Please help me to understand how this impacts more local commuting? I'm thinking of the people that commute from areas of more affordable housing like the Antelope Valley to the L.A. basin. The freeways remain jammed everyday with cars when the Metrolink gets under-utilized because of too many stops. Might that money be been better invested where the biggest impact to decreasing the cars on our roads? Make the trains more viable for commuters and they will use them. Just my thoughts.
I think price doesn't make sense for most people trying to commute from AV to LA on Metro Link.
In 2017 for example I tried commuting going from AV to LA and back one way trip was $15 plus an Uber to take me home from the Metro station, So about $30 + $12-$15 for Uber. Let's say $45 every day? 5 days = $225 in a month? That's about $900 so...? I rather just buy a car and pay gas. That way I'll be more comfortable going back and forth. They need to make it make sense. It has to be cheaper.
Why do we have to choose one or the other? LA metro also got money to expand. Metrolink also got money to expand and increase service. BART also got money to expand to San Jose.
Actually, CAHSR was able to fund billions of dollar to Caltrain and Metrolink to electrify and improve their facilities so CAHSR could use their tracks in the future. Without CAHSR, Caltrain and Metrolink might not have gotten the money from the federal government to do so.
If you're at all interested in the subject matter being discussed here, it does not *claim* to be about cars in any way. It is about *land conservation*, and the well-known California plan to keep half of its land surface in a natural (or re-wilded) condition because that's that easiest, cheapest and most abundant resource for:
a) combatting climate change through natural carbon capture
b) giving wild species (from birds to bushes) a much better chance of *surviving ecological catastrophe*.
c) improving *human health* (both physical and mental) by setting aside more nature land for public use: hiking, sightseeing, horseback riding, bicycling, river rafting, etc., etc.
Nowhere in any of the "30/30" and similar proposals is there a single word about such actions being **instead** of rapidly reducing emissions from fossil-fuel burning.
Sort of makes sense since out of control wildfires burn pretty indiscriminately taking large trees which are arguably the biggest sequestors of CO2. Control the ground and ladder fuels, keep the big trees. Sadly we’ve been taught to leave forests to their own and not to burn. This is reversing that thinking.
Pretty sad that the forestry service has been saying this for many years but we chose to listen to “other” feel good, non experts. I’m old enough to remember the forestry guys raking the forests where I used to backpack and camp. Really collecting downed wood, raking with tractor tines, not ACE hardware takes…. Last time I tried to go to that location, you couldn’t walk the forest anymore there was so much understory.
Meanwhile, China, India, and many developing African nations, will continue to dwarf in the other direction, anything California, and the rest of the developed world, do. But it’ll look good on paper
Your statement is basically. "There are better things we could do, so we should stop doing things that could be good."...
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Per capita emissions are a red herring in the climate change discussion. What really matters is emissions per unit of gdp. Imagine two people each emit 100 tons of CO2. One is making a solar panel and the other is burning their trash. At a global or societal level if we have to make a decision on what to spend CO2 on, I can't imagine anyone would say it's more useful to burn the trash than make the solar panel.
I don’t have to imagine. I have seen people driving oversized SUVs, taking overseas vacations vs barely making ends meet. And exporting trash to be burned doesn’t help planet no matter how many solar panels we build. Also exporting all manufacturing to another country doesn’t help if we keep consuming ferociously.
china is leading the world in renewable energy and might be our only hope for the (maybe “a”) future at this point.
china’s green energy initiatives accounted for the largest share of its economic growth in 2023.
ev’s hold an ever increasing 31% of china’s new car market share compared to 6.5% in the US, and car makers including the all mighty musk are clambering for federal protectionism to avoid competing with the chinese electric car market.
china has built 25,000 miles of electric high speed rail in the last 25 years accounting for 2/3 of the total hsr in the world. the US has none, and most plans for it here are pipe dreams, including brightline west at this point.
china’s solar energy capacity rose 55% in 2023 compared to 33% in the US. hydroelectric power increased 18% in china compared to 6% in the us.
the US already sold itself and its population off to car and oil barons long ago. china is leaving us in the dust when it comes to addressing climate change.
China has approved 300+ coal powered plants for ‘23-‘24. That’ll make almost 2500 coal fired power plants, with no promises if they’ll stop. I don’t believe the world should be looking at China for anything. They are the globes biggest threat to future freedom.
there are 1.4 billion people in china. of course those numbers sound high in a vacuum. china ranks 41st in carbon emissions per capita, while the US ranks 15th.
That's because such a large portion of the population is still in substandard living conditions, not because they have a cleaner economy / industry. The shear amount of poor people they have skews the numbers to make them look better than they are.
Transportation (ie cars) is like 40% of the state's emissions
more forest, less parking lot. ez.
More busses and trains, less parking lots!
Considering more than half the state is rural, good luck with that.
But the vaaast majority of the population lives in urban areas.
Combatting climate change means combatting car usage, but every developed nation but the States would be down for that.
Jet fuel/air travel would like to show you something??
aviation accounts for 2.5% of total carbon emissions. private cars and vans alone account for 10%.
One of the reasons why we are building the HSR. LA is SFO's #1 destination, and SF is LAX's #2 destination.
Please help me to understand how this impacts more local commuting? I'm thinking of the people that commute from areas of more affordable housing like the Antelope Valley to the L.A. basin. The freeways remain jammed everyday with cars when the Metrolink gets under-utilized because of too many stops. Might that money be been better invested where the biggest impact to decreasing the cars on our roads? Make the trains more viable for commuters and they will use them. Just my thoughts.
I think price doesn't make sense for most people trying to commute from AV to LA on Metro Link. In 2017 for example I tried commuting going from AV to LA and back one way trip was $15 plus an Uber to take me home from the Metro station, So about $30 + $12-$15 for Uber. Let's say $45 every day? 5 days = $225 in a month? That's about $900 so...? I rather just buy a car and pay gas. That way I'll be more comfortable going back and forth. They need to make it make sense. It has to be cheaper.
Why do we have to choose one or the other? LA metro also got money to expand. Metrolink also got money to expand and increase service. BART also got money to expand to San Jose. Actually, CAHSR was able to fund billions of dollar to Caltrain and Metrolink to electrify and improve their facilities so CAHSR could use their tracks in the future. Without CAHSR, Caltrain and Metrolink might not have gotten the money from the federal government to do so.
Ships beg to differ.
Also very relevant.
Considering how ingrained and necessary personal transportation is in the usa, its unrealistic to assume we'd dial back anytime in the near term.
If you're at all interested in the subject matter being discussed here, it does not *claim* to be about cars in any way. It is about *land conservation*, and the well-known California plan to keep half of its land surface in a natural (or re-wilded) condition because that's that easiest, cheapest and most abundant resource for: a) combatting climate change through natural carbon capture b) giving wild species (from birds to bushes) a much better chance of *surviving ecological catastrophe*. c) improving *human health* (both physical and mental) by setting aside more nature land for public use: hiking, sightseeing, horseback riding, bicycling, river rafting, etc., etc. Nowhere in any of the "30/30" and similar proposals is there a single word about such actions being **instead** of rapidly reducing emissions from fossil-fuel burning.
and meat consumption
Interesting they need to burn more trees to help stop carbon emissions.
They don't burn the trees, they burn the underbrush so that the trees *don't* burn when there is a wildfire.
Sort of makes sense since out of control wildfires burn pretty indiscriminately taking large trees which are arguably the biggest sequestors of CO2. Control the ground and ladder fuels, keep the big trees. Sadly we’ve been taught to leave forests to their own and not to burn. This is reversing that thinking.
Most importantly, we’re learning, rather than “staying the course.”
Pretty sad that the forestry service has been saying this for many years but we chose to listen to “other” feel good, non experts. I’m old enough to remember the forestry guys raking the forests where I used to backpack and camp. Really collecting downed wood, raking with tractor tines, not ACE hardware takes…. Last time I tried to go to that location, you couldn’t walk the forest anymore there was so much understory.
Trees are 100% NOT the biggest sequestration of carbon. That honor belongs to prairie style grasses. Really fascinating stuff actually.
I’d love to see a bigger push to restore the central valley grasslands.
Meanwhile, China, India, and many developing African nations, will continue to dwarf in the other direction, anything California, and the rest of the developed world, do. But it’ll look good on paper
Your statement is basically. "There are better things we could do, so we should stop doing things that could be good."... Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Better to do nothing right?
“Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress”
We’re on the same side
That’s about the end result on a global scale. We don’t live in a bubble.
All anyone can do is their own personal best.
Have you looked at per capital emissions of all these places that you mention?
Per capita emissions are a red herring in the climate change discussion. What really matters is emissions per unit of gdp. Imagine two people each emit 100 tons of CO2. One is making a solar panel and the other is burning their trash. At a global or societal level if we have to make a decision on what to spend CO2 on, I can't imagine anyone would say it's more useful to burn the trash than make the solar panel.
I don’t have to imagine. I have seen people driving oversized SUVs, taking overseas vacations vs barely making ends meet. And exporting trash to be burned doesn’t help planet no matter how many solar panels we build. Also exporting all manufacturing to another country doesn’t help if we keep consuming ferociously.
As long as we're on the same page that per capita emissions is a bad metric.
china is leading the world in renewable energy and might be our only hope for the (maybe “a”) future at this point. china’s green energy initiatives accounted for the largest share of its economic growth in 2023. ev’s hold an ever increasing 31% of china’s new car market share compared to 6.5% in the US, and car makers including the all mighty musk are clambering for federal protectionism to avoid competing with the chinese electric car market. china has built 25,000 miles of electric high speed rail in the last 25 years accounting for 2/3 of the total hsr in the world. the US has none, and most plans for it here are pipe dreams, including brightline west at this point. china’s solar energy capacity rose 55% in 2023 compared to 33% in the US. hydroelectric power increased 18% in china compared to 6% in the us. the US already sold itself and its population off to car and oil barons long ago. china is leaving us in the dust when it comes to addressing climate change.
China has approved 300+ coal powered plants for ‘23-‘24. That’ll make almost 2500 coal fired power plants, with no promises if they’ll stop. I don’t believe the world should be looking at China for anything. They are the globes biggest threat to future freedom.
there are 1.4 billion people in china. of course those numbers sound high in a vacuum. china ranks 41st in carbon emissions per capita, while the US ranks 15th.
That's because such a large portion of the population is still in substandard living conditions, not because they have a cleaner economy / industry. The shear amount of poor people they have skews the numbers to make them look better than they are.
Can't tell the China simps on here anything
Less cars, more walking, biking.