Carbon Solutions

[Garnier Fructis]

Less laughable public transit systems.

Even the best public transit systems in North America, are a fucking joke, when compared to some of the worst public transit systems in Europe. So North Americans' need to lose this "PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT, LULZ" attitude and we need to see major public transportation projects.

San Diego's public transport likes to put these joke stickers on all the buses that say something to the effect of "Voted best public transport in California!", which is really hilarious considering that the bus stops are few and far between and the buses are always late. If it's so mediocre down here, and it's "the best", what is like in North Cali?

I really think more cities should start to build up instead of building out. It's very, very easy to get around efficiently using public transport in my birth city because it is very compact.

[Reeve]

All funding from carbon tax used to fund global birth control initiatives!!! if only...
Carbon tax isn't much different from tobacco taxes... you use the money to lower it's use (funding white roofs in the southeast, better insulation, LED's, renewable energy), and the tax itself makes people lower their use. And the alternatives become more competitive.

I like the public transit idea as well, both within urban-suburban and across the US. Really, we have an organizational/city planning issue because we've had "cheap gas" for so long, where commuting in a car long distances has been economical and acceptable.

If you don't redistribute the tax among the people afterwards, it would have a cooling effect on the economy. And if you're taxing carbon, people will be motivated on their own to paint their roof white, since the less money they spend on electricity, the bigger their net cut of the redistribution money.

[Kantalope]

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-pavemen...pollution.html

This needs to be a thing. Raise carbon tax on fuel, use tax money to install this stuff.

The article says this helps to degrade NO, not carbon-based pollutants.

[Gheld]

San Diego's public transport likes to put these joke stickers on all the buses that say something to the effect of "Voted best public transport in California!", which is really hilarious considering that the bus stops are few and far between and the buses are always late. If it's so mediocre down here, and it's "the best", what is like in North Cali?

I really think more cities should start to build up instead of building out. It's very, very easy to get around efficiently using public transport in my birth city because it is very compact.

The problem is, the HOA fees on condos are ridiculous. Rent is ridiculous in urban areas. etc. In the end it's more private and more cost effective to have an individual detached dwelling. There's literally no incentive to buy up. Condos are a lazy travelling business man's novelty.

[Reeve]

San Diego's public transport likes to put these joke stickers on all the buses that say something to the effect of "Voted best public transport in California!", which is really hilarious considering that the bus stops are few and far between and the buses are always late. If it's so mediocre down here, and it's "the best", what is like in North Cali?

I really think more cities should start to build up instead of building out. It's very, very easy to get around efficiently using public transport in my birth city because it is very compact.

San Francisco's MUNI system is awesome, as is BART and the Caltrain lines in the Bay Area. I used to always take the train up to SF from San Jose, and I would ride the city busses in SJ as a kid all the time. Now they even have a pretty good light rail system as well, though it's a bit pricey.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is, the HOA fees on condos are ridiculous. Rent is ridiculous in urban areas. etc. In the end it's more private and more cost effective to have an individual detached dwelling. There's literally no incentive to buy up. Condos are a lazy travelling business man's novelty.

The incentive to buy up is so that you don't have to live way out in the suburbs.

[Rukentuts]

Minnesota's light rail is a joke, mostly because an 8 year old playing Sim City is a better urban planner than the Met Council.

[Garnier Fructis]

The problem is, the HOA fees on condos are ridiculous. Rent is ridiculous in urban areas. etc. In the end it's more private and more cost effective to have an individual detached dwelling. There's literally no incentive to buy up. Condos are a lazy travelling business man's novelty.

Weeelllll, you get a great view of the rest of the city.

[Netherspark]

As far as greenhouse gasses go, Carbon is nowhere near the worst, and largely serves as a scapegoat so businessess and governments can look like they're trying to do something good by cutting emissions.. but cutting Carbon emissions is barely going to help. Carbon itself isn't 'as bad' as many would believe; much of it is absorbed by plantlife, and also stimulates the growth and spread of plantlife, which in turn absorbs more carbon and provides more oxygen.

Among the worst emissions by far are Methene and water vapour - these are the emissions that we need to cut. In the bigger picture, carbon is pretty irrelevent compared to these.

[Gheld]

San Francisco's MUNI system is awesome, as is BART and the Caltrain lines in the Bay Area. I used to always take the train up to SF from San Jose, and I would ride the city busses in SJ as a kid all the time. Now they even have a pretty good light rail system as well, though it's a bit pricey.

- - - Updated - - -



The incentive to buy up is so that you don't have to live way out in the suburbs.

Except most people either can afford to A. rent a shanty little energy inefficient apartment in some old "character building." because they can't overcome the initial costs to purchase a house, or B. if they ever save up that down payment they buy some older, energy inefficient detached house because it's what they can afford because thanks to the magical of capitalism condos are disposable 1%er housing. Nobody stands up and says "I'M GOING TO BUILD A SHANTY APARTMENT BUILDING.". They begin their lives as pricey condos for rich travelling businessmen.

But my point is for the vast majority of the population, thanks to the magic of gentrification there is no choice on where to live.

It's drive-to-qualify or shanty apartments.

[Reeve]

As far as greenhouse gasses go, Carbon is nowhere near the worst, and largely serves as a scapegoat so businessess and governments can look like they're trying to do something good by cutting emissions.. but cutting Carbon emissions is barely going to help. Carbon itself isn't 'as bad' as many would believe; much of it is absorbed by plantlife, and also stimulates the growth and spread of plantlife, which in turn absorbs more carbon and provides more oxygen.

Among the worst emissions by far are Methene and water vapour - these are the emissions that we need to cut. In the bigger picture, carbon is pretty irrelevent compared to these.

Water vapor tends to condense and fall out of the sky when it reaches a certain density. That's not exactly an issue. Methane may be a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but it isn't produced in near the quantities that CO2 is, and isn't the driver of climate change.

[Gheld]

As far as greenhouse gasses go, Carbon is nowhere near the worst, and largely serves as a scapegoat so businessess and governments can look like they're trying to do something good by cutting emissions.. but cutting Carbon emissions is barely going to help. Carbon itself isn't 'as bad' as many would believe; much of it is absorbed by plantlife, and also stimulates the growth and spread of plantlife, which in turn absorbs more carbon and provides more oxygen.

Among the worst emissions by far are Methene and water vapour - these are the emissions that we need to cut. In the bigger picture, carbon is pretty irrelevent compared to these.

burning fossil fuels also releases water vapour. So reducing fossil fuel use wins again.

[Altrec]

That money you're talking about with the tobacco stuff is money that only people watching anti-smoking funding would notice. If you cut people's carbon tax rebate checks, you better believe they'd notice and raise a stink.



Why did the economy suffer for it? People have the same amount of money to spend in the end. Hell, the "average" person could change no behaviors and come out of it with no change whatsoever. Any money people don't spend on carboniferous goods would be spent instead on something else. You might put a few particularly dirty industries out of business when people look for alternatives, but then the alternative industries would rise instead. And how would we reduce the amount of tax collected during that time without also developing viable alternatives? The money that was being spent on dirty techs before has to go somewhere.

Because all of those alternative industries are more expensive right now which means everything is going to get more expensive, and all those extra taxes on fuel are going to have negative consequences for anyone that can't afford to buy a new car at the drop of a hat that allows them to avoid it. Also, how does the average person who doesn't change their behavior come out with no change whatsoever? If they are getting back the same amount in a rebate that they are putting in then there is never an incentive to switch, and even then the price of goods are going to go up because even if you had a viable alternative to diesel trucks companies are going to have to replace their entire fleet just to do it. I just don't see how it could work and not have people paying a lot more out of their pocket just to survive.

[Reeve]

Except most people either can afford to A. rent a shanty little energy inefficient apartment in some old "character building." because they can't overcome the initial costs to purchase a house, or B. if they ever save up that down payment they buy some older, energy inefficient detached house because it's what they can afford because thanks to the magical of capitalism condos are disposable 1%er housing. Nobody stands up and says "I'M GOING TO BUILD A SHANTY APARTMENT BUILDING.". They begin their lives as pricey condos for rich travelling businessmen.

But my point is for the vast majority of the population, thanks to the magic of gentrification there is no choice on where to live.

It's drive-to-qualify or shanty apartments.

Condos have that reputation in the US, of being something for the wealthy, but in much of the world, high rise apartments are for the middle or even lower middle class. Go check out Singapore or, hell, much of Europe. High rises aren't for the 1% wealthy elite around there.

[Gheld]

Condos have that reputation in the US, of being something for the wealthy, but in much of the world, high rise apartments are for the middle or even lower middle class. Go check out Singapore or, hell, much of Europe. High rises aren't for the 1% wealthy elite around there.

That's great and all, but the point is without MASSIVE social reforms, the happy fun gentrification dance in North America will continue. Average Americans/Canadians etc will continue to be forced out of dense urban areas, into a drive-to-qualify situation. To and from an older, energy inefficient house, with an older, bigger car that is less clean than it's modern counterparts.

- - - Updated - - -

^And to add to the drive-to-qualify point. The fact is carbon taxes are going to fuck that guy. Not the big corporations, because they are just going to find loopholes, because that's what they've always done.

[Reeve]

Because all of those alternative industries are more expensive right now which means everything is going to get more expensive, and all those extra taxes on fuel are going to have negative consequences for anyone that can't afford to buy a new car at the drop of a hat that allows them to avoid it.

Like I said, the tax has a 0 net impact on an average user immediately. It's only over time as society's usage improves that it would have a negative impact on the user if they didn't change their ways.

As for the expense of the alternatives, as usage of those alternatives goes up, prices will come down. You'll get economies of scale, better manufacturing techniques, better tech, etc as those techs become something people actually invest in.

Also, how does the average person who doesn't change their behavior come out with no change whatsoever? If they are getting back the same amount in a rebate that they are putting in then there is never an incentive to switch,

The "average" user would initially get back the same amount they put in if they change nothing, but they'd still be incentivized to change their behavior because people are incentivized by sticker prices for things. Besides, if they do change their behavior, they get MORE money. Bonus!

and even then the price of goods are going to go up because even if you had a viable alternative to diesel trucks companies are going to have to replace their entire fleet just to do it. I just don't see how it could work and not have people paying a lot more out of their pocket just to survive.

Price of goods goes up initially, offset by the tax rebates. As the companies start replacing their fleets to become more competitive than their competitors, those prices go down. Rebates follow, since tax receipts are lower, but that's OK because prices are lower too now.

- - - Updated - - -

That's great and all, but the point is without MASSIVE social reforms, the happy fun gentrification dance in North America will continue. Average Americans/Canadians etc will continue to be forced out of dense urban areas, into a drive-to-qualify situation. To and from an older, energy inefficient house, with an older, bigger car that is less clean than it's modern counterparts.

- - - Updated - - -

^And to add to the drive-to-qualify point. The fact is carbon taxes are going to fuck that guy. Not the big corporations, because they are just going to find loopholes, because that's what they've always done.

The drive-to-qualify guy may decide it's cheaper to live closer to work in the end. Since demand for closer housing would be going up, so would cheaper housing construction in those areas. Drive-to-qualify guy may decide it's a good idea to get a Ford Fiesta instead of a shitty Oldsmobile that makes 13 MPG. The whole point of this is to incentivize people to change their behaviors.

[Kujako]

Pretty sure the goal is to keep the planet comfortable for humans, not to save the planet from them.

"Earth Day" is really "Human Day."

Split the difference... kill half the humans.

[Pitkanen]

If you don't redistribute the tax among the people afterwards, it would have a cooling effect on the economy. And if you're taxing carbon, people will be motivated on their own to paint their roof white, since the less money they spend on electricity, the bigger their net cut of the redistribution money.

Well, economic strength is toast anyways unless we stop redistributing wealth towards those with the most capital. So maybe deal with both at the same time.

Expecting people to make bigger house improvements "because it benefits them" ignores the fact that most people fall into either the category of renter or too poor/in debt to make the major investment. Not all that long ago, I personally pondered the issue of whether I should buy an LED lightbulb to replace the burnout for my rental that I don't plan on staying in.

[Gheld]

The drive-to-qualify guy may decide it's cheaper to live closer to work in the end. Since demand for closer housing would be going up, so would cheaper housing construction in those areas. Drive-to-qualify guy may decide it's a good idea to get a Ford Fiesta instead of a shitty Oldsmobile that makes 13 MPG. The whole point of this is to incentivize people to change their behaviors.

The drive-to-qualify guy doesn't decide shit. That's my point. Because if he decided, he would live close to work. A new apartment building was built literally right across the street from my job. I looked into it. It would have cost half my monthly income for a cramped little 1 bedroom apartment there (Which is just a little bit more than the 30% that is recommended)

Have you never purchased a used car on a fixed income either? Again, you don't get to decide shit. You buy the car that is actually for sale that your instincts tell you isn't going to break down as soon as you sign the papers. It might be a honda crx, it might be a chevy caprice.

[Reeve]

Well, economic strength is toast anyways unless we stop redistributing wealth towards those with the most capital. So maybe deal with both at the same time.

Expecting people to make bigger house improvements "because it benefits them" ignores the fact that most people fall into either the category of renter or too poor/in debt to make the major investment. Not all that long ago, I personally pondered the issue of whether I should buy an LED lightbulb to replace the burnout for my rental that I don't plan on staying in.

Rental places would be more price competitive if they could reduce their carbon footprint though.

[Rukentuts]

My company has a Zimride competition this month, and carpooling is worth more points than biking or walking. We can start by fixing that.