https://www.autoblog.com/2019/08/16/colorado-zero-emissions-vehicle-requirement
The UN summit today is definitely a high-security event. They have locked down the entire waterfront and 2nd avenue is a mess.
It looks like they are expecting big crowds.
It’s the same as every year. The difference is they actually are allowing biking on 1st ave.
Cops were screaming at bikers to get our of their special lane, but the bikers kept ignoring them. It was a fun ride this morning.
I may bike an alternate way home. It looks like this UN summit is going to draw a lot more public protests and crowds than they usually do. There is even parade fencing up.
1 Like
Is this the demo version of banned cars?
The problem in the past was that they banned bikes (even walked on the sidewalk) from being anywhere near the UN every time it had a session. The road was still open: just no bikes were allowed under any circumstances.
Weird, but whatever.
But, the UN happens to sit on the same street as one of the most important bikeways in the city. There’s no other way to go North on that side of Manhattan.
It was never clear why bikes were so specifically targeted, while basically nothing else was.
A quick google maps streetview shows that the whole building is already surrounded by defensive bollards on the sidewalk to prevent a vehicle attack on pedestrains/forcing entry, but if the concern is a bomb threat or just direct personal attack you I could see bikes being a threat avenue for increased speed and ability to get around the bollards.
Note that motorbikes and motorcycles were allowed on the road like normal. ONLY bicycles were banned.
Motorbike is way better at what you described than a bicycle.
1 Like
Just spitballing, I agree with you.
I’ve only seen these attacks on Thunberg referenced second hand, this is a fun breakdown of what’s going on.
2 Likes
Progress so far…
To the surprise of no one on this forum, fighting climate change is actually good for the economy:
" Importantly, the green economy has been growing faster than Trump’s wildest dreams for the fossil fuel industry. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump set out his “America first” energy policy, promising to add 400,000 new jobs to the fossil fuel industry. During the campaign, he suggested that he could increase the industry’s economic output by $700 billion over 30 years.
Our data indicates that the green economy grew by over $60 billion per year 2013 and 2016. This dwarfs Trump’s best hopes for growth in the fossil fuel industry, which equate to an annual increase in value of $23 billion.
Employment in the US green economy also grew by the equivalent of 1.5m full-time jobs during this time, whereas coal mining jobs declined by 37,000 over the same period."
Sometimes I close my eyes, to imagine what the world would be like if we actually took renewable energy seriously.
3 Likes
2 Likes
I am and remain partial to the french model.
I have heard the argument from non climate deniers who still want to do nothing that the economy will be 10x larger in a hundred years and everyone will be too rich to even notice climate change. It seemed totally bullshit, here are the details of why. Turns out the economic models don’t have a price for the worst effects so they ignore them!
And here’s the original paper.
“Overall, such assessments frequently omit, do not model, or merely note the existence of the largest risks because those risks are uncertain and lie outside the bounds of human experience. As a result, they tend to focus the attention of policymakers on smaller risks that are easier to quantify and are considered most likely, instead of highlighting the biggest potential risks to lives and livelihoods.”
1 Like