Project Drawdown has characterized a set of 93 technologies and practices that together can reduce concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It’s a gigantic project with a lot of data and analyses.
In the linked video, the author goes through the measures to find which one is the most cost effective in terms of ratio of rCO2 reduction and economic cost
The maybe surprising result is that building bike infrastructure to shift a not even big percentage of travels from cars to bicycles or ebikes, is very cheap and has a huge effect on emissions.
The premise is that all solutions should be implemented to have a significant effect, but some are easier done than other.
crossposed from: https://feddit.it/post/6913495
not immediately, but it does in the future. Which is what most of these solutions are analyzing
Yes but only in 20 years, and that doesn’t matter if a smaller population becomes more car dependent
that’s a big “if” because it not only requires that a smaller society become more car dependent, it requires that this hypothetical society become more car dependent enough to offset or even overcome the amount of good done by taking however many potential drivers off the road for a lifetime.
That’s kind of like saying “yeah, bike infrastructure is great, but not if we start making bikes out of uranium!”
My issue with degrowth is that it’s incompatible with capitalist society. Capitalism only works if the economy is growing. If the economy is stagnant, a win for your neighbor is a loss for you. It would be difficult to build a community under these conditions.
I know I’m on .ml and capitalism has a bad name around here. But I think is clear that markets can improve peoples lives, and alternatives are difficult to implement.
Turning fuckcars into an anticapitalist movement is unnecessary and unhelpful in my opinion. I just want to be able to bike around my city safely.
“stagnant” seems to be playing a a double-meaning game here. “Stagnant” in terms of growth just means that we do not continue to make surplus and drive more demand to use the surplus and make even more surplus then drive even more demand to use the… ad infinitum.
“Stagnant” in the sense necessary to make a market a zero-sum game means that there is no production whatsoever, i.e. production quite literally stagnates, which isn’t what degrowth is about.
I’d go a step further and say that specifically capitalism has improved people’s lives. But not everyone’s, and the people it did work for are being increasingly cast aside by the current incarnation of the capitalist feamework.
And yes, in case you weren’t just using “market” as a shorthand for capitalism, but were actually unaware: there are other forms of market economies
Unfortunately true, but a worthwhile endeavor nonetheless.
Fuckcars as a movement only means anything and makes any difference if it understands and responds to the driving forces behind car culture; that includes the economic incentives that drove the push for more cars and car-centric cities.
In turn, it must necessarily diverge from and act against the economic status quo to some degree, which, by definition, makes it an anti-capitalist movement. It’s not a movement that seeks the best economic outcome, even though that may be a side effect, and thus can only be described as anti-capitalist.
Put another way: you don’t have to be a communist or an anarchist, and hell you might even be an ancap or fascist, but you have to realize that being anti-car and pro-capitalism means that you get to keep your bike paths only as long as they are the most profitable form of transportation
deleted by creator