Redscare867

That we should go back to knowingly destroying the ozone layer because the lingering effects of our previous attempts at destroying it haven’t gotten completely better yet and that has had bad effects on air conditioning. Won’t anyone think of the poor deprived people forced to sit in their cars that are a sweltering 70 degrees Fahrenheit?

I’m the US, the EPA was created in the 1970’s. We definitely have less pollution (of certain types) today than we did in the past. Some notable examples of how disgustingly polluted American skies and waterways were in the past:

The skies of Pittsburgh, PA

the Cuyahoga River fire

Coal Production has also been declining

And then of course less visible examples like the Montreal Protocol stopping corporations from depleting the ozone layer.

My point is in terms of greenhouse gas production we are much higher than in the 60’s and 70’s, but we have massively improved in a lot of areas. Of course there is still room to improve.

I know how pitiful our rail networks are. I take Amtrak regularly. It’s faster to drive. It shouldn’t be, but it is. Obviously I’m not talking about today, but building improved rail infrastructure over the next decade is very realistic and a worthwhile investment. Unfortunately the investment Amtrak has gotten isn’t enough to modernize our rail network, and a lot of that money is being used to improve privately owned rail lines that Amtrak leases for their passenger service.

My point was that the US doesn’t have distances that are insurmountable that can only be traveled via plane. It’s an investment issue.

A lot of those flights could be replaced with high speed rail. Maybe not New York to LA, but a lot of people live in the cities in the northeast and travel between those cities would be very feasible at reasonable travel times with high speed rail.

Weird, I thought electrical engineers designed those computers but it turns out it was capitalism, because as we all know engineers only exist within a capitalist framework.