Lithium mines are hell on earth slavery. ‘Environmentalists’ is this case are just de-populationists with a God complex. They can pound sand.
KidHorn
1 year ago
Every year, batteries require less lithium. Technological advancements are proceeding rapidly. I expect in a few years, there will batteries that require no rare earths.
DolyG
1 year ago
“This vision is precisely what President Biden, the socialists, and the Marxists want. If you want the same thing, then vote for Democrats in 2024.”
And if you are not aware that the alternative is very likely to imply literally rivers of blood on the streets, and ending up in a place that has even less cars and less homes still standing, vote Republican.
I expect rivers of blood and widespread destruction.
Ecologists: I don’t really care about the environment. I just hate people.
Matt3
1 year ago
Add to this the CBDC and we will have lost all freedom. Censorship is already here. The above is freedom of movement. Without freedom of movement, restrictions on where you can live are next.
The climate is a religion and you will be forced to submit. Do Not Comply!
tractionengine
1 year ago
And the scope and depth of the experiments expand as our leaders see the majority lying down and accepting their fate. This is yet another flag up the pole. Unfortunately, more and more people are saluting these flags instead of thinking.
There are five classes of people: a few thinking and powerless people who can see this continuing loss of freedom clearly, the brainwashed who always know what is right, the braindead who accept their fate, the super rich who are really in charge, and the politicians who have no politics, just an insatiable desire for power. Guess how the vote will always go.
We are heading to the point where the masses won’t be allowed out of bed without an environmental review by our betters. Those who won’t defend their freedom don’t deserve it.
If you think a charismatic Freedom leader could rally enough people and claw back our freedom, you don’t understand how the system is designed. I’m with PapaDave – look out for yourself, there’s nothing you can do to change the status quo.
As long as the super-rich keep paying the politicians things will continue.
rbarnsey
1 year ago
There is a very good reason for reducing car use that has nothing to do with the environment.
According to the latest research from AAA, the average yearly cost to own and operate a new vehicle in 2022 is $10,728, or $894 per month.
In my suburban neighborhood, it is very common to see 3 and 4 cars in a driveway. The most expensive public transit pass is $184/month. I am in Canada so translating that to USD like in the AAA study makes it $136.55/month.
So lets do some math.
A savings of 894-136.55 = $757.45 Assuming an investment in the SPY etf based on the S&P 500 30 year average annual return of 9.72%, converting only one of those cars into a transit pass and investing to savings would result in $1,613,239 over 30 years.
I think changing our driving habits, demaning better public transit and making better choices in where we live to reduce transit time and cost makes great financial sense. The green benefits are just a bonus.
How about letting people be free to choose how they want to live? Maybe I don’t want to save money and would rather have the freedom to come and go as I desire.
If you lived in higher density transit leaves every few minutes. No waiting. Freedom to come and go as you please.
Most of the time trip to store is quicker and no transit is even required – walk to store can be a short 5 min walk away – not 20 min drive + 3 min walk in parking lot.
Problem is most of America was unfortunately built predicating personal vehicles.
That wouldn’t work as it is obvious that a great number of people don’t have much in the way of brains.
Better would be a tax on shoes which the Beatles foresaw as taxed feet.
GMoney
1 year ago
This movement dates back to Agenda 21, stack ’em and pack ’em.
Billy
1 year ago
“support low-income and non-white community members”
How are people OK with Universities and the government dividing us by the color of skin?
Bhakta
1 year ago
Endless efforts to impose absolute control over all of us at every moment. Then, claim they are the strongest supporters of human rights. How can so many be so bewildered by this garbage?
PapaDave
1 year ago
“This vision is precisely what President Biden, the socialists, and the Marxists want. If you want the same thing, then vote for Democrats in 2024.”
I don’t bother to vote. Its a waste of my time. Though I applaud all of you who do vote.
However, in my opinion, an even bigger waste of time is to spend your entire life complaining about which political party is worse.
Yea; they both suck. But they are both better than what you get in Russia or China. And if you don’t like US politics, I suggest you move to Russia or China.
Actually, Russia is far freer now. I had a long talk with an old friend from Philadephia yesterday. He moved to Russia about 25 years ago to work as a teacher. He married a Russian woman. He is now retired and is applying for Russian citizenship. He says everything in the western media about Russia are lies.
I am going to leave a fortune to my kids. And an understanding of how to look after yourself and those close to you. Plus as awareness of which problems you can have an impact on and which ones you can’t.
You, on the other hand, are going to complain for the rest of your miserable life. And sadly, you will probably attach that anchor to your children as well, guaranteeing them a miserable life of constant complaining about things they can’t control.
Call_Me
1 year ago
“Reducing the size of passenger vehicles also can make the roads far
safer because smaller cars have fewer and less severe crashes.”
Uh, no they don’t. Vehicles don’t spontaneously crash, the driver is the determining factor.
Spacing, as is typically taught in driver’s ed, is dependent on a vehicle’s length/mass. The two larger vehicles, in order to travel ‘safely’, would require more space versus two smaller vehicles, but the line I highlighted from the report isn’t making that statement. The larger objects should take up more space, that’s it. Your line about the large objects in a limited space is irrelevant, as they shouldn’t be in the same amount of space as the small objects.
Crashes are not random or chaotic events, they happen for reasons and the vast majority of those are driver behavior and (lack of) experience. Again — the size of the vehicle doesn’t determine if it is going to crash.
Actually, spacing, as is typically taught in driver’s ed, is entirely dependent on typical human reaction time. The individual vehicle stopping time is considered a constant and the rule was one car length per 10 mph speed. If you make the cars shorter, you’ll need more than one car length.
Yes indeed. The rule now is three seconds between cars, not the old car lengths. That didn’t work well since a car length can be anywhere from my old Chevy Aveo to a long bed crew cab F-350.
By the way, if smaller cars are safer then certainly motorcycles should be safer yet. But they are not.
Very true indeed! Tire condition, vehicle weight, pavement condition (wet/dry/other) — there are a lot of variables. Of course reaction time is age-dependent so there is yet another factor to consider.
No need to apologize, I rarely find engineers to be tedious 🙂
Call_Me_Al
(guessing you won’t read this comment since it follows yours by almost a week, but I will leave it nonetheless)
Lanes are a certain width – two large vehicles approaching each other will be closer and any disturbance will cause an accident. Intersections worse.
Larger cars leave less room for error.
Your example is for vehicles in the same lane, however more spacing between vehicles if a workaround that works until there is more traffic.
Increased traffic causes traffic slowdowns as you can only fit some many large vehicles in a single lane. So we built more lanes – where bigger cars are closer again – cannot increase spacing between vehicles traveling side by side.
Which goes back to driver behavior being the controlling factor, regardless of lane size (2-lane, 4-lane, or divided interstate). You can make the valid point that there is less margin for error with larger vehicles, but my initial comment about putting the onus on the driver is equally valid.
Of course, it also depends on your definition of safer. Statistically you are safer (less likely to be killed or seriously injured in a wreck) when travelling in a larger vehicle. This hold true even if the collision is between two vehicles of the same size/weight.
All of these proposals are about one thing: total domination/control of the global population by a self-selected and very small group of people. In order to maintain control, one has to:
1. reduce the population;
2. disarm the population;
3. distribute the population in clusters far from the control center (Think Hunger Games);
4. remove the means of mobility.
We are in the tricky stage – convincing people to give up their freedom for the illusions of safety and prosperity. That is why it is necessary to collapse the global economy. There aren’t enough of us starving yet. If they can get people hungry enough to convince them that their hunger is due to your stubborn refusal to give up your automobile, then they can turn your neighbors against you. Later, when the “survivors” are defenseless and stuck in their assigned districts, they won’t care what you think. It is a simple strategy. Use human behavior to eliminate the humans.
Some people, like myself, just don’t function in an urban environment. I don’t want people around me all the time. That’s why I don’t visit major cities unless its absolutely necessary.
Ultracrepidarian
1 year ago
I have been in favor of increasing density for many decades, to be more like every other country in the world from Brazil to France to China, because it would favor the poor to be able live more respectably. It would also serve to make mass transit methods to be more efficient and cheaper. But the only legitimate way to do this is to reduce zoning restrictions on lot sizes and density restrictions.
On the other hand, this has actually already been happening in many jurisdictions. Not by law or edict but just out of necessity…..think homelessness camps ……..
Favors the poor? That’s absurd, it’s a ploy that the Rockefeller Foundation and other eugenicists support as it packs more people into tighter spaces where crime and disease can more easily spread and eliminate who they believe to be “useless eaters”. You should try it if it sounds like your Shangri La; it’s sure to be a way to share in what that sardine type society has to offer. We were not meant to be placed in a box so the elite’s can control the people but there’s always people like you who can’t see the forest for the trees of what they have planned.
Doug78
1 year ago
“I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.
Jeff Dog
1 year ago
During the time of circa the civil war it took six years to build a railroad from Oakland to Council Bluffs, Iowa which involved blasting a tunnel through the Sierra Nevada mountains. Now it takes multiple generations to finish a light rail project of 40 miles on completely flat ground from Oakland to San Jose.
Being able to give up my cars for public transportation seems like a fantasy for my lifetime unless I move to Manhattan.
Not only the tracks were built in those 6 years, but all the water and coal infrastructure as well as depots every 100 miles or so to service the steam engines.
It’s amazing what can be done when you don’t have miles of red tape to wade through and endless environmental studies to pass.
Practically everything infrastructure wise (dams, interstate highway system, electrical lines, railroads etc) that was accomplished in the 19th and early 20th centuries (pre-1980) could not be done today because of the red tape and endless environmental studies that bog down everything.
Many Third World cities have great subway systems. You can ride all over Mexico City for 25 cents. It’s a great experience with plenty of pretty girls and street musicians playing in the subway cars.
Even Bangkok which had no rail system 25 years ago, now has a spotless system than can take you to most parts of this gigantic metro. It is not cheap though, and if you are taking luggage it is impossible.
Do we miss trump yet or would we rather have marxism more than mean tweets and insatiable arrogance? I blame anyone who voted for Brandon. Look in the mirror, you own this.
If they want people to ditch their cars, they need to give them safe, reliable and clean public transportation. They’re building out a metro rail service here in Los Angeles where I live, but I won’t go near it due to the large number of drug addled zombies that have taken over the trains and the stations.
Where I live, the light rail transit system has turned into an unsupervised homeless shelter with no house rules.
hmk
1 year ago
Perfect recipe for civil war
HippyDippy
1 year ago
Wow. Sounds a lot like all those UN agendas the UN keep posting. And the slaves keep calling you a conspiracy nut if you mention. I think they want to make sure no one can travel to DC to have a necktie party! Kind of like the ones the people of Philadelphia was working on when our exalted founders, who my history books said were saints who could not tell a lie, ran them out of there.
Zardoz
1 year ago
There are too many cars, jamming up the roads and have been for 30 years. It’s stupid, slow, and wasteful, full stop.
But we’re going to make it into a class envy issue…
Ecologists: The solution is solar and wind power, electric vehicles.
safer because smaller cars have fewer and less severe crashes.”
They who?