ajsadauskas

@Showroom7561 I take it you're talking about Doug Ford?

I don't follow Canadian politics closely, but from what I've read, he sounds like a nasty piece of work (and that whole family too, for that matter).

So I can certainly understand your pessimism!

Just remember there's always a long game in politics.

Keep advocating, keep organising, keep building connections, alternative institutions, and counterweights. Ford's reign will end.

@Showroom7561 There is no functional difference between powering your lights and your TV with grid renewables and storage electricity vs grid fossil fuel electricity.

Literally the exact same activities (turning on lights, using appliances) go from having a massive carbon impact to a negligible one, depending on if there's renewables or fossil fuels powering the grid.

I don't begrudge anyone who makes individual choices to lighten their environmental impact.

But understand that the core of the issue is systemic. It's bad Infrastructure and bad public policy.

The solution to bad public policy is good public policy.

The solution to bad Infrastructure is good Infrastructure.

And if our political leaders aren't doing the job, then they need to be held to account, and replaced.

3/3

@Showroom7561 They know even if 70% of the population benevolently made compromises for the greater good, there's still a market for their toxic products.

And they know that if 51% of the public vote for candidates that implement good public policy — that invest in grid scale renewables and storage, that allow higher density mixed use zoning near public transport, that invest in rail and public transport, that implement taxes that capture fossil fuel pollution externalities rather than subsidise them — they're screwed.

At the grassroots level, building movements and organisations, raising funds, getting good candidates preselected and then elected is going to have far greater impact than individual consumer choices.

If the local council doesn't understand induced demand and chooses to induce more traffic with more lanes rather than build protected bike lanes, then they are not competent for public office.

They need to go.

If the state government wastes taxpayer money building more roads that induce more traffic rather than on improving bus and train services, they need to go.

And here's the kicker. Once the Infrastructure is in place, there is no sacrifice.

People choose to catch the modern automated underground Metro that runs every 4 minutes because it's quicker than being stuck in traffic.

2/3

@Showroom7561 Again, with all due respect, climate change is fundamentally a systemic and structural problem.

It's a collective problem.

The air pollution, hurricanes, droughts, floods, and heatwaves don't just affect the people who burn fossil fuels. Or the people who profit off fossil fuels. Or the people who wastefully consume products with embodied carbon.

The rising floodwaters will not neatly flow around the home of Vicky the vegan while completely submerging SUV Steve's house.

In economic terms, the hurricanes, bushfires, floods, droughts, and heatwaves are a massive externalised cost.

Collective problems need collective solutions. Systemic problems need systemic solutions.

I have nothing against sustainable individual choices.

But.

Individual consumer choices in the free market ain't gonna fix this one. There needs to be policy change and infrastructure investment and public policy at the level of government.

Bad public policy — State investments in motorways and coal power plants, subsidies on fuel, helped create this mess.

The answer to bad public policy isn't individual action. It's good public policy.

There's a reason the likes of BP have spent billions promoting individual consumer responses in the free market and carbon footprints.

(1/3)

@Showroom7561 I respectfully disagree.

If the infrastructure is in place, then the sustainable option becomes the default easiest option, no personal choice or sacrifice needed.

For example: If your local grid is powered by renewables + storage, then no personal choice or sacrifice is needed. It's the default that comes out of the socket.

It's only if the grid is powered by gas and coal that personal choice and sacrifices (saving up for solar panels, using less electricity) are needed.

Another example: If you live within walking distance of a modern metro or a frequent bus with dedicated lanes, where services run more than once every 10 mins, then no personal choice or sacrifice is needed. It's the default option because it's often faster than getting stuck in traffic and finding parking.

It's only where services run once every 15 minutes or less that sacrifice is needed.

Same goes for cycling when there's a good city-wide network of protected bike lanes vs mixed traffic.

Or travelling domestically by train when there's high speed rail vs no or slow, infrequent rail.

Or walking to the shops when they're within walking distance of your house vs 30 mins walk away with no good footpaths.

Have the right Infrastructure in place, anf no sacrifice is needed.

@vk6flab In this case, the answers it's serving up are the statistically most probable sequence of words based on what climate scientists, energy experts, architects, urban planners, meteorologists, geologists, physicists, engineers, chemists, and other researchers have been saying for decades.

I'm personally pessimistic about whether the same words regurgitated by Gemini or ChatGPT will make a difference.

Hopefully it does.

Off topic: 73's, love the callsign 😁