Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Syt]

That's the thing, there's no incentive for landlords to change anything because all running costs and maintenance are covered by the tenant. My previous apartment's gas boiler was from the 70s. My current is "only" from ca. mid-90s. As long as they're running, they're rarely replaced (unless there's a full renovation). About half of Vienna households are heating and have hot water like this.

If, as a landlord, my cost increase and I shift the rent to my tenants, there comes a point where other buildings will be much cheaper than mine.  People will move and I'll have a higher vacancy rate than my competitors.

Your costs as landlord don't increase, though. The tenant has all the utilities contracts. I learned this year that replacing the rubber lining in my shower cabin to prevent leakage is maintenance that I, as tenant, have to cover. Same with maintenance and fuel of the gas boiler (though the landlord has to replace anything that properly breaks, provided you maintained it properly which you better create a paper trail for).

[Valmy]

Viper - interesting you assume renters have a free choice of where to live.
Vienna I understand has quite a housing supply problem

True, but it would be unfair to pay a tax when you have no alternatrive.

Do electric cars not exist? They are not even particularly expensive at this point.

Now maybe they need to be more specifically designed for rural use, but the whole point is to incentivize private actors to solve the problem out of self-interest. The whole point is to unlock human ingenuity to find alternatives.

They do.
But the idea we can just sub our petrol cars one to one with electric cars and keep society exactly as it is is misplaced.

Well different parts of the world have different needs Tyr. You can't build public transit in rural areas.

[viper37]

Your costs as landlord don't increase, though. The tenant has all the utilities contracts. I learned this year that replacing the rubber lining in my shower cabin to prevent leakage is maintenance that I, as tenant, have to cover. Same with maintenance and fuel of the gas boiler (though the landlord has to replace anything that properly breaks, provided you maintained it properly which you better create a paper trail for).

Weird.  I've been out of the rental market for a while, but around here, the utilities cost where at the charge of the tenant only if there was no central heating.  So you'd use electricity in your apartment to heat yourself, but if there was central heating, that would be paid by the landlord and included in your rent.

[Syt]

Weird.  I've been out of the rental market for a while, but around here, the utilities cost where at the charge of the tenant only if there was no central heating.  So you'd use electricity in your apartment to heat yourself, but if there was central heating, that would be paid by the landlord and included in your rent.

Many buildings in Vienna don't have central heating, just a gas boiler in each apartment for hot water and heating. It's becoming more common. But even apartments with central heating that I've lived in (Germany and Austria) had meters to calculate how much you were using in your apartment, and you were charged accordingly. The only thing that I can think of that's split evenly (or per m², rather) is cold water (and stuff like garbage collection, snow removal in winter etc. if you want to be pedantic).

[Josquius]

In Switzerland central heating is bizzare.
It's charged as part of your rent... But they do adjustments a year or two later to see if you owe or are owed anything extra. I got a few francs from them 2 years after I stopped living there

[
Well different parts of the world have different needs Tyr. You can't build public transit in rural areas.

You'd be surprised. It can work quite well in rural areas done right.
Theres also other alternatives being experimented with in some rural areas such as transport on demand.

Also a key part of what needs to change is for people as much as possible to shift away from hyper sparse density living unless they have a very good reason (Eg farmers)

[HVC]

Less sparse density? So your answer to making rural transit more feasible is to make people less rural.

[Eddie Teach]

No, he's right. The countryside needs to be kept pristine for the wealthy to enjoy.

[The Brain]

The typical Labour voters in their £1 million cottages must not be inconvenienced.

[Josquius]

Less sparse density? So your answer to making rural transit more feasible is to make people less rural.

That's not the one answer but its definitely something that would/has historically helped.
Building new housing on fields in the middle of nowhere needs to stop.
Also people should be helped and incentivised to live within reach of decent public transport rather than forced to live in disconnected places because its all they can afford, meaning they then have to play taxi every time they want to go anywhere.

[alfred russel]

I'm not. I'm also not proposing that everyone leave Canada, or Canada curtail immigration.

I'm pointing out that the standard political approach is going to be ineffective: identifying a series of problems, and in isolation coming up with pithy strategies to deal with each that will appeal to middle brow dilettantes such as ourselves. Though maybe self satisfying and electorally successful.

There are so many downstream effects to any number of policies when it comes to climate change that if you actually want to prioritize it, it needs to be in every policy decision. And Canada alone is just a smart of a global topic.

A fair criticism.

What do your propose instead?

I don't propose anything. I don't have a comprehensive program to successfully address the world's problems.

On a lot of topics, there are initiatives to address problems and people advocating them feel smug that they are improving the situation, and I'm like, "okay hopefully that works." So maybe I get to share in that smugness by supporting the initiatives. On this topic, I'm convinced the current viable proposals aren't going to work, so I'll get my smug feeling from pointing out to smug people supporting them that they are pissing into the wind.

Side note: rereading the post above i meant to write "small part" and somehow wrote that as "smart". Spell check certainly can't fix all my typos!

[alfred russel]

Jacob, but to answer the question that I said I had no answer to because that is accurate as I'm an accountant with a biology degree that rock climbs on weekends and has no climate expertise (I can't resist throwing in bullshit two cents whereever I can):

-The excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity are generally a stock not a flow. The current problem is the result of a couple centuries of industrialization and even cutting global emissions to absolute zero for all time doesn't remove what we've already put in the atmosphere, and there are even models showing that there is a positive feedback loop that could cause additional greenhouse gas to be naturally released based on elevated global temperatures. The current crisis is what is already in the atmosphere, and of course we are adding greenhouse gases at increasing rates on a global basis. So it seems the ultimate solution is going to need to be a way to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

-It is more complicated and involves lots of economics, but I generally think if you want to reduce emissions the best way is a full court press on production rather than consumption. The reason being that production is easily monitored and stationary. If you don't allow the offshore oil rig to operate the oil field under it will never be exploited. Consumption is very easy to move. The reason greenhouse gases are an issue is that fossil fuels are cheaper than other sources in many circumstances, and that means even if one country doesn't import that fuel another is interested in doing so.

[Sheilbh]

That's not the one answer but its definitely something that would/has historically helped.
Building new housing on fields in the middle of nowhere needs to stop.
Also people should be helped and incentivised to live within reach of decent public transport rather than forced to live in disconnected places because its all they can afford, meaning they then have to play taxi every time they want to go anywhere.

Yeah small villages is kind of the historical norm in rural life - except for farmers and the big houses of the rich, no?

[HVC]

Less sparse density? So your answer to making rural transit more feasible is to make people less rural.

That's not the one answer but its definitely something that would/has historically helped.
Building new housing on fields in the middle of nowhere needs to stop.
Also people should be helped and incentivised to live within reach of decent public transport rather than forced to live in disconnected places because its all they can afford, meaning they then have to play taxi every time they want to go anywhere.

So you're saying that people should be incentivized to move into large population centers where resources can be better used and allocated? like, oh, i don't know, London?




This might be a UK thing, i don't know what rural looks like there. Here in the great white north for the most part rural is rural, large tracks of a farm land with houses few and far between. yes we have towns and the like, but that dwarfed by the size of farm land.

[Sheilbh]

So you're saying that people should be incentivized to move into large population centers where resources can be better used and allocated? like, oh, i don't know, London?

...........no?

I mean I'd aspire to Hong Kong or Singapore. London is very low-rise suburban.

[HVC]

that was mainly a little dig at Tyr. you can move to... Manchester? can't think of any other big brit cities lol