Exactly, I posted an article that relates, specifically, to the effects of global warming to the US. Said article makes no mention of Europe, and I don't appreciate you derailing everything posted in this thread by relating it to your perception of what the 'radical left' political parties are saying about climate change in Europe. I think you're purposefully trolling and derailing, whether you realize it or not.

Also, FYI, I'm not American, I'm Mexican-Canadian, and although I love and respect my gringo neighbors, I certainly don't appreciate being called an American or a puppet of Russia .

Cool. That helps thanks!

We are all cooked based on the Australian response. IPCC says we should stop digging up coal within the next ten years. Australian government says the report is rubbish and we expect to double our coal exports in the next 5 years. I am glad I saw the great barrier reef in its prime 15 years ago. It might not last another 5 years.

I think that in general, humans and their institutions don't like react to problems until the problem smacks us in the face. Take the classic example of a stop sign or a speed limit not being placed at a dangerous intersection until enough people get killed in crashes. For a politician, getting your government to invest heavily into long-term projects that go beyond most term-limits doesn't get you votes or support, which is a shame. It seems most policymakers are holding back on imposing regulations, and instead are expecting private enterprise to solve the problem through technological innovation and such.

In the US, there is a phenomenon in which now, policymakers in dense urban areas (big cities), are paying much more lip-service to fighting climate change, in contrast to their federal govt, although I'm not sure if they're actually walking the walk with their policy. Here in Mexico, the federal government doesn't do all that much in regards to climate change, but the newly elected Mexico City mayor (here it's called the head of government, and there are 20+ million people in the metropolitan area), has a degree in environmental science. Do you see something similar in Australia?

Even the party that at least acknowledges climate change is real is still in favor of opening a new coal mine that will be the largest in Australia so I think we have no hope to keep it at 1.5 or even 2 degrees.

Tiny mirrors it is!

Sorry i had no idea, i'll keep that in mind when referring to you in the future.

Lighting methane, that comes out of a frozen lake in alaska, on fire. Video from 2010, and the scientist mentions a couple of interesting tidbits as to the relevance of this at the end of the video. Anyone else know much about methane? I don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YegdEOSQotE

There's a lot of it, it's a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and as the tundra thaws and the ocean warms it's going to **** us up.

With the new Brazil president and his agenda to clear more land of rainforest i had some crazy thoughts. Imagine your country does all in their power to be as environmental-friendly as possible and then a lunatic comes around and wants to destroy the green lung of this planet. Would you have to declare war at last resort?
Wouldnt it be a better option for Bolsonaro to held the world hostage and demand things in exchange for protecting the rain forests?

The New York Times Magazine has an article called "The Insect Apocalypse is Here". Among other things it cites a 2017 German Study that found that by weight the overall abundance of flying insects in German nature reserves had decreased by 75% over 27 years. A 2014 meta study in Britain found that a majority of species were declining on average by 45%.

(there are links to the stories about the German Study that are easy to find. Here's the study https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...0185809#sec002)

Arguments I heard on the radio today against Lime Scooters:
-it makes me nervous seeing people use them on sidewalks
-some people might fall down or hit people and they might get hurt
-disabled people will feel left out

The debate over Lime Scooters really bugs me. Lime scooters are what a low-carbon society looks like, and tackling climate change is going to require some lifestyle change and maybe even a LITTLE sacrifice from the first world. We expect third world countries to slow down development for the environment, keeping people impoverished, but we can't even tolerate scooters? What madness is this privilege and entitlement?

"One kilowatt hour of energy carries a gasoline-powered car a little less than a mile. A much more efficient Tesla Model 3 can travel about four miles on the same amount of energy. An electric scooter can travel more than 80 miles."

Exactly! And then there are the knock-on effects: fewer cars circling downtown areas looking for parking ---> car and bus traffic flows better --->public and automobile transport becomes more efficient ---> less fuel burned in autos, less man-hours spent waiting in traffic

Then on top of that, poor people now have another option that means they don't have to buy a car. Poor people with suspended licenses don't have to risk going to jail driving to work. Jobs created to charge the scooters means demand for labor increases, raising wages.

The upsides are enormous, there is huge demand for the things, most everybody wins AND the environment benefits! How many opportunities come along like that?

The scooters in LA are still way more common in areas like the Westside/Venice, but they have moved somewhat (and mostly/entirely through users) into lower income areas.

The scooters are great, not because they're particularly easy to use, but because getting around in a car is awful in most cities. Like, if people don't like having the scooters everywhere, the lesson should be that it needs to be easier to get around without a car, not that the scooters suck.

When the segway came out I forget who, some visionary at the time (Jobs maybe?) got a sneak preview and predicted that future cities would be designed around them.

It may finally happen with the scooters. Eventually there could be little scooter huts on corners all over the place, so they can get recharged and aren't just lying around.

I wonder if it's possible to divide a typical sidewalk in half and designate one side for scooters? Seems like it would work in places where bike lines aren't possible and there's no room on the street.

There should be more bike lanes and the scooters should ride in the bike lane. In places where there's hardly anyone on the sidewalk (a lot of places) they should just ride on them like people on bikes do.

But, those little scooters won't work for everyone. I was working at a house in West LA not too long ago and I took my first ride on one of those things. The homeowner had never taken one and really wanted to, but, like, she was fit for someone nearly 70 years old, but...well, I had to at least say that it seems kind of dangerous. They are kind of fast and with the little wheels you really have to watch out for potholes, ruts and such. I think it's a pretty modest slice of the population that should be riding them as part of their commute. But, still, 10% of people using them would be cool.

I've seriously injured myself twice on bicycles as an adult. I'm terrified of those scooters.

Saw a blurb about them on Portland and it claimed substantially less ER visits for scooters than for bikes. No word if it was overall or per-mile though.

Riding bicycles on the sidewalk was illegal here until a few years ago. Most insane law ever.

Also: like I dunno, 25 years ago, a law was brought in mandating that cyclists must wear helmets. The number of cyclists on the road dropped - it's a legit concern for, say, a female lawyer that they can't ride to work in a helmet, as they can't have helmet hair all day dealing with clients. When the number of cyclists on the road decreased, drivers got less used to dealing with them and the number of cyclists getting hit per cyclist on the road increased. Unintended consequences at work. Bike SA are now backing a trial of helmet laws being relaxed on sidewalks and cycle paths, to try to increase participation rates, which are low by international standards.

There is a relationship between the maximum size of a city and the maximum distance you can travel in a city in an hours time given the technology of the day. A city designed around scooters isn't going to grow to be as big as one designed around cars(or other transportation systems that can move you farther faster).

Cities also enjoy economies of scale. Larger cities enjoy certain efficiencies that smaller cities do not.

Larger machines do not wear out as fast as smaller machines. Scooters will have to replaced much more often than cars.

What does this all mean? Well its likely "Scooter cities" are not going to be comparatively more friendly to the environment than you might have initially thought.

Scooters are simpler than cars so it will be much easier to repair/replace parts/recycle than with a car.

Lol assuming you need a brand new scooter every time, thats how we got in this **** in the first place.

El Lobo is just a right wing talking point bot.

It's obvious a scooter is much more environmentally friendly than a car, so he has to come up with some sort of inane argument against scooters.

El Lobo, do motorcycles wear out faster than cars?