply chain crunch and sanctions linked to the war in Ukraine. The country’s lofty goals for all carbon pollution to be gone from the electricity sector by 2035 and for half the cars sold to be electric by 2030 are jeopardized by years of neglect of the electrical grid, regulatory hurdles that have set projects back years, and failures by Congress and policymakers to plan ahead.

The challenges are further compounded by plans to build costly new infrastructure for drilling and exporting natural gas that will make it even harder to transition away from the fossil fuel.

“We are running into structural challenges preventing consumers and businesses from going cleaner, even at this time of high oil and gas prices,” said Paul Bledsoe, a climate adviser in the Clinton administration who now works on strategy at the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank. “It is a little alarming that even now, Congress is barely talking about clean energy.”

Consumers are eager for more wind and solar. Companies looking to go carbon-neutral are facing growing waitlists for access to green energy, and a Pew Research Center poll in late January found that two-thirds of Americans want the United States to prioritize alternative energy over fossil fuel production.

But lawmakers have balked for more than a decade at making most of the fundamental economic and policy changes that experts widely agree are crucial to an orderly and accelerated energy transition. The United States does not have a tax on carbon, nor a national cap-and-trade program that would reorient markets toward lowering emissions. The unraveling in Congress of President Biden’s $1.75 trillion Build Back Better plan has added to the head winds that green-energy developers face.

1655428810551.png

Vice President Harris tours electric school buses at Meridian High School in Falls Church, Va., on May 20.

“There is literally nothing pushing this forward in the U.S. beyond the tax code and some state laws,” said Heather Zichal, a former White House climate adviser who is now the chief executive of the American Clean Power Association.

The effects of the U.S. government’s halting approach are being felt by solar-panel installers, who saw the number of projects in the most recent quarter fall to the lowest level since the pandemic began. There was 24 percent less solar installed in the first quarter of 2022 than in the same quarter of 2021.

The holdup largely stems from a Commerce Department investigation into alleged tariff-dodging by Chinese manufacturers. Faced with the potential for steep retroactive penalties, hundreds of industrial-scale solar projects were frozen in early April. Weak federal policies to encourage investment in solar manufacturing left American companies ill-equipped to fill the void.

“We shut down multiple projects and had to lay off dozens of people,” said George Hershman, chief executive of SOLV Energy, which specializes in large solar installations. SOLV, like dozens of other solar companies, is now scrambling to reassemble those projects after the administration announced a pause of the tariffs.

Meanwhile, adding clean electricity to the power grid has become an increasingly complicated undertaking, given the failure to plan for adequate transmission lines and long delays connecting viable wind and solar projects to the electricity network.

1655428866462.png

Bill Ford, executive chairman of the Ford Motor Company, speaks at the launch of the electric F-150 Lightning pickup at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center on April 26 in Dearborn, Mich. Only 4 percent of vehicles sold in the United States last year were electric, but interest is growing.

While the United States is hitting some significant benchmarks in the transition to greener electricity, boasting record installations of clean power in the first quarter of this year, the rate of growth has slowed and lags where it needs to be to reach key climate goals. The country is not alone in this predicament.

The record growth in wind and solar last year was outpaced by the world’s rising demand for energy, according to Ember, a European think tank that tracks the energy transition. Clean power could meet only a third of that growth in 2021. The rest was largely met by burning more coal.

“We are seeing progress in the transition, but it is not fast enough,” said Roberto Bocca, head of energy at the World Economic Forum. “And it is not resilient enough to the increased volatility in the current economic and political environment.”

The United States needs to triple its pace of emissions reductions to meet the targets it has set for itself, according to a new study by researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Electric Power Research Institute and other institutions.

There are numerous hurdles in the way, as outdated federal rules and local planning disputes slow projects down. In November, for instance, one of the country’s larger clean-energy projects faltered in the Northeast. Maine voters stymied plans for a transmission line that would bring enough clean electricity from hydroelectric plants fueled by dams in Canada to power 900,000 homes in New England.

1655428998124.png

In April 2021, workers mark land on a power-line corridor near Bingham, Maine, that was widened to make way for the New England Clean Energy Connect, a transmission line that would bring clean electricity from hydroelectric plants in Canada. A ballot initiative last November killed the project.

The plan was opposed by some local conservation groups that argued the lines would create an environmental menace in Maine’s North Woods and that hydroelectric power is detrimental to fragile aquatic ecosystems. But the most potent opposition came from energy companies heavily invested in fossil fuel, which spent $24 million supporting the ballot initiative campaign to kill the transmission line.

That fight was sobering to Richard Barringer, a champion of the project and former commissioner of conservation and director of state planning who had served three Maine governors.

“The very local opposition did not surprise me,” Barringer said. “What did surprise me was the amount of money that poured in.”

The vote reversed a years-long, multimillion-dollar state approval process during which, Barringer said, environmental concerns were thoroughly considered and mitigated. And voter antipathy toward the project was driven in large part by distrust for the local utility partner on it, Central Maine Power, which has a dismal customer service record and a history of outages.

The project, which supporters are asking the courts to get back on track, was a key building block of the climate action plan for New England’s most populous state, Massachusetts.

Its troubles are indicative of a much bigger nationwide challenge in building transmission lines for all forms of clean energy. The Department of Energy reports that transmission systems need to be expanded by 60 percent by 2030 to meet the administration’s goals. And they may need to triple in capacity by 2050.

Patching wind and solar projects into the grid infrastructure that does exist, meanwhile, is increasingly challenging. Over the last decade, the time it takes to get a project online has jumped from two years to longer than three and a half years, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Its researchers say grid operators are taking longer to study project viability and are overwhelmed by a dramatic rise in the number of projects in the queue.

The Biden administration is promising to ease congestion and shore up the grid through billions of dollars in spending on transmission lines and other improvements authorized in the infrastructure package that Congress passed. But it will probably be years before the upgrades and expansions are operational.

The operators of PJM Interconnection, a grid that serves 13 states stretching from North Carolina to Illinois, as well as D.C., are so backlogged with proposals for solar and wind farms that they are putting most of them on hold as they overhaul their procedures. The pause on new hookups, said Mary Kate Francis, director of energy sourcing at Edison Energy, a company that helps large companies secure clean power, means that “new projects companies wanted to develop in that area will face a multiyear wait to even be considered.”

Clean-power producers are also hitting numerous barriers in their bid to generate huge volumes of energy with offshore wind turbines. Among them is a provision in the House bill funding the Coast Guard mandating that only American ships can be involved in construction work on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Amid a shortage of such American ships and trained crews to operate them, wind energy developers warn, the measure would effectively halt production of offshore wind.

As the clean-electricity industry confronts these growing pains, promoters of electric cars are running into their own obstacles.

Government programs that exist to promote zero-emissions vehicle production are sending mixed signals to manufacturers and drivers as some tax credits expire, Congress delays extending them and regulations give automakers leeway to set their own timelines for getting more electric cars into showrooms.

A new report by Bloomberg New Energy Finance finds that the United States and other countries need to dramatically step up production to meet their goal of making all transportation carbon-neutral by 2050. It would require zero-emission cars and trucks to make up 61 percent of all vehicles sold worldwide by 2030.

1655429124770.png

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg discusses investments in the U.S. electric-vehicle charging network outside Transportation Department headquarters in Washington in February. The administration plans to install hundreds of thousands of new charging stations.

Only 4 percent of cars sold in the United States last year were electric vehicles.

The sticker price of a new electric vehicle is $10,000 more than a comparable gas-powered model, and lawmakers have so far balked at renewing some of the subsidies designed to bring the price down while the industry scales up. Even so, interest in the vehicles is so high that many buyers eager to get in an electric car or hybrid have found themselves instead on a waitlist.

A plan the administration unveiled Thursday to install hundreds of thousands of new charging stations will help accelerate the transition. But even more crucial right now are $7,500 federal tax credits that make the cars affordable for consumers. They have expired for several models and cannot be used to purchase used vehicles.

Joe Britton, executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, said the goal is clear: to flood the market with millions of electric cars a year — and to make them in the United States. To that end, the group is aggressively lobbying Congress to extend the tax credits.

“We need to scale, and we need to make sure we are making these vehicles here,” Britton said.




"Reeeeeee muh green revolution isn't working!!"
:thinking:
 
Engineers: "This technology has a use case."
Management: "HEY EVERYONE WE HAVE A NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN DO EVERYTHING"



All of America will be moving to NYC, Houston, Chicago, LA, etc. America's been urbanizing fairly quickly over the last 15-20 years; this process is going to speed up. People are also going to be surprised at how far you can walk. Believe me, I have lived this. Hive life is primarily walking, not riding on public transit.

But I can't walk, no sidewalks. Don't worry, they'll shut down drive lanes and put in more sidewalks.
But there's nowhere to walk to because of zoning laws.
Zoning laws exist to protect whites from black criminality; they'll be disposed of.
But where will I work? You've got a laptop, right? Click click click in your hive, that's your job.
The bus system sucks. Call a cab. Can't afford a cab? Live in a smaller apartment. Eat out less. Own nothing. Be happy.
And then millions die when a natural disaster hits. The government bureaucracy prevents power from going back on for months. Or it takes months to fix the so-called green energy shit that generates power. More die from going hungry. And the elites won't care as they're sitting back with a martini in some se Asian country being waited on by prepubescent ladyboys.
 
And then millions die when a natural disaster hits. The government bureaucracy prevents power from going back on for months. Or it takes months to fix the so-called green energy shit that generates power. More die from going hungry. And the elites won't care as they're sitting back with a martini in some se Asian country being waited on by prepubescent ladyboys.
This is how China works. Complaining about this sounds like Sinophobia to me, buddy. -150 Amazon Social Credit Points for you, looks like you'll have your Metaverse privileges restricted until you learn to stop being a racist.
 
Last edited:
This is how China works. Complaining about this sounds like Sinophobia to me, buddy. -150 Amazon Social Credit Points for you, looks like you'll have your Metaverse privileged restrictes until you learn to stop being a racist.
China has billion plus people and its ever growing. America has 330 million and births are stagnating. This is even with the dems letting anyone in and those people fuck like rabbits. So millions dying from a hurricane or an earthquake would be major.
 
China is the opposite of “ever growing”, their demographic collapse is well underway. They’ve recently revised their numbers and admitted they possibly overcounted 100 million girls going back to 2000. There could be half as many Han Chinese on the planet by 2050 without any disasters.

You are correct that the CCP does not give a shit about their well-being beyond what is required to keep them in power though.
 
At best I’ll get a hybrid car. Pure electric don’t have the range that most of us would like in a vehicle. It’s only useful if you only drive to work and back.
There are some easy ways to shove people off ICE vehicles: insurance companies can refuse coverage to any vehicle with a combustion engine unless it’s for commercial use, states can levy fees when you get your sticker for your license plate, etc. I don’t think they will formally institute a ban, they will just make it really expensive to own one. Those who can afford it I’m sure will continue to own them, most of the public will be forced into EVs, public transport, or nothing at all.
…yeah, thing is, it’s not gonna work like that. All of America isn’t NYC, and logistically it never will be, not unless the population explodes to the hundreds of billions.

Even getting a shitty public transportation infrastructure up and running nationwide is pretty much impossible. What’s actually going to happen is they’re gonna set a ridiculous deadline for banning the sale or use of gas vehicles, only to continually push it back when they realize that it literally cannot be implemented without complete societal collapse.
It doesn’t matter. If you can’t afford an EV, then you move to a place that accommodates public transport, or you walk. Most people are going to comply. Fortunately there will be some pods and meat-flavored bug paste waiting for them when they can’t afford the suburbs or exurbs anymore. Home and property ownership was considered essential to American life and anyone under 30 knows that’s not true anymore. The same will apply to things we take for granted like meat and cars. The wheels are already in motion on this.
 
There are some easy ways to shove people off ICE vehicles: insurance companies can refuse coverage to any vehicle with a combustion engine unless it’s for commercial use, states can levy fees when you get your sticker for your license plate, etc. I don’t think they will formally institute a ban, they will just make it really expensive to own one. Those who can afford it I’m sure will continue to own them, most of the public will be forced into EVs, public transport, or nothing at all.

It doesn’t matter. If you can’t afford an EV, then you move to a place that accommodates public transport, or you walk. Most people are going to comply. Fortunately there will be some pods and meat-flavored bug paste waiting for them when they can’t afford the suburbs or exurbs anymore. Home and property ownership was considered essential to American life and anyone under 30 knows that’s not true anymore. The same will apply to things we take for granted like meat and cars. The wheels are already in motion on this.
I don’t know, I think they will try this. But they couldn’t even take away the guns, which are much more of a threat. And they’ve been trying non-stop on gun control my whole life. Everything they do sells more guns. Here in Leafistan they just banned handguns, AR-15s, whatever. This has translated to no guns being turned in. There is already low-level anarchy outside the cities.

We are already starting to see some squealing on ESG as people and states begin to push back. Like CRT in schools, these plans go great until ordinary people oppose them.

Nothing is inevitable. The expertise to turn this shit around still exists. We will see if people want it enough to give up the magical thinking that got us here.

There is a certain slice of the population that saw all of this coming years ago, tried to warn people, got labeled as crazy, and now is along for the ride as the dummies get their hands-on economics education.
 
I don’t know, I think they will try this. But they couldn’t even take away the guns, which are much more of a threat. And they’ve been trying non-stop on gun control my whole life. Everything they do sells more guns. Here in Leafistan they just banned handguns, AR-15s, whatever. This has translated to no guns being turned in. There is already low-level anarchy outside the cities.

We are already starting to see some squealing on ESG as people and states begin to push back. Like CRT in schools, these plans go great until ordinary people oppose them.

Nothing is inevitable. The expertise to turn this shit around still exists. We will see if people want it enough to give up the magical thinking that got us here.

There is a certain slice of the population that saw all of this coming years ago, tried to warn people, got labeled as crazy, and now is along for the ride as the dummies get their hands-on economics education.
There is not a constitutional right to own a car like there is for arms. That’s the key difference. Fortunately for the latter, “shall not be infringed” has made it impossible to work around except the bluest of hellholes and even then, it’s not a guarantee. Compared to the fourteenth amendment which is used anytime there are hurt feelz.
 
There is not a constitutional right to own a car like there is for arms. That’s the key difference. Fortunately for the latter, “shall not be infringed” has made it impossible to work around except the bluest of hellholes and even then, it’s not a guarantee. Compared to the fourteenth amendment which is used anytime there are hurt feelz.
Oh sure, it’s just- there’s no constitution in Canada and there are millions of guns here despite the seething of the government and decades of trying to get rid of them. There are limits on what smart governments can do, and these people are not smart.
 
I don’t know, I think they will try this. But they couldn’t even take away the guns, which are much more of a threat. And they’ve been trying non-stop on gun control my whole life. Everything they do sells more guns. Here in Leafistan they just banned handguns, AR-15s, whatever. This has translated to no guns being turned in. There is already low-level anarchy outside the cities.

Owning a gun is protected by the Constitution. Burning hydrocarbons is not. They already have you register and license cars; they haven't been able to do that with guns.

What is going to happen over the next few years is that the EPA is going to turn the regulatory ratchet to the point where it is illegal to sell a new ICE car by about 2035 or 2040. They'd been sending out feelers about this throughout the Obama admin, but there was still some reticence on the part of the auto industry go all-in on electric. Then the Republicans took a trifecta in 2016 and...the GOP made it very clear they were not the least bit interested in changing a single sentence of the Clean Air Act, doing anything about the 2007 EISA, or changing the Obama-era 57 mpg target. They'll cut your taxes, sure, but they're very comfortable with the way the regulatory ratchet works.

Now the auto companies are moving forward on electric, which means they've made big capital investments and strategic plans for the next decade. Their lobbyists are going to protect this investment. You will never have more than a minority of Congress pushing against the ratchet, so it's not going to go anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Floyd Sneed
Only in the minds of hard rightists and of car-obsessed Americans do electric cars figure as environmentally friendly or that living car-free is elitist and that real working-class poor people drive $50,000 pickups that get 6 miles to a gallon. "Please, oh, please, government, please step in the free market and regulate gas prices, and build my highways and parking lots for free," as if the financial burden of highway construction, loss of green space, traffic fatalities, etc., don't affect the poor). The article writer, though well-intentioned, is a moron and some of you are a bunch of morons.

Only in the Anglosphere is "conservative" the position that demands everyone conform to dependence on a fairly recent invention, the upending of traditional and universal ways of life and town planning, all on the government dime and zoning regulations, without which none of this is feasible. You're not conservative. You're not old school. Self-idenitifed conservatives who irrationally love cars and SUVs are people born after 1950 in the West, who are emotionally stunted and just want to go back to the safe cocoon of their family homes and be carted to and from fast food drive-throughs in tanks, driving through desolate landscapes.

Some of you need to wrap your heads around the fact that it's not close to financially sustainable to build massive, sprawling infrastructure in low-density developments, and that legally enforcing convenience stores to be 5 miles from residential neighborhoods is not good zoning.

Before anyone bitches about and how loud cities are, cities are mostly loud because of cars and suburbanites who drive into the city for special events and then complain about other suburbanites driving into the city and taking up the free parking that they are entitled to. Some American cities being criminal and disgusting is a reason to clean up American cities, not to just disperse the filth and violence of America more thinly across suburbia and wall ourselves off in giant cages.

I cannot fathom why some people prefer the McMansion hell that is so much of North America and Australia above living in compact cities next to forests that are easily accessed by bus or train. Car rentals are a thing that exist and we don't need to all own moving trucks and helicopters all the time. If you really think that living car-free is "latte-sipping elitism," I invite you to do basic arithmetic: basic wear and tear on a car (capital depreciation) + insurance + parking at house and/or work (parking always costs money. It's taken out of your salary or is baked into rent) + gasoline (even if only $2/gallon). Then think about how much time you spend in cars bitching about high gas prices. Stop playing poor. I actually am poor. Car ownership is expensive, even when gas is cheap. "But muh poor, rural farmers!" I'm not bashing them. They're only 1% of the population. I'm bashing the pavement princesses driven by people with 6-figure salaries pretending to be blue collar.

Having most people do most trips on foot or e-bikes or by train or even buy diesel-powered buses, even if those people occasionally rent vans and moving trucks, would do far, far, far more for our national wealth, resources, and quality of life than would just making 80% of all cars turn into electric vehicles by magic.

Some of you still disagree and/or are willing to pay the true cost of suburban life. Fine. Just don't clog up all of our roads, kill 35,000 a year on American roads (and injure many times more), try to force everyone else to drive, and then bitch about the resulting traffic and gas prices that come from forcing everyone else to drive everywhere.
 
Only in the minds of hard rightists and of car-obsessed Americans do electric cars figure as environmentally friendly or that living car-free is elitist and that real working-class poor people drive $50,000 pickups that get 6 miles to a gallon. "Please, oh, please, government, please step in the free market and regulate gas prices, and build my highways and parking lots for free," as if the financial burden of highway construction, loss of green space, traffic fatalities, etc., don't affect the poor). The article writer, though well-intentioned, is a moron and some of you are a bunch of morons.

Only in the Anglosphere is "conservative" the position that demands everyone conform to dependence on a fairly recent invention, the upending of traditional and universal ways of life and town planning, all on the government dime and zoning regulations, without which none of this is feasible. You're not conservative. You're not old school. Self-idenitifed conservatives who irrationally love cars and SUVs are people born after 1950 in the West, who are emotionally stunted and just want to go back to the safe cocoon of their family homes and be carted to and from fast food drive-throughs in tanks, driving through desolate landscapes.

Some of you need to wrap your heads around the fact that it's not close to financially sustainable to build massive, sprawling infrastructure in low-density developments, and that legally enforcing convenience stores to be 5 miles from residential neighborhoods is not good zoning.

Before anyone bitches about and how loud cities are, cities are mostly loud because of cars and suburbanites who drive into the city for special events and then complain about other suburbanites driving into the city and taking up the free parking that they are entitled to. Some American cities being criminal and disgusting is a reason to clean up American cities, not to just disperse the filth and violence of America more thinly across suburbia and wall ourselves off in giant cages.

I cannot fathom why some people prefer the McMansion hell that is so much of North America and Australia above living in compact cities next to forests that are easily accessed by bus or train. Car rentals are a thing that exist and we don't need to all own moving trucks and helicopters all the time. If you really think that living car-free is "latte-sipping elitism," I invite you to do basic arithmetic: basic wear and tear on a car (capital depreciation) + insurance + parking at house and/or work (parking always costs money. It's taken out of your salary or is baked into rent) + gasoline (even if only $2/gallon). Then think about how much time you spend in cars bitching about high gas prices. Stop playing poor. I actually am poor. Car ownership is expensive, even when gas is cheap. "But muh poor, rural farmers!" I'm not bashing them. They're only 1% of the population. I'm bashing the pavement princesses driven by people with 6-figure salaries pretending to be blue collar.

Having most people do most trips on foot or e-bikes or by train or even buy diesel-powered buses, even if those people occasionally rent vans and moving trucks, would do far, far, far more for our national wealth, resources, and quality of life than would just making 80% of all cars turn into electric vehicles by magic.

Some of you still disagree and/or are willing to pay the true cost of suburban life. Fine. Just don't clog up all of our roads, kill 35,000 a year on American roads (and injure many times more), try to force everyone else to drive, and then bitch about the resulting traffic and gas prices that come from forcing everyone else to drive everywhere.
Please cite actual numbers showing that suburban style cities are not financially sustainable or that cars are subsidized more than transit. No handwavy bs, I want actual hard numbers.

While you’re doing that, you can also show me a $50k pickup that gets 6 MPG and a suburban neighborhood that is five miles away from the nearest store.
 
Last edited:
Only in the minds of hard rightists and of car-obsessed Americans do electric cars figure as environmentally friendly or that living car-free is elitist and that real working-class poor people drive $50,000 pickups that get 6 miles to a gallon. "Please, oh, please, government, please step in the free market and regulate gas prices, and build my highways and parking lots for free," as if the financial burden of highway construction, loss of green space, traffic fatalities, etc., don't affect the poor). The article writer, though well-intentioned, is a moron and some of you are a bunch of morons.

Only in the Anglosphere is "conservative" the position that demands everyone conform to dependence on a fairly recent invention, the upending of traditional and universal ways of life and town planning, all on the government dime and zoning regulations, without which none of this is feasible. You're not conservative. You're not old school. Self-idenitifed conservatives who irrationally love cars and SUVs are people born after 1950 in the West, who are emotionally stunted and just want to go back to the safe cocoon of their family homes and be carted to and from fast food drive-throughs in tanks, driving through desolate landscapes.

Some of you need to wrap your heads around the fact that it's not close to financially sustainable to build massive, sprawling infrastructure in low-density developments, and that legally enforcing convenience stores to be 5 miles from residential neighborhoods is not good zoning.

Before anyone bitches about and how loud cities are, cities are mostly loud because of cars and suburbanites who drive into the city for special events and then complain about other suburbanites driving into the city and taking up the free parking that they are entitled to. Some American cities being criminal and disgusting is a reason to clean up American cities, not to just disperse the filth and violence of America more thinly across suburbia and wall ourselves off in giant cages.

I cannot fathom why some people prefer the McMansion hell that is so much of North America and Australia above living in compact cities next to forests that are easily accessed by bus or train. Car rentals are a thing that exist and we don't need to all own moving trucks and helicopters all the time. If you really think that living car-free is "latte-sipping elitism," I invite you to do basic arithmetic: basic wear and tear on a car (capital depreciation) + insurance + parking at house and/or work (parking always costs money. It's taken out of your salary or is baked into rent) + gasoline (even if only $2/gallon). Then think about how much time you spend in cars bitching about high gas prices. Stop playing poor. I actually am poor. Car ownership is expensive, even when gas is cheap. "But muh poor, rural farmers!" I'm not bashing them. They're only 1% of the population. I'm bashing the pavement princesses driven by people with 6-figure salaries pretending to be blue collar.

Having most people do most trips on foot or e-bikes or by train or even buy diesel-powered buses, even if those people occasionally rent vans and moving trucks, would do far, far, far more for our national wealth, resources, and quality of life than would just making 80% of all cars turn into electric vehicles by magic.

Some of you still disagree and/or are willing to pay the true cost of suburban life. Fine. Just don't clog up all of our roads, kill 35,000 a year on American roads (and injure many times more), try to force everyone else to drive, and then bitch about the resulting traffic and gas prices that come from forcing everyone else to drive everywhere.
Holy shit!

A bugman wall of text!

Quick, get this one for your collection.
 
Only in the minds of hard rightists and of car-obsessed Americans do electric cars figure as environmentally friendly or that living car-free is elitist and that real working-class poor people drive $50,000 pickups that get 6 miles to a gallon. "Please, oh, please, government, please step in the free market and regulate gas prices, and build my highways and parking lots for free," as if the financial burden of highway construction, loss of green space, traffic fatalities, etc., don't affect the poor). The article writer, though well-intentioned, is a moron and some of you are a bunch of morons.

Only in the Anglosphere is "conservative" the position that demands everyone conform to dependence on a fairly recent invention, the upending of traditional and universal ways of life and town planning, all on the government dime and zoning regulations, without which none of this is feasible. You're not conservative. You're not old school. Self-idenitifed conservatives who irrationally love cars and SUVs are people born after 1950 in the West, who are emotionally stunted and just want to go back to the safe cocoon of their family homes and be carted to and from fast food drive-throughs in tanks, driving through desolate landscapes.

Some of you need to wrap your heads around the fact that it's not close to financially sustainable to build massive, sprawling infrastructure in low-density developments, and that legally enforcing convenience stores to be 5 miles from residential neighborhoods is not good zoning.

Before anyone bitches about and how loud cities are, cities are mostly loud because of cars and suburbanites who drive into the city for special events and then complain about other suburbanites driving into the city and taking up the free parking that they are entitled to. Some American cities being criminal and disgusting is a reason to clean up American cities, not to just disperse the filth and violence of America more thinly across suburbia and wall ourselves off in giant cages.

I cannot fathom why some people prefer the McMansion hell that is so much of North America and Australia above living in compact cities next to forests that are easily accessed by bus or train. Car rentals are a thing that exist and we don't need to all own moving trucks and helicopters all the time. If you really think that living car-free is "latte-sipping elitism," I invite you to do basic arithmetic: basic wear and tear on a car (capital depreciation) + insurance + parking at house and/or work (parking always costs money. It's taken out of your salary or is baked into rent) + gasoline (even if only $2/gallon). Then think about how much time you spend in cars bitching about high gas prices. Stop playing poor. I actually am poor. Car ownership is expensive, even when gas is cheap. "But muh poor, rural farmers!" I'm not bashing them. They're only 1% of the population. I'm bashing the pavement princesses driven by people with 6-figure salaries pretending to be blue collar.

Having most people do most trips on foot or e-bikes or by train or even buy diesel-powered buses, even if those people occasionally rent vans and moving trucks, would do far, far, far more for our national wealth, resources, and quality of life than would just making 80% of all cars turn into electric vehicles by magic.

Some of you still disagree and/or are willing to pay the true cost of suburban life. Fine. Just don't clog up all of our roads, kill 35,000 a year on American roads (and injure many times more), try to force everyone else to drive, and then bitch about the resulting traffic and gas prices that come from forcing everyone else to drive everywhere.

Whining about "Muh roads" is supposed to be a joke, not a personality.
 
This is something that doesn’t get emphasized enough - just because we’re transitioning to EVs doesn’t mean everyone is going to have access to one.

To avoid powerleveling, I’ve seen presentations from urban planners and gay futurists about how moving away from ICE to EVs gives “society” the chance to pursue more “equitable” solutions to transportation such as electric buses. They truly seem to believe that there will be a total reduction of vehicles on the road when we switch to EVs. Much like meat or owning a house, there is a deliberate effort to make cars a luxury good. This solves the issue of needing to redesign the electric grid. If only half of the ICE vehicles are going to be replaced by EVs, that explains why the grids aren’t being redesigned. The future is just that the average American won’t have a car or maybe just one car per family.

A lot of the items brought up in this thread have already been thought of. These are features, not bugs.
Tesla wants all their fleet to be self driving:

Mercedes is working towards a lease/self driving product line

This is why

"You will own nothing, and be happy"
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak
Back