COVFEFE shut-downs bring radical air quality improvements

[oil pan 4]

I don't think anyone on here ever claimed human activity didn't pollute the environment.
The source of smog is well documented and has been know about for around 70 years, the government has failed to fix it.
The best example is California and CARB.

[Frank Lee]

B.S. There are several that scoff at climate change itself and/or climate change being caused by human activity.

[redpoint5]

Sure there's people that think humans have zero negative impact on the environment or climate change. There's also people who think the world is flat or that the moon still hasn't been visited by people. Those people are few and insignificant.

The significance in disagreement is what should be done to improve our environment. That opinion ranges from human extinction to doing nothing.

[Fat Charlie]

Let's apply the Cheney Doctrine to it. If we can use it to justify wasting lives and money in a total dump, why not use it to make our place better?

[redpoint5]

I didn't read the article because I assume the premise is true; that halting the economy results in improved air quality.

I'm not sure what "it" the article referred to that we can utilize to "make our place better".

Was there something proposed in the article rather than a mere reporting of improved air quality when the economy is shut down?

[Fat Charlie]

The it I was referring to is the abuse we're giving the planet. We're damaging it, and that's not healthy. It seems reasonable to view that as an existential threat. It gets ignored by polluters and the politicians they own because humanity isn't going to get wiped out before the next quarterly report (if at all).

But we are damaging it. At the very least we need to admit that that's bad for us and reduce that. You don't have to shut down the economy to do that, just make polluting a lot more expensive.

[Xist]

I have seen many articles and segments about the air quality being cleaner all over. It seems common sense. I preferred driving five miles and seeing a bunch of students at a school to sitting in a shed and trying to connect on-line, but it would be much better if my Zoom meeting invitations were working. I submitted a ticket or two, but I doubt that I will hear back satisfactorily anytime soon.

I hope that many people continue to have the option of working from home. My agency pays me significantly better in beautiful Show Low than in Flagstaff, which is plagued with hippies, or Phoenix, with 115° summers and horrible traffic. Employment options are better in Phoenix than Flagstaff and the cost of living is lower, but do you want beige or green?

I would love to have the option of continuing teletherapy, but I would expect them to cut my pay in half.

Would you rather spend 50% of your time driving or virtually 100% of your time working with people for the same pay?

Of course, it only helps if I can get more clients.

I know that millions and millions have applied for unemployment, but what percentage of people are able to maintain their hours working from home? How much cleaner would the air be if this continued?

It seems like about half of politicians are happy to ignore an existential threat three months away.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

B.S. There are several that scoff at climate change itself and/or climate change being caused by human activity.

Yeah people who think that man has no effect on the environment are out there with the flat earthers, creationists, vaccine conspiracy theorists, moon landing deniers and the climate cult, the people who think man is the driving force behind all climate change.

Originally Posted by Xist

I have seen many articles and segments about the air quality being cleaner all over. It seems common sense. I preferred driving five miles and seeing a bunch of students at a school to sitting in a shed and trying to connect on-line, but it would be much better if my Zoom meeting invitations were working. I submitted a ticket or two, but I doubt that I will hear back satisfactorily anytime soon.

I hope that many people continue to have the option of working from home. My agency pays me significantly better in beautiful Show Low than in Flagstaff, which is plagued with hippies, or Phoenix, with 115° summers and horrible traffic. Employment options are better in Phoenix than Flagstaff and the cost of living is lower, but do you want beige or green?

I would love to have the option of continuing teletherapy, but I would expect them to cut my pay in half.

Would you rather spend 50% of your time driving or virtually 100% of your time working with people for the same pay?

Of course, it only helps if I can get more clients.

I know that millions and millions have applied for unemployment, but what percentage of people are able to maintain their hours working from home? How much cleaner would the air be if this continued?

It seems like about half of politicians are happy to ignore an existential threat three months away.

Depends on what you are looking for. I think I remember you saying something about not having enough people and have trouble getting to some of the people you help during the winter.
How much is your time worth and how much does driving cost, not just buying gas but wear and tear on your car?

One example was my exwife who was really bad at math worked a crap job less than 1 mile away. She wanted to drive 40 miles each way, 5 days a week for a 2 dollar an hour raise. I had to put a stop to that. It would have been worth it if all 40 hours were packed into 3 days, just to have her out of my hair for a few hours a day for those 3 days.

[freebeard]

Yeah people who think that man has no effect on the environment are out there with [various others]

It seems some conflate pollution with CO2. It's probably possible to poison ourselves in the midst of an Ice Age (with some added difficulty).

[redpoint5]

... and as I'm always reitterating, the danger isn't that the climate is changing, it's the rate of change.