D'Juhn Keep on 10/12/2009 at 22:23
Quote Posted by Namdrol
Yup, I bit too quickly and 'Toad even said, "many, not all"
He also said "cities"
If you're honestly trying to argue that US cities aren't more car-centred than European ones then I don't know what to say to you. Any arguments that come from this - the UK/France/wherever have food deserts too - while they have merit are away from your original objection.
A problem I find arguing this is that I live in London. North London to be a little more precise. I honestly don't know what it's like living in the Scottish highlands or in suburban Coventry but even in the worst parts of where I live there's a huge fucking Tesco within a mile or 2. And no matter how much I might complain about the buses not running on time, they are not prohibitively expensive.
Quote Posted by DDL
Regarding the "do as I say, don't do as I do", it's a non-argument.
What do you even mean by this? The only point is that hypocrisy is really annoying
DDL on 10/12/2009 at 23:46
I guess my point is more that they're trying to fix shit, rather than "set an example": they're not trying to set up legislation for carbon usage by millionaire politicians, because there aren't that many millionaire politicians. There ARE a shitload of mindless faceless chumps, though, so the net CO2 output of them is a far more important target.
I get a bit annoyed by all the "they should be setting an example" stuff, tbh. Mostly because I suspect half the idiots who spiel it off are the kind who would do EXACTLY what the millionaire politicians do, were the roles reversed.
But ultimately, if they're working to fix shit by legislating us chumps, I really couldn't give two shits if they're also snorting masses of china white off a high-carbon hooker while burning stuff, because in the grand scheme of things, that'll make next to no difference. Being a politician is a pretty shitty job, and tends to attract those who want power for power's sake, and the ability to do shit like snort coke off hookers. This is, by and large, a given (not necessarily a nice given, but a given). If they also want to do some good while they're there, then fuck's sake, let them get on with it.
So I suppose it could be perceived as hypocrisy, because (being politicians) they always say "We have to reduce our output of X", but honestly, you know they actually mean you have to reduce it...and to be honest, they're basically right.
Sorry if this makes not enough sense: bit drunk, also more cynical than usual.
Namdrol on 11/12/2009 at 00:09
I was wrong to chuck in throw away snark as I know very little about European cities in general but that's a bit like CCCToad's original remark.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
This is also tied to another cause of American "gas pollution": our city design pretty much requires the use of cars to conduct daily business. Its a sharp contrast to Europe, where many(not all) cities are closely built enough to allow for people to do their daily grocery shopping and errands within walking distance.
I should have specified UK but I was having a dig at this "Europe is great" attitude that comes up a lot.
Painting a picture were the happy toiling natives do their errands while strolling through the pleasant land.
There seems to be a view that we live in a blissful ideal with a butchers and a grocer on every corner a short walk away. This is just not true.
Of course the States specifically built cities with the car in mind so I'd be a total fool to claim that European cities are as car centric as US ones but I would still stand by the fact that while maybe not the specific city design (remember Americans call towns, cities) requires car use, the social infrastructure of schools, post offices, shopping health demand it.
Our economy is dependant on road haulage and road traffic takes 88% of all freight including all the post.
And I would be surprised if even looking at Europe as a whole there was the "sharp contrast" purported by CCCToad, (especially when you look at the (
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con_percap-energy-oil-consumption-per-capita) per capita oil use, with Belgium and The Netherlands right up there)
North London, or in fact anything within the M25, is not a fair representation of the UK but it's circumstances are used to describe the UK as a whole.
Unlike in London, in most of the rest of the country, large housing estates are built on the edge of town with little or no local services and the only way to get anywhere is by car.
I would say that for the majority of people in the UK to have easy access to goods or services you need a car.
I can't see how this can be argued against and figures would back this argument up.
Muzman on 11/12/2009 at 01:54
Quote Posted by Fragony
Not so sure about that since your national congress picked this up, why would they do that if the global-warming theory is the one that is on the defense.
I just want to jump a few points ahead in case this comes up: remember, a percieved tyranny of the majority is not an argument for why the opposing side is correct.
Starrfall on 11/12/2009 at 02:07
Also the fact that we're starting to make progress now certainly doesn't mean that progress wasn't hindered in the past.
(
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/fiore/) Science stupid! Science lies!
Fragony on 11/12/2009 at 14:20
Even if CO2 is responsible for temperature rise, which I doubt, then men is still responsible for only 4 procent of CO2 output. What do you suggest we do about the remaining 96? Kill nature to save it?
zombe on 11/12/2009 at 14:30
Oh ... shut up brick!
Muzman on 11/12/2009 at 14:55
Kinda makes what we do with our 4% all the more important doesn't it.
(we have C02 denial, I suppose if I said 'what is causing the temperature rise then?' we'd get it's not rising, then if asked "what about these stats from all these different sciences?" we'd get 'can't be trusted. Some guy's email got hacked into after all'. Have we got Bingo yet?)
