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.
- 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.
- 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
I'd love to see a bigger focus on creating better public mass transit systems instead of focusing on producing more oil for cars. Cheaper gas addresses the symptom, not the cause.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/12/14/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-action-to-accelerate-americas-clean-transportation-future/
I really dislike the majority of the focus of this article on just getting more EVs. While electrification is important, it doesn't really solve any of the current transportation issues and tries to position itself as the climate fixer. Yes, EVs are technically better for the climate, but what is even better is competent public transit. EVs transport a fraction of people that trains, trams, and busses can, which makes them much less energy efficient. Remember that electricity is still generated in lots of places using non-renewable resources, and the manufacturing of batteries also contributes a significant amount of carbon emissions. Given how big cars are and how little people they tend to transport, you start to see how extremely inefficient they are. Removing cars (more specifically, the dependence on cars) is always better than replacing them one for one.
The real focus should be on building more public transportation options to compete with cars, and petitioning local government to make changes to remove car-centric zoning laws and allow for mixed-use zoning, which is greener, cheaper to maintain, and brings in more city revenue than large roads and parking lots.
Not just "technically". They're massively better for the climate.
Technically, a fully electrified transportation sector that focuses on EVs is even better for the climate than a transportation sector without cars and focused just on public transit.
But the main reason is that convincing people to switch to EVs is waaaaaaaaaaaay faster, cheaper, and more doable than convincing people to rebuild our entire transportation infrastructure.
As far as I'm concerned, yes public transit is more desirable, but the climate emergency is more pressing. Once we're fully electrified, then we can begin transitioning to mass transit options. But it's a matter of priorities: the ongoing destruction of the climate is more important than efficient transit.
This is the biggest qualm I have. It's not an either or. We can have more EVs and better transit too, so we can and should push for both at the same time. They both solve climate problems, and transit also gives better quality of life, in my opinion.
Additionally, I believe that the best way towards a greener world is to make the green option the easiest option for people. Buying an EV is very expensive for an individual, adding friction to the decision to purchase and alienating certain economic classes. If we were to put public funds towards good transit options instead of repairing the endless sprawl of roads, then we would see mass adoption of those transit options in favor of both ICEs and EVs, as it would be seen as viable competition to car ownership.
Ultimately, it's about finding the right balance. That was my biggest issue with the White House statement. I agree that the climate emergency is a major concern, and EVs might be quicker to adopt (I have concerns about the accuracy of the claim though). But we can and should work in parallel. The statement put so much focus on EVs, when I really think that better mass transit options should have at least an equal focus.
But with limited funds, shouldn't we go for the biggest bang for our buck regarding the environment?
It likely depends. From a time efficiency perspective, doing both would be best. If money is the bottleneck, then it's probably best to find more money (tax the rich please?) or make budget adjustments so that time is the bottleneck instead (it is a climate emergency after all). I've heard that it is cheaper to maintain compact and mixed-use zoning areas over the classic strip mall with parking lots common across North America, and that could be enough for cities to see reorganizing the infrastructure as an investment over paying increasing maintenance costs. Of course that's a big up front cost, but it over time it would be cheaper.
It seems like we do disagree on the exact impact both options have, which could help in deciding the priority. I don't have any data to prove either side on this one, but if you know of any sources on that, I would love to see it.
Well I mean if you were the King of America, sure. But the money constraints are there because of political opposition, if we (democrats) could override that we would.
I think this is where we disagree. Public transit projects are notoriously expensive and take a long time. Electrifying the existing infrastructure (roads and cars) is much easier.
I think we might be coming at this differently. In my view, the environment is the primary goal, and efficient transportation is a secondary goal. I think you're seeing them both as equal goals.
It seems like you're talking in good faith here, so I'd be willing to find data. But before I do, I want to suggest a simple thought exercise to you: if all vehicles are electric, isn't that essentially a 100% impact? An equivalent would be 100% electrified public transit. The former scenario involves keeping the existing systems, just swapping to electric. The latter involves redesign of a majority of our infrastructure, AND electrifying. Doesn't it sound like the latter option will be more difficult?