Not privilege, choice. I consciously chose the location where i live. I wanted something central enough that chances are that any job i would have would keep within bike commuting distance. But i hear you all on the safe streets. I don't take the most direct route because it's not the safest and biking infrastructure in this country, for the most part, is pathetic.
So, reducing something that contributes 10% of the CO2 by half would a 5% reduction and would cost basically nothing (and would save most people money). That sounds like a great first step. And, then this price in gas prices wouldn't be such a crisis. But, gas was cheap for a few years so everybody bought gas guzzlers. I have zero sympathy for somebody that paid $60k for an Audi Q5 three years ago, and now b*tches about the cost of gas. They should have bought a Honda Civic and put solar panels on their house.
Getting rid of your gas car to buy an EV which will be much more expensive than it's gas powered equivalent does not have a cost of "basically nothing". Meanwhile the impact a 5% reduction in the emissions from cars would have on the climate would literally "basically nothing".
I'm neither of those things (I'm a physicist with a PhD from one of the top universities in the country, not that it matters). Are you saying lawyers are too stupid to ride a bike? What about teachers? Do either of them need to drive an SUV? Nope. They could get to work just fine in a four door sedan with a little four cylinder engine and a turbo that gets 40+ MPG. I drove one for 4 years when I lived outside Chicago. Did it go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds? Nope. Did it get me back and forth to work every day? Yup.
Lawyers who live 20 miles from their office don't want to ride a bike or run to work and spend half their day on a bike or running and the other half changing and showering.... They also don't want to ride their bike or run from their office to court.
Why didn't you ride your bike or run when you lived outside Chicago you selfish POS? Don't you care about the environment???
Nice ad hominem (look it up if you don't know what it means). I don't live alone, nor do I live with my parents. My parents drove a four door sedan my entire childhood. It fit my parents, my brother and I just fine for countless roadtrips. So, clearly they work just fine for the majority of families for many years. Maybe you're just too stupid to figure out how to make it work?
You declare that anyone who doesn't drive the car you've decided they should drive has a little penis and now here you are whining about insults. You have a PHD supposedly and you think like a toddler. Some people have more than 4 people in their family. Why are you so GD stupid that you can't comprehend that other people have different circumstances than you?
So, what you're saying is that everyone should drive an M1 Abrams battle tank because then we could just get into accidents and be fine? If everybody drove small sedans, then there wouldn't be giant SUVs to crash into. And, when the giant SUV driver is distracted by their phone and drives into a ditch, they're more likely to roll over due a high center of gravity.
If everyone wore bubble wrap and crawled to work no one would ever be killed commuting! YAY!!!
Do you have any coherent arguments, or just tired talking points that have been refuted, debunked, and beat to death over the last 20 years?
You haven't debunked or refuted anything you just re-demonstrated your ignorance and narcissism. lol...
I'm not saying that everyone needs to drive a EV. But, if you don't think buying a four door sedan with 120 HP that gets 40 MPG instead of a $60k SUV getting 20 MPG or a 450 HP Mustang GT Fastback that gets 15 MPG city and 24 MPG highway is good for the environment, then you're beyond help. Please, provide a compelling argument about why somebody needs (dare I say, should be allowed) to drive a 450 HP Mustang GT Fastback that gets 15 MPG city and 24 MPG highway? Doesn't satisfy your safety requirements of an SUV. Doesn't fit mom, dad, four kids, 3 dogs, pet cockatoo, and all their sports equipment at the same time like the SUV you claim every family needs. And, costs more to buy and own than a 120 HP, 4 cylinder sedan. If somebody wants to buy one, fine. It should cost them an extra million+ dollars per year.
Note you keep saying the lawyers don't "want" to bike to work. Not that they "can't". You're acknowledging that they are making a choice. Maybe those lawyers should move closer to their office. Or take a bus. Or ride a bike. Many days, I did ride a bike to work or run while I lived in Chicago. I also had an economical car for when I needed it. Sure, I could have bought some shiny red gas guzzler, but because I didn't expect gas prices to be low for ever, I didn't. When gas prices did go up, I didn't whine to the government to help me. I laughed at the morons driving gas guzzlers and went about my day.
Nope, TheAdultInTheRoom has decided that only baristas and fry cooks that live alone or with their parents are able to walk or ride their bike places. Everyone else needs to drive a HUMVEE so they can be safe from lunatics driving Priuses.
Not being stupid has it's benefits. Pity you'll never have them.
The average American commutes 30 minutes to work one way in a car.
Most people don't want to spend 3 hours a day running or biking to and from their job.
Note the article says the TIME spent commuting has increased - not the distance. So instead of encouraging more people to bike to work or take mass transit, your solution to an increase in traffic and commute time is to have more people drive to work. I'm not saying that's the dumbest thing ever posted on these forums, but it is the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums.
It also means that having smaller, more fuel-efficient cars makes even more sense, if people are now spending more time sitting in traffic. But, putting those two thoughts together requires more cognitive power than your whole family can muster.
It’s not just gas. The cost of transportation is causing the price of many things to go up. Groceries and such. America has poor infrastructure built around everyone having at least one if not two of their own vehicles.
Biking to places doesn’t work in rural areas. It’s just too far and too dangerous. Most roads don’t have a shoulder and drivers are crazy.
This is all about the democrats forcing electric vehicles on everyone. I don’t have a problem with it though. We need to find cleaner and healthier ways to travel. More bike paths and clean energy is the future. Just don’t expect the rednecks with their black smoke diesel trucks that wave let’s go Brandon flags to not go down without a fight. This is Merica’ we’re talkin about.
So, reducing something that contributes 10% of the CO2 by half would a 5% reduction and would cost basically nothing (and would save most people money). That sounds like a great first step. And, then this price in gas prices wouldn't be such a crisis. But, gas was cheap for a few years so everybody bought gas guzzlers. I have zero sympathy for somebody that paid $60k for an Audi Q5 three years ago, and now b*tches about the cost of gas. They should have bought a Honda Civic and put solar panels on their house.
Getting rid of your gas car to buy an EV which will be much more expensive than it's gas powered equivalent does not have a cost of "basically nothing". Meanwhile the impact a 5% reduction in the emissions from cars would have on the climate would literally "basically nothing".
I'm neither of those things (I'm a physicist with a PhD from one of the top universities in the country, not that it matters). Are you saying lawyers are too stupid to ride a bike? What about teachers? Do either of them need to drive an SUV? Nope. They could get to work just fine in a four door sedan with a little four cylinder engine and a turbo that gets 40+ MPG. I drove one for 4 years when I lived outside Chicago. Did it go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds? Nope. Did it get me back and forth to work every day? Yup.
Lawyers who live 20 miles from their office don't want to ride a bike or run to work and spend half their day on a bike or running and the other half changing and showering.... They also don't want to ride their bike or run from their office to court.
Why didn't you ride your bike or run when you lived outside Chicago you selfish POS? Don't you care about the environment???
Nice ad hominem (look it up if you don't know what it means). I don't live alone, nor do I live with my parents. My parents drove a four door sedan my entire childhood. It fit my parents, my brother and I just fine for countless roadtrips. So, clearly they work just fine for the majority of families for many years. Maybe you're just too stupid to figure out how to make it work?
You declare that anyone who doesn't drive the car you've decided they should drive has a little penis and now here you are whining about insults. You have a PHD supposedly and you think like a toddler. Some people have more than 4 people in their family. Why are you so GD stupid that you can't comprehend that other people have different circumstances than you?
So, what you're saying is that everyone should drive an M1 Abrams battle tank because then we could just get into accidents and be fine? If everybody drove small sedans, then there wouldn't be giant SUVs to crash into. And, when the giant SUV driver is distracted by their phone and drives into a ditch, they're more likely to roll over due a high center of gravity.
If everyone wore bubble wrap and crawled to work no one would ever be killed commuting! YAY!!!
Do you have any coherent arguments, or just tired talking points that have been refuted, debunked, and beat to death over the last 20 years?
You haven't debunked or refuted anything you just re-demonstrated your ignorance and narcissism. lol...
I'm not saying that everyone needs to drive a EV. But, if you don't think buying a four door sedan with 120 HP that gets 40 MPG instead of a $60k SUV getting 20 MPG or a 450 HP Mustang GT Fastback that gets 15 MPG city and 24 MPG highway is good for the environment, then you're beyond help. Please, provide a compelling argument about why somebody needs (dare I say, should be allowed) to drive a 450 HP Mustang GT Fastback that gets 15 MPG city and 24 MPG highway? Doesn't satisfy your safety requirements of an SUV. Doesn't fit mom, dad, four kids, 3 dogs, pet cockatoo, and all their sports equipment at the same time like the SUV you claim every family needs. And, costs more to buy and own than a 120 HP, 4 cylinder sedan. If somebody wants to buy one, fine. It should cost them an extra million+ dollars per year.
Note you keep saying the lawyers don't "want" to bike to work. Not that they "can't". You're acknowledging that they are making a choice. Maybe those lawyers should move closer to their office. Or take a bus. Or ride a bike. Many days, I did ride a bike to work or run while I lived in Chicago. I also had an economical car for when I needed it. Sure, I could have bought some shiny red gas guzzler, but because I didn't expect gas prices to be low for ever, I didn't. When gas prices did go up, I didn't whine to the government to help me. I laughed at the morons driving gas guzzlers and went about my day.
People are starving in the world. Why shouldn't you cut your caloric intake and food consumption to allow them to eat more? You don't need all the food you eat and should be "allowed" to keep living the way you do.
The average American commutes 30 minutes to work one way in a car.
Most people don't want to spend 3 hours a day running or biking to and from their job.
Note the article says the TIME spent commuting has increased - not the distance. So instead of encouraging more people to bike to work or take mass transit, your solution to an increase in traffic and commute time is to have more people drive to work. I'm not saying that's the dumbest thing ever posted on these forums, but it is the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums.
It also means that having smaller, more fuel-efficient cars makes even more sense, if people are now spending more time sitting in traffic. But, putting those two thoughts together requires more cognitive power than your whole family can muster.
"The longest average travel times were associated with various forms of public transportation. For example, workers who traveled to work by bus had an average commute of 46.6 minutes."
You aren't qualified to determine what's dumb and what isn't. You can't even understand what you read.
People's freedom to live their lives the way they want trump's your virtue signaling nonsense.
I'm not saying that everyone needs to drive a EV. But, if you don't think buying a four door sedan with 120 HP that gets 40 MPG instead of a $60k SUV getting 20 MPG or a 450 HP Mustang GT Fastback that gets 15 MPG city and 24 MPG highway is good for the environment, then you're beyond help. Please, provide a compelling argument about why somebody needs (dare I say, should be allowed) to drive a 450 HP Mustang GT Fastback that gets 15 MPG city and 24 MPG highway? Doesn't satisfy your safety requirements of an SUV. Doesn't fit mom, dad, four kids, 3 dogs, pet cockatoo, and all their sports equipment at the same time like the SUV you claim every family needs. And, costs more to buy and own than a 120 HP, 4 cylinder sedan. If somebody wants to buy one, fine. It should cost them an extra million+ dollars per year.
Note you keep saying the lawyers don't "want" to bike to work. Not that they "can't". You're acknowledging that they are making a choice. Maybe those lawyers should move closer to their office. Or take a bus. Or ride a bike. Many days, I did ride a bike to work or run while I lived in Chicago. I also had an economical car for when I needed it. Sure, I could have bought some shiny red gas guzzler, but because I didn't expect gas prices to be low for ever, I didn't. When gas prices did go up, I didn't whine to the government to help me. I laughed at the morons driving gas guzzlers and went about my day.
People are starving in the world. Why shouldn't you cut your caloric intake and food consumption to allow them to eat more? You don't need all the food you eat and should be "allowed" to keep living the way you do.
You're a hypocrite.
Tu quoque fallacy. Try again, but this time present an actual argument to support your case.
Note the article says the TIME spent commuting has increased - not the distance. So instead of encouraging more people to bike to work or take mass transit, your solution to an increase in traffic and commute time is to have more people drive to work. I'm not saying that's the dumbest thing ever posted on these forums, but it is the dumbest thing I've ever read on these forums.
It also means that having smaller, more fuel-efficient cars makes even more sense, if people are now spending more time sitting in traffic. But, putting those two thoughts together requires more cognitive power than your whole family can muster.
"The longest average travel times were associated with various forms of public transportation. For example, workers who traveled to work by bus had an average commute of 46.6 minutes."
You aren't qualified to determine what's dumb and what isn't. You can't even understand what you read.
People's freedom to live their lives the way they want trump's your virtue signaling nonsense.
And you didn't think that maybe, just maybe, that's because many people that take public transportation due so for financial reasons, which also force them to live further from where they work? What will your astounding intellect reveal next? That people who walk to work have, on average, the shortest (distance) commute?
Oh, poor baby. Can't find a reason why anybody needs to drive a 450 HP mustang that gets 15 MPG, so changes tune (again) to make it about "freedom". Am I free to build a toxic waste dump on the property next to yours (or your mommy's, since you still live in her basement. Do you at least pay rent?)? My freedom to do so should trump your virtue signaling nonsense about anything leeching into the soil.
People are starving in the world. Why shouldn't you cut your caloric intake and food consumption to allow them to eat more? You don't need all the food you eat and should be "allowed" to keep living the way you do.
You're a hypocrite.
Tu quoque fallacy. Try again, but this time present an actual argument to support your case.
You don't have an argument... you just want strangers to live like you do.
"The longest average travel times were associated with various forms of public transportation. For example, workers who traveled to work by bus had an average commute of 46.6 minutes."
You aren't qualified to determine what's dumb and what isn't. You can't even understand what you read.
People's freedom to live their lives the way they want trump's your virtue signaling nonsense.
And you didn't think that maybe, just maybe, that's because many people that take public transportation due so for financial reasons, which also force them to live further from where they work? What will your astounding intellect reveal next? That people who walk to work have, on average, the shortest (distance) commute?
Oh, poor baby. Can't find a reason why anybody needs to drive a 450 HP mustang that gets 15 MPG, so changes tune (again) to make it about "freedom". Am I free to build a toxic waste dump on the property next to yours (or your mommy's, since you still live in her basement. Do you at least pay rent?)? My freedom to do so should trump your virtue signaling nonsense about anything leeching into the soil.
If someone wants to own a mustang they can own a mustang. They don't need a reason that will satisfy some millennial moron...
And no you can't build a toxic waste dump in my area zoning laws apparently are on the limitless list of things you don't understand.
We've covered this corky. Try and keep up. Cars are a TINY fraction of the alleged problem with the climate. Other people driving whatever cars they want has no impact on you. Your toxic waste analogy is idiotic.
This is such a moronic take. You’re basically saying go f* yourself if you don’t live in a city. I actually lived on Martha’s Vineyard for a couple summers back in the day and only had a bike so I’m saying this as someone who has actually done this before. I live in the suburbs now and also have a fiancé. Where would you like me to bike? Should I be biking 50miles one way to go visit my mother? When we go to dinner, should I put my fiancé in a backpack? Most of my friends are at least a 30min car ride away so should I turn any time I want to see them in 1-2hour bike ride one way? I’ve also done landscaping on the side for a few years because it’s something I enjoy so I have a truck. I’m not someone that has a truck for no reason. Libs have gotten what they want though. I have seen my mother and friends less because it literally costs $40 to visit my mother and I’m not exactly loaded. I’ve done Ironmans and am probably a better biker than 99% of the people on this site (averaged 22mph for 112miles) and still biking is a completely impractical solution. Honestly stfu with this
If you lived on Martha's Vineyard and you do Ironman's, I don't think gas prices can be a problem for you since you are wealthy.
Just don't get a ride home with that Senator in his Oldsmobile.
And you didn't think that maybe, just maybe, that's because many people that take public transportation due so for financial reasons, which also force them to live further from where they work? What will your astounding intellect reveal next? That people who walk to work have, on average, the shortest (distance) commute?
Oh, poor baby. Can't find a reason why anybody needs to drive a 450 HP mustang that gets 15 MPG, so changes tune (again) to make it about "freedom". Am I free to build a toxic waste dump on the property next to yours (or your mommy's, since you still live in her basement. Do you at least pay rent?)? My freedom to do so should trump your virtue signaling nonsense about anything leeching into the soil.
If someone wants to own a mustang they can own a mustang. They don't need a reason that will satisfy some millennial moron...
And no you can't build a toxic waste dump in my area zoning laws apparently are on the limitless list of things you don't understand.
We've covered this corky. Try and keep up. Cars are a TINY fraction of the alleged problem with the climate. Other people driving whatever cars they want has no impact on you. Your toxic waste analogy is idiotic.
And, there was a time when those zoning laws didn't exist. But, society decided that peoples' freedom to build toxic waste dumps in residential neighborhoods wasn't in society's best interest. It's likely that society will also decide that mustangs getting 15 MPG isn't in society's best interest and relegate them to the annals of history.
You previously claimed 10% of CO2 emissions are from personal vehicles. And, that could be easily cut in half with no cost by mandating that all vehicles sold get at least 50 MPG (unless you don't think the engineers at Ford are smart enough to design a small sedan that gets 50 MPG). So, for no cost, we could reduce CO2 emissions by 5%, and you're saying we shouldn't. Would you support a 5% reduction in government spending? Or, are you one of those people that says, "Of course the government should spend $100B on this, and $50B on that, because it's just a few percent of total budget." We're not going to reduce CO2 emissions to 0, so a free 5% reduction seems like a no-brainer, except for the people like you that want us to keep living in the past.
She didn't present a bill to open up the pipeline, though, did she? Nor any other legislations aimed at increasing production. She only presented a bill which would force oil companies to sell at a loss and which she knew couldn't pass
Does anyone read? Fox News is not the proper source, nor is far left sources.
Pipelines traditionally affect prices at the pump NOT AT ALL. They do increase profits considerably though. And the biggest reason for the pipeline beyond energy companies profits which make their way to GOP politicians pockets (and some Dems) was to run it through sacred Native American grounds. Have to own those libs you know!
There is no need for Porter or anyone to increase production. There is plenty. It is being withheld to drive prices/profits up. GOP and some Dems get contributions and if gas prices continue to rise through November, those that don't read and get their news from slanted sources will believe it is Biden's fault and vote red.
Can you provide an honest reason why the GOP would trash a bill to cap energy company gouging of the public?
Because we tried that in the 70s and it led to long lines at the gas station, rationing, and shortages.
But yeah I almost want them to let Democrats do it again and nosedive into another 47 state loss next election.
If someone wants to own a mustang they can own a mustang. They don't need a reason that will satisfy some millennial moron...
And no you can't build a toxic waste dump in my area zoning laws apparently are on the limitless list of things you don't understand.
We've covered this corky. Try and keep up. Cars are a TINY fraction of the alleged problem with the climate. Other people driving whatever cars they want has no impact on you. Your toxic waste analogy is idiotic.
And, there was a time when those zoning laws didn't exist. But, society decided that peoples' freedom to build toxic waste dumps in residential neighborhoods wasn't in society's best interest. It's likely that society will also decide that mustangs getting 15 MPG isn't in society's best interest and relegate them to the annals of history.
You previously claimed 10% of CO2 emissions are from personal vehicles. And, that could be easily cut in half with no cost by mandating that all vehicles sold get at least 50 MPG (unless you don't think the engineers at Ford are smart enough to design a small sedan that gets 50 MPG). So, for no cost, we could reduce CO2 emissions by 5%, and you're saying we shouldn't. Would you support a 5% reduction in government spending? Or, are you one of those people that says, "Of course the government should spend $100B on this, and $50B on that, because it's just a few percent of total budget." We're not going to reduce CO2 emissions to 0, so a free 5% reduction seems like a no-brainer, except for the people like you that want us to keep living in the past.
And "society" is shaped by the people voting. Not by millennial children making decrees based on their feelings.
Reducing the emissions of cars would have a negligible if any impact on global CO2 levels. 3.2% of the CO2 is estimated to be man-made. 10% of that 3.2% comes from cars. The impact of your little plan would be laughably small considering how many people it would inconvenience.
Not everyone’s shorter trips are biking distance. And don’t call me lazy; I’m on a forum dedicated to distance running. For most people in America, your solution isn’t practical.
"Don't call me lazy; I'm on a forum dedicated to distance running."
Am I the only one who laughed out loud? Should this not be the banner motto of Letsrun?