Yep, I’m not debating that point. I’m 100% in favor of doing that. I’m asking about solutions for everyone else. This debate is usually framed as “all we need to do is” when that isn’t the case for everywhere or everyone. Just diving into it a little bit more.
Yeah a solution for the remaining 20% would be great, but we (the US) are not even addressing the urban 80%. I live in the SF Bay Area. It’s incredibly dense here, yet riding a bike is impossible/suicidal. It takes me 20 minutes to get to work by car, but 2 hours by bus. This needs to be fixed first before worrying about small town Montana.
Yep yep, again. Agreed on all counts but that isn’t what the original comments or the article was about. Which is why I brought it up in the first place. I think it’s generally agreed that the more urbanized places would need revamping first. I’m just specifically asking about ideas in rural areas because that’s where I’m from.
To be completely honest, if you’re living somewhere where this doesn’t apply, I wouldn’t worry about it. There are things people in rural areas can (theoretically, depending on which rural area) do to curb their carbon footprint (consuming local agriculture comes to mind) and there are, I’m sure, people working on solving this issue for rural areas. The problem here I think is in this “all or nothing” mindset. As @anji@lemmy.anji.nl mentioned, this is a viable solution theoretically for nearly 80% of those living in one of the least climate friendly nations out there. This is also a viable solution for many (most?) countries, as most people live in cities. This is a solution for those people. For rural people, we will need different solutions. That’s all.
100% and I absolutely get that aspect. My original post was more about trying to find out what those rural solutions are since everyone commenting did keep saying things along the line of “all we need to do is __________”.
Not debating the effectiveness of what they’re suggesting, but also I’m allowed to ask what the other ideas are for those of us who are outside of the urban areas lol.
You’re totally allowed to ask that. I think the reason you’ve got so much push back here is that this question is frequently brought up in bad faith or as an excuse to not improve cycling/public transit infrastructure. that was the assumption I certainly made. Sorry about that, have a good day.
Just wanted to chime in at the end here and say thanks for mentioning us. I literally live a 20-minute drive from the nearest grocery store, out in the country, so bikes aren’t exactly practical like they were when I lived in denser areas. What I try to do (to try adding to the conversation) is accommodate where I’m able. I have an electric car (2018 Bolt) that I use as my daily driver (my pickup is strictly for situations that the Bolt can’t handle), I’m setting up a homestead to help eat as locally as I can, and I eventually plan on getting solar and switching off of heating oil. However, even my situation isn’t feasible for everyone - my income is higher than the median in my state and I have the land to accommodate a homestead, so the only thing that can be done from my perspective is try to implement policies and infrastructure where it’ll have the biggest impact to help offset the impact of those that can’t take advantage of it, and see if there are ways to help those who live in rural areas even if they can’t be applied to urban areas.
Yeah I wonder about this a lot and what we would have to sacrifice to increase the amount of local food production. I know it would mean we’d have access to less “in season” items. But outside of that what would the impact be? Around me there are people starting farms for grass fed/free range meat, but how big can you scale that model. The way we transport/utilize food is terrible in the U.S.
Seems like the solution is to eat less meat (which I agree with in spirit). But also seems extremely unrealistic. It also doesn’t cover all crops.
Yep, I’m not debating that point. I’m 100% in favor of doing that. I’m asking about solutions for everyone else. This debate is usually framed as “all we need to do is” when that isn’t the case for everywhere or everyone. Just diving into it a little bit more.
Yeah a solution for the remaining 20% would be great, but we (the US) are not even addressing the urban 80%. I live in the SF Bay Area. It’s incredibly dense here, yet riding a bike is impossible/suicidal. It takes me 20 minutes to get to work by car, but 2 hours by bus. This needs to be fixed first before worrying about small town Montana.
Yep yep, again. Agreed on all counts but that isn’t what the original comments or the article was about. Which is why I brought it up in the first place. I think it’s generally agreed that the more urbanized places would need revamping first. I’m just specifically asking about ideas in rural areas because that’s where I’m from.
To be completely honest, if you’re living somewhere where this doesn’t apply, I wouldn’t worry about it. There are things people in rural areas can (theoretically, depending on which rural area) do to curb their carbon footprint (consuming local agriculture comes to mind) and there are, I’m sure, people working on solving this issue for rural areas. The problem here I think is in this “all or nothing” mindset. As @anji@lemmy.anji.nl mentioned, this is a viable solution theoretically for nearly 80% of those living in one of the least climate friendly nations out there. This is also a viable solution for many (most?) countries, as most people live in cities. This is a solution for those people. For rural people, we will need different solutions. That’s all.
100% and I absolutely get that aspect. My original post was more about trying to find out what those rural solutions are since everyone commenting did keep saying things along the line of “all we need to do is __________”.
Not debating the effectiveness of what they’re suggesting, but also I’m allowed to ask what the other ideas are for those of us who are outside of the urban areas lol.
You’re totally allowed to ask that. I think the reason you’ve got so much push back here is that this question is frequently brought up in bad faith or as an excuse to not improve cycling/public transit infrastructure. that was the assumption I certainly made. Sorry about that, have a good day.
Just wanted to chime in at the end here and say thanks for mentioning us. I literally live a 20-minute drive from the nearest grocery store, out in the country, so bikes aren’t exactly practical like they were when I lived in denser areas. What I try to do (to try adding to the conversation) is accommodate where I’m able. I have an electric car (2018 Bolt) that I use as my daily driver (my pickup is strictly for situations that the Bolt can’t handle), I’m setting up a homestead to help eat as locally as I can, and I eventually plan on getting solar and switching off of heating oil. However, even my situation isn’t feasible for everyone - my income is higher than the median in my state and I have the land to accommodate a homestead, so the only thing that can be done from my perspective is try to implement policies and infrastructure where it’ll have the biggest impact to help offset the impact of those that can’t take advantage of it, and see if there are ways to help those who live in rural areas even if they can’t be applied to urban areas.
Yeah I wonder about this a lot and what we would have to sacrifice to increase the amount of local food production. I know it would mean we’d have access to less “in season” items. But outside of that what would the impact be? Around me there are people starting farms for grass fed/free range meat, but how big can you scale that model. The way we transport/utilize food is terrible in the U.S.
Seems like the solution is to eat less meat (which I agree with in spirit). But also seems extremely unrealistic. It also doesn’t cover all crops.