17B life years could be saved if air pollution was reduced to WHO standards(tribunemag.co.uk)
tribunemag.co.uk
17B life years could be saved if air pollution was reduced to WHO standards
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/09/fossil-fuel-capitalism-is-cutting-our-lives-short
290 comments
> If I had a vote whether to ban combustion engines from my city (cars, trucks, mopeds, leaf blowers - everything), with a relatively short transition period (say 5 years), I'd be in favor.
Banning sales of internal combustion engine vehicles and products on a short timeline might be reasonable, but banning the operation of ICE vehicles is financially a very regressive policy.
Buying a new electric car to get to work might not seem like a big deal to professionals in six-figure jobs, but it would be a crushing blow to someone making $15/hr who plans to drive their Honda Civic until the wheels fall off.
Any actual policy decisions will need to focus on new car sales while also incentivizing people to upgrade to EVs. Maybe a cash-for-clunkers style program that takes ICE vehicles off the road and subsidizes the purchase of a new EV.
Outright banning ICE transportation is a no-go unless we have a plan to alleviate the financial burden a sudden change puts on the lower class vehicle owners. It can be done, but it would be expensive.
Banning sales of internal combustion engine vehicles and products on a short timeline might be reasonable, but banning the operation of ICE vehicles is financially a very regressive policy.
Buying a new electric car to get to work might not seem like a big deal to professionals in six-figure jobs, but it would be a crushing blow to someone making $15/hr who plans to drive their Honda Civic until the wheels fall off.
Any actual policy decisions will need to focus on new car sales while also incentivizing people to upgrade to EVs. Maybe a cash-for-clunkers style program that takes ICE vehicles off the road and subsidizes the purchase of a new EV.
Outright banning ICE transportation is a no-go unless we have a plan to alleviate the financial burden a sudden change puts on the lower class vehicle owners. It can be done, but it would be expensive.
That is pretty American focused. In developing countries, low end wages aren't enough to buy cars anyways, and the rich people clogging the roads can afford EVs. Even in the rest of the developed world, cars are much more of a luxury item, and ICE vehicles and/or gas to power them are already ladened with lots of taxes (so buying an EV in Norway can be cheaper than buying an ICE).
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the rich people clogged the road in developing countries, but we heavily depend on cars/motorcycles for our transportation. Poor people use them all the times (especially motorcycles). And people with low wages do take loans just to buy a cheap car/motorcycle, even way before buying a house since they provide immediate benefits with manageable monthly installments.
EDIT: It makes me think why there is not much push for electric motorcycles. Whenever EV is mentioned, it's always been a car.
EDIT: It makes me think why there is not much push for electric motorcycles. Whenever EV is mentioned, it's always been a car.
Cheap Chinese electric bikes and trikes aren’t a thing in your country?
> It makes me think why there is not much push for electric motorcycles. Whenever EV is mentioned, it's always been a car.
That simply isn’t accurate. Chinese electric scooters were common even back in 2008, they are pretty ubiquitous by now. Electric motorcycles aren’t common, but neither are gas powered motorcycles in that country. These aren’t the fancy “for play” motorcycles replacements or electric bikes that the west want, but are definitely work horses in developing countries.
> It makes me think why there is not much push for electric motorcycles. Whenever EV is mentioned, it's always been a car.
That simply isn’t accurate. Chinese electric scooters were common even back in 2008, they are pretty ubiquitous by now. Electric motorcycles aren’t common, but neither are gas powered motorcycles in that country. These aren’t the fancy “for play” motorcycles replacements or electric bikes that the west want, but are definitely work horses in developing countries.
A lot of places don't have electricity or paved roads...
They don’t have paved roads, but they still have electricity. I stayed in a place in China off the grid on a trip (it was on a mountain in the Tibetan part of Sichuan), they still had electricity via a water wheel. When the water wheel was knocked out of alignment, the electricity went off.
A lot of off the grid solutions for electricity, getting regular gasoline shipments to those locations is much more of a challenge.
A lot of off the grid solutions for electricity, getting regular gasoline shipments to those locations is much more of a challenge.
Vehicle ownership, including gas powered motorcycles, is extremely common in many countries. I’m not sure why you think it’s an American thing, because it’s definitely not.
“Developing countries” is a broad category, but it’s certainly not the case that they’re free of vehicles except for rich people driving around in expensive cars.
“Developing countries” is a broad category, but it’s certainly not the case that they’re free of vehicles except for rich people driving around in expensive cars.
Gas powered motor scooters are being replaced by electric bicycles even before ICE cars are being replaced by EVs. In China, that transition is largely complete, and is happening in SEA and South Asia at a reasonable clip. See for example https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/paving-way-elect...
Here is another article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-04-20/hyperd..., quote:
> The second reason is that two-wheelers are going electric faster than any other segment of road transport. BNEF’s latest estimates put 2020 electric two-wheeler sales at over 25 million. That’s about 35% of sales globally, far ahead of passenger cars where EVs are still only around 5% of sales.
Although the issue with that statistic is probably because China has banned gas powered scooters (other developing countries are still catching up).
I predict that Electric scooters will long replace gas powered ones in developing countries before EV cars replace ICE cars. It’s kind of an economic no brainer given how cheap they are.
Here is another article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-04-20/hyperd..., quote:
> The second reason is that two-wheelers are going electric faster than any other segment of road transport. BNEF’s latest estimates put 2020 electric two-wheeler sales at over 25 million. That’s about 35% of sales globally, far ahead of passenger cars where EVs are still only around 5% of sales.
Although the issue with that statistic is probably because China has banned gas powered scooters (other developing countries are still catching up).
I predict that Electric scooters will long replace gas powered ones in developing countries before EV cars replace ICE cars. It’s kind of an economic no brainer given how cheap they are.
> Vehicle ownership, including gas powered motorcycles, is extremely common in many countries.
And I bet that the countries with cheap, polluting vehicles are those with lower life expectancy.
And I bet that the countries with cheap, polluting vehicles are those with lower life expectancy.
A large part of that will be correlation. Thailand has bad pollution from agriculture burning and some reallyy nasty car pollution. It looks like their life expectancy is very close to the US while other countries like the Phillipines with less pollution have significantly worse life expectancy. So you can't just chalk it up to one factor and think these countries would be better off if you suddenly took away all their gas powered vehicles - they wouldn't.
EVs are going to transform the developing world, in conjunction with solar/wind/storage solutions.
The EVs will be small motorcycles, e-bikes, scooters, etc. You get the EV with a 100 mile range, you already have a (used) panel. The small EVs can be quickly recharged because they are small (or battery swaps, which are far more feasible on e-bike/e-scooters).
Starlink or cell towers provide the internet.
As stated in the article, air quality will increase substantially.
Unfortunately global warming will disrupt everyone's fundamentals: water and food.
The EVs will be small motorcycles, e-bikes, scooters, etc. You get the EV with a 100 mile range, you already have a (used) panel. The small EVs can be quickly recharged because they are small (or battery swaps, which are far more feasible on e-bike/e-scooters).
Starlink or cell towers provide the internet.
As stated in the article, air quality will increase substantially.
Unfortunately global warming will disrupt everyone's fundamentals: water and food.
Why do you need to buy a car to go to work?
I see this thinking as a main problem. Cities are being built around cars, workplaces are being built around cars and etc. Banning ICE vehicles could be a step into transforming cities to be more people friendly, more kid friendly, more community friendly.
There are places in the world were cities were not built around cars. You take a train (or any other kind of public transport) to go to work, or you take a bike. Or you walk.
I see this thinking as a main problem. Cities are being built around cars, workplaces are being built around cars and etc. Banning ICE vehicles could be a step into transforming cities to be more people friendly, more kid friendly, more community friendly.
There are places in the world were cities were not built around cars. You take a train (or any other kind of public transport) to go to work, or you take a bike. Or you walk.
Buying a new car is even a big deal to many professionals in six-figure jobs. And not every vehicle category has a realistic EV or electric bike equivalent yet.
I'm all for aggressive policies to encourage the change, but like you, I don't think outright bans are going to be doable in the short term.
I'm all for aggressive policies to encourage the change, but like you, I don't think outright bans are going to be doable in the short term.
[deleted]
Whenever I see these pictures, I am happy not to live in a city.
The "Smog over Los Angeles" photo is from the 1970's or 1980's. Most younger folks in the US don't realize this, but pollution here is WAY down from a few decades ago. Our air is cleaner, out rivers and lakes are cleaner. Hell, even the sides of roads are cleaner.
More to the point, people in rural areas pollute far more per person than people living in cities. We need to end rural subsidies to stop encouraging people to live in rural areas.
More to the point, people in rural areas pollute far more per person than people living in cities. We need to end rural subsidies to stop encouraging people to live in rural areas.
When I read a comment like that, I am happy I don't live in a city.
I live in rural Washington and there's a ton of trash on the side of the road. There are also a ton of huge polluting trucks, many of which are intentionally modified to blow extra thick smoke ("roll coal").
Amen.
In most countries you could take public transport to work.
A lot of pollution has to do with local ICE vehicles lack cat converters or usage substandard cat converters. Same with fossil power plants, most will not use scrubbers.
You’d probably have much faster results mandating them and retrofitting cars.
Changeover to EV will take decades.
You’d probably have much faster results mandating them and retrofitting cars.
Changeover to EV will take decades.
>
Outright banning ICE transportation is a no-go unless we have a plan to alleviate the financial burden a sudden change puts on the lower class vehicle owners. It can be done, but it would be expensive.
Public transport, dedicated cycling infrastructure, and planning policies aiming for the "15 minute neighbourhood" are what you're looking for.
Public transport, dedicated cycling infrastructure, and planning policies aiming for the "15 minute neighbourhood" are what you're looking for.
A full rollout of those ideas would take decades. I'd love to see all of them happen, but you can't just force someone to get rid of their ICE car and promise they'll have good public transit and a walkable neighborhood come 2035.
In many parts of the world good public transport already exists, and had existed for decades. An inability to build good public transport in cities seems to be a uniquely American problem.
I could certainly see cities like London banning ICE cars within their centres within 5 years, without much impact on poorer individuals. It’s already financially prohibitive to drive into the centre due to the congestion charge, and most people would consider it insane to drive due to traffic, and the fact that public transport is about twice a quick.
I could certainly see cities like London banning ICE cars within their centres within 5 years, without much impact on poorer individuals. It’s already financially prohibitive to drive into the centre due to the congestion charge, and most people would consider it insane to drive due to traffic, and the fact that public transport is about twice a quick.
> just force someone to get rid of their ICE car and promise they'll have good public transit
In the US, we are so far away from "forcing" people to get rid of ICE cars that the very concept is ludicrous. What we instead force is ownership of ICE cars, and it's nearly impossible to live without one because we have banned, via law, the land use that would allow a person even the option of living without a car.
As somebody who advocates for the mere legalization of car-free land use, I am frequently accused of forcing others to get rid of their car, or of being exclusionary, for merely proposing the possibility.
People in the US are somewhat sick in the head when it comes to cars, and need to at least let the huge population of people who don't want to be subjected to the violence and pollution from cars to live that way. The contrast between Paris, which great expanded non-car options during the pandemic, and a car-addicted city like San Francisco which can't even convert a lightly used beach highway into a bike and walkway, is massive.
The US must change drastically, but the drastic change is to allow people to ditch their cars, not force them.
In the US, we are so far away from "forcing" people to get rid of ICE cars that the very concept is ludicrous. What we instead force is ownership of ICE cars, and it's nearly impossible to live without one because we have banned, via law, the land use that would allow a person even the option of living without a car.
As somebody who advocates for the mere legalization of car-free land use, I am frequently accused of forcing others to get rid of their car, or of being exclusionary, for merely proposing the possibility.
People in the US are somewhat sick in the head when it comes to cars, and need to at least let the huge population of people who don't want to be subjected to the violence and pollution from cars to live that way. The contrast between Paris, which great expanded non-car options during the pandemic, and a car-addicted city like San Francisco which can't even convert a lightly used beach highway into a bike and walkway, is massive.
The US must change drastically, but the drastic change is to allow people to ditch their cars, not force them.
You'd also need solutions for deliveries, in-person shopping, timely commutes, and other things that transit and cycling don't solve.
Even many neighborhoods designed to be 100% walkable and pedestrian-first make affordances for delivery vehicles and similar. Those vehicles can and should be electric, but cycling and transit still aren't at all complete substitutes.
Even many neighborhoods designed to be 100% walkable and pedestrian-first make affordances for delivery vehicles and similar. Those vehicles can and should be electric, but cycling and transit still aren't at all complete substitutes.
> timely commutes
Billions of people seem to have worked out how to do this on bicycles and public transport.
Billions of people seem to have worked out how to do this on bicycles and public transport.
One of the big differences I’ve observed between the USA and Europe is the way cities are zoned: I didn’t realise until I actually went to America that SimCity 2000 is somewhat realistic with regard to Californian city design.
By comparison, my residential building here in Berlin has a restaurant and a café on the ground floor, a business office on the first floor, and the rest is residential, and even the parts of the city with houses rather than apartment blocks do similar things horizontally rather than vertically: house, house, kebabs, five houses, small supermarket, three houses, office.
Similarly in the UK, you’ll have domestic resistances above or next to shops and pubs and offices. Or next to (I’ve never seen them above) industrial buildings: workshops, factories, etc.
By comparison, my residential building here in Berlin has a restaurant and a café on the ground floor, a business office on the first floor, and the rest is residential, and even the parts of the city with houses rather than apartment blocks do similar things horizontally rather than vertically: house, house, kebabs, five houses, small supermarket, three houses, office.
Similarly in the UK, you’ll have domestic resistances above or next to shops and pubs and offices. Or next to (I’ve never seen them above) industrial buildings: workshops, factories, etc.
In person shopping for groceries is solved by walking in many large European cities. If you rely on street parking, the shop is likely not much further than your car anyways.
Commutes can also be faster by public transit than by car, especially if start and destination are in the same city.
Delivery vehicles and trucks are probably the most difficult, but they're also major contributors to the noise and stink.
Commutes can also be faster by public transit than by car, especially if start and destination are in the same city.
Delivery vehicles and trucks are probably the most difficult, but they're also major contributors to the noise and stink.
So not only are you taking their transport away you’re forcing them to move home/buy a new house and forcing them to find a new job.
Bloody hell, that’s a massive change.
yes, you can't solve these problems with tiny band-aids, it requires significant structural changes. People have to live and act differently. My observation of the US from the outside is that this kind of adaption is next to impossible and would be unpopular. The timescales needed compared to the election cycles means politically it's near impossible without very widespread support. It seems it will require actual disaster scenarios to instigate change, even then, the US seems really slow to adapt. So I'm expecting that we will see slow piecemeal measures that are more palatable to the populace.
> I expect pollution to be as much of a driver of the push for electric cars as climate change. It's something that affects people directly, immediately and noticeably - it stinks.
Ya, this is why I expect China to follow through with their EV plans much more thoroughly than the USA. Global warming is abstract, but bad dirty air is a very concrete motivator. For that reason, urban in the states with bad air pollution like LA or Salt Lake City should be big into this also (though bad in the USA is 100+ 2.5 PPM, whereas in China it is 300+ 2.5 PPM).
Ya, this is why I expect China to follow through with their EV plans much more thoroughly than the USA. Global warming is abstract, but bad dirty air is a very concrete motivator. For that reason, urban in the states with bad air pollution like LA or Salt Lake City should be big into this also (though bad in the USA is 100+ 2.5 PPM, whereas in China it is 300+ 2.5 PPM).
There might be better bang for the buck by starting with the more highly polluting things. Other than CO2, things like leaf blowers are _vastly_ worse than cars. Also, excellent electric leaf blowers are widely available and appear (at least at my local Home Depot) to be _less_ expensive than their gas equivalents. I see no reason for a 5-year phaseout — one year ought to be plenty.
I’m from europe and i have no idea what a leaf blower is. Our family didn’t have one nor did any family I know of. My family always had a garden with trees, and it was often my chore as a kid to rake the leaves together. Is the leaf blower an alternative to that?
Just asking because I want to understand how prevealent this form of polution is where you live.
Just asking because I want to understand how prevealent this form of polution is where you live.
I've lived in a few different places, and mostly really only encountered leaf blowers either for some larger scale work like cleaning up leaves on a university campus, or for cleaning debris from parking lots.
I've recently moved to an area with single family or attached homes on small lots, and inexplicably, everyone has a leaf blower. Most houses have a driveway and parking area, and about 10 square feet of lawn, but for some reason all the guys are out blowing leaves around... I'm supposing there must be pockets where culturally that's what people do, I certainly don't get it
I've recently moved to an area with single family or attached homes on small lots, and inexplicably, everyone has a leaf blower. Most houses have a driveway and parking area, and about 10 square feet of lawn, but for some reason all the guys are out blowing leaves around... I'm supposing there must be pockets where culturally that's what people do, I certainly don't get it
Yes, it blows leaves. It's also quite obnoxiously loud, so there's noise pollution as well.
I’m also ”from Europe”, and I’ve seen leaf blowers used by both private individuals and local government for the last 15 years at least. Did I see it to the extent that it was ”_vastly_ worse than cars” in terms of pollution? No, not even close. But it’s been there.
Depends where you are in Europe. In France they’re commonly used by town employees to blow stuff off roads. I wish they’d just use brooms
Leaf blowers are much more efficient though. They're not just using them because they're loud and polluting, they're using them despite those attributes, because they easily quadruple a person's effectiveness with regards to moving large amounts of leaves on a flat surface.
If you’re on gravel or sand I agree, leaf blowers are way better. But honestly on Asphalt they seem less effective than a big wide broom.
Yes and leaf blowers were not a common sight in America until the late 80s. How did we get through life before then?
Less efficiently. You can get by without leaf blowers, you just need more people and it takes longer. You can get by without computers, you just need more people and it takes longer. You can get by without machines, you just need more people and it takes longer.
We tend to favor things that are more efficient, and it's hard to go back, because the citizenry won't be happy if you tell them your plans of quadrupling the work force and raising taxes accordingly.
We tend to favor things that are more efficient, and it's hard to go back, because the citizenry won't be happy if you tell them your plans of quadrupling the work force and raising taxes accordingly.
Less machines, less maintenance, less pollution, less taxes.
> I’m from europe and i have no idea what a leaf blower is
They love the stuff in Ireland. I have no idea why people use it. It doesn't do much better of a job than a rake would. It's completely stupid
They love the stuff in Ireland. I have no idea why people use it. It doesn't do much better of a job than a rake would. It's completely stupid
> It doesn't do much better of a job than a rake would
That's disingenuous. Raking the yard is a half-day chore for me, that's fairly physically strenuous. Using a leafblower takes like an hour and is really easy- you can stand and point. A leafblower is a non-zero QoL improvement if you have to deal with leaves
That's disingenuous. Raking the yard is a half-day chore for me, that's fairly physically strenuous. Using a leafblower takes like an hour and is really easy- you can stand and point. A leafblower is a non-zero QoL improvement if you have to deal with leaves
Real question: why rake the yard? The road I understand, but what's wrong with just letting the leaves decompose and enrich the soil?
Leaves kill the grass. You want the grass to get light through the fall.
Just mow the leaves once or twice. Grass gets the light, and the leaves get decomposed more easily.
ok? how is that an environmentally better option than using a leaf blower?
It sounds like you have a massive yard. I can’t imagine having to spend more than 20mins raking a standard garden.
Is this a new thing? I’m Irish and never seen a leaf blower in my life (other than one used by a professional groundskeeper).
If you have a large property with tons of trees it is WAY more efficient than a rake
A leaf blower is how you move in the air when flying hooked up to a bunch of balloons:
https://readingasawriterhome.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/rus...
https://readingasawriterhome.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/rus...
>There might be better bang for the buck by starting with the more highly polluting things. Other than CO2, things like leaf blowers are _vastly_ worse than cars.
You also need to multiply that effect by how many cars are active versus how many leaf blowers are active. On a per-household basis, you might be racking up 1.5 car-hours per day:
You also need to multiply that effect by how many cars are active versus how many leaf blowers are active. On a per-household basis, you might be racking up 1.5 car-hours per day:
(2 commuters × 30 minute average commute × 2 commutes per day × (5 working days in each 7 day week) + some arbitrary amount to account for weekend/non-commuting trips
They need not be mutually exclusive - we can do both, and we should.
Pfft. Cars are way more polluting. For starters, they require removing huge amounts of land to pave over with roads.
This might be a hard sell. ICE lawn equipment might be slightly heavier, but it also performs much better in my experience.
Total run time and emitted particulate matters, do you actually have reason to believe the total output of lawn equipment is comparable to vehicle output?
Total run time and emitted particulate matters, do you actually have reason to believe the total output of lawn equipment is comparable to vehicle output?
From trustworthy wikipedia: "A 2011 study found that the amount of NMHC pollutants emitted by a leaf blower operated for 30 minutes is comparable to the amount emitted by a Ford F-150 pickup truck driving from Texas to Alaska. The two-stroke engines used in most leaf blowers operate by mixing gasoline with oil, and a third of this mixture is not burned, but is emitted as an aerosol exhaust. These pollutants have been linked to cancer, heart disease, and asthma," cited with https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/emissions-test-... and https://www.wsj.com/articles/leaf-blowers-are-loud-ugly-and-...
Ah, you're right. I remember seeing these ages ago, I wonder how I forgot. There's 4-stroke lawnmowers though, how bad are they?
I've had an electric lawn mower for about 10 years now and I can tell you that it has reduced my maintenance costs. For the ICE mower, I had to take it in every spring or every other spring to get it tuned up so it would start (from memory those bills were ~$75 each tune up).
Same with the ICE snowblower that I bought back when I was young and dumb seeing all my neighbors with one, so I bought one - what a maintenance nightmare. I use snow shovels now which are way better for the environment and my health.
Same with the ICE snowblower that I bought back when I was young and dumb seeing all my neighbors with one, so I bought one - what a maintenance nightmare. I use snow shovels now which are way better for the environment and my health.
My neighbor has one, but I think he often uses more time working on it than with it. I've considered one, but honestly, it's just my driveway and I'm (still) relatively young so I can shovel for now.
> ICE lawn equipment
If you are going to ban one thing, why not just ban lawns ;-p
Although to support your point, “Quantification of the environmental and economic benefits of the electrification of lawn mowers on the US residential market”[1] abstract says “Gasoline-powered lawn mowers and garden equipment [in the USA are] accounting for a quarter of all non-road gasoline emissions.”.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-021-01917-x
I inherited a large lawn mower which I use for the overgrown uneven driveway. I could replace the mower with a weed whacker, however that would then take many hours longer (for a chore I really hate doing and do as little as possible!) I hate the noise but it works. An equivalent electric mower would be completely unaffordable for me.
I thought the majority of PM2.5 emissions was due to two-stroke engines?
The only two-stroke device I own is a chainsaw. I wanted to get a battery powered chainsaw, but they are at least 3 times the price. I also own a mains powered electric chainsaw, but an extension cord is frustrating, and only reasonable to use within tens of metres from a house.
If you are going to ban one thing, why not just ban lawns ;-p
Although to support your point, “Quantification of the environmental and economic benefits of the electrification of lawn mowers on the US residential market”[1] abstract says “Gasoline-powered lawn mowers and garden equipment [in the USA are] accounting for a quarter of all non-road gasoline emissions.”.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-021-01917-x
I inherited a large lawn mower which I use for the overgrown uneven driveway. I could replace the mower with a weed whacker, however that would then take many hours longer (for a chore I really hate doing and do as little as possible!) I hate the noise but it works. An equivalent electric mower would be completely unaffordable for me.
I thought the majority of PM2.5 emissions was due to two-stroke engines?
The only two-stroke device I own is a chainsaw. I wanted to get a battery powered chainsaw, but they are at least 3 times the price. I also own a mains powered electric chainsaw, but an extension cord is frustrating, and only reasonable to use within tens of metres from a house.
A good old scythe is much faster than a weed whacker for larger areas. Once you get the hang of it, it's not much slower than a lawn mower. It's good excersize too.
Interesting. I think my parents have one I could use - I will try to remember to give it a go. However I don’t have a flat lawn: instead I have verges/edges with stones, holes, and fences, so maybe less useful for my case.
I assume you'd cut around the fences. Once you get the hang of it, a scythe is quite precise.
Stones can be difficult if they're tall enough and everywhere. Otherwise you'd just make sure to keep the blade higher than the stones.
Stones can be difficult if they're tall enough and everywhere. Otherwise you'd just make sure to keep the blade higher than the stones.
Completely agree. It's not even close! The scythe (when used by an experienced mower) can knock out twice the area as a weed wacker can in the same amount of time, without the noise, smell, most of the maintenance hassle, and it runs on breakfast or lunch.
In my leafy European country it was extremely rare to see them, and if one did, it was electric.
I just realized is it possible that Germany or at least Berlin has restrictions wrt. leaf blowers?
I basically never see them used on private property, only by the BSR (~berlin cleansing department) and even then it's not something I see often??
Time to google.
I basically never see them used on private property, only by the BSR (~berlin cleansing department) and even then it's not something I see often??
Time to google.
Turns out they are so loud that:
- You are not allowed to use them on Sunday or holidays.
- On other days only between 9:00-13:00 and 15:00-17:00, with exceptions for official street cleaning, industrial only areas etc. (Which I guess explain why I normally not seeing them and if then when used by the BSR ;=) )
- You are not allowed to use them on Sunday or holidays.
- On other days only between 9:00-13:00 and 15:00-17:00, with exceptions for official street cleaning, industrial only areas etc. (Which I guess explain why I normally not seeing them and if then when used by the BSR ;=) )
Yup, they are absolutely atrocious. They also have lots of low-frequency noise that travels really far, and it hard to sound-proof against. I used to live in an apartment that was about 200 feet from a shopping center, and I could hear/feel the leaf blowers that were used instead of sweeping the storefront. And because they had a non-residential zoning, they could use the leaf blowers at 2 AM.
[deleted]
How long do you run your leaf blower for a year? In the UK, I don't know a single person with a gas powered leaf blower.
I lived in Berlin for a year and literally can't go to big cities anymore. The pollution triggers my asthma to the point I have continuous attacks despite taking all the medication I can responsibly take. Thankfully my home town is far less polluted, but even there my asthma is being triggered. I had a meltdown after having an attack _from opening my window for 30 minutes_. I can't imagine how terrible it must be for people without easy fallback options.
I had a similar situation with London. Ironically I moved to California as the new annual fires started.
California was much worse in the 70s/early 80s, where it wasn't forest fires but car exhaust and power plants causing dirty air. A lot of my older friends who grew up in the two big California metro areas have asthma. They cleaned up the air by the late 80s, but now forest fire season is a huge problem instead.
I highly recommend N95 masks against forest fires from personal experience.
Interestingly, I found the air in Berlin to be much cleaner (easier to breathe, etc.) than it was where I was living in the United States. I found out that the pollution standards for cars in Europe are, by and large, much stricter than elsewhere.
However, on certain days, various tree pollens make the air almost unbreathable, even to someone without allergies or asthma.
However, on certain days, various tree pollens make the air almost unbreathable, even to someone without allergies or asthma.
I get hay fever, and I moved to a location with reliable onshore breezes. The move has definitely helped reduce the problem, although I still get hay fever on days when the wind comes from the rural inland, and there are days I can’t go into town because of pollen (for example Silver Birch trees).
If your asthma is seasonal, then try and find out the source(s)?
If your asthma is seasonal, then try and find out the source(s)?
I have chronic bronchial asthma, and it has gotten worse three times now. Unfortunately there isn't much I can do but get a new treatment plan whenever that happens.
I remember my first trips to Europe. I was from a suburban (although not connected to an urban center) town in the Midwest USA. After a few days in the city my eyes were red and itchy. Took me a bit to figure out it wasn't allergies to something new... it was just the vehicle exhaust.
The smell of diesel exhaust still makes me think of London, Paris... etc. Somehow that imprinted on me. They're actually good memories, but just an unusual spell to associate them with.
The smell of diesel exhaust still makes me think of London, Paris... etc. Somehow that imprinted on me. They're actually good memories, but just an unusual spell to associate them with.
I lived in cities all my life, until two years ago when I moved to the very green suburbs of Budapest.
Now, Whenever we go to the city, I notice how much it stinks.
It's so weird because I never noticed that before. My nose for used to "clean" hair now. And I don't even live away from the road.
I'd like to move even more into the woods.
Now, Whenever we go to the city, I notice how much it stinks.
It's so weird because I never noticed that before. My nose for used to "clean" hair now. And I don't even live away from the road.
I'd like to move even more into the woods.
This might depend on which city you refer to. For example, I wouldn't say that Stockholm has any discernable smell to it.
Stockholm is built on islands that helps, and the rains are not frequent but heavy enough to clean the city a bit, waste management is good. Thera are also fewer people are active in the center of Stockholm compared to Paris; Stockholm 5 214 pop/km², Paris 20 909 pop/km² (this disregards important factors about how those numbers work, but it's an interesting indication.)
I notice it's worse in cities with extremely dense urban cores, like NYC. There was a distinct smell (not just garbage, but something I basically call 'the NYC smell' in my head) in many parts. Other cities never seemed quite so bad; at least not bad enough I can still remember that smell.
I've never been to NYC, but I've heard that waste management infrastructure is not great there. Could that be contributing to bad smells?
Maybe Stockholm has plenty of wind? Big cities tend to stink. Didn't bother me until my 30s, now I can barely tolerate the smell, not just the fact that it kills us.
But hey, people want cars. Lots of dirty but cheap cars. Almost nobody seems to care. It's just the nature of living in a poor country I guess.
But hey, people want cars. Lots of dirty but cheap cars. Almost nobody seems to care. It's just the nature of living in a poor country I guess.
Stockholm isn't particularly windy.
I think cars generally contribute to bad smells, and poor waste management infrastructure can also contribute to bad smells (think garbage bins out on streets instead of enclosed, for example)
I think cars generally contribute to bad smells, and poor waste management infrastructure can also contribute to bad smells (think garbage bins out on streets instead of enclosed, for example)
It's situated on an archepilago in the Baltic sea. Sure, it might be less windy than other coastal cities, but Stockholm is far windier than cities in-land.
Stockholm has tolls to reduce road congestion though. The place was definitely smellier back in the 90's.
Stockholm has tolls to reduce road congestion though. The place was definitely smellier back in the 90's.
I get this after I spend a few days at my parents' house and go back to Paris, and they live only 50 km away.
I feel this quite strongly since I get around by motorcycle, so I don't have the benefit of filters and whatnot that cars have.
Whenever I do this, I keep wondering what the lungs of people commuting every day look like, since I get a dry cough even when traffic isn't all that dense.
I feel this quite strongly since I get around by motorcycle, so I don't have the benefit of filters and whatnot that cars have.
Whenever I do this, I keep wondering what the lungs of people commuting every day look like, since I get a dry cough even when traffic isn't all that dense.
> I feel this quite strongly since I get around by motorcycle, so I don't have the benefit of filters and whatnot that cars have.
Are there no helmets with integrated filters? Perhaps something like the Stormtrooper’s helmets? If not, wonder if someone should come up with those..
Are there no helmets with integrated filters? Perhaps something like the Stormtrooper’s helmets? If not, wonder if someone should come up with those..
it depends on where.
Milan, albeit much smaller, is times worse than Rome.
Paris and London are another example of big offenders, while Barcelona is not.
Milan, albeit much smaller, is times worse than Rome.
Paris and London are another example of big offenders, while Barcelona is not.
Yeah I've found the amount of wind places get influences this a lot.
The difference in pollution between electric and ICE cars might be small, since most pollution is so-called "Non-exhaust emissions", like road surface wear, tyres and brakes:
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-...
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-...
From link > [We] performed some initial tyre wear testing. Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles.
That is 5.8kg per 1000km!!! An article that makes such ridiculous claims can be dismissed as trash. A small car tire weighs about 7kg[1], so absolutely no tyres or brakes left after less than 10000km.
Also note the the vast majority of tyre particles are larger than 50um.
By weight, I would guess less than 1% of wear by weight was < PM10 - see graph[2] from the first paper I found that measured tyre wear[3].
Edit: I'm not saying tyre and brake particulate doesn't matter, but I am saying that link looks to be solidly in the stupid camp.
[1] https://www.oponeo.co.uk/blog/how-much-does-a-tyre-weigh
[2] https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0301679X203019...
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03016...
That is 5.8kg per 1000km!!! An article that makes such ridiculous claims can be dismissed as trash. A small car tire weighs about 7kg[1], so absolutely no tyres or brakes left after less than 10000km.
Also note the the vast majority of tyre particles are larger than 50um.
By weight, I would guess less than 1% of wear by weight was < PM10 - see graph[2] from the first paper I found that measured tyre wear[3].
Edit: I'm not saying tyre and brake particulate doesn't matter, but I am saying that link looks to be solidly in the stupid camp.
[1] https://www.oponeo.co.uk/blog/how-much-does-a-tyre-weigh
[2] https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0301679X203019...
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03016...
"Data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory indicate that particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport, and will become more dominant in the future."
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1...
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/1...
So I'm not saying that website isn't trash (it definitely looks dodgy), but the particles being emitted could mainly come from the asphalt and not the tyres. Though this seems unlikely as tyres are much softer
Electric cars use their brakes far less. If you play around with the regenerative breaking you can handle 90% of situations without ever touching the brakes
And your article is only talking about local particulate pollution, let’s not forget the bigger issue of CO2
And your article is only talking about local particulate pollution, let’s not forget the bigger issue of CO2
ICEs use friction brakes.
Electric (and hybrid) vehicles normally use regenerative brakes, and friction brakes only as a backup system.
Electric (and hybrid) vehicles normally use regenerative brakes, and friction brakes only as a backup system.
> It would probably initially drive up prices of goods due to a shortage of electric delivery vehicles or the need to repack everything onto smaller local trucks outside the city, but I think it'd be worth it.
There was a decade where we often ate plain white rice exclusively, as it was all we could afford. Even a small jump in prices would have increased the number of days where we couldn't afford any food at all.
Many, many folks are in similar situations. I feel we should factor them into these equations.
There was a decade where we often ate plain white rice exclusively, as it was all we could afford. Even a small jump in prices would have increased the number of days where we couldn't afford any food at all.
Many, many folks are in similar situations. I feel we should factor them into these equations.
Plus getting enough chargers, and upgrading old homes & grids to support that is expensive. I think we should spend a BIG chunk of a (hopefully passed) reconciliation bill on that instead of expanding highways.
I feel like this is an argument in favor of broader social safety nets, not against pollution prevention.
Exhaust isn't the only car pollution. There's also tire and brake wear. But I'm not sure which is worse at this point.
I think we should collectively focus on priorities.
Replacing flights below a thousand kms with trains and limit road transport to a bare minimum and switch what's left to EVs (or hybrids) would have a big impact already, while also being economically sustainable.
After all companies in the GDO are among the largest and most profitable in the World.
Most cabs are already hybrid even here in Italy that historically resist to changes. The TCO is already lower than ICEs.
An immediate ban on ICE vehicles would only affect the pockets of the low income segment of the population.
The big chunk of pollution comes from vehicles running continuously, commuters use their cars to go to work and go back home.
Replacing flights below a thousand kms with trains and limit road transport to a bare minimum and switch what's left to EVs (or hybrids) would have a big impact already, while also being economically sustainable.
After all companies in the GDO are among the largest and most profitable in the World.
Most cabs are already hybrid even here in Italy that historically resist to changes. The TCO is already lower than ICEs.
An immediate ban on ICE vehicles would only affect the pockets of the low income segment of the population.
The big chunk of pollution comes from vehicles running continuously, commuters use their cars to go to work and go back home.
> I think we should collectively focus on priorities.
Nobody operates that way though. Too much discussion of public policy seems to be oriented around "if only 'we' could just..." rather than "How can policy align selfish motivations with positive outcomes?"
Example: despite the rhetoric you'll find on Twitter, practically everyone who got the COVID vaccine did so because they didn't want to get seriously ill from COVID themselves, not because they really care that much about people they don't know.
Similarly, "we" will not be adopting more train travel any time soon unless there's a very compelling reason for individuals to do so. Train travel in North America mostly sucks.
Nobody operates that way though. Too much discussion of public policy seems to be oriented around "if only 'we' could just..." rather than "How can policy align selfish motivations with positive outcomes?"
Example: despite the rhetoric you'll find on Twitter, practically everyone who got the COVID vaccine did so because they didn't want to get seriously ill from COVID themselves, not because they really care that much about people they don't know.
Similarly, "we" will not be adopting more train travel any time soon unless there's a very compelling reason for individuals to do so. Train travel in North America mostly sucks.
> despite the rhetoric you'll find on Twitter, practically everyone who got the COVID vaccine did so because they didn't want to get seriously ill from COVID
slightly off topic, but I'll tell you that my main drive to get a vaccine was because if I got covid it would mean be stuck home in quarantine and avoid contacts.
Of course I would have done it anyways because I believe in vaccines and all that, but incentives are an angle that should be explored by rule makers.
GDO is a big polluter, let's tackle that issue before flooding the city centers with electric scooters that solve nothing and will be abandoned when they are not a novelty anymore and the cold season will knock on the door.
p.s. I live in Europe, Italy, and trains are quite good for long distances, unless you live south of Naples, and I've stopped flying from Rone to Milan 10 years ago. Unfortunately high speed trains are not exactly cheap, but not more expensive than flying.
slightly off topic, but I'll tell you that my main drive to get a vaccine was because if I got covid it would mean be stuck home in quarantine and avoid contacts.
Of course I would have done it anyways because I believe in vaccines and all that, but incentives are an angle that should be explored by rule makers.
GDO is a big polluter, let's tackle that issue before flooding the city centers with electric scooters that solve nothing and will be abandoned when they are not a novelty anymore and the cold season will knock on the door.
p.s. I live in Europe, Italy, and trains are quite good for long distances, unless you live south of Naples, and I've stopped flying from Rone to Milan 10 years ago. Unfortunately high speed trains are not exactly cheap, but not more expensive than flying.
> practically everyone who got the COVID vaccine did so because they didn't want to get seriously ill from COVID themselves, not because they really care that much about people they don't know. > nobody
Are you just sharing your opinion? What country?
I know that in New Zealand plenty of people are getting the vaccine because they care about their parents or grandparents. Or they care about others, such as children under 12 that can’t get vaccinated. I also care about my 40 year old friend with diabetes. I care about my friend with a baby that needed hospitalisation for RSV, which teaches the right fear to us all. Anyone in their social circle that doesn’t get vaccinated is a loaded gun. Anecdote: one friend who I expected to be deeply anti-vax due to reading mostly US sourced crap, is getting the vaccine to protect her step-mum: in a more antivax social environment I might expect her to have said no.
We don’t have as much fear-mongering in NZ, and there are fewer people acting selfishly from what I can tell. Ones risk of catching COVID in NZ is extremely low at present, so selfishly one could decline vaccination without much difference to ones risk.
Currently we have 66% of eligible population vaccinated, and the rate of vaccination doesn’t seem to be slowing down yet due to hesitancy. The limitation on vaccinations in NZ here is getting access to doses, which is clear from the graph here: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/...
Are you just sharing your opinion? What country?
I know that in New Zealand plenty of people are getting the vaccine because they care about their parents or grandparents. Or they care about others, such as children under 12 that can’t get vaccinated. I also care about my 40 year old friend with diabetes. I care about my friend with a baby that needed hospitalisation for RSV, which teaches the right fear to us all. Anyone in their social circle that doesn’t get vaccinated is a loaded gun. Anecdote: one friend who I expected to be deeply anti-vax due to reading mostly US sourced crap, is getting the vaccine to protect her step-mum: in a more antivax social environment I might expect her to have said no.
We don’t have as much fear-mongering in NZ, and there are fewer people acting selfishly from what I can tell. Ones risk of catching COVID in NZ is extremely low at present, so selfishly one could decline vaccination without much difference to ones risk.
Currently we have 66% of eligible population vaccinated, and the rate of vaccination doesn’t seem to be slowing down yet due to hesitancy. The limitation on vaccinations in NZ here is getting access to doses, which is clear from the graph here: https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/...
To add some figures:
“For example, one study using data collected between June-July 2020 found that the most common reasons New Zealanders would be vaccinated were to protect themselves (62%) and their family (62%), to avoid getting seriously ill (52%), and to feel safe around other people (51%). People were less likely to report they would get the vaccine because their doctor recommended it (23%).”
From https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6...
“For example, one study using data collected between June-July 2020 found that the most common reasons New Zealanders would be vaccinated were to protect themselves (62%) and their family (62%), to avoid getting seriously ill (52%), and to feel safe around other people (51%). People were less likely to report they would get the vaccine because their doctor recommended it (23%).”
From https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6...
In a narrow sense I strongly agree, but more generally, I think this is impossible without reversing the neoliberal slide and massively increasing the welfare floor — look at the Yellow Vests in France.
Couldn't you move instead of forcing all your neighbors to bend to your wishes?
I suspect most of my neighbors don't own cars either, simply based on available parking vs. the number of apartments.
Electric cars still create large amounts of pollution. The number one cause of micro plastics near waterways is from car tyres. Then manufacturing and mining pollution.
It’s a awful idea to replace all cars with electric cars.
It’s a awful idea to replace all cars with electric cars.
[deleted]
It seems that most thoughts seems to go towards transportation if we banned internal combustion from the city, but to me my first thoughts goes to power and heating. It would be interesting to see some number of how much of air pollution in cities comes from traffic and how much comes from other uses of internal combustion.
It will have to be done at some point. It's also an unjust policy to leave these ice vehicles riding around because not everybody is allowed to drive but everybody suffers the loss of life due to pollution. Before there was no alternative, but now there is one there is ample justification for a ban.
> If I had a vote whether to ban combustion engines from my city (cars, trucks, mopeds, leaf blowers - everything), with a relatively short transition period (say 5 years), I'd be in favor.
Said by someone who has never been poor.
Said by someone who has never been poor.
Unfortunately banning ICE vehicles is only part of the story. A major health risk in cities is fine particulates caused by tire and road wear. Switching the entire ICE vehicle fleet over to EVs would eliminate pollution from combustion but have no effect on tire/road wear particulates.
I consider myself more of a climate lukewarm-er than full on my panic alarmist but I can agree on the less pollution for our world the better. My worry is more about the anthropocene than GW. I think tech will fix the latter but we have absolutely destroyed the environment
Your city would collapse, and the new jobless and homeless would torch it. Electric vehicles are far too expensive, and always will be. They're luxury cars for comparatively wealthy privileged people. Everyone else has a 20 year old gasoline car that still runs.
This is all due to American cities passing the bill down and never building proper robust public transportation. Now you can't because thousands of business's are in the way, and the wealthy like being in their private little car.
This is all due to American cities passing the bill down and never building proper robust public transportation. Now you can't because thousands of business's are in the way, and the wealthy like being in their private little car.
Also a huge win for noise pollution.
Electric cars still create pollution due to breaking and tire wear.
Most hybrids are cheaper and overall more sustainable than fully electric cars. The vast majority of trips are.less.than 50 miles, so mining 300 miles.worth of more battery ends up causing a lot of pollution and a fresh disposal problem.
Hybrids with 50 mile electric range and ICE after are much better options. Minimizes pollution at source and point of use. All while being monetarily affordable.
Hybrids with 50 mile electric range and ICE after are much better options. Minimizes pollution at source and point of use. All while being monetarily affordable.
I am not sure it affects people as directly as you claim, at least not everywhere. I can see that argument in Los Angeles or Mumbai, but not in Seattle or Portland, where the air is fine and there’s no “stink” even with people mostly using combustion engines.
Politely disagree. I ride a bicycle as a means of transportation around Seattle and the exhaust from vehicles is so unpleasant that it makes me consider either not going out, or also driving a vehicle instead to get around.
Further, it's just unpleasant to be trying to enjoy a walk around the city; or being anywhere near a road and then having the jarring experience of being surrounded by a plume of fumes. They stink & they're terribly unhealthy to inhale. And even when you're not noticing them acutely, they're probably wading into your lungs at some degree as long as you're within X distance from a road. I think cities would be much more pleasant without them.
Further, it's just unpleasant to be trying to enjoy a walk around the city; or being anywhere near a road and then having the jarring experience of being surrounded by a plume of fumes. They stink & they're terribly unhealthy to inhale. And even when you're not noticing them acutely, they're probably wading into your lungs at some degree as long as you're within X distance from a road. I think cities would be much more pleasant without them.
I also bike and walk around the city alongside driving, and have almost never smelled or seen a “plume of fumes”. Vehicles today emit very little human-detectable pollution. These aren’t dirty two stroke engines like on a leaf blower, but heavily regulated and incredibly advanced engines. The only times I can think of when I’ve seen a problem is when the rare vehicle (like an older semi) is emitting dark clouds of smoke, which is atypical. I’ve also eaten at many outdoor dining setups that are in the parking lane of a road with motor vehicles and neither I nor those with me thought it to be unpleasant. It feels to me like the imagery you’re drawing (“plume of fumes”) is hyperbole. What am I missing here? Do you have video of what you’re describing or some other way to help me understand?
I don't know what to tell you if you say that you bike around the crowded city streets of Seattle and you have never smelled vehicle exhaust. I in particular do not have a very keen sense of smell and hardly a minute goes by without having to hold my breath to wait for a plum of fumes to disseminate. Yes, I would agree that the plumes are not visible, but that is not what I'm claiming. Just because they are not visible does not mean they are not affecting our health.
It would also financially cripple any poor person that relies on a car to get to work. And public transportation won't be viable in the US until cities finally wrap their head around the reality that you need basic security checkpoints at entrances to discourage riff raff from getting in (like in China).
If you've ever ridden BART, you know what I mean.
If you've ever ridden BART, you know what I mean.
> And public transportation won't be viable in the US until cities finally wrap their head around the reality that you need basic security checkpoints at entrances to discourage riff raff from getting in (like in China).
It seems like you're in SF. The bad experiences you have had there do not generalize to all other cities. I've lived in several US and foreign cities that have safe public transit without security checkpoints. Omnipresent security forces shouldn't be necessary if other city and state services are functional.
It seems like you're in SF. The bad experiences you have had there do not generalize to all other cities. I've lived in several US and foreign cities that have safe public transit without security checkpoints. Omnipresent security forces shouldn't be necessary if other city and state services are functional.
US cities I've been to:
East Coast city 1: no light rail, buses come every 45min
East Coast city 2: no light rail, buses come every 30-45min, but at least they were free
West Coast city 1: no light rail, buses come every 45min and cost $$$ if you want to take an express route
SF Bay Area: BART is a disaster, CalTrain only works well during peak hours and only if you live in the Peninsula. I literally watched a group of 2 teenagers hop the fare gates, get on, then get off the station before the fare checkers got on. Every station smells like piss and most of the ones in SF proper have shit in them too. BART East Bay -> Fremont/SJ is easily a 2 hour ride because the train moves at sub-30mph in residential areas.
Chicago: Trains still move pretty slowly but don't have piss and shit all over them at least. From what I can tell, buses are also not viable for reasonable transportation. Boston: Decent trains in most of the downtown/Cambridge area, but suburbs were pretty much a non-starter.
In comparison:
Shanghai/Beijing: security checkpoints at subway entrances, getting on/off trains is orderly and trains are clean. Trains run fast because authorities don't care about making too much noise, so you aren't better off driving because the train was running at 25mph. Trains come every 5mins or more often. You can get across the city in under an hour.
For the US cities that had light rail, the issues were clearly not due to lack of funding but due to NIMBYism limiting speeds and a refusal to enforce any level of security (in the case of SF). I bet you can get BART to come every 5 mins instead of every 20mins with the same number of trains if you 4x'd the speed to 80-100 mph. BART already does over that speed in long stretches like the Bay tunnel or the long stretches in Fremont so it's not like this requires any sort of re-engineering.
East Coast city 1: no light rail, buses come every 45min
East Coast city 2: no light rail, buses come every 30-45min, but at least they were free
West Coast city 1: no light rail, buses come every 45min and cost $$$ if you want to take an express route
SF Bay Area: BART is a disaster, CalTrain only works well during peak hours and only if you live in the Peninsula. I literally watched a group of 2 teenagers hop the fare gates, get on, then get off the station before the fare checkers got on. Every station smells like piss and most of the ones in SF proper have shit in them too. BART East Bay -> Fremont/SJ is easily a 2 hour ride because the train moves at sub-30mph in residential areas.
Chicago: Trains still move pretty slowly but don't have piss and shit all over them at least. From what I can tell, buses are also not viable for reasonable transportation. Boston: Decent trains in most of the downtown/Cambridge area, but suburbs were pretty much a non-starter.
In comparison:
Shanghai/Beijing: security checkpoints at subway entrances, getting on/off trains is orderly and trains are clean. Trains run fast because authorities don't care about making too much noise, so you aren't better off driving because the train was running at 25mph. Trains come every 5mins or more often. You can get across the city in under an hour.
For the US cities that had light rail, the issues were clearly not due to lack of funding but due to NIMBYism limiting speeds and a refusal to enforce any level of security (in the case of SF). I bet you can get BART to come every 5 mins instead of every 20mins with the same number of trains if you 4x'd the speed to 80-100 mph. BART already does over that speed in long stretches like the Bay tunnel or the long stretches in Fremont so it's not like this requires any sort of re-engineering.
How do any of these complaints support the need for "security checkpoints"? A city lacking a subway system altogether does not support your statement that transit systems need security checkpoints to keep out the "riff raff." The two things aren't even related to each other. Furthermore there are many clean and efficient systems in Europe that don't even have turnstiles, let alone security checkpoints.
Aside from your complaints about the BART, everything you've catalogued here either reflects a lack of investment, or the old age of US subway systems as compared to the newer transit systems in Asia. Chicago and Boston's subway systems are among the very oldest subway systems in the world. They both began operation in the 1890s. Shanghai's subway system opened in the 1990s. It's also convenient that NYC, home to one of the world's very largest subway systems, didn't make your list, but Shanghai and Beijing did. Finally, it's not necessarily a good thing that authorities in China "don't care about making too much noise." NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people.
The US needs more investment in public transit. There's no arguing that. But your suggestion that "security checkpoints" are necessary to have good transit just isn't true.
EDIT: The Boston suburbs are served by an extensive rail system. You may have missed it because it runs as a separate line from the main subway. Here's a map: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/2020-02-com...
Aside from your complaints about the BART, everything you've catalogued here either reflects a lack of investment, or the old age of US subway systems as compared to the newer transit systems in Asia. Chicago and Boston's subway systems are among the very oldest subway systems in the world. They both began operation in the 1890s. Shanghai's subway system opened in the 1990s. It's also convenient that NYC, home to one of the world's very largest subway systems, didn't make your list, but Shanghai and Beijing did. Finally, it's not necessarily a good thing that authorities in China "don't care about making too much noise." NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people.
The US needs more investment in public transit. There's no arguing that. But your suggestion that "security checkpoints" are necessary to have good transit just isn't true.
EDIT: The Boston suburbs are served by an extensive rail system. You may have missed it because it runs as a separate line from the main subway. Here's a map: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/2020-02-com...
I've not been to NYC, so it obviously didn't make my list.
> clean and efficient systems in Europe that don't even have turnstiles
Europe also doesn't have a rampant property crime and homelessness issue on the scale of the Bay Area. We can argue about whether this is because of the lack of safety net, but SF spends over $50k per homeless person on aid and is _the_ worst in the nation in homelessness so clearly there are multiple factors at work here.
> NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people
At some point the needs of millions of commuters outweigh the desires of the few thousand residents living along a train route. A high speed electric light rail is no louder than a freeway and we already have lots of those. The issue with the current American system is that local citizens have _too_ much power in comparison to slightly less local people who may live a 20min drive away. For example, constructing new housing is obviously going to lower the price of rent, which would benefit everyone currently renting or in the market for a house. But it would screw over existing homeowners, so it's blocked even though it causes rampant inequality and homelessness.
You know commuters who don't live next to you are also part of the people that live in your city? Just because they vote in a different district doesn't mean their lives aren't hugely impacted by your NIMBYism.
> clean and efficient systems in Europe that don't even have turnstiles
Europe also doesn't have a rampant property crime and homelessness issue on the scale of the Bay Area. We can argue about whether this is because of the lack of safety net, but SF spends over $50k per homeless person on aid and is _the_ worst in the nation in homelessness so clearly there are multiple factors at work here.
> NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people
At some point the needs of millions of commuters outweigh the desires of the few thousand residents living along a train route. A high speed electric light rail is no louder than a freeway and we already have lots of those. The issue with the current American system is that local citizens have _too_ much power in comparison to slightly less local people who may live a 20min drive away. For example, constructing new housing is obviously going to lower the price of rent, which would benefit everyone currently renting or in the market for a house. But it would screw over existing homeowners, so it's blocked even though it causes rampant inequality and homelessness.
You know commuters who don't live next to you are also part of the people that live in your city? Just because they vote in a different district doesn't mean their lives aren't hugely impacted by your NIMBYism.
> Shanghai/Beijing: security checkpoints at subway entrances, getting on/off trains is orderly and trains are clean.
But the lines to get on can be a PITA. Eg. waiting in line for 45 minutes to get on the subway in Beijing at Liangmaqiao is a horrible experience. I'll take the piss smell in the USA to that. Actually, the security check waits in Beijing subway was the main reason I transitioned quickly to taking a taxi to and from work. (see https://www.thatsmags.com/beijing/post/20938/photos-increase..., not my personal experience, but I've experienced similar in the interchange at Dongzhimen).
But the lines to get on can be a PITA. Eg. waiting in line for 45 minutes to get on the subway in Beijing at Liangmaqiao is a horrible experience. I'll take the piss smell in the USA to that. Actually, the security check waits in Beijing subway was the main reason I transitioned quickly to taking a taxi to and from work. (see https://www.thatsmags.com/beijing/post/20938/photos-increase..., not my personal experience, but I've experienced similar in the interchange at Dongzhimen).
> I literally watched a group of 2 teenagers hop the fare gates, get on, then get off the station before the fare checkers got on
Wow… what a dystopia!
More seriously, is this really a huge issue? You can see that all day long in Paris, it doesn’t stop the transport system from being OK
Wow… what a dystopia!
More seriously, is this really a huge issue? You can see that all day long in Paris, it doesn’t stop the transport system from being OK
Teens are relevant here mostly as a test of the system’s ability to exclude. A system excluding people sounds a little mean, but it is important if you want to have a transit system that is actually fit for transit.
When there’s a homeless man shooting up with some drugs on the narrow platform at Bleecker St while a crowd of people try to get off the train and get out of there without tripping or provoking a confrontation, and that’s “normal” for the city subway, the people may decide the system is no longer fit for transit. Fortunately that’s still “slightly extraordinary” for NYC and not quite “normal” (I only saw him once) but it’s all very unfortunate.
When there’s a homeless man shooting up with some drugs on the narrow platform at Bleecker St while a crowd of people try to get off the train and get out of there without tripping or provoking a confrontation, and that’s “normal” for the city subway, the people may decide the system is no longer fit for transit. Fortunately that’s still “slightly extraordinary” for NYC and not quite “normal” (I only saw him once) but it’s all very unfortunate.
Replace 2 teenagers with "homeless guy that shit himself" or "criminals" [1] and you have a different story. If you have proper security this sort of class of behavior is entirely prevented.
[1]: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-5...
[1]: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-5...
Just a thought, but maybe a social safety net would be more effective in preventing the homeless from getting into the kind of state where they do that? Rather than more security. Just thinking laterally about the problem here..
We can do both at the same time. We can help the homeless and also prevent people from shitting or littering in public transportation vehicles and on boarding platforms.
I think security checkpoints are the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
Yes, American public transport and city design does indeed suck — I am not an American, but I have visited for a total of 4 months, used public transport in NYC, Boston, Bay Area, and the SanFran-Davis-Sacremento line — but here in Berlin there aren’t even ticket barriers, and nothing particularly exciting happens here even from the homeless person[0] who begged on my pre-COVID commute. Some fairly fancy busking from time to time, but that’s the peak of excitement.
[0] I assume. Just one person, recognised their practiced speech. Might have been selling German equivalent to the Big Issue for all I know, as they didn’t really get in the way of anyone.
Yes, American public transport and city design does indeed suck — I am not an American, but I have visited for a total of 4 months, used public transport in NYC, Boston, Bay Area, and the SanFran-Davis-Sacremento line — but here in Berlin there aren’t even ticket barriers, and nothing particularly exciting happens here even from the homeless person[0] who begged on my pre-COVID commute. Some fairly fancy busking from time to time, but that’s the peak of excitement.
[0] I assume. Just one person, recognised their practiced speech. Might have been selling German equivalent to the Big Issue for all I know, as they didn’t really get in the way of anyone.
Berlin's public transport is pretty dirty though. If I had to live in Berlin, I'd get a car, even if it takes more time.
I realize everyone has a different threshold for what they consider dirty, and people voluntarily living in Berlin seem to have a much higher threshold than me, but yeah, I'd prefer some checks in exchange for clean & undamaged public transport.
I realize everyone has a different threshold for what they consider dirty, and people voluntarily living in Berlin seem to have a much higher threshold than me, but yeah, I'd prefer some checks in exchange for clean & undamaged public transport.
>> until cities finally wrap their head around the reality that you need basic security checkpoints at entrances
Sounds like you live in a "war zone". I don't know any place in Europe with that kind of security.
Sounds like you live in a "war zone". I don't know any place in Europe with that kind of security.
Yeah it's bad enough to deal with all that when flying. If this would come to the metro I'd never use it again. All we really have in terms of crime is pickpockets. Adding security will just make them operate more on the streets.
We don't have a totalitarian state here like China. That's a good thing.
We don't have a totalitarian state here like China. That's a good thing.
I'm not talking about the millimeter wave scanners TSA has where they make you take off your shoes and take out all your stuff. We're talking 1-2 officers who quickly glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector you walk through, similar to the security at a football game. It's more intended as security theatre by the presence of officers to discourage petty crime than to catch terrorists.
Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious enough.
Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious enough.
>> glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector
Why would you like transportation staff to treat you like a criminal?
>> Forcing criminals to move to the streets
Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals rather than to move them around?
Why would you like transportation staff to treat you like a criminal?
>> Forcing criminals to move to the streets
Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals rather than to move them around?
> Why would you like transportation staff to treat you like a criminal?
Because I accept that a slight inconvenience will lead to a much better riding experience. For example, Amtrak has aggressive fare checkers onboard (full pass of the train every few minutes) who will remove a lot of the type of people that cause disruptions. If you've already been checked, you have a ticket stub above your seat. Is it a coincidence that Amtrak trains are also very clean and have basically no crime? I feel comfortable using my phone on Amtrak without gripping it with two hands and constantly looking around me to prevent theft - I can't say the same about BART.
> Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals rather than to move them around?
SFBA cities' budgets are quantified in the billions. We can afford to work towards having less while simultaneously reducing the locations they have access to for committing crime.
Because I accept that a slight inconvenience will lead to a much better riding experience. For example, Amtrak has aggressive fare checkers onboard (full pass of the train every few minutes) who will remove a lot of the type of people that cause disruptions. If you've already been checked, you have a ticket stub above your seat. Is it a coincidence that Amtrak trains are also very clean and have basically no crime? I feel comfortable using my phone on Amtrak without gripping it with two hands and constantly looking around me to prevent theft - I can't say the same about BART.
> Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals rather than to move them around?
SFBA cities' budgets are quantified in the billions. We can afford to work towards having less while simultaneously reducing the locations they have access to for committing crime.
> We're talking 1-2 officers who quickly glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector you walk through, similar to the security at a football game. It's more intended as security theatre by the presence of officers to discourage petty crime than to catch terrorists.
So just for some security theatre I have to give up a lot of privacy, add to my travel time by waiting in a queue, pay a higher fare to pay for all these guys? I'm really glad we don't do this here.
I don't like people demanding to look in my bag, trying to frisk me or metal scanning (of course I have metal on me). It will make me feel less safe.
> Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious enough.
So then you have to deal with them when you come out of the metro :) It's only moving the problem. Better to make sure they don't have to steal by having a decent welfare system.
So just for some security theatre I have to give up a lot of privacy, add to my travel time by waiting in a queue, pay a higher fare to pay for all these guys? I'm really glad we don't do this here.
I don't like people demanding to look in my bag, trying to frisk me or metal scanning (of course I have metal on me). It will make me feel less safe.
> Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious enough.
So then you have to deal with them when you come out of the metro :) It's only moving the problem. Better to make sure they don't have to steal by having a decent welfare system.
Was going to comment the same. What kind of city would need that?
I'm always amazed at how people think their little part of the world is an accurate representation of reality.
I'm always amazed at how people think their little part of the world is an accurate representation of reality.
BART is uniquely bad in that respect. Significantly worse than other North American cities. Chalk it up to Bay Area dysfunction and inequality.
Used EVs will be relatively affordable soon and the total cost of ownership is significantly lower.
Used EVs will be relatively affordable soon and the total cost of ownership is significantly lower.
BART existing at all puts it ahead of the majority of cities in the US (for reference, per capita San Fansisco has the second most trips on public transit of any city in the US). New York is the only US city that has comparable public transit to international contemporaries.
Long decades of poor planing in the US (and in general the low population density) make it a place ill-suited to public transportation. EVs affordable enough for the poor will definitely be required here, so here’s hoping you’re right and we’ll reach that point soon.
Long decades of poor planing in the US (and in general the low population density) make it a place ill-suited to public transportation. EVs affordable enough for the poor will definitely be required here, so here’s hoping you’re right and we’ll reach that point soon.
>(and in general the low population density)
The low population density is arguably caused by the bad planning.
>make it a place ill-suited to public transportation.
I'm quite convinced that you will not be able to drive yourselves out of the issue you have in the U.S - you'll need to retrofit what you have to make it amenable to proper public transportation. EVs help a bit, but only really with the carbon dioxide-issue - everything else bad about cars is still bad with EVs.
The low population density is arguably caused by the bad planning.
>make it a place ill-suited to public transportation.
I'm quite convinced that you will not be able to drive yourselves out of the issue you have in the U.S - you'll need to retrofit what you have to make it amenable to proper public transportation. EVs help a bit, but only really with the carbon dioxide-issue - everything else bad about cars is still bad with EVs.
>EVs affordable enough for the poor will definitely be required here
Here in SW Ontario there are countless people riding those electric scooters or ebikes in the summertime. I’ve even seen old barflies hop on after drinking a pitcher and head on to the next spot. I’m sure the Bay Area has more clement weather year-round than here.
Here in SW Ontario there are countless people riding those electric scooters or ebikes in the summertime. I’ve even seen old barflies hop on after drinking a pitcher and head on to the next spot. I’m sure the Bay Area has more clement weather year-round than here.
I commuted to/from a train on an electric scooter. Not only are they just not viable for any trips longer than 3-4 miles, you can't go up any sort of incline either. Mine was "overclocked" to enable up to 500w of power and I'm 180lbs, but it wouldn't be able to climb even a 10 degree incline at over walking speed. And at least the consumer ones you can find on Amazon are not robust enough to withstand even 6 months of daily use before the tire wears out, battery terminals corrode, and screws start falling out.
I've used a normal bike and an e-bike and didn't have such issues.
$2k e-bikes are probably more robust than the $600 scooter I was riding and would definitely be my choice next time around. For anyone interested in e-scootering though, avoid the Segway ES series like hell and make sure you do your research.
Perhaps it puts them ahead, but they are coasting. BART and Muni ridership has for years been stagnant or declining, while the budgets explode and system speed and on-time performance fall apart.
Maybe Caltrain did marginally better? They added express services not that long ago.
Maybe Caltrain did marginally better? They added express services not that long ago.
> Used EVs will be relatively affordable soon
We're very far away from crossing under 30K, much less 10K
We're very far away from crossing under 30K, much less 10K
My LEAF cost a little over $30K brand new (before $10K in total rebates).
Used LEAFs (and Smart ED/EQs) are readily available in the $5K to $10K range.
Used LEAFs (and Smart ED/EQs) are readily available in the $5K to $10K range.
Used Chevy volt for 5-15k, it seems you can get a sub 10k electric car already?
A Volt is a hybrid, not a pure electric. (The Bolt is Chevy’s BEV.)
So what? If it drives a few 10s of miles without burning gas, if everyone used them, that would eliminate probably 90%+ of emission pollution in cities.
I feel that the obsession with pure electric has crippled the fight against pollution and CO2 emissions. Every car with 20 miles of battery range is probably a lot more impactful in the fight against climate change than 10% of cars with 200 miles of battery range, and has fewer major tradeoffs (cheaper, limited range/recharging is not an issue, much less need to build an entirely new charging infrastructure).
I feel that the obsession with pure electric has crippled the fight against pollution and CO2 emissions. Every car with 20 miles of battery range is probably a lot more impactful in the fight against climate change than 10% of cars with 200 miles of battery range, and has fewer major tradeoffs (cheaper, limited range/recharging is not an issue, much less need to build an entirely new charging infrastructure).
Upthread context is someone positing/supporting a total ban of all ICE in their city and someone arguing that’s disproportionately harmful to the poor because pure EVs are more expensive. In that context, it matters quite a bit that the Volt has an ICE, even though I overall agree with you on the Volt being environmentally beneficial.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504461
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504461
Even a hybrid is probably sufficient in this context.
Upthread context: “If I had a vote whether to ban combustion engines from my city (cars, trucks, mopeds, leaf blowers - everything), with a relatively short transition period (say 5 years), I'd be in favor.”
In that context, the Volt (and other hybrids, plug-in or not) would either be banned or be required to disable their ICE engines in the city.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504461
In that context, the Volt (and other hybrids, plug-in or not) would either be banned or be required to disable their ICE engines in the city.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504461
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
But EVs are really not perfect anyway.
People say why have two powerplants. The reason is to get rid of the (environmental impact of) 300 mile batteries.
90% of the time, 10% of the battery is enough.
From the page above:
"If you never miss a plane, you're spending too much time at the airport."
But EVs are really not perfect anyway.
People say why have two powerplants. The reason is to get rid of the (environmental impact of) 300 mile batteries.
90% of the time, 10% of the battery is enough.
From the page above:
"If you never miss a plane, you're spending too much time at the airport."
Indeed, and that was for the reason of ending emissions within a city. A poor person who commutes with one is likely (even though not guaranteed) to be using it over the sort of distance where the tiny battery is sufficient, so with regard to achieving that goal rather than that method, I think hybrids would probably be sufficient.
I agree that banning all ICE vehicles in 5 years is not a practical nor worthwhile goal to pursue.
It's in a weird space. It's kinda a pure electric.
These problems do not exist for much of the rest of the worlds public transportation systems.
The problem that San Francisco is facing, and that you should attempt to solve instead of spending energy on excluding already poor people from public transportation, is homelessness.
The problem that San Francisco is facing, and that you should attempt to solve instead of spending energy on excluding already poor people from public transportation, is homelessness.
In the least we need better surveillance of public spaces and facial recognition for (limited) use when a crime is involved. If criminals aren’t brought to justice and don’t face consequences, there is no deterrent and they’ll perform more crimes and bigger crimes. It is why BART escalated from isolated crimes to an entire train being raided by 50-60 robbers with no arrests (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bart-robbery-oakland-teens-stor...).
Imagine being exposed to some of the most vulnerable and desperate people in The United States and thinking “We should keep them out” instead of “We should help them.”
These are not incompatible thoughts though are they? One can think that we should help the homeless while also think that the public transport is not usable for their own usage while it also acts as a homeless shelter.
I’m not living in a city where this is a problem, so maybe my viewpoint is naive here. I want my tax to be spent on helping the homeless, even if that means that I have to pay more, and I also don’t want to sit next to someone on the bus who had no opportunity to wash in the last weeks. I don’t feel that these thoughts are in conflict.
I’m not living in a city where this is a problem, so maybe my viewpoint is naive here. I want my tax to be spent on helping the homeless, even if that means that I have to pay more, and I also don’t want to sit next to someone on the bus who had no opportunity to wash in the last weeks. I don’t feel that these thoughts are in conflict.
It’d be quite nice to help them. The SF budget certainly tries, though $50,000 for a tent is a little on the steep side.
“Free rein to abuse the subway system and its riders” is however a policy with very limited utility when it comes to helping people, and the costs are very high. Transit systems should keep them out insofar as they are not engaging in transit.
“Free rein to abuse the subway system and its riders” is however a policy with very limited utility when it comes to helping people, and the costs are very high. Transit systems should keep them out insofar as they are not engaging in transit.
imagine if we directed as much attention as covid is getting toward such a more insidious, and more tractable, problem like air (and water) pollution. we could really do something in a relatively short time (like 2-5 years). for instance, we could measurably reduce air pollution by replacing the top 25 most polluting power plants (coal). that might cost on the order of a 100 billion dollars, but that's less than 1% of america's gdp, nevermind the world's.
Improving our air will probably improve COVID survival rate.
One of the four main comorbidities contributing to covid death are cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and chronic respiratory disease.
One of the four main comorbidities contributing to covid death are cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and chronic respiratory disease.
Sounds like some good long term planning. But if Covid is the issue, isn’t it time to discuss the correlation between obesity and covid hospitalization? Sounds like in the short term, a war on obesity (sugar) would help more than anything.
Yes. Fighting obesity decreases the risk of cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
Although I consider fighting obesity more of a long term effort.
Although I consider fighting obesity more of a long term effort.
pollution kills slowly, and as a result is imperceptible to the public
covid hysteria is just getting started. years from now, decent people will lament that covid hysteria continues to suck all of the oxygen out of the room...and when they do, they will be cancelled
fifty years from now, no one will admit to having been part of the covid mobs...but for now, they rule the world
covid hysteria is just getting started. years from now, decent people will lament that covid hysteria continues to suck all of the oxygen out of the room...and when they do, they will be cancelled
fifty years from now, no one will admit to having been part of the covid mobs...but for now, they rule the world
> years from now, decent people will lament that covid hysteria continues to suck all of the oxygen out of the room...and when they do, they will be cancelled
Years from now, people will look back at 1M people in the US that unnecessarily died and marvel at just how inhuman people can be when subjected to political forces.
I only wish that current day leaders in the US will look at today's traitors to humanity with the same disdain that future generations will. Only then could we quash the sick disregard for human life that drives us apart.
Years from now, people will look back at 1M people in the US that unnecessarily died and marvel at just how inhuman people can be when subjected to political forces.
I only wish that current day leaders in the US will look at today's traitors to humanity with the same disdain that future generations will. Only then could we quash the sick disregard for human life that drives us apart.
Those power plants are in China. Good luck
The most carbon emitting plant is in Poland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%C5%82chat%C3%B3w_Power_Stat...
"The plant releases each year more carbon dioxide than the entire country of Switzerland."
"The plant releases each year more carbon dioxide than the entire country of Switzerland."
Here is a map of all coal-fired power plants in the United States: https://coal.sierraclub.org/coal-plant-map
ok now do China then compare the total output between them
Ok.
- Map of all coal power plants: https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
- Cumulative emissions by country: https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
> the United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date: at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of historical emissions
> this is twice more than China – the world’s second largest national contributor
This is not to downplay the serious and growing impact of China on global GHG emissions, just that casting coal as only a China problem is inaccurate and does not move us toward a solution.
- Map of all coal power plants: https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
- Cumulative emissions by country: https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
> the United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date: at around 400 billion tonnes since 1751, it is responsible for 25% of historical emissions
> this is twice more than China – the world’s second largest national contributor
This is not to downplay the serious and growing impact of China on global GHG emissions, just that casting coal as only a China problem is inaccurate and does not move us toward a solution.
Excellent. Now I would recommend looking at the rate of change for each country in recent years to see even more clarity.
It would be a lot easier to just make the point you are trying to make.
I thought I made a point
The fourth largest coal plant is in Taiwan.
So, 17B / 8B world population = 2 years. Nothing to sneeze at, but much more understandable in per person terms.
Two years unevenly distributed and with decreasing quality of life long before your time is up.
How would life-years be affected by economic and political changes needed to affect WHO standards and within what time frame?
See? It’s a hard problem. Humans are inherently chaotic.
See? It’s a hard problem. Humans are inherently chaotic.
Right, it's only looking at one part of the equation. You could also say it'd save 4 billion life-years worth of car accidents if we banned automobiles.
Air pollution is reduced by misty light rain. The process is called wet deposition. Swarms of electric drones could mist cities with water every morning to reduce air pollution. The technology should be feasible and economically justified.
Here’s a link about wet deposition.
https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focus-areas/environmen...
Here’s a recent example of misty rain at work in the Bay Area.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/pj12nx/a_labo...
Here’s a link about wet deposition.
https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/focus-areas/environmen...
Here’s a recent example of misty rain at work in the Bay Area.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/pj12nx/a_labo...
This is probably great for the humans involved, but it occurs to me that using misting to lower air pollutant levels while not actually reducing air pollution just means that we're dumping those pollutants into the watershed instead.
And the pollution is magically washed out if the environment?
Isn’t water vapor a significant GHG? Wouldn’t daily misting of cities augment the greenhouse effect significantly?
Not even close.
*Total* urban area in the world was around ~3.5M km^2 in 2010[0], or 1% of total ocean area. Daily evaporation dwarves anything a couple thousands of drones can do in the morning.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.UR.K2
*Total* urban area in the world was around ~3.5M km^2 in 2010[0], or 1% of total ocean area. Daily evaporation dwarves anything a couple thousands of drones can do in the morning.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.UR.K2
Shouldn’t it be measured against human GHG activity like transport and agriculture, and not standard operation of the planet whether we exist on it or not?
Please, I would love to convert my Jag to electricity. This is the future. But reality is that aside from tech sector, people cannot afford buying a new electric car. End countries from EU with high standard of living are not the example.
"Banning" cannot solve the problem.
Transportation is affecting prices of goods. There is no magic bullet. You cannot shut down economy like that.
I still don't understand why there is not global initiative for synthetic fuel. Only Porsche and Siemens are thinking clearly. We have a proven way to transit to electric cars and build adequate architecture.
I think the overlap of those who can afford a Jaguar and those who can afford an electric car is pretty great.
But I also think the overlap of those who can afford a Jaguar and absolutely don't give a shit about the poor, or the environment or anything else is also great.
And the latter is the problem.
But I also think the overlap of those who can afford a Jaguar and absolutely don't give a shit about the poor, or the environment or anything else is also great.
And the latter is the problem.
My Jag is second hand classic. I use it mainly in the summer for short trips. My daily is hybrid.
But this is not the point. The point is that we have to find a way to optimize ideas and legislation towards reality, not towards some dream world. Legislation or not, to have electrical infrastructure and accessibility in place, combined with synthetic fuel will solve the problem.
What do you mean by synthetic fuel? And why do you see it as necessary or more practical than electric vehicles?
The problem nowadays is that pragmatism and conservatism are a victim of popular propaganda and emotional overreactions.
My theory about this is based on economic and societal differences between countries.
In high developed countries, with functioning or semi-functioning social security systems, people can afford to think more liberally even in socialistic views.
For underdeveloped countries, especially Eastern Europe this way of thinking is form of luxury.
We have lived trough transformation from communistic regimes towards capitalism and payed the high price. Some of us emigrated and created something out of nothing. We are hardworking and ambitious and with this fight comes realistic and conservative view of the world.
https://www.bosch.com/stories/synthetic-fuels/
My theory about this is based on economic and societal differences between countries.
In high developed countries, with functioning or semi-functioning social security systems, people can afford to think more liberally even in socialistic views.
For underdeveloped countries, especially Eastern Europe this way of thinking is form of luxury.
We have lived trough transformation from communistic regimes towards capitalism and payed the high price. Some of us emigrated and created something out of nothing. We are hardworking and ambitious and with this fight comes realistic and conservative view of the world.
https://www.bosch.com/stories/synthetic-fuels/
> But reality is that aside from tech sector, people cannot afford buying a new electric car.
Here in the United States, EVs start around $24k. That's not nothing but it's half the price of the trucks and SUVs millions of people buy mostly for aesthetic reasons and, more importantly, it's about what the average car owner spends over a 2-3 year period when you include all of the costs: not just the vehicle but fuel, insurance, maintenance, parking — and those are just the direct costs, not including taxes, medical costs, and the higher prices everyone pays for housing and shopping in order to subsidize car users.
If that's a significant burden for anyone, it's far more cost effective to invest in transit, pedestrian, and bike infrastructure since those options are much cheaper and also healthier.
Here in the United States, EVs start around $24k. That's not nothing but it's half the price of the trucks and SUVs millions of people buy mostly for aesthetic reasons and, more importantly, it's about what the average car owner spends over a 2-3 year period when you include all of the costs: not just the vehicle but fuel, insurance, maintenance, parking — and those are just the direct costs, not including taxes, medical costs, and the higher prices everyone pays for housing and shopping in order to subsidize car users.
If that's a significant burden for anyone, it's far more cost effective to invest in transit, pedestrian, and bike infrastructure since those options are much cheaper and also healthier.
I'm looking for other studies considering this idea of "life years". Generally around where people's time is going, what is wasting it, or taking it away. Does anyone have any suggestions?
The determination of whether to proceed with medical intervention is usually done with a metric called quality adjusted life years (QALY: which is life years adjusted by quality of life), or rather they are never done if QALY is negative. And proceed to make a judgement call based on QALY/cost. As for studies, almost every cancer treatment study will use this metric as will _many_ other medical studies.
I really like Freeman Dyson's take on carbon dioxide:
"The most important fact in the history of the 21st century is that China and India, with about half of the world's population, are getting rich. To get rich in the next 50 years, they must burn prodigious quantities of coal and add big quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. China and India have a simple choice to make. Either they get rich and cause a major increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Or they stay poor. I hope they choose to get rich. The choice is theirs and not ours. Whatever we may choose to do will not make much difference. The discussions in Paris will not make much difference. The good news is that the main effect of carbon dioxide on the ecology of the planet has nothing to do with climate. The main effect of carbon dioxide is to make the planet greener, feeding the growth of green plants of all kinds, increasing the fertility of farms and fields and forests."
Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/03/freeman-dyson...
Also, I really recommend this Web of Stories interview (actually all of them in the playlist) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=848X64FXGp0&list=PLVV0r6CmEs...
"The most important fact in the history of the 21st century is that China and India, with about half of the world's population, are getting rich. To get rich in the next 50 years, they must burn prodigious quantities of coal and add big quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. China and India have a simple choice to make. Either they get rich and cause a major increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Or they stay poor. I hope they choose to get rich. The choice is theirs and not ours. Whatever we may choose to do will not make much difference. The discussions in Paris will not make much difference. The good news is that the main effect of carbon dioxide on the ecology of the planet has nothing to do with climate. The main effect of carbon dioxide is to make the planet greener, feeding the growth of green plants of all kinds, increasing the fertility of farms and fields and forests."
Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/12/03/freeman-dyson...
Also, I really recommend this Web of Stories interview (actually all of them in the playlist) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=848X64FXGp0&list=PLVV0r6CmEs...
Too bad that addressing the issue is once again political suicide.
Just replaced my air filter. Felt pretty bad about it...the cartridge is a mix of plastic and god knows what that seems unnecessarily robust and not eco friendly. Like the appliance itself in build quality. Normally I'd be impressed...but filters that destroy the environment because we destroyed the environments seem uhm not ideal
Paraphrasing the common saying: it's not the years, but the quality of the years.
I'd rather live a comfortable and happy life for fewer years than many more years of misery.
I'd rather live a comfortable and happy life for fewer years than many more years of misery.
How much resources / CO2 is needed to sustain 17B life years?
[deleted]
Recent events confirm that the only thing which has been reduced is the WHO's standards.
Should the title not be “Fossil Fuel Capitalism Is Cutting Our Lives Short”?
Never mind that billions of people are only alive because of fossil fuels, and it is so far not really proven that they can be kept alive without them. That kind of calculation seems rather silly.
You also gotta consider the reality that it is pretty clear that our current use is totally unsustainable, and pollution is just one of the downsides we are seeing.
Things aren't entirely good or entirely bad. It can both be true that fossil fuels have created great wealth in a variety of different ways, and is also systematically dooming our future in a variety of different ways. In fact, that is what the truth is.
Things aren't entirely good or entirely bad. It can both be true that fossil fuels have created great wealth in a variety of different ways, and is also systematically dooming our future in a variety of different ways. In fact, that is what the truth is.
Nevertheless the calculation of the article is complete bullshit. You can not claim "not using fossil fuels would save billions of lives" when you need fossil fuels to keep billions of people alive in the present moment. It just doesn't make sense.
Both of those statements can be true. That was the entire point I was trying to make. It's not bullshit. Both of those statements are true.
Interesting! Young adults are comfortable today. There’s infrastructure to support them. Would society survive with suddenly less efficient processes? Everyone needs to pay rent/food/products, but modern transport and manufacturing are suddenly not useable. So, how to source items to do work/survive? I’m sure one solution would be to relocate. Some cities/societies exist with less efficient processes.
For starters, modern food production relies on fertilizers produced with fossil fuels. See "the green revolution": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
quote: "associated with chemical fertilizers, agrochemicals, and controlled water-supply (usually involving irrigation) and newer methods of cultivation, including mechanization"
Billions of people are only alive today because of that.
quote: "associated with chemical fertilizers, agrochemicals, and controlled water-supply (usually involving irrigation) and newer methods of cultivation, including mechanization"
Billions of people are only alive today because of that.
If we can’t survive without fossil fuels, we’d definitely be in trouble very quickly, given how soon they’d run out if we are unable to substitute something else in their place.
Fortunately the fact they can be made in the first place means we almost certainly can substitute something else, even if we have to make that something ourselves.
Fortunately the fact they can be made in the first place means we almost certainly can substitute something else, even if we have to make that something ourselves.
What do you mean? It took millions of years to "make" them, and the same initial conditions can not be recreated, either.
Nature wasn’t trying. The pressure, heat, and chemical environment that turns plants into coal, oil, and gas can be tuned to make the process much faster if desired. What’s the functional difference between 1kg of coal and 1kg of charcoal, for example?
And we can also extract CO2 from the air, pass it through the Sabatier process to get methane, then do more chemistry to get long chain hydrocarbons. Musk is planning to do this for his rockets.
And we can also extract CO2 from the air, pass it through the Sabatier process to get methane, then do more chemistry to get long chain hydrocarbons. Musk is planning to do this for his rockets.
There’s a zero percent chance this can be validated but a 100% chance it will be used to increase government control.
What’s being done to address the 100 corporations that cause 70% of the world’s emissions?
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/just-100-firms-attributable-...
What’s being done to address the 100 corporations that cause 70% of the world’s emissions?
Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/10/just-100-firms-attributable-...
> What’s being done to address the 100 corporations that cause 70% of the world’s emissions?
I see that number floating around a lot, it's oversimplified and lacking context.
«71% of those emissions originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions from producing fossil fuels (like oil, coal and gas), and the _subsequent use of the fossil fuels they sell to other companies_.»
https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo...
Consider what «subsequent use of the fossil fuels they sell to other companies» entails. We're talking energy, transport, manufacturing, etc.
I see that number floating around a lot, it's oversimplified and lacking context.
«71% of those emissions originated from 100 fossil fuel producers. This includes the emissions from producing fossil fuels (like oil, coal and gas), and the _subsequent use of the fossil fuels they sell to other companies_.»
https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo...
Consider what «subsequent use of the fossil fuels they sell to other companies» entails. We're talking energy, transport, manufacturing, etc.
Almost everything you consume uses oil.
The car you lease every 3 years, your new iPhone every 2 years, new clothes every season, etc.
Will corporations make products that last 20+ years or is planned obsolescence the only way to ensure YoY revenue growth
The car you lease every 3 years, your new iPhone every 2 years, new clothes every season, etc.
Will corporations make products that last 20+ years or is planned obsolescence the only way to ensure YoY revenue growth
Right now, sure.
But to use your own example of iPhones: Apple itself is carbon neutral, and recently announced a goal of making all its suppliers carbon neutral by 2030.
But to use your own example of iPhones: Apple itself is carbon neutral, and recently announced a goal of making all its suppliers carbon neutral by 2030.
Government control of what exactly? Lowering emissions?
Egh, right? It's kind of annoying how whenever anyone suggests trying anything to improve society someone comes out of the woodwork to cry about government overreach.
Never an argument about the merits of the proposal, just some trite hand-wringing that somewhere somehow someone might be able to use it to their political advantage. Never even an explanation of why this one thing would be so dangerous when governments already by nature have vast authority to control pretty much anything they want.
Worst of all you can't reason against it, since it's not a position of reason. Regardless of what point you make they'll just dig in and ignore them. :(
Never an argument about the merits of the proposal, just some trite hand-wringing that somewhere somehow someone might be able to use it to their political advantage. Never even an explanation of why this one thing would be so dangerous when governments already by nature have vast authority to control pretty much anything they want.
Worst of all you can't reason against it, since it's not a position of reason. Regardless of what point you make they'll just dig in and ignore them. :(
Revisit this comment in 20 years
It might as well be 1000 corporations. The problem remains a version of the village commons.
Not really. People consume what is produced. You can see this bias in news and print media and its effect on propaganda, but it really applies to all items produced. It's a popular retort to "just don't buy Apple" in the tech lockdown debates that crop up.
And what is being produced in this case is petrol (look at the list of 100 top polluting companies).
So let’s tax petrol, that way we reduce consumption
So let’s tax petrol, that way we reduce consumption
That would be amazingly unpopular. See the yellow jacket protests in France: relatively more affluent Parisians tried to tell the country gas was going to be taxed, but everyone outside of Paris needed gas to go about their life.
They don't exist in a vacuum, polluting for its own sake
If those were being addressed, you wouldn't have fossil fuel to put in your car, gas power plant, or gas heater next month. Never mind flying anywhere.
What? In which countries are pollution and climate destruction taken seriously?
We live in a world that will protect car and gas usage, no matter what… all of our cities are shaped around cars and roads, young people are excluded from homeownership, but old assholes have access to luxurious parking spaces..
But yeah, apparently electric scooters are the worst hate crime since hitler.
We live in a world that will protect car and gas usage, no matter what… all of our cities are shaped around cars and roads, young people are excluded from homeownership, but old assholes have access to luxurious parking spaces..
But yeah, apparently electric scooters are the worst hate crime since hitler.
I think there has been a miscalculation. It's 17.26 billion years, not 17 billion years.
I know they rounded up that number, but that's not correct, nor scientific. Do we fucking love science or not? 0.1 billion years is 100 million years, you can't just round them up like they don't mean anything.
It's perfectly acceptable to round in an article summary like this. Such a ridiculous thing to complain about
On HN we are not supposed to accuse people of shilling but I see a steady drumbeat of low-brow populist evironmental advocacy links on this site every single day. Often the pieces are not even scientifically justified. At what point does this specific genre of "general interest" posts become disproportionate? This after all is supposed to be an IT tech start up focused site.
It’s not shilling.
The users here are interested in these things. Are some of them “things the users want to hear”? Definitely. But there are great articles from time to time. Flag the bad ones and move along.
The users here are interested in these things. Are some of them “things the users want to hear”? Definitely. But there are great articles from time to time. Flag the bad ones and move along.
Aren't we heading towards overpopulation? in the case... is that a... "good" thing? Seriously curious. 17B is alot.
Your argument could be as easily used to say "maybe mass murder isn't a bad thing."
The early death of a person who would prefer continue living is, to reasonable people, a tragedy.
If overpopulation is really such a problem, I'd think incentivizing the choice to have fewer kids is a reasonable one.
The early death of a person who would prefer continue living is, to reasonable people, a tragedy.
If overpopulation is really such a problem, I'd think incentivizing the choice to have fewer kids is a reasonable one.
From the Wikipedia article on Human overpopulation:
> The concept of overpopulation is controversial. A 2015 article in Nature listed overpopulation as a pervasive science myth. Demographic projections suggest that population growth will stabilise in the 21st century, and many experts believe that global resources can meet this increased demand, suggesting a global overpopulation scenario is unlikely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
> The concept of overpopulation is controversial. A 2015 article in Nature listed overpopulation as a pervasive science myth. Demographic projections suggest that population growth will stabilise in the 21st century, and many experts believe that global resources can meet this increased demand, suggesting a global overpopulation scenario is unlikely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation
> suggesting a global overpopulation scenario is unlikely.
The world is already overpopulated. We just haven’t completely destroyed it yet.
The way we currently run the world is not sustainable long term for even the current population.
The world is already overpopulated. We just haven’t completely destroyed it yet.
The way we currently run the world is not sustainable long term for even the current population.
The first statement does not follow automatically from the second.
It is not currently run in a sustainable way. It can be, and people are trying change it so it is sustainable. This is hard, but does not appear to be impossible.
It is not currently run in a sustainable way. It can be, and people are trying change it so it is sustainable. This is hard, but does not appear to be impossible.
>It is not currently run in a sustainable way.
which creates something of a tautology. Ability to maintain a population in the long run implies 'sustainable'. I guess that given nutrient vats and fusion power we could have a sustainable population of one trillion.
It's worth considering what the point of having so many people is....
which creates something of a tautology. Ability to maintain a population in the long run implies 'sustainable'. I guess that given nutrient vats and fusion power we could have a sustainable population of one trillion.
It's worth considering what the point of having so many people is....
"It's worth considering what the point of having so many people is...."
What's the point of having people at all, right?
Once you answer those questions, is there a number of people you'd like to propose as optimal?
What's the point of having people at all, right?
Once you answer those questions, is there a number of people you'd like to propose as optimal?
>Once you answer those questions, is there a number of people you'd like to propose as optimal?
That's a good question. I'll take a shot at it even though you're not really asking a question but making a point.
Let's say that the one thing that people bring to the table is intelligence and the ability to design complex systems, it's something of an end-run on evolution.
How large a population do you need to build modern semiconductors, discover exoplanets, solve physics problems, do a passable version of the arts?
I would guess something on the order of 500M-1B which is roughly the number in 1800. You get most of the good and lose most of the bad if you're even slightly careful. The edge conditions of atomic war or a truly large nuclear incident still exist but the rest of our sins cover up well over time with that population.
That's a good question. I'll take a shot at it even though you're not really asking a question but making a point.
Let's say that the one thing that people bring to the table is intelligence and the ability to design complex systems, it's something of an end-run on evolution.
How large a population do you need to build modern semiconductors, discover exoplanets, solve physics problems, do a passable version of the arts?
I would guess something on the order of 500M-1B which is roughly the number in 1800. You get most of the good and lose most of the bad if you're even slightly careful. The edge conditions of atomic war or a truly large nuclear incident still exist but the rest of our sins cover up well over time with that population.
> It is not currently run in a sustainable way. It can be
Can it? That remains to be seen. So in the meantime I would say we are already overpopulated.
To be fair, your statement probably means that we have the resources and technology to run the world in a sustainable way, and I would agree with that. But then we also likely have the resources to end hunger, poverty and war, yet those have never been the world’s priorities.
When will it be a priority for humans to run the world sustainably? Who knows. But right now it’s definitely not sustainable.
Can it? That remains to be seen. So in the meantime I would say we are already overpopulated.
To be fair, your statement probably means that we have the resources and technology to run the world in a sustainable way, and I would agree with that. But then we also likely have the resources to end hunger, poverty and war, yet those have never been the world’s priorities.
When will it be a priority for humans to run the world sustainably? Who knows. But right now it’s definitely not sustainable.
> But then we also likely have the resources to end hunger, poverty and war, yet those have never been the world’s priorities.
And yet, all of those things declined; in the case of poverty the decline is in both absolute and relative terms.
Certainly more needs to be done in all of these things: we only succeed when we reach the destination, not just when we walk the path. Conversely, every step on that path brings us closer to success and is a reason for optimism.
And yet, all of those things declined; in the case of poverty the decline is in both absolute and relative terms.
Certainly more needs to be done in all of these things: we only succeed when we reach the destination, not just when we walk the path. Conversely, every step on that path brings us closer to success and is a reason for optimism.
To suggest that overpopulation is controversial is itself absurd, as it is fundamental to the science of biology[1]. That a species can reach numbers where their environment and habitat is depleted or otherwise unlivable is fact, not controversy.
"Population Control" is certainly controversial, though, as it should be. And, though controversial, it should be considered seriously. Many environmentalists lose their credibility by speaking of "sustainability" on the one hand, but then disputing overpopulation on the other. We need to impact the earth much less, and keeping our numbers down is a very effective way of doing so. That, plus using energy and resources more cleanly and efficiently.
[1] https://biologydictionary.net/overpopulation/
"Population Control" is certainly controversial, though, as it should be. And, though controversial, it should be considered seriously. Many environmentalists lose their credibility by speaking of "sustainability" on the one hand, but then disputing overpopulation on the other. We need to impact the earth much less, and keeping our numbers down is a very effective way of doing so. That, plus using energy and resources more cleanly and efficiently.
[1] https://biologydictionary.net/overpopulation/
The question about human overpopulation is not whether there can be overpopulation, but whether the often popular claim that the earth can not sustain the current or the projected future human population is true. The latter absolutely is debatable - there's no clear evidence that it's impossible (i.e. there's no technically feasible way) to sustain the current or the projected future human population. It absolutely is true that if we maintain the current level of CO2 emissions, it won't be sustainable. But that's not an evidence for overpopulation. If we sustain the current level of pollution, it likely will not be sustainable. But that's once again not an evidence for overpopulation - as we know for most of our resources that there are technical alternatives that can drastically reduce / eliminate them. We know there's more than enough energy. We know how to make our economy carbon-neutral. Most pollution can be controlled. The urban land takes up much less than 1% of the earth land - and we expect the world population to peak around 10B by 2100 (vs 7.7B today). No reason to believe we'll run out of land. There's more than enough headroom to improve the crop yields in poor countries.
In the grand scheme of things, we - humanity - know mostly how to create a sustainable technological system that can support 10B population. Whether our politics will allow us to get to such a system is a entirely different problem, and THAT might be our undoing, but I'd argue that's not really an overpopulation problem.
Also, the population growth is largely a side-effect of demographic transition - https://populationeducation.org/what-demographic-transition-.... i.e. it's a transitional side-effect of reducing the human suffering. The only humane and equitable way to move forward is to accelerate the demographic transition (i.e. improve the economic, health, education, etc, systems of all countries in the world to get them to stage4 at least). And, thus, "keep our numbers down" is not only inhumane or inequitable, that's ineffective - the developed countries already mostly stopped growing - e.g. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1251591/population-growt... - and it's mostly the poor countries that are growing - i.e. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264687/countries-with-th... . There's no other humane way to stop poor countries' population growth - the most effective way is to improve their economy, improve their health and healthcare systems, and improve education.
In the grand scheme of things, we - humanity - know mostly how to create a sustainable technological system that can support 10B population. Whether our politics will allow us to get to such a system is a entirely different problem, and THAT might be our undoing, but I'd argue that's not really an overpopulation problem.
Also, the population growth is largely a side-effect of demographic transition - https://populationeducation.org/what-demographic-transition-.... i.e. it's a transitional side-effect of reducing the human suffering. The only humane and equitable way to move forward is to accelerate the demographic transition (i.e. improve the economic, health, education, etc, systems of all countries in the world to get them to stage4 at least). And, thus, "keep our numbers down" is not only inhumane or inequitable, that's ineffective - the developed countries already mostly stopped growing - e.g. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1251591/population-growt... - and it's mostly the poor countries that are growing - i.e. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264687/countries-with-th... . There's no other humane way to stop poor countries' population growth - the most effective way is to improve their economy, improve their health and healthcare systems, and improve education.
"The question about human overpopulation is not whether there can be overpopulation, but whether the often popular claim that the earth can not sustain the current or the projected future human population is true"
So only human overpopulation is impossible, you're saying. I think you're wrong on that. We're special relative to other species -- but not that special, and not immune to it.
"In the grand scheme of things, we - humanity - know mostly how to create a sustainable technological system that can support 10B population. Whether our politics will allow us to get to such a system is a entirely different problem, and THAT might be our undoing, but I'd argue that's not really an overpopulation problem."
Is the goal to pack as many humans onto this planet as is possible?? That certainly isn't my goal, at all. With our technology, we don't need vast numbers with which to build pyramids or plant fields.
So only human overpopulation is impossible, you're saying. I think you're wrong on that. We're special relative to other species -- but not that special, and not immune to it.
"In the grand scheme of things, we - humanity - know mostly how to create a sustainable technological system that can support 10B population. Whether our politics will allow us to get to such a system is a entirely different problem, and THAT might be our undoing, but I'd argue that's not really an overpopulation problem."
Is the goal to pack as many humans onto this planet as is possible?? That certainly isn't my goal, at all. With our technology, we don't need vast numbers with which to build pyramids or plant fields.
> So only human overpopulation is impossible, you're saying.
No. That is not what I said. I'm saying whether human overpopulation is theoretically possible/impossible is not the question - as the answer is very clearly yes, if the number is too large it will qualify as overpopulation. I'm saying the relevant question is whether the current population and the projected future population would qualify as overpopulation, and I'm saying that absolutely is debatable.
> Is the goal to pack as many humans onto this planet as is possible?
No. The goal is to find the humane and equitable way to reach sustainability. I'm claiming sustainability (with current or projected peak human population of ~10B) is entirely technologically possible, and "overpopulation" talk is mostly ungrounded, not backed by any real evidence. At the same time, it's also clear the current state of things is NOT sustainable, and that we'd need to change our technological systems in order to reach sustainability, and I do admit that it's entirely possible and somewhat plausible that our politics will keep us from reaching the sustainability.
No. That is not what I said. I'm saying whether human overpopulation is theoretically possible/impossible is not the question - as the answer is very clearly yes, if the number is too large it will qualify as overpopulation. I'm saying the relevant question is whether the current population and the projected future population would qualify as overpopulation, and I'm saying that absolutely is debatable.
> Is the goal to pack as many humans onto this planet as is possible?
No. The goal is to find the humane and equitable way to reach sustainability. I'm claiming sustainability (with current or projected peak human population of ~10B) is entirely technologically possible, and "overpopulation" talk is mostly ungrounded, not backed by any real evidence. At the same time, it's also clear the current state of things is NOT sustainable, and that we'd need to change our technological systems in order to reach sustainability, and I do admit that it's entirely possible and somewhat plausible that our politics will keep us from reaching the sustainability.
Improved quality of life and reduced infant mortality are shown to reduce population growth by creating incentives for people to have fewer children. If you want fewer people, then you want to improve the material well-being if as many people as possible. As it stands, the global population is projected to peak at around 10 billion people some time this century, per current trends.
I think this is incomplete. In every case so far a reduction of infant mortality and improved quality of life are coupled with power structures that increase the amount of productive output that is captured by a family, increasing the relative cost of producing children.
>If you want fewer people, then you want to improve the material well-being of as many people as possible.
I'd genuinely like to see that model applied to sub Saharan Africa.
I'd genuinely like to see that model applied to sub Saharan Africa.
So you are suggesting that the per-capita material well-being in Nigeria has gone down all this time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria#/media...
I don't doubt that wealth can be a factor, but those systems are a whole lot more complicated than that. Money+Low Gini = Low birthrate is a meme as much as it is a primary driver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Nigeria#/media...
I don't doubt that wealth can be a factor, but those systems are a whole lot more complicated than that. Money+Low Gini = Low birthrate is a meme as much as it is a primary driver.
As you’re asking in good faith I don’t see why you’re being downvoted.
Population carrying capacity is difficult. We know that given a particular level of technology we can support a particular number of people with global resources in the short term. Intuitively it seems like we’re wrecking the environment and we’re in for a nasty fall when we exhaust those resources. However, Malthusian predictions like that - so far - have a bad track record, because with more people comes more innovation, and so far that innovation has been increasing carrying capacity faster than population growth.
Ultimately it looks like the world population is going to stabilize as most people seem to prefer smaller family units once they achieve “western level” of child survival expectations and material wealth. Strangely enough it may be harder to maintain a stable population with our consumption habits if it means that technological advance slows down.
That said, for most people all the above is unimportant compared to caring for the living. Preserving and extending life and quality of life is fundamentally good, and shortening human lives to “save the planet” is not. So while you can have the macro level discussion along the lines of “do we really want the population to increase,” for most people if you venture into “should we just let the people who are already alive die sooner than they must” is pretty offensive.
Population carrying capacity is difficult. We know that given a particular level of technology we can support a particular number of people with global resources in the short term. Intuitively it seems like we’re wrecking the environment and we’re in for a nasty fall when we exhaust those resources. However, Malthusian predictions like that - so far - have a bad track record, because with more people comes more innovation, and so far that innovation has been increasing carrying capacity faster than population growth.
Ultimately it looks like the world population is going to stabilize as most people seem to prefer smaller family units once they achieve “western level” of child survival expectations and material wealth. Strangely enough it may be harder to maintain a stable population with our consumption habits if it means that technological advance slows down.
That said, for most people all the above is unimportant compared to caring for the living. Preserving and extending life and quality of life is fundamentally good, and shortening human lives to “save the planet” is not. So while you can have the macro level discussion along the lines of “do we really want the population to increase,” for most people if you venture into “should we just let the people who are already alive die sooner than they must” is pretty offensive.
I just assume that any population level that can't be maintained on pre-20C. technology is probably dangerous. You'll either see a crack-up in terms of society and/or resource depletion at some point.
Would you consider it a good thing if air pollution kills you?
[deleted]
To be fair to the GP, this isn't the point they're making. Your argument would be valid if they were positing "it's not like it's me who's going to die."
They're asking, in good faith, if the effects of pollution-related deaths would have a net benefit to the world due to overpopulation concerns.
Your response is a strawman.
They're asking, in good faith, if the effects of pollution-related deaths would have a net benefit to the world due to overpopulation concerns.
Your response is a strawman.
Most people die due to various diseases / accident / suicides, thus extending human lives collectively means reducing those human suffering. Implying extending collective human lives as "bad" is basically declaring you don't care about people's suffering and that you'd rather choose more suffering.
While I agree with you on overpopulation, I would guess that the 17B number comes from 8B * 2.something years.
Back of the envelope, it's odd that air pollution is around 100x as bad as cigarettes (which admittedly not everyone smokes).
Back of the envelope, it's odd that air pollution is around 100x as bad as cigarettes (which admittedly not everyone smokes).
> Aren't we heading towards overpopulation?
No. Population growth slows down as nations rise in economic prosperity, and is projected to cap out at around 11 billion.
No. Population growth slows down as nations rise in economic prosperity, and is projected to cap out at around 11 billion.
There's still a pretty reasonable argument to be made that 11 billion is not a sustainable number.
I'm not suggesting we start killing people, but we will seriously need to think about how we manage the finite resources of the planet with >1.5x the number of people.
I'm not suggesting we start killing people, but we will seriously need to think about how we manage the finite resources of the planet with >1.5x the number of people.
This seems like a poor model of population dynamics. Isn’t it possible that earlier deaths in the elderly population might act as an economic stimulus that increases birth rate in the younger population? (So the net change in life years would not be 17bn).
Edit: I assume the downvotes are suggesting my logic is wrong. It would be helpful to hear why.
Edit: I assume the downvotes are suggesting my logic is wrong. It would be helpful to hear why.
Is this really that complicated? We can have more people living lives with limited freedoms and limited lifestyle quality, or more people with greater freedoms but greater health/climate/whatever impacts, or we can have fewer people. Fossil fuels aren’t the primary problem or even the sole problem. It’s that we have enough people living rich lives to create problems of scale whether from fossil fuels or mining or whatever.
If I had a vote whether to ban combustion engines from my city (cars, trucks, mopeds, leaf blowers - everything), with a relatively short transition period (say 5 years), I'd be in favor.
It would probably initially drive up prices of goods due to a shortage of electric delivery vehicles or the need to repack everything onto smaller local trucks outside the city, but I think it'd be worth it.