A big problem IMO is the generational responsibility of the waste as well. There needs to be decades of planning, monitoring and maintaince to ensure waste sites are safe and secure, this can be done but modern political climates can make it difficult.
I wonder how much energy google wastes on its AI service in the regular search just to give me a worse answer than the top results I was actually looking for.
Do you have any idea how many boxes, crates, hands and other surfaces the produce has already touched? Its also just sitting in the open at the store for people to touch, sneeze on, drop on the floor. The carts and the conveyor won’t make it any worse and you should be washing all produce before eating it anyway.
Your bones are not weak but its still not a good excuse to abuse a turtle by knocking on its shell.
Please don’t tap/knock on turtle shells. It would be like someone knocking directly on your bones.
Many conservation authorities look for volunteers for tree planting, invasive species removal, and cleaning up litter. They can be a great way to start helping your local areas.
The same problem could be fixed with electrified transit and walkability. Transit would also be even more environmentally friendly.
Plus we could still develop self driving cars but do a lot more testing before we set the public as the guinea pigs to see if they are safe.
Id also argue that we cannot claim this is the worst self driving will get since self driving cars are only used in a few areas right now.
There are greener, more energy effecient and more socially fair ways to get the same results than selling everybody a high tech steel box.
Driving while inebriated is illegal, self driving is not.
Traffics jams and erreactic behaviour could be fixed if everyone is in a self driving car, but at that point it woild be far more energy effecient, environmentally friendly and cheaper for society to build electrified transit instead.
If you prioritize the street so that only self driving cars are on it and they need wireless communications to function, how do other road users like cyclists and pedeatrians safely use the street?
Self driving cars are not here to make your life better, they are here to make a handful of people rich.
I don’t think public deaths is a valid cost for creating self driving cars. We could be builidng safer and more effecient transportation systems. Some billionaire is going to make even more money because they were allowed to use the general public and city streets as a testing ground for their product. This is not fair to the family or the people who are injured or killed by self driving cars.
I think much of north america is dug so deep into car centric planning that making drivers pay the full cost would be too expensive for a significant portion of the population and workforce. I think the alternatives need to exist before the taxation because many people are constrained to their car being their only reliable way to get to work.
Making that cost more could put huge financial stress on a family whereas building the rail before the taxation could provide a cheaper alternative before the taxation even begins.
Yes and i agree with that sentiment. 20 years down the line we will realize our cities are just as unwalkable and unable to be served by transit if we build them to exclussively serve the car. We should build cities so walking, cycling, transit and driving are all realistic options. For most north American cities we only prioiritize the car.
The only reason people in urban centers do not have transit is because governments neglected to build it. If they can build a 6 lane highway through your city, they could build transit.
We shouldnt use rural and spread out areas as an excuse to not build our cities and denser areas better and service them with transit.
The vast majority of people who are anti car are anti car centric urban environments. Noboby is expecting a small town of 300 people to build a tram, we are expecting places with congested highways to build transit instead of “adding one more lane to solve traffic forever”
We should defintely still make EVs, overall they are going to be better than ICE. We just shouldn’t force/subsidize everyone to have to buy and drive an EV like we did with ICE cars.
Here is my reasonable argument against EVs. EVs only really solve the emissions part of the equation. They dont solve the massive amounts of paved surface, private ownership of thousands of pounds of steel and plastic, they still use massive amounts of energy to move that steel and plastic and building cities for cars is largely ineffecient and expensive to maintain.
We could do a lot more for the environment than EVs. Id rather see their subsidies go to things like electrified transit, cycling infrastructure or walkability improvements.
Electric cars aren’t going to fix climate change
Leaving them in nature to die and keeping them “safe” by preserving them in captivity is 2 sides of the same coin. Either way their natural lives have been robbed from them.
Not saying we should do nothing but just keep every species alive in special zoos and aquariams sounds dystopian and it feels like a stretch to call keeping animals in captivity “preserving nature”.
Normal people can still save for their future. We shouldn’t normalize being able to save a little bit for your future as being wealthy. I’m still struggling to secure a future for myself and the only way i can save that money is by being frugal and making other sacrifices in my life like driving as little as often and meal prepping. A small change to my expenses could eliminate the little bit i save each month.
Ive used mine before because the rad was too big to fit internally.