radical response to global climate change

[Merckx index]

Wow, when it comes to response to global climate change, these folks pull no punches:

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2011/09/06/radical-steps-needed-to-combat-climate-change/

[2] We need to get rid of the automobile in America, including diesel trucks, particularly for long-haul shipping. This can be done, and without undue disruption. Light rail powered by nuclear or solar electric power (not solar cells, since they require too much indium and other rare earths: the entire global supply of indium would be needed to manufacture enough solar cells to supply electricity for America’s electrical grid) offers one option. [footnote 9] Diesel locomotives remain startlingly efficient, so diesel passenger trains and expanded local rail lines for delivery of b-to-b shipments offer another option. We should immediately shut down most of the lanes of our highways and set up moped-only lanes for commuters. Larger problems loom when we think about how to replace our current truck-based commercial shipping system with a rail-based system. It’s doable, though. But we need to start now…

The Happy Motoring Culture of the 1950s is gone. We cannot resurrect it. Automobiles are going to have to go away. This will require some changes in America’s infrastructure (fast food restaurants: gone; big box retailers like WalMart: gone, etc.) and some changes in Americans’ mental landscape and living habits (kiss NASCAR goodbye, forget about piling into the family car for a summer vacation). But it’s hardly catastrophic.

I use a bike most of the time, but even I use a car when hauling stuff, or when taking trips outside of the city. I would be willing to switch to a rail system if it were in place, but I see huge problems in getting that approved, particularly in the current political climate.

Also recommended reading: the current Scientific American has a special issue on cities. Many interesting facts, e.g., the carbon footprint of urban dwellers is smaller than that of rural dwellers, largely because of smaller travel distances. The only zero-emissions building is in China, I believe, but there is one approaching that in the U.S. that uses biogas-generating plants (plant in the botanical sense). And five years from now, three of the top 5 cities in GDP per capita will be in...Norway! Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim.

Much, much, more.

 

[elapid]

While the view is radical, there are some important points raised in this piece. There are more efficient modes of transporting produce and goods. Train is superior to trucks and this infrastructure is in place to a large degree. Selling local or relatively local produce would reduce the amount of goods that need to be transported as well as the distances they need to be transported.

On a more ground level, the available infrastructure could be improved dramatically, particularly in North America, to reduce car use and emissions. You are correct that in the current political and financial environment that this is unlikely to happen, but a well-supported train network should be a must in an city/state. I lived in Colorado for 2 years and nearly everyone lives on two corridors, east-west and north-south. Yet no trains. This would take two lines and a willing public. However, not only are governments unwilling but I suspect the public would also be unwilling to support alternative and greener transport options because North Americans are so car-centric (as well as the cost of fuel being ridiculously cheap in the US compared to many other countries).

Infrastructure and education are the keys, but I don't see that happening in a hurry in many nations, particularly growing nations (e.g., China and India) and in some first world nations.

 

[usedtobefast]

hauling gear around, i do need my car. when i lived in the Bay area having
buddy Bart(as it gets called) and all the bus connections really worked well.
Bart has a lot a stations and i found it really easy to use. we have Metrolink
here, but it is not as user friendly.