If we really want to reduce CO2 emissions, perhaps we should rethink the whole concept of residential and business sections. Before cars were invented, many shop keepers lived behind their shops or even upstairs. We insist that billions of dollars be spent making our extremely good cars perfect, yet there is so much unpicked low hanging fruit that everyone ignores. How about spending some money to synchronize traffic lights on major thoroughfares for example? I drove from Kyle TX to the entrance of TX 45SW on highway 1626 and the first light turned red right before I reached it making me brake from 60 mph to a stop. Then after the light turned green, the next light did the same thing, and so did the next five lights on that highway. Is this really the best they can do? If you think 30 mph stop and go makes your car guzzle gas, wait 'til you experience 65 mph stop and go traffic.
If the Federal government really wants to overrule state laws, they can start with âengineered traffic jamsâ enacted to please the chamber of commerce.
Heh heh, like a country traffic engineer told me once âthey are called stop lights, not go lightsâ. They like to slow traffic down. Just plant more trees.
Another thing to rethink is whether itâs more efficient to burn fossil fuels in our homes or at the power plant.
Cost of electricity needs to drop drastically before I think about moving into a city with that restriction. They can do that in southern cities, but here in the North East - home energy costs will triple. I also donât think the grid in many parts of the country could handle it.
Iâm HOPING we get gas in my area. My only options are propane or oil. Propane is efficient, but itâs difficult to hide those ugly tanks. Our town doesnât allow you to burry the tank like other towns do.
The article is about homes in California.
Yes it was about California, but it was to showcase a model to be used for the rest of the country. The whole article is about climate change and effects from burning Natural gas. Just banning cities in CA isnât going to effect climate change one iota.
I saw that suggested seriously recently. The source said that it would take a few trillion trees, but we could at least dial back the deforestation around the globe if we did that. It seems like a monumental task, though. Global population is about 7.7 billion, and 2.5 trillion trees means we would have to plant 3000 trees each on average. IMO, that would have to be a life long hobby for almost everyone for a few generations to actually get I think done. Then there is where to put them. I suspect you are joking, but there are people seriously considering it.
I donât think it is a model for the rest of the country, unless the rest of the country also gets 50% of its energy from non-carbon-based sources (wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear).
If you live in a place that relies more on coal, oil, and natural gas than California does to provide electricity, you donât fit the model, regardless of how much you pay per kilowatt hour.