politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What, that focusing solely on electric cars are not the solution to climate change and is only a band-aid? No, it's the truth.
It's better than ice cars in the short run, but you guys really need to focus on other, more practical solutions like better public transports and less car-centric infrastructure and laws.
You're changing the goalposts. I was clearly referring to the quoted portion of your assertion that electric cars are a net negative for climate change.
This is false:
Thank you for the advice on how the US should operate. Good points that no one has ever considered.
Cities, states, and regions have been and are continuing to improve the public transit infrastructure. The problem exists primarily at the federal level, as well as cost, local zoning, eminent domain and the lawsuits that follow, and certain state and federal environmental laws that result in lengthy studies and more lawsuits.
These are all factors that have slowed down the California High-Speed Rail Project, for example. The goal is for it is to eventually connect every major city in California to high-speed rail (and Las Vegas via another high-speed rail line, Brightline West). Excluding Las Vegas, the total length of track is roughly the length of Belgium to Poland. And that's half of one state.
The Northeast is already covered in rail. Going from city to city is easier that way, even though it's not high speed. NYC to DC is 3.5 hours and requires no cars, door to door. This works because of density, the same reason it works in Europe and Asia. The US is very large and doesn't have density everywhere. Building and maintaining the 4,500 km of high-speed rail track necessary to connect Los Angeles to NYC is expensive and difficult. That's Lisbon to Moscow.
I actually said they're a net negative and I stand by that.
Lithium mining, their fixed short life spans, and the problems of car focused cities as a whole are not addressed by going all EV. Marginally better than combustion? Sure. I'll give you that.
But ultimately its manufacturing and the lack of repair ability make it bad over all.
Well, first of all, you could read usernames. That would be helpful to determine what points you're going to argue against and what the appropriate response would be.
Second, nobody is asserting that the US never considered public transport, we were only addressing the actual decision of the US in general, which IS very much focused on electric cars to the detriment of progress on much saner public transport projects. The Vegas Loop and similar projects immediately come to mind.
The laws that gets in the way of public transport projects are a result of the US's obsession with car-centrism and capitalism. Instead of thinking of long term solutions, they'd rather clutch to a band aid solution to keep their status quo.
And discussions about public transport is not focussed solely on trains. On the contrary, the most depressing thing about the us car-centrism is the inability to do short trips without needing a car. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure are pretty cheap relative to building high speed train networks or even inner city metros, yet the US even struggle with that.
The source of the problem are the people themselves who have been deluded into thinking they need to force everyone to use a car simply because they don't want to use public transportation, which is an absurd thought process. The focus on electric cars will only continue this brainwashing, not fix it, so it is a net negative in the long run.
Your solution is on the scale of decades — almost certainly over 100 years. None of our infrastructure is set up for this outside of cities that most of us have no interest in living in.
We certainly need more interim projects like electric cars and green energy.
The problem is I haven't seen much news of projects other than those types of interim projects that focus on electric cars. I mean, they spent millions of dollars on the Vegas Loop instead of on more sane public transport projects. America has a very unhealthy focus on electric cars because of their car-centric mindset and I don't see it changing any time soon unless people start pushing back on it.
Most of us don't want to live in cities or put our mobility in the hands of others. People who want it for everyone are primarily city folks who are used to that lifestyle. Those ideas are less popular with the people who would be most affected.
I know eventually the world will go that way and it'll be a good thing, but I'm also glad I won't live to see it because I have no desire whatsoever to live that way. The change will be generational. If folks try to impose it, there is going to be a lot of resistance and pushback. You have to get folks to want it.
Most Americans live in dense cities.
Not true. Over 50% of our population lives in suburbs and small cities.
You're correct. I was thinking "not rural."
More public transports benefits not only people who use public transports, but also people who use cars. You have the typical car-centric mindset that makes it harder for your country to progress in that area.
I know I'm certainly part of the problem. But it's a chicken and egg problem. You have to make people want to change while the change will be inconvenient short term. I don't know how that happens, other than very slowly over time.
Well, you could try and stop thinking that people are trying to make you use public transport and more along the line of not forcing you or anyone to use their car to go anywhere in a practical way. And imagine the improvement to traffic and safety once people who hates driving or not good at it are no longer forced to drive on the same road as you.
Gods, this is how I sell public transit to pro car people.
I am traffic. I want to be off the road and in a bus.
I just don't want my bus ride to be over an hour and a half long when the car ride is 10 minutes.
I'll settle for a bike commute because that's 30 minutes but it would require riding down a major road where the only thing protecting me from a car going 60 MPH is a painted white line and trust.
Yep, all we want are more options other than driving. A good cycling and pedestrian infrastructure even helps in making sure they're out of the road and not in the way of cars, something I'm sure a lot of car-centric people would actually be happy about. It's a net positive for everyone.
Tearing up all our cities and rebuilding them is way more wasteful that battery powered cars. This is not a switch you can just flip overnight. It is not something that can be done in the timeframe it would be needed.
Should we strive for those ideals with future development? Yes. And we're seeing some of that already.
I just want busses. That tears up nothing.
I just want bollards protecting pedestrian and bike traffic. That tears up nothing.
I want passenger trains between cities where there's already railing. That tears up nothing.
Is this honestly a bigger ask than a decade long rebuild of an interstate that will need another widening in 5 years after?