> Making public transit a reasonable option for most personal transportation in the US would be a public works project on the scale of the New Deal.
I don't agree. Most large-ish cities already have quite good public transportation networks, but outside of a couple special places like NYC, Chicago, and maybe SF, they're not the default option. If the demand is there, adding more bus routes and increasing frequency is trivial. Adding more rail and subway lines is definitely a major task, but we spend more on garbage like the TSA and the F-35 than we do on increasing public transit options; it's hardly a task on the order of the New Deal.
My overall point is individual action is a major factor in transit emissions, which is a major source of carbon, and thus individual action does have an impact on our climate change future. The fact that individual action alone isn't enough to fix the problem isn't an excuse for individuals to avoid making choices to lower their emissions.
> Perhaps more importantly, cutting US emissions by 10% is very nearly inconsequential unless it is part of a coordinated effort that is driving global emissions down by significantly more than 10%.
I don't agree at all that decreasing US emissions by 10% is inconsequential[1], but yes, of course, it is not enough. I already agreed with you that individual action is not enough. But it is significant. I'm trying to back up that assertion with numbers.
I don't agree. Most large-ish cities already have quite good public transportation networks, but outside of a couple special places like NYC, Chicago, and maybe SF, they're not the default option. If the demand is there, adding more bus routes and increasing frequency is trivial. Adding more rail and subway lines is definitely a major task, but we spend more on garbage like the TSA and the F-35 than we do on increasing public transit options; it's hardly a task on the order of the New Deal.
My overall point is individual action is a major factor in transit emissions, which is a major source of carbon, and thus individual action does have an impact on our climate change future. The fact that individual action alone isn't enough to fix the problem isn't an excuse for individuals to avoid making choices to lower their emissions.
> Perhaps more importantly, cutting US emissions by 10% is very nearly inconsequential unless it is part of a coordinated effort that is driving global emissions down by significantly more than 10%.
I don't agree at all that decreasing US emissions by 10% is inconsequential[1], but yes, of course, it is not enough. I already agreed with you that individual action is not enough. But it is significant. I'm trying to back up that assertion with numbers.
[1] Ten percent of US emissions is about 1.37% of global emissions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...