And that helps reduce the minority emmisions from regular persons cars, while the rich won't even notice that their jet fuel is couple if thousand dollars more this year.
I don't really take seriously the complaints in my country. Why? Because the majority of car drives are distances less than 5 km long and with only one person in the car. The next most drives are less than 10 km which is still easy distance to bicycle at least in the summer. Walk, bicycle, public transportation.. (Also majority of people here are obese or overweight so yeah, two stones and so on.)
Unfortunately, there’s an oversized impact to low income people.
The trick would be to switch the handouts to big oil to electric car manufacturers to subsidize low end electric vehicles kinda like China is doing. I’m surprised Elon hasn’t pushed this grift already.
Tesla wants to keep being a premium product, as that's a higher profit margin.
They keep saying they want to make a smaller / cheaper model but don't deliver on that. Meanwhile many other brands have introduced models below the Tesla price point.
arming ukraine should earn you carbon credits
Say what you will the Iran war has pushed many people and countries to renewable energy.
I honestly don't completely understand the conservative agenda against renewable energy it allows independence at so many levels. Never have to see a gas pump again. Use the electricity from your house or a solar panel.
I honestly don't completely understand the conservative agenda against renewable energy
Because they’re owned by the oil companies, simple as that.
This, 100%.
Trying to tie this to any aspect of conservative "ideology" is misguided, because conservatives don't have a consistent ideology.
UK here, I had solar panels and a battery installed. My electric bill has gone from being £100-£150 a month down to £20. And that's with an electric car.
Genuine independence on an individual level is at odds with nationalism
I think there's a very simple explanation, the renewables as in solar and wind energy generation methods show that the world isn't perfect, that even ignoring the basic notion that natural gas and coal generate CO2 emissions; natural gas, U-235 (used for nuclear power generation), and coal are of a finite supply.
That destroys their ideology that we live in this perfect world with infinite resources, because most conservatives come from a religious background. They are beyond condescending (I know this because I lived in one), even with the world crumbling from gas prices and food, I don't think they'll even give a damn that prices are exponentially growing. They live in this fabricated environment abstracted away from the rest of the world.
We have enough minable nuclear fuel to sustain our current power needs for a couple billion years. And with enough technological gains, we can extend that to well past the time that the sun has died. Hence, it is safe to consider it renewable.
Doesn't invalidate your point, but I just wanted to point this nugget of info out.
Each uranium rod has a life of around 6 years before needing replacement, the relative abudance of uranium-235 is about 0.9% compared to uranium 238 which has 98℅
Sure, the decay chain of uranium 235 is long, but the usability of in converting it to nuclear power the uranium rods last 6 years, not billions.
Even if we take all our uranium-235 reserves (which is about 56,304 kilo-tonnes of uranium-235)
1.) It's unrealistic because we use U-235 for other things 2.) This is a global reserve. Countries haven't made peace with another yet.
I know niche points, i'll admit I really dug through the barrel with this one. Nuclear power plants are also quite expensive to maintain and build since these are often built based on the selected site. Also very inefficient as each reaction loses 1.4 neutrons (or else kaboom).
These reasons are why (despite it generating 17℅ of the US electricity with only 92 reactors), countries don't invest more into nuclear power. Inefficiency + large costs make it unappealing compared to wind which generates 40℅ or even 60℅ (with offshore) of the energy the wind pushes.
You assume that by increasing gas prices it would result in people not buying it and hence less CO2 emissions.
The production process for gasoline also contributes in CO2 emissions whether or not humans use it.
The current issue with gasoline (and why prices are increasing) is that gasoline companies aren't opening up more reserves, because by doing so it will decrease their revenue. I'm not sure what will happen once US gas reserves are finished.
You're right that it is helping the climate, not for the reason gas prices are expensive.
I fear if you tally up the environmental impact of war, which is more often than not the reason for the rising oil price, it may exceed the savings at the end consumer level.
Yeah I wish the price had gone up without the war, then it would have really been a benefit.
I would agree with you for every country besides America. In America, especially in states like Indiana, you're completely dependent on gas because there's no other way to get to your job. So it does nothing to stop car usage and only finanically cripples people who are already barely keeping their face above water.
I bet you in Indiana it's still 50% (or more) stupid sized trucks or SUVs. Higher gas prices will:
And then the very small minority who can't do those things, they pay the higher prices for their gas guzzlers.
Why do you think monster pickup trucks only exist in the USA? Pickups exist in other counties, but they're sensibly sized with smaller engines. Other counties figured out many decades ago that it's the most efficient (cost-wise and emission-wise) to use a vehicle appropriate to the job, instead of getting the biggest extended-bed, 4 door crew cab, 5.8 litre 8 cylinder truck with oversized offroading tires to pickup the damn groceries.
Gas use is pretty elastic, even in Indiana.
If gas is expensive, people tend to buy more fuel-efficient cars (or even electric cars). They drive slower and more fuel efficient. They consider whether a trip is actually worth it and bundle trips. So e.g. instead of driving to the shop for a handful items every day they instead do a weekly shopping trip where they get everything they need for the week.
Just with changing your driving style you can often save a ton of fuel.
The increased prices also mean that shopping in general goes down. If you don't have money for unnecessary garbage you buy less unnecessary garbage, thus again helping the economy.
So yes, even in Indiana where you have to drive to your job, higher fuel prices will lead to benefits for the environment.
What do you mean? I LOVE spending $350/mo on gas!! I'm in Illinois, I feel INs pain.
I just bought an electric scooter that goes 20mph, it'll take 30 minutes to get to work, when it's not cold or snowy, but saving a tank of gas a month is $100 right there. I've already saved multiple trips to the local grocery store with little pick ups here and there. Looking forward to more fuel saving!
Even in places like that, it might cause people to avoid additional, less necessary, car trips.
If you're too poor to drive to work, you're helping the climate by reducing fuel burning and eventually the oxygen and food you take up being alive by not being able to afford to live.
Let Trump know and maybe THEN we'll see some action on gas prices.
I want gas prices to keep going up to insane levels as quickly as possible. A major acute pain will cause change.
There's only so much you can change urban sprawl. In the US especially, high gas prices just mean people who are middle-class or below can't afford to get to work. Last summer, 6% of my salary after tax went into the commute to and from the office.
Not really. People who need to drive still drive. Trucks, trains, and ships continue hauling freight. Navies continue their patrols. Planes still transport people and goods.
It's just more expensive.
Energy has historically been much cheaper in the US than the rest of the world. I remember hearing somewhere that in cost per unit of gasoline the US is something like 30-40% cheaper than Europe. During this gasoline price spike and the last one, I did find a part of me hoping it would sustain so that lifestyles would adjust to be a bit less careless about fuel consumption.
What I've observed, living in a rural area of a rural state is that once gas prices get up to around $4 per gallon, people start making small changes to save fuel. If they have a gas gusling truck and a comparably more fuel efficient SUV they might drive the SUV more. Workplaces become more thoughtful about making their employees drive in unnecessarily. Car dealerships start advertising fuel efficiency rather than hauling capacity. People will think twice about extra trips out, or select closer trips.
Once the higher prices are sustained for a few months, I expect that super commuters will start recalculating if they can still afford their commute or need to change jobs. Folks in the market for a new vehicle may buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, and new lifestyles will bed in with a bit less driving for most people
Once the higher prices are sustained for a year or more is when I expect more noticable changes to take effect. Sales of fuel efficient vehicles will likely tick up, electric vehicle sales may also increase, solar panel installations will likely increase, and the most inefficient vehicles on the road will become a bit less common. This is the timeline I've observed and expect respectively for gas prices remaining around $4/gallon.
Now if they go really insane and get up to $6-8 per gallon average for over a year, that's when I'd expect a big uptick in people choosing to go car-free or car-lite, I'd expect to see a lot of new companies starting up to try to capitalize on the demand created by the fuel crisis, and I'd expect established companies to begin investing in more R&D into more financially risky and exotic solutions that can be expected to save energy
One would think so, in theory. Reality shows so far that too many people can't easily and meaningfully decrease their fuel consumption and will just have to find the money somewhere. And the big consumers just raise the prices of the products they ship to compensate.
And it doesn’t impact worldwide freight, private jets, or military consumption.
People driving cars are a tiny fraction compared to billionaires and their private jet usage. They can afford any price. More expensive fuel only affects poor people.
True but The climate doesn't care about equality, only emissions.
Higher oil prices also drive electric adoption and overall less consumption as general retail prices rise to reflect transportation costs. Its hard to call deprivation a good thing because people suffer, but if it reduces consumption and waste of resources it is a net benefit for sustainability, just not a politically desirable method.
I haven't filled my Chevy Volt's gas tank in 3 months
only if there is alternative like heavy invesment in HSR and public transport, which most states dont have(none has a comprehensive HSR). even in states do have public transport, its quite inadequate(limited areas it can go, fare prices keep increasing especially people who cant afford cars or a higher lifestyle of living)
I mean, I'm sure as hell pussyfootin' around town. Instead of getting 24mpg, I can get up to 32.
I get to work slower, but that place is ass, so I don't care.
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.