It’s strange that it always comes down to Warmists requiring you change your whole life, usually by government mandates
Op-ed: The climate crisis demands a move away from car dependency
My nightmares about waves started the night our building flooded.
I was living in a commercial loft in Red Hook, Brooklyn, when Hurricane Sandy hit. None of us living in the squat, two-story cinder-block warehouse across the street from the cruise ship terminal took the mandatory evacuation order seriously
During Hurricane Irene the year before, we waded through the large puddle that formed on our corner, laughing at how scared we had been and how hard it was going to be to get all that masking tape off the windows we’d so carefully taped in giant asterisks.
I felt safe in a big city. Natural disasters were things experienced by people in the country, or other countries. This was New York City. We were protected.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, silly Elitist who thinks weather only happens Over There. But, because of a few experiences with weather
Just as the public health impacts of climate change are much more acutely experienced by poor and disabled people and Black and brown communities, the public health impacts of car dependency fall on the same populations with less power, fewer resources, and less reliable mobility access. People who live near highways or busy roads are exposed to air and noise pollution, the lack of pedestrian access and connectivity, and an increased risk of being hit by a car. Preserving car dependency does and will continue to perpetuate profound public health and access disparities. People who can’t drive and can’t afford to drive will continue to bear these substantial public health burdens so the status quo of easy car-based mobility can be preserved for those it’s working for.
Because of this, you must have your fossil fueled vehicles taken away. But, wait, what’s this?
This week I’m at a conference in northern Idaho surrounded by forests of half-dead and dried-out trees…
How’d you get there? Bike? Or, a fossil fueled airplane followed by a fossil fueled vehicle?
Our reliance on driving means that transportation is the leading cause of carbon emissions in the US. There’s an urgency to address this, but rather than entrenching us further into car dependency by promoting individual electric vehicle ownership, now is our chance to channel climate investments away from a mobility system based around driving. Among those for whom driving is accessible and affordable, a life with less driving may seem both unimaginable and inconvenient. But for those of us who can’t drive or can’t afford to, we are a living demonstration that it is possible. Relying on transit, walking, rolling and biking might not be safe or convenient yet, but with the scale of investments we are putting towards fighting climate change, we could make it a whole lot easier.
With the right housing, land use and transportation incentives we can retrofit our communities so it’s possible to get everywhere you need to go without driving. It’s an open question whether we value that inclusivity more than we value preserving the status quo.
If you want to live in like that, feel free. Otherwise, fuck right off, mind your own business, and stop trying to force your cult beliefs on everyone else.
this article is all lies. the dead trees are from the chemical spraying from aircraft.
Sucker
Hive dweller writes Op-Ed about how awesome living in a hive is and wants to force others into hives.
Who could have predicted this?
An old cherokee word applies. “Fuc’em”!!
Whether it’s gas, diesel or electricity (created by fossil fuel), it’s all the same.
How the CO2 scam got started is beyond me. An active volcano creates more CO2 in ONE DAY than the entire United States in a year. Not even mentioning it’s required for life on earth. We would all die without it. And if everybody knew CO2 made up 0.04% of the air we breath they would all know it’s a scam.
[…] Pirates Cove explains […]