I think that's the point. Also, I think they are referring to Ukraine and interference with elections of other nations.
Beastimus
joined 2 months ago
You misunderstand. I was saying that the assumption that the rich folks behind climate change are acting out of ignorance is extraordinarily optimistic. I hope that I'm wrong, but I see no reason to believe that any cost estimate would get the main polluters (all billionaires included) on board with fighting climate change. Corporations and rich private citizens won't save us, and if they do, I will happily eat my words.
Its going to be collective action and government intervention.
This has already been posted here I think
I love your optimism.
No, yes, and yes
This is the take.
Yeah, reducing car usage would be much better for all handicapped people (those who can drive get better traffic.)
As much funds as we can mobilize. The possible futures are all bad, unless we make huge breakthroughs in pretty much all relevant technologies, somewhere between hundreds of millions and billions of people will die. This article is slightly misleading, as it posits cost entirely in terms of money. But the big cost of the changing climate is in lives. We will not be able to solve climate change before it gets much, much worse, so there is no theoretical amount money that would be "enough." Thus, as much as possible for the least bad possible future.
They require federal permits for the installations even if its on private property.
Honestly this. If you try to do too much you'll just burn out.
In places where the golf is on the edges of cities, absolutely. It just depends on where the course is and what's surrounding it. Obviously not all courses are in places where all (or even most) uses make sense. I feel there's a lot of debate here on what exactly the best use to replace golf with would be, and the answer is always that it depends on location and surrounding context. I think the vast majority of us agree that golf is a waste of space, energy, and water, which serves an almost entirely exclusionary function, and all most of us disagree on is what the best use is to replace it.
Since before we use it for other purposes we need to reclaim it from golf, I think almost everyone in this thread agrees on all policies (about this matter) relevant for essentially the entirety of the foreseeable future, which I think sometimes gets lost in this conversation (and others.)
Yeah, the main advantage of cars is that they do a lot of things (kinda badly.) We need to do a lot of work to replace cars, and that work definitely doesn't start with ignoring why cars are so prevalent. We need to empower people through other avenues a lot before most people will switch over.