Chicago recently built a bunch of solar to directly power all city government buildings, so researching that and politely taking your town or city into doing that plus battery storage might be worth a try just from a cost point of view.

Similar initiatives have worked at a municipal level for things like fleet electrification and heat pumps, though this is all stuff that was a much easier sell if you got the program moving last year.

Other people mentioned congress, but while important to keep the pressure up for 2026 in the near term focus especially on talking with your state legislature and especially city council members.

Look up YIMBYism, show up to your public meetings, be polite and ideally bring some friends, remember that even in large cities major projects are routinely rewritten or expanded at the behest of the one or two people who showed up to every meeting with a clear, this is what I want out of the project and this is the easy way to do it.

Join your local left leaning orgs like DSA and mutual aid groups, even local progressive dem orgs. Even if they have some shit takes, which they inevitably will, remember that in the end doing good in the next few weeks and months is worth infinitely more than everyone agreeing on theory for what happens in the hypothetical world beyond late stage capitalism or how a few dozen people from Pittsburg are going to bring about an end to imperialism.

Talk about the importance of growning your towns bike lanes into a cohesive and safe network people would trust their twelve year old kid to get from home to school to visiting you at your workplace on, strike up conversations and network with the people who also raise good questions and requests at public meetings, and most importantly listen to what the people that have been working on advocating for these these things for decades, they have more experience, political capital in town, and may be convinced to help with your thing like municipal electrification.

So the impact of Chinese climate policy is also vastly overestimated because the Chinese are a small minority of earths people?

Kinda sorta? The carbon still goes into the atmosphere and there’s such demand for used cooking oil to run vehicles that there have been cases of new cooking oil being mixed into used because it was more valuable for vehicles than cooking, but if it was definitely going to get burned in a waste incinerator than better than nothing.

Climate wise, electrification (either for bikes, cars, buses, or trains) remains the only option and is something everyone is going to have to do eventually, but economic wise the higher upfront costs limits access.

Make sure to research and mention all the work Trumps done to undue all of Ragen’s foreign policy accomplishments.

This is a funny accusation in light of the amarican situation where our leader openly owns multiple businesses in Russia and other foreign nations, to say nothing of selling pardons or any of the other blatant corruption.

Chernobyl and the Exxon Valdez are pretty comparable in scale and scope the environment, though Chernobyl certainly had a lot more human casualties.

That being said I’m not sure public opinion actually has had that much of an impact. If they wanted to, the same companies who keep building new oil pipelines no matter how many protesters need to be beaten into submission by cops could absolutely have pushed through adding on some more reactors to existing plants. The problem is that while profitable, nuclear is not as profitable as heavily government subsidized oil and gas much less solar, and so no one but some of the public really wants to put a lot of money into it.

Nuclear was the correct answer, when climate change entered the scientific community in the 50s, it was the correct answer when it allowed France to nearly hit net zero for energy in the 70s, and it was the correct answer when the UN agreed we were all going to die unless we stopped burning all fossil fuels in the 90s.

The problem is that ever since the 2010s it’s been outpaced by improvements in wind and especially solar. Not coincidentally this is about the time that oil and gas companies stoped campaigning against Nuclear and suddenly started insisting that it was the only possible alternative.

It makes sense to keep what we have running and do some refurbishments, but in a world where the primary limit on the amount of solar and wind we can build is funding its high cost alone means going nuclear means far less clean energy, to say nothing of the decades more CO2 output from the coal and gas plants running in the years it would take to build such plants compared to the months it takes for a new solar or wind farm.

If you want an actually serious answer as to the who, how and why of the assassination and have three hours to spare, I would recommend Sean Munnger (A leftist university professor of modern political history) far to exhaustive series on the topic. For just the CIA, that starts at the 30min mark of Part 2, but builds a bit on previous debunkings.

Welcome to the club BYD.

Except NATO already has had nukes stationed closer to Moscow the any point in Ukraine for decades?

I can say that while I near exclusively use the subscriptions feed to start browsing, and will add interesting videos from it to the watch later list, once i’m nearing the end of a video I’ll often choose from the recommended videos on that video rather than going back to the subscriptions page.

Tax breaks for the farmers working the fields, or tax breaks for the international corporations and land speculators that own nearly all the fields?

Have human reflex’s been updated since the speed limits were set? The distance a car travels in the time it takes for you to see something like a pedestrian while driving, recognize it as a hazard, press the brake pedal, and then for the car itself to respond to your command and stop is one of the primary determinants of a safe speed.

About the only thing on that front that’s changed since the 70s have been improved breaks, but that’s been largely balanced out by heavier vehicles so stopping distance hasn’t been radically improved.

Higher speed still means longer stopping distances, longer distances between vehicles, wider minimum safe curves, shorter reaction times, more energetic collisions, and a larger gap between the speed limit and the maximum possible speed in rain, snow, and fog, which have remained nearly identical since the vehicles of the 50’s.

Vehicle on vehicle collisions have gotten more survivable when things do go wrong, but surely we should rejoice that people are more likely to survive a trip rather than increasing speeds until just as many die as they did before? I mean personally I would much rather live to see my destination than save a few minutes.

This also all just talking about highways, on all other streets and roads the six year old running out into the middle of the road has not gotten any more crashworthy than they were in the seventies, and slight reductions in speed have been proven to result in massive increases in pedestrian survivability.

It’s worth noting that this state of affairs is highly localized. Like my power company (Public Utility District) is run by the county government distributing power generated by a federal government organization(Bonneville Power Administration). Electricity is at sub 9c per kwh plus 52 dollars a month for a line. The BVA also somehow manages to keep its transmission lines trimmed despite a bunch of heavy forest.

Not only is a better system possible, it has provided power to millions for nearly a century right here in America a few hours drive away. Cali could absolutely copy Washington’s homework, but that would involve actually undoing something Ragen did to benefit private industry at taxpayers expense and so Newsom isn’t exactly rushing to make it happen.

Yes, the article was generally pretty clear that energy is synonymous with electricity, which is why it’s core thesis that renewables fundamentally cannot replace fossil fuel energy is such a wild assertion.

Yes we need to provide a decent quality of life, and that can be done with far less than north amarican standards of energy consumption, but the massive increase in energy consumption we’re seeing in India and China arn’t due to western levels of decadence, but rather the proliferation of things like air conditioning in places with fatal heat waves and the like.

Indeed illustratively these places are known for their abundant, frequent, and highly used mass transit systems and walkable cities. Their energy demand is still growing at an significant pace, not shrinking. As given their sheer size these are the nations which have a far larger impact on climate change, these are the places where degrowth needs to have the largest impact.

It’s also worth noting that even if you just want to apply degrowth to US cities in the method you suggested, well we know from examples like the Netherlands that it can be done and car centric cities converted into a place with just half of all residents own a car. We also know from that example that it took fifty years of dedicated government support and heavy local support to get that far. Meanwhile even L.A can take a decade and millions of dollars to not build a bus lane.

To note the obvious, we don’t have 50 years to get the US to moderately decrease emissions, and when accounting for things like construction emissions the gains are pretty small when compared to say electrifying Amaricas railroads or steel foundries.

This is not to say that things like walkable cities and such arn’t really nice things we should be doing, just that like many degrowth ideas they are both too slow to implement, to marginal an impact, and two specific to certain areas to really move the needle on weather we hit 2C, 2.5C, or 3C.

This is all of course tangential to the topic we’re actually talking about, which is wether or not electrification and building renewables is pointless when it comes to fighting climate change because they are apparently incapable of ever replacing fossil fuels.

When it comes to comes to climate change, energy and electricity are largely synonymous as outside of semantics like primary energy vs useful work we need to replace fossil energy with electricity, and that is not degrowth.

Although not as fast as I would like, I also would not call the growth of renewables in the last decade extremely slow, especially when the rate of that growth has been accelerating so quickly.

Fossil fuel energy is growing because globally energy demand has been growing even faster, and this has been driven first and foremost by more equitable access to energy. While poorer nations still have far lower per capita energy demand, they do have a lot of people who want the energy to protect themselves from the effects of climate change.

This growth in demand will however will level out as the poors get acess to sufficient energy, aided in no small part by the lower overall cost of green technologies, however I and most of the energy analysis I’ve seen don’t expect the buildout of renewables to stall with it but rather rapidly eat into fossil fuel generation.

Is this happening as fast as it could be if we all worked together, no. Is it still well on its way to happening, well it arguably already has for an increasing portion of the world. This is all in direct contrast to the articles thesis that green energy cannot ever actually replace fossil fuels.

Which also means we’re down 17 percent since the peak in 2005, most of which has come from electrical generation despite the article’s insistence that renewables did not and fundamentally could not replace any fossil fueled generation.

No one is saying that just deploying renewables is going to solve anything, but rather that a massive rollout of green technologies is going to result in a massive increase in electricity demand as everything from heat pumps and EVs to rail electrification and industrial production involves replacing everything we currently do with fossil fuels with electricity.

As this article in particular is saying over and over again that we cannot generate enough clean electricity to power even our current grid and thusly must shrink our electric demand, it is arguing not for an massive rollout of green technologies but rather that we massively reduce demand for things like heating and cooling our homes or transporting food long distances.

I am saying that not only is this far harder to achieve than rolling out green technologies, but directly at odds with a world full of lethal heat waves and extreme weather destroying crops and supply chains.

I am not debating ‘degrowth’ as a whole, but rather the explicit position this author takes that it’s fundamentally impossible to replace fossil fuels so the only approach can be to somehow eliminate demand for food, transport, heating, etc…

Obligatory note that if you think moving to renewables is difficult and thusly unlikely, than degrowth is straight up not happening until civilization collapses. Like pure degrowth is a straight up harder, less supported, and less likely to happen option than expanding the renewable build out that has been replacing fossil generation in many countries.

Both decarbonization by moving things like heating and transport to electricity and the increased occurrences of extreme weather due to climate change inherently result in more electricity demand, and if people are apparently unwilling to cheaper energy than why do you thing they will instead choose to go without?

Moreover, this argument neglects the fact that over the last ten years overall emissions in both the US and EU have been steadily, if far to slowly, falling, which means that fossil fuels are demonstrably being replaced, and why even among the managers of BP and Shell the discussion is not are they going to be replaced by solar and wind but rather can they drag the process out to fifty years instead of twenty years and how much can they export to the third world before that happens.

This is also why said companies are moving from ‘climate change isn’t real’ to ‘it is real but there is just nothing you can do about it so please stop replacing us’.

“High Speed”, as in just about makes the minimum threshold along one section, something standard British intercity services did routinely in the 70s.

Can we please stop calling every north american passenger line High Speed to make up for the fact that we only have one line that actually meets the standard, and it still has auch a poor right of way that it’s average speed is slower than the highway.

Like, in most of the world we differentiate between high speed rail lines and snail rail because they behave very differently with high speed lines being significantly faster than driving, meanwhile in the US we don’t have any proper high speed services but try and market all of our trains as high speed.

Don’t forget also being the number one lithium producer in the world, but completely unwilling to do anything with it but export it.