31
submitted 3 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

It was such a shock. But so many people in New York hate the concept. Not even drivers, most of them. They’re just constantly angry at whatever is happening in nyc. This is so clearly, as mentioned in the article, sudden panic over the election year fallout.

Democrats are so, so scared of this elusive centrist Republican/democrat swing voter. Everywhere. In all their forms. They’ll surely win that swing vote now!

[-] quicklime@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Imagine congestion pricing hurting the city's economy more than allowing public transit to fall apart will...

[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

It's really unlikely that this money would've gone to transit. NYC is mind bogglingly wealthy and transit still sucks arse. They already charge crazy high tolls just to get into the city and none of that has manifested better quality of life for transit users.

The reality is it would just make it more expensive for normal workers who keep the city running but can't afford to actually live in the city itself, so they commute. All it does is further locks down NYC as a playground for the rich.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Meanwhile, in London, congestion pricing and the expansion of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) were a big issue in the mayoral election, with most pundits predicting that it would lead to incumbent mayor Sadiq Khan losing his job. But instead, he won by a wider margin than in the previous election. And, rather comically, it wasn't Sadiq's policy in the first place, it had been put in place by Boris Johnson when he was mayor.

Evidence in London so far is that the current ULEZ has saved lives and reduced hospitalisations due to respiratory problems, and that congestion charging has not had adverse economic impacts, while improving quality of life. But there are still plenty of people who want to play the victim, and I'm sure that in NYC, they're louder.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/pollution-and-air-quality/ultra-low-emission-zone-ulez-london/ulez-facts

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

To be fair everybody in NYC is louder about everything. But New York is also where all the money lives.

this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
31 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5053 readers
479 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS