Here in Oslo there has been a lot of investment in bike lanes, but just because one part of the local government builds more bike lanes doesn’t mean that other parts of the government will follow suit. Police still doesn’t care about cars illegally blocking the bike lanes. The people ploughing snow see bike lanes as the last thing that should need ploughing, preferably no earlier than 2 weeks after it snowed. A dedicated bike path I use to work is supposed to be ploughed within 2 hours of snow, but it took a week before anything was done and now three weeks later it’s still not to the standard that the government has set.
Oslo has a zero pedestrian and bicycle mortality rate!
https://thecityfix.com/blog/how-oslo-achieved-zero-pedestria...
> In 2015, the political climate and public will in the City of Oslo changed the tone on accepting continued surface transportation fatalities. The mayor, city council and transport division staff all supported a shift in roadway decision-making from car-centric to people-centric. [...]
Neighboring capitals with similar progressive bicycle cultures (Denmark, Sweden) have somewhat low but non-zero mortality rate as Oslo had 6 years ago. So the policies definitely make a change, but it's the consequence of a culture. You won't see American politicians suggesting a ban on cars in big cities.
It's bad enough that even non-US people regurgitate those talking points despite them being significantly less true for them; because they see it so much online.
They do, because their experience is that transit and biking really do suck and are useless. Which is accurate, for where they've lived.
The problem is that you have to convince people that things could be better, when their lived experience is that it's always terrible.
Yes, it still take me 50 min to commute, but now I enjoy it and even volunteerly go to the office more often. It have been 6 months.
My point is: those who complain about biking being terrible or impractical should give it a real try. It may fit you.
They don't do anything about unsafe infrastructure though, which is by far the US' biggest problem for biking. To say that American bike infrastructure is garbage tier is an insult to garbage, that's how bad it typically is. It's extremely unsafe, and people can feel it, they can tell, hence why hardly anyone actually bikes to work.
Bike infrastructure generally
* Is designed to be unsafe. Door zones are common, actual physical protection or segregation is rare, ESPECIALLY for intersections.
* Stops and starts randomly. Just look at Google maps for a city, you'll be able to see that the bike network is completely fragmented, with many bike lane suddenly disappearing on a road for no apparent reason.
* Randomly changes style/design principles even within the same city, so both you and drivers are constantly confused unless you're already used to a route.
* Is poorly enforced, with drivers routinely driving or parking in bike lanes with punishment being a rarity.
Now, some spots have good bike trails that work for their commute, and that's a great option when it's available. But I'm a bit tired of the "biking is actually okay in the US!" gaslighting.
Some people still manage, I do sometimes, but after getting hit by cars a couple times I tired of making excuses for it. There's a reason hardly anyone bikes for their commute in the states: overall, biking in the US is simply awful, and that's the truth.
Now, of course, I've had my whole life to set up my whole life the way I want it, and with a little foresight it really wasn't that difficult to set it up in a way that facilitates getting around on a bicycle. It involved making choices. Choices about where to work and live. If more people made such choices, there would be more options available to facilitate them.
Myself I've not driven at least since late 2017, thanks to excellent and cheap public transport; even before the Germany-wide €58/month ticket, the more expensive Berlin-AB ticket that I used to get was much much less than your $15k/year.
Do most people plan like that?
* usually, though IIRC buying a house in Switzerland gets you a tax equal to the money you saved from not renting it?
Yes, some people are okay sharing a lane with cars, or using a strip of paint for protection, but accepting a poor status quo doesn't stop the status quo from being poor.
Occasionally there's a route that's legitimately good, almost always due to having an off street trail you can use for the bulk of the commute. Those can be great.
But once you hit bike lanes in an urban area, it's virtually always terrible. A lot of Americans are just used to the terribleness and don't notice it anymore, the same way they don't notice how almost every neighborhood is designed to be unwalkable (and how most are designed to be economically segregated besides).
Ironically, international air travel to places where it works great may help with this.
But a lot of people are mentally stubborn, and seem to have inbuilt excuses of, "it wouldn't work here!" despite not spending even ten seconds thinking about it.
A better idea is to encourage other types of transportation in private companies rather than penalize existing companies with taxes. If taxing the companies will raise prices on consumers, you might as well consider it an additional tax on the people.
If people collectively just ate a bit less meat and dairy, it would go a long way. Don't even have to be perfect. Just show a little bit of restraint.
But sure, if people "just" did a "little", it would go a long way. Just a _little_ restraint from the entire population all at once in perpetuity. No big deal.
Table FNS-1, p58 https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-usda...
Things just don't work that way. Been there, done that. Willpower does nothing. Extra calories around your berry is extra calories around your berry. It's much more worthwhile to think about reducing GHG emission from farming than deceiving yourself into self-harming and projecting your own doing onto greater society.
I don't think we can ever be friends.
There are already precedents for that, for example here in Germany cigarettes are taxed to about 70% and hard-liquor (altho it's more complicated to calculate as it depends on exact alcohol content) to about 40%.
Meat is only taxed at 7% via VAT (similar to sales tax in the US).
Then it's up to you to get even angrier.
Good luck with continuing the virtuous approach while the world goes up in flames. It hasn't worked and has gotten us to where we are right now.
Unfortunately it doesn't matter what we think people should be angry about. FWIW I obviously completely agree with you! People should be angry about those things! Turns out they aren't. What matters is the reality we live in.
(PS:it's not a dichotomy between strict vegetarianism vs meat 4+ days/wk. Can encourage people to eat healthier and more sustainable.)
His sequel "Super Size Me 2: Holy Chicken!" (2017) had fewer distortions and was pretty watchable and educational. Here's a review from https://www.agdaily.com/livestock/poultry/super-size-me-2-mo... which among other things covered in depth: "Many food labels, such as organic, natural, non-GMO, gluten-free, no added hormones, free range, green, artisan, antibiotic-free, are indeed quite misleading" and how those branding terms are misused in marketing to restaurant customers. I haven't seen any industry criticism of the segment with the two branding consultants.
As to the legacy of "Super Size Me", here's a review by an ag evangelist: https://www.eater.com/24173039/morgan-spurlock-legacy-super-...
Here's even a 2023 editorial from the Kansas City Star pointing the blame at Big Ag "Corn drives US food policy. But big business, not Midwestern farmers, reaps the reward" [0]:
> No, corn is not an evil crop, nor are farmers in the Corn Belt shady criminals. However, the devastating effect of corn owes to the industrialization of the plant by a small group of global agribusiness and food conglomerates, which acts as a kind of de facto corn cabal. These massive corporations — seed companies, crop and meat processors, commodity traders and household food and beverage brands — all survive on cheap commodity corn, which currently costs about 10 cents a pound. Corn’s versatility makes it the perfect crop to “scale” (commoditize, industrialize and financialize).
A libertarian take is the Cato Institute "Farm Bill Sows Dysfunction for American Agriculture" [1]:
> The Sprawling Farm Bill:... has its roots in the century-old New Deal and is revised by Congress every five years... "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was added to the Farm Bill in 1973 to ensure support from rural and urban lawmakers, accounts for about three-quarters of the omnibus package. Some lawmakers and pundits have proposed splitting SNAP from the Farm Bill to stop the logrolling and facilitate a clearer debate on farm subsidy programs, which make up the rest of the bill." ...aslo criticizes crop insurance subsidies (which mainly go on the four big crops), Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) ("Welfare for Wealthier Farmers"), Crop insurance subsidies (" originally envisioned as a more stable and cost-efficient alternative to ad hoc disaster payments, but they have acted more as a supplement than a replacement—and may have actually increased risks along the way.")
[0]: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest-com...
[1]: https://www.cato.org/policy-investigation/farm-bill-sows-dys...
([1], the 2023 study by Tulane University supposedly finding "12% Of Americans 1/2 Of The Nation's Beef: How a mere 12% of Americans eat half the nation's beef, creating significant health and environmental impacts" is a red herring, all it says is that on any given day, some fraction of meat-eaters exceed portion sizes ("Those 12%—most likely to be men or people between the ages of 50 and 65—eat what researchers called a disproportionate amount of beef on a given day").
[0]: https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/food-waste-in-the-...
> "Wasted food ranks as the number one material in US landfills, accounting for 24.1% of all municipal solid waste. Americans waste 21% of meat, 46% of fruit and veg, 35% of seafood, and 17% of dairy products. Altogether, Americans waste between 30% and 40% of the total US food supply."... "Poor packaging techniques causes 10% of grain products, 5% of seafood, and 4% of meat to be lost."
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditForGrownups/comments/16cpmni/...
- Efficient Lighting (LEDs now, but others before)
- Santa Claus
There are certainly examples of a large portion of the population of the planet working together towards common goals. A lot of people putting in a little bit of effort _does_ happen, and it _does_ produce results.
When people want to do something, we're unstoppable. But unfortunately that means the good and the bad, and right now polluting actions are incredibly beneficial, and the alternatives are mediocre and not only unprofitable, but generally incur a substantial cost. There's a reason places like the US/Canada/Australia talk a mean game about climate change, yet remain some of the biggest polluters per capita, by far.
Replace animals proteins for humans by soy for human and you can divide world soy production by ~5.
Efficient lighting is a mix of regulation against worse lighting and individual consumer economic self-interest, lowering their electrical bill (and sometimes longer-lasting bulbs).
Neither of these are examples of large numbers of people choosing to sacrifice something for a common goal.
Just need a catchy word and campaign for "Veggie Wednesday".
Another reason is that we had plenty of land and rice and wheat etc. just made more sense than eating meat I suppose.
I have never tasted meat , eggs sometimes but I am stopping that as well , not for hinduism but because I am so close to this ideal , might as well do it 100% lol
I am majorly convinced that there is no god but if I wish there was a god , I wish for Hindu deities (though I am obviously biased and this explains why people have such biases even being half atheists)
I think it's kind of crazy to place the burden of environmental destruction on individual buying habits, rather than the people in power who actually have the ability to make sweeping changes that might actually move the needle.
Let's start with not incentivizing, then disincentivizing the mass production and importation of plastic garbage waste and e-waste that not only create greenhouse gas emissions but pollute the environment in other, irreversible ways.
And if your government and leaders don't make this a priority, and regardless of who you vote in, big-name corpo donors get their way instead, then maybe it's time for a new government.
And the people in power do what the people want, that's why they are in power. Imagine telling people they couldn't eat as much meat. Would be political suicide.
That's why individual buying habits are important. If many individuals change, we might change as a society. And at some point there might be a tipping point where the people in charge can make a change.
Also, blaming other people for all the problems is not a great way to solve a problem. Take some responsibility.
Eating bugs and living in pods sounds great and all, but if the end result is just allowing the ruling class to pack more drones and consumers in like sardines then it's not really solving anything.
https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2024/10/usda-livestoc...
This is a good sentiment. But, in context, it is a fallacy. A harmful one.
Consumer action on transport and whatnot, assuming a massive and persistent global awareness effort... has the potential of adding up to a rounding error.
Housing policy, transport policy, urban planning... these are what affects transport emissions. Not individual choices.
Look at our environmental history. Consumer choice has no wins.
It's propaganda. Role reversal. Something for certain organizations to do. It is not an actual effort to achieve environmental benefit.
We should be demanding governments clean up. Governments and NGOs should not be demanding that we clean up.
Are you talking about comparing CO2 to N2O to CH4 to fluorocarbons, for example?
For example the OP was talking about plastic. A 2% reduction in plastic waste has a clear benefit, because any amount of plastic reduction is a bonus. However it is not clear that a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions due to Americans driving their cars less will have any meaningful difference when it comes to climate change.
Anyway, maybe the second Trump admin will exit the Paris Accord again, putting strain on China and India participating, so climate summits will be weaker till 2029 (earliest).
Likely the domestic economic impact (on the US) of major climate-related events will have more influence on US policy than international. e.g. whether one of the many causal factors to the huge 2025 LA fires was climate change; or California's water setup where Senior Drawing Rights legally predating the existence of the state of CA allow agribusiness essential unlimited water use to grow pistachios in a semidesert during a drought, or bottle and export artesian water. As well as all the other more proximate causes. Anyway, expect a long and politicized fight between state, federal, city and insurers about the LA fire root-causes, liability and federal compensation. Especially given there's a plan to weaken or abolish the US EPA at the same time.
Ditto, expect nation-level debates (in OECD countries) reappraising whether nuclear (alongside fossil-fuel and renewable) is considered safe, desirable and necessary and how that affects/limits GDP growth, and whether datacenters and AI continue to be seen as a proxy for GDP growth, or whether that assumption breaks down some year soon.
Also, while important, 2-3% of world emissions is a drop in the bucket compared to the other 97%. Let's consider the other causes and how we can fix them.
Think about this: for many people, not driving to work is a big deal. If people collectively decide to do that, that's a lot of effort and inconvenience just for 2-3%.
Even an example like this that is carefully chosen to make consumers feel/act more responsible falls short. You want people to change their lives/careers to not drive? Ok, but most people already want to work from home, so even the personal “choice” about whether to drive a car is basically stuck like other issues pending government / corporate action, in this case to either improve transit or to divest from expensive commercial real estate. This is really obvious isn’t it?
Grabbing back our feeling of agency should not come at the expense of blaming the public under the ridiculous pretense of “educating” them, because after years of that it just obscures the issues and amounts to misinformation. Fwiw I’m more inclined to agree with admonishing consumers to “use gasoline responsibly!” than say, water usage arguments where cutting my shower in half is supposed to somehow fix decades of irresponsible farming, etc. But after a while, people mistrust the frame itself where consumers are blamed, and so we also need to think carefully about the way we conduct these arguments.
This is easily solved by switching to EVs. A small-size EV (perfect for personal transportation) is only slightly less CO2-efficient than rail ( https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint ).
I wish the world would ditch public transit entirely. It's nothing but a misery generator. It's far better to switch to remote work and distributed cities.
You work on a train station platform? My condolences.
And indeed, self-driving will solve this. You'll be able to just step into a car, and get teleported to the door of your office. After stopping at your favorite coffee shop midway.