BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

i've commented on this two or three times before. i live within reasonable walking distance of most major errands. a problem is that the destinations cater specifically to drivers. they're unfriendly to things like bicycles and backpacks. bike racks have been taken out, and you're not supposed to have a backpack on inside a store. if you're wearing a backpack, people will think you're a homeless shoplifter. cart tires lock past the property line (and sometimes halfway through the parking lot). i can't imagine the grocery manager would be be happy about even a clean wagon being pulled inside off the street for the purpose. if you don't have a car, they want you to walk home like this, whether you're 18 or 88:



there's this ongoing background noise against making cities walkable, that the government wants to do it so citizens are compartmentalised or something. "they want us to live like ants in a colony, under their control!" tell me more, frank, we've got time while you're pumping your $4.50 diesel.

The bus stops weren't built because they don't want public transportation linking them to the cities. The sidewalks not existing is purposefully to avoid people walking around neighborhoods.

It is all designed to create create a boundary between the suburbs and the urbanites they fear and look down on. And then the people there wonder why they are depressed

meanwhile tokyo has ~300 subway stations. i can walk to no fewer than 4 stations easily within 15 minutes, giving me access to 3 different railway lines. i barely even have to mention buses as they are literally everywhere. for any weird journeys that aren't worth waiting the 10-15 minutes until the next train/bus to come around, you can grab an ebike or escooter and just zoom there yourself.

i walk everywhere because i like to listen to mixes and podcasts that way. gets my daily steps quota in (inactivity is a plague when working from home).

tokyo is totally quiet, has good air, and barely any cars off the main thoroughfares tbh. after about 10pm the only cars you see anywhere are taxis. fuck cars and fuck 1950s urban design.

are you really this dumb? what is more efficient, i wonder: high-density housing and public transport, or suburban homes sprawled over greenbelt land and individual vehicles?

The average carbon footprint of households living in the center of large, population-dense urban cities is about 50 percent below average, while households in distant suburbs are up to twice the average.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/su … ban-cores/

damn those new yorkers in their concrete-and-steel jungles!

you're arguing against the entire consensus view on this matter because you don't like to scrutinise your own lifestyle choices. you're a pig-person just like the next guy. let's move on.

According to a new study by UC Berkeley researchers, population-dense cities contribute less greenhouse-gas emissions per person than other areas of the country, but these cities’ extensive suburbs essentially wipe out the climate benefits.

Dominated by emissions from cars, trucks and other forms of transportation, suburbs account for about 50 percent of all household emissions – largely carbon dioxide – in the United States.

if anything, you should be apologising to the hipsters in the inner cities. you're wrinkling your nose and feigning irritation at their socially active lifestyles, while wiping out their reduced footprint with your pig-person pseudo-baronial lifestyle.

Last edited by uziq (2025-04-03 01:47:40)

you're wrong, sorry to remove one of your only pleasures in life: being mad at people who lead fuller, more socially enriched lives than your own.

Yes, if you burn all your carbon up-front then don't include it then you can skew the calculation.

yeah, and if you arbitrarily truncate the data sample to the last 4 years only, you can skew the presentation of the full picture too. i'm surprised imperial haven't contacted you for that emeritus chair in computational statistics.

Once again, your single round trip to the UK produced more emissions than my car did in 2.5 years.

once again, i've taken 2-3 round trips in my life, you've driven a car every year for how long now? longer than 7.5 years i assume.

amazing, the maths are mathing!

Last edited by uziq (2025-04-03 01:53:17)

okay dilbert. have a biscuit. a STEM guy who doesn't like unkind sums!

one round trip in your life plus a lifetime of driving a car versus three round trips and never owning a car. run the figures pal! you've got the MSc!

don't forget to factor in 'always living in an inner city ~50% below average footprint versus an adult lifetime spent in the suburbs at 2x the average footprint'.

Last edited by uziq (2025-04-03 02:23:52)

Dilbert_X wrote:

OTOH Travel is not one's entire footprint.

are you even looking at the information presented to you? my whole point is that you sit in a large suburban home with all the mod-cons, enjoying a high quality of life, while being snooty about everyone else's lifestyles and consumption. but you are at the very apex of the carbon footprint league table globally.

all this information is easy to find. you're supposedly the resident STEM brain. i don't believe you're actually impervious to the facts. you're just too emotively invested in this holier-than-thou act, like the spoiled and bitter stay-at-home manchild that you are. this is one of the only things you (supposedly but erroneously) have over the bright young things living their lives in the big city.

people in cities have a much lower carbon footprint than you. period! no shit travel isn't the entirety of someone's footprint (nice to see you tacitly admit once again, though, that a lifetime of driving a car probably doesn't put you in a great position). you're the one who continually focuses on air travel 'to drink beer on beaches' at the exclusion of all else! nobody else is doing that! we see you dilbert. we see you !!!

Last edited by uziq (2025-04-03 02:40:22)

relevant.

they can probably rebound domestically, as the news cycle churns and they continue 'flooding the zone' (as bannon has it), but i think internationally the damage from this could force some permanent realignments.

once you force europe to retool and rearm, there's no going back to treating uk/france/germany/italy/etc. as powerless client states.

the UK will be asking for their nukes back soon