Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 8 Vote(s) - 4.25 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Road and Highway Discussion
(07-25-2022, 12:08 PM)SammyOES Wrote:
(07-24-2022, 06:30 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Or more to the point, anyone for whom having their tires deflated "poisons" was already poisoned. Everything in context...they are doing something to a vehicle that is non-destructive and non-violent something most vehicle owners will experience many times through random chance (and more destructively at that)....anyone who experiences this and hates the people who did it so much that they are entirely unwilling to listen to any thing more are not going to be people who are willing to listen to the idea that they should not drive their vehicle in the city because it is the very message that is threatening to them...not the method of sending it.

This is nonsense and you seem to have a pretty poor view of how humans actually react to things like this and issues like this.

Peoples opinions on issues like climate change aren’t binary.  It’s not “you’re our ally or you’re our enemy”.  The biggest problem for climate change is getting people to care and to demand action from our governments to address - even when those actions are going to hurt our individual standard of livings (by internalizing the cost of climate change). 

This ridiculous approach is not going to help us do that!  It’s going to drive people to demand more funding for police (which is bad in itself and also leads to support for parties that have worse climate change policies).  It’s going to turn people off of “environmentalists” and be less likely to be convinced on other important climate change policies.  People are not going to want to be associated with these morons and will be less likely to talk about necessary climate change policies with friends and families.  And so on and so on.

All for the perceived benefit of convincing people SUVs are bad - when they’re not even close to the biggest problem in climate change.  It’s a weird tiny symptom that they’re trying to target in a super ineffective way.  Like is success just people trading SUVs for hybrid vans or cars?  Some fairy tale scenario where all SUVs turn into fully electric cars isn’t going to make more than a dent in greenhouse emissions.

You assume this is true. It sounds reasonable after all. And yet violence has historically been effective repeatedly in achieving ends. You assume I don't understand your arguments, but you're wrong, I've just studied it more deeply than before, and no longer feel it is as clear cut as you believe.

And yes, SUVs aren't the only problem for climate change. It is the one this group has decided to target. And lemme be completely frank...attacking a group for targeting the wrong environmental cause is uber weak sauce.

Edit: Something worth pointing out here that might have gotten lost here. The majority in the city do not own SUVs...
Reply


Dan, “violence has historically been effective repeatedly in achieving ends” is an inane nonsense statement. It doesn’t even make sense because the scope of the violence, purpose, and results is so fucking broad. But, please, show me sources that back up the idea that violence is effective at changing policy in a democracy. And note, effective doesn’t mean has worked before. It means that it works well and for a reasonable cost/benefit versus other avenues.

And if you think you understand climate change policy and have come to the conclusion that you need to convince SUV drivers to not drive SUVs you absolutely don’t understand the problem. Both the human/policy problem and the climate change problem.
Reply
(07-25-2022, 01:31 PM)SammyOES Wrote: Dan, “violence has historically been effective repeatedly in achieving ends” is an inane nonsense statement. It doesn’t even make sense because the scope of the violence, purpose, and results is so fucking broad. But, please, show me sources that back up the idea that violence is effective at changing policy in a democracy. And note, effective doesn’t mean has worked before. It means that it works well and for a reasonable cost/benefit versus other avenues.

And if you think you understand climate change policy and have come to the conclusion that you need to convince SUV drivers to not drive SUVs you absolutely don’t understand the problem.  Both the human/policy problem and the climate change problem.

Alright, here, I'll post this video...for the third time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4G1Gjv...osophyTube

By the way, calling a statement "inane nonsense" doesn't help. You can make legitimate complaints "it's broad and lacks context" which is true, but that doesn't make a statement "inane" or "nonsense".

And I think if you understand climate policy (and road safety policy for that matter) and you have come to the conclusion that we shouldn't bother convincing SUV drivers to drive smaller vehicles, you absolutely do not understand the problem. The climate emergency (and road safety) will not be solved by one solution, we need EVERY solution.

(For the record, larger vehicles like SUVs are pushed by car companies for several reasons, they are higher margins, they avoid CAFE fuel standards, they are easier to achieve a higher crash test safety rating on because they are bigger and north american safety ratings only consider vehicle occupants, this is not a preference thing, these vehicles are pushed by for profit by corporations).
Reply
I think that the approach is asinine, but SUVs are a significant reason why our vehicle emissions have been rising instead of declining like they should have with modern technology.

They aren’t #1 for emissions, but it’s moving the goalposts if we are only allowed to spend effort protesting and controlling the #1 emitter.
local cambridge weirdo
Reply
(07-25-2022, 01:44 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: (For the record, larger vehicles like SUVs are pushed by car companies for several reasons, they are higher margins, they avoid CAFE fuel standards, they are easier to achieve a higher crash test safety rating on because they are bigger and north american safety ratings only consider vehicle occupants, this is not a preference thing, these vehicles are pushed by for profit by corporations).

This is why this kind of detailed prescription is not the best way to go. If we’d just had a gradually-increasing carbon fee/dividend since 1980, by now we would have dramatically lower emissions without all the loophole-related nonsense.

Of course, like planting a tree the second-best time is now, but we’re definitely a little late.
Reply
I'm curious why Dan is so defensive - or at least acting indifferent about them/their tactics - in regards to this action group. I know he hates cars but it's hard to read the news about these vehicles being vandalized and - regardless of ones stance on personal automobiles - and not agree that this is dumb, annoying and pointless. Or is this just because he never really admits he is incorrect about something and doubles down on his points - wrong or right - when challenged about them, as is quite common? There could be a thread discussing how 1 + 1 is 2, but then it spirals into this 30 page discussion about how actually that is not always the case.

Like I don't see what there is to defend or at least not speak out towards a nonsensical activist group that is deflating tires of already owned SUV vehicles, knowing full well that doing this is not going to do anything. It isn't going to cause any of these vehicle owners to sell their vehicles. It isn't going to do anything to help climate change either (paper straws do more and those are basically pointless theatre)...because these vehicles are already on the road and just need their tires refilled. It isn't going to result in sweeping changes with any value - automobile manufacturers aren't going to suddenly stop making SUVs because some clowns keep going around deflating tires. It isn't going to gain any sympathy from people. It isn't going to do anything to advance the cause of environmentalism which you are seeing in this thread as well as online discussion. Even those of us here or those on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter et al. that are environmentalists and even those of us who dislike or do not even own cars don't see the purpose in what these people are doing (I've only been reading about this on here and Reddit and I think Dan is the only person I've heard from who hasn't been echoing the sentiments of the rest of the people...).

I could go on. There is nothing to defend here, nothing being achieved. All it is doing is making a mockery out of environmental actions, causing others to not take it seriously, disadvantages people (it's an easy repair, but not everyone has a pump or something) and is now wasting police resources as they investigate. Which will then waste more resources as it ends up court while a judge decides what punishment to give these morons. And it could end up resulting in violence. Maybe these clowns LARPing as environmental revolutionaries hit the wrong SUV one night and someone comes out, gives them a good punch in the face then waits for the cops to show up.
Reply
(07-25-2022, 01:54 PM)bravado Wrote: I think that the approach is asinine, but SUVs are a significant reason why our vehicle emissions have been rising instead of declining like they should have with modern technology.

They aren’t #1 for emissions, but it’s moving the goalposts if we are only allowed to spend effort protesting and controlling the #1 emitter.

Dan and these “activists” don’t understand climate change because the problem isn’t small optional choices that people make. Telling people “to make better choices” gets us nowhere. Literally nowhere. And, I’d like to point out, this protest isn’t even about the problems of individuals driving or lack of public transportation. It’s targeting a specific mode of individual transportation where even the best choices consumers can make (efficient electric cars) are still highly problematic for climate change.

The only way we tackle climate change is with broad based policy that forces climate change costs into every decision we make. It requires governments to write the rules so that businesses and consumers make every choice with climate change in mind.

And if we need Government support we need broad based public support to elect the Governments that will make these choices. And the easiest way isn’t to convince people that don’t care about climate change to suddenly care or make better choices. It’s to get a majority (or maybe even a plurality) of people that are currently apathetic to vote accordingly, talk accordingly, and act accordingly.

This “protest” will not move apathetic people to caring.
Reply
(07-25-2022, 01:44 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Alright, here, I'll post this video...for the third time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4G1Gjv...osophyTube

By the way, calling a statement "inane nonsense" doesn't help. You can make legitimate complaints "it's broad and lacks context" which is true, but that doesn't make a statement "inane" or "nonsense".

Your statement is inane. And I laid out why. And a YouTube video is a terrible way to back up your argument. I’m not going to watch it because there’s no way to see sources, fact check claims, see peer reviewed replies or expansions, and so on.

There are very serious people that study political science and history. If your claim is true then go back it up.
Reply
(07-25-2022, 04:51 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(07-25-2022, 01:44 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: (For the record, larger vehicles like SUVs are pushed by car companies for several reasons, they are higher margins, they avoid CAFE fuel standards, they are easier to achieve a higher crash test safety rating on because they are bigger and north american safety ratings only consider vehicle occupants, this is not a preference thing, these vehicles are pushed by for profit by corporations).

This is why this kind of detailed prescription is not the best way to go. If we’d just had a gradually-increasing carbon fee/dividend since 1980, by now we would have dramatically lower emissions without all the loophole-related nonsense.

Of course, like planting a tree the second-best time is now, but we’re definitely a little late.

CAFE fuel standards aren't really about CO2 emissions. They're about fuel economy (which indirectly affects CO2 emissions, but that wasn't the motivation). My opinion is that CAFE isn't really the problem...it's that the EPA allowed the auto industry to have a loophole allowing them to avoid CAFE...a loophole that exasperated a lot of problems.

Ultimately, regulatory capture is the problem...not fuel standards.

I'm all for a broad CO2 price and restriction, but it makes sense to regulate other things directly as well (e.g., other harmful emissions...why do we allow two stroke and small four stroke engines with no emissions controls at all!)
Reply
(07-25-2022, 01:54 PM)bravado Wrote: I think that the approach is asinine, but SUVs are a significant reason why our vehicle emissions have been rising instead of declining like they should have with modern technology.

They aren’t #1 for emissions, but it’s moving the goalposts if we are only allowed to spend effort protesting and controlling the #1 emitter.

I wanted to come back to this. I’m not against this protest because it’s not targeting the #1 source of emissions.

The current big climate goal is “net-neutral CO2 by 2050”. A goal which is both unlikely to be achieved and if achieved unlikely to be ambitious enough to stop a lot of climate damage.

We’re at a point where achieving this goal doesn’t mean driving fuel efficient cars. It means only driving cars that have no (net) emissions when driving, no emissions during manufacturing, no emissions when mining the raw materials, no emissions when transporting the cars around the world, no emissions when building the roads, no emissions when generating all the energy used at every stage, and so on.

I hope that we have the technological breakthroughs necessary that existing incentives will exist to achieve this. But that seems very unlikely. And so we need Governments to play a big role to (amongst other things):

* Create incentives (some monetary, some legal) that make companies move to net neutral technologies and processes.
* Fund/incentivize research to develop technologies we’ll need but don’t have.
* Make sure public projects aim for net neutral.

And so on.

One big problem we have is that people think reducing emissions by X% (say 50%) by an intermediate goal like 2035 means we’ll be on target. But if we do that with only the low hanging fruit (increasing fuel efficiency) it means we’re screwed achieving the rest. We need to work on the hard parts now so we can scale them up in time. And the hardest parts need the most government and public support.

So, yes, fuel efficiency is important. Every ton of CO2 we keep out now is good. But we can’t waste political capital and public support on minor fights that aren’t going to move the needle in the most important ways.
Reply
(07-26-2022, 04:45 AM)SammyOES Wrote:
(07-25-2022, 01:54 PM)bravado Wrote: I think that the approach is asinine, but SUVs are a significant reason why our vehicle emissions have been rising instead of declining like they should have with modern technology.

They aren’t #1 for emissions, but it’s moving the goalposts if we are only allowed to spend effort protesting and controlling the #1 emitter.

I wanted to come back to this.  I’m not against this protest because it’s not targeting the #1 source of emissions.

The current big climate goal is “net-neutral CO2 by 2050”.  A goal which is both unlikely to be achieved and if achieved unlikely to be ambitious enough to stop a lot of climate damage.

We’re at a point where achieving this goal doesn’t mean driving fuel efficient cars.  It means only driving cars that have no (net) emissions when driving, no emissions during manufacturing, no emissions when mining the raw materials, no emissions when transporting the cars around the world, no emissions when building the roads, no emissions when generating all the energy used at every stage, and so on. 

I hope that we have the technological breakthroughs necessary that existing incentives will exist to achieve this.  But that seems very unlikely.  And so we need Governments to play a big role to (amongst other things):

* Create incentives (some monetary, some legal) that make companies move to net neutral technologies and processes.
* Fund/incentivize research to develop technologies we’ll need but don’t have.
* Make sure public projects aim for net neutral.

And so on.

One big problem we have is that people think reducing emissions by X% (say 50%) by an intermediate goal like 2035 means we’ll be on target.  But if we do that with only the low hanging fruit (increasing fuel efficiency) it means we’re screwed achieving the rest.  We need to work on the hard parts now so we can scale them up in time.  And the hardest parts need the most government and public support. 

So, yes, fuel efficiency is important.  Every ton of CO2 we keep out now is good.  But we can’t waste political capital and public support on minor fights that aren’t going to move the needle in the most important ways.

You are welcome to throw your support, energy, money behind whichever environmental cause you feel is most effective.

But I really hate it when people tell others that they are focused on the wrong cause. Unless their policy is literally harmful (like EVs or suburban sprawl) if you just feel that they'd be better to spend their effort on what YOU think is the right focus area....I find it self defeating at best.

I advance my goals by spending my energy promoting them and recruiting for them. I don't advance my goals by telling others that their goals are wrong, unless their goals are actually harmful.
Reply
(07-26-2022, 05:06 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I advance my goals by spending my energy promoting them and recruiting for them. I don't advance my goals by telling others that their goals are wrong, unless their goals are actually harmful.

Well, in this case, if you are spending your energy and/or money advancing your goal of inconveniencing people who drive SUVs in the name of our climate, I'm here to tell you that your goal is actually harmful. We need to have those people on side to support actual regulatory solutions to a societal problem. Pissing them off is not going to bring them on side, no matter what how much you try to convince yourself that it is a part of some sort of noble climate crusade. If this group insists on continuing, at least put a crazy face on it like Wiebo Ludwig so that climate activists who are actually serious about achieving regulatory change can easily distance themselves from the lunatics.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links