Sometimes attack is the best defense. Earlier this week I changed in an impromptu manner a commuter route to a more direct bike lane through the center of a medium-sized city at mid-day for a change of pace and scenery and to also experience a commute with vehicles close by.
I noticed that the lane had not be swept and the air quality was poor and likely as a result there were no other riders in the lanes on my 20-minute ride to downtown.
Now that I have experienced this, I have understood once again that if possible it is a far healthier experience to ride trails with trees and other carbon-capturing foliage separated at further distances from vehicles and their poisonous emissions. The ecology is superior and promotes and strengthens the individual at their work and in their pursuits and one feels invigorated and much healthier after such rides.
Eco-climate advocates continue to shoot themselves in the foot by low-balling numbers, including the real percent of carbon pollution from vehicle emissions in the US. It is closer to half of carbon emissions worldwide rather than the quarter reported by some. Many planners and regulators understand more fully the global nature of this problem that no longer has borders.
As conflicts grow between and among interests of one’s right to use modes of transport that pollute versus protecting environmental and hence national security interests, we can all approach regulating pollution from a position of more moral strength and fortitude and attack the lies that lowering emissions to the levels mandated by the Paris Accord would ruin our economic competitiveness, e.g., increase prices for some goods and aggregately lose jobs, e.g., coal extraction, etc.
This is not the case. Politicians need to understand more complex and comprehensive cost benefit analyses that prove stronger job creation overall in growing renewables (solar has now overtaken natural gas globally), increasingly efficient filter technologies for coal, etc., as well as projected increases in morally rewarding positive jobs that build to reduce emissions to create a healthier and more prosperous future, increase property values and lower medical expenses, insurance premiums, etc.
Carbon-capture technologies that focus on creating more green spaces, including screens from traffic, would be healthier and more holistic by working again with nature to influence positive changes rather than against it and pay the exorbitant costs therein. Multi-use paths should include less heat absorbing asphalt and more improving natural surfaces.
Moving forward now with electrical emissions-free transport networks and other low-to-no carbon options would further create rewarding jobs and improve climate and air quality immeasurably.
As any property developer can value, these improvements in quality of life, security and happiness also increase property values and a sense of wholeness by being a part of a larger and healthier eco-system that produces more oxygen and healthy and enhancing chemicals to make us feel better as we walk more as well.
History proves to us over and over again that aggressions against nature and the balance of power from Genghis Khan to Bonaparte and to Hitler have been thwarted ultimately by the superior force of the wheel of love that conquers inevitably evil and inferior aggressors who lack moral and natural preeminence.
New bolder more aggressive legislation can take much from Europe’s example to make grants more focused on individual entrepreneurs and CEOs with simplified and streamlined grant-awarding procedures rather than on administrative-burdened and relatively inefficient dawdling consensus-seeking non-profits to drive innovation and science to positive improvements at a faster pace in the areas of climate change and global warming to reduce emissions to healthier levels.
When dealing with CEOs or entrepreneurs accountability and action is more clear and focused and free of compromising special interests that slow down and also water down policy implementation efforts.
Science proves that continued exposure to polluted particles reduces significantly the lifespan of victims.
The UK government has also recently released stronger legislation that focuses on reducing some sources of this pollution but can go far further in acknowledging transport culprits.
As we choose low-to-no emissions options we understand we can do something about this problem by working together on a broader front to make ad-hoc changes based on what we see, smell or hear as well for further improvements that local and state governments should incentivize more justly from, e.g., utility and maintenance budgets.
We just sent you an email. Please click the link in the email to confirm your subscription!