Well, that's your choice. You can join Elon on his way to Mars and start over on a barren planet. Make no mistake, lives are gonna get uprooted if humanity wants to continue to live on this planet, or we can leave it up to chance, try to adapt and hope for the best. Personally I have maybe 30-50 more years on this planet realistically and I don't have kids, so to be honest I don't really care what happens after that. But maybe you and others here have kids, and they have or will have kids and they need a planet to live. We need ideas and a will to change. Sticking the head in the sand and keep defending the status quo and say nay to everything and distract by weaponizing political nonsense isn't gonna solve the problems we are facing. I assume you wanna continue to eat food, so we have to be able to grow the food somewhere w/o storms, major hurricanes, floods etc. destroying the harvest every year or fires burning it all down.

Its not "my choice" its just reality. You have to craft a workable solution that Americans will accept, and completely upending our way of life is not it. Have to find a way to adapt a meaningful movement towards a more sustainable model that allows us to live the way we want, and in America that involves personal transport over mass transit.

FWIW, I am in the housing industry and many new developments that are built are mixed use where stores and all are walkable, thats what people want. The issue is again, in an area like this the area is largely already fully developed with housing stock that dates to the 30s, 40s, 50s etc. You have to work within the confines of what already exists. There are changes in behavior happening already, for instance we have groceries delivered now, we don't go out and buy groceries which means we don't have to drive to a grocery store. More and more people will work from home and that will reduce congestion and commuting. We already see that here. Traffic has still not gone back to as bad as it was before COVID for example.

That's all good progress. I don't think we are as far apart as it might look. Abolishing R1 zoning doesn't mean to tear down existing stock. Nobody said that, but it makes it legal to replace existing stock with mixed use developments. I'm assuming you are aware that mixed use developments can't be built in today's R1 zones. I fully understand that we have to work with what we've got. Can't change reality over night, but there are steps we can take to start rectifying past mistakes and one of those was R1 zoning. Europe and Asia are the way they are partly because they don't have R1 zoning. Mixed use is the standard. I grew up in a tiny village with a population of 400 and we had a small grocery store. It was attached to the owner's house, so didn't have to leave town for a bit of groceries.

Mixed use developments absolutely can be built in R-1 zoned areas it just requires rezoning or a variance, happens all the time. Local governments have no issue approving such a rezone or a variance to build a new community. Many new communities over the past 20 years are PUDs, planned urban developments that are by their very nature mixed use. I lived in one of these developments for 15 years.

Issue is we don't tear down housing to build new housing en masse. It would make no sense to do so, so no they're not going to approve a grocery store in the middle of a 70 year old neighborhood. So, no new mixed use developments are being built in suburban MD or VA within 30 miles of the DC line, because those areas are all already completely improved.

To be clear though, R1 zoning is not going to be abolished nor should it be. There are mechanisms within the zoning laws for exceptions and local governments are enthusiastic about giving those exceptions for the right projects.

Sometimes I wish certain people would just STFU!! Sometimes it just gets to the point where certain dudes just sound like complete retards.
Dunning /Kruger effect in full effect!!

That's great to hear that they make exceptions. I don't see this happening here. There is no mixed use development in R1 zones around here.

Zoning and variances vary a lot from state to state. You don’t have any mixed use developments in the Bay Area?

Looks like a fair amount of mixed used development happening, not in R1 zones but i would imagine that like here most of the R1 zoned areas there are fully developed already:

https://www.commercialsearch.com/new...isco-bay-area/

Oh yes we have lots of mixed use developments in mixed use zones. I actually live in one. I wouldn't consider the R1 zones around here fully developed. I'm guessing the NIMBYs are at work.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...nft-strategie/

I'm laughing a little because on an earlier thread here someone was claiming that the euro mandate made it a done deal, ICE was as good as dead. Yet here you have the CEO admitting that ICE production has no end to it's shelf life. Porsche was originally going all EV, now they're saying except for the 911 and, mmmmm, possibly elsewhere in the lineup depending on market forces. Yes, I did call it back then, they were never going to make it.

But hey, make a law, getting more money in the hands of the millionaires/billionaires that got you into that office in the first place, then later on, delay said law. Everybody wins. Guilt gets to be too much they can do their part by buying fake carbon offsets, ironically the cost of which will be shouldered by ICE powered vehicles. If irony amuses, you have to admit; that's just delicious.

More in the same issue
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...illionen-ziel/

What do do if it catches fire
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...n-elektroauto/

Pretty sure Porsche always said the 911 would remain ICE...

Wasn't Porsche the one pushing most for alternative fuels instead of full EV ?

They have been working on developing an alternative fuel...

The 992 technically supports electrification and Porsche has left it open as to whether they are going to electrify the 911 or not. Yes, Porsche is also pushing for e-fuels. They've pushed for an exception in the EU law and run a pilot facility in Chile. All the e-fuel is going to motorsport at the moment. It's pretty unrealistic for e-fuels to happen on a wider scale.

I think we may see e-fuels for trucks though. I don't see transportation switching reliably and on long ranges to full electric.

The e-fuel is being considered for wider use

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/ar...021744_19.html

Yes, that's really the bigger fish. Ships, airplanes and long haul trucking. However, hydrogen might be the better option there. The hydrogen used to produce e-fuel today comes from natural gas, so these e-fuels are still largely fossil fuels. So-called green hydrogen is not available in sufficient quantities and it already takes a lot of energy to produce green hydrogen. Then it takes more energy to turn it into e-fuel. Might as well just use the hydrogen straight up.

We also should remember that passenger cars are responsible for only about 8% of the global CO2 emissions, so going fully electric with cars saves at most 8%. Current calculations show that if we were to increase EV sales to 40% market share, which isn't gonna happen anytime soon, it'll take about 50 years to replace all ICE with EVs. 50 years for 8% doesn't seem very productive. We need to talk about the big emissions such as the concrete industry, the military complexes which are responsible for 25% alone, coal and gas. A few ICE 911 aren't gonna make a difference.

+1 For Hydrogen!

In 2007 A Hydrogen Ford Fusion eclipsed 200mph+ at Bonneville Salt Flats

Records will be broken at Speed Week...the course is Pristine but it might rain on Friday.

A Hydrogen 911 GTH would be Epic or Hydrogen AMG S63Z...Z for Zeppelin
​​​​​

To clarify, are we talking about hydrogen combustion engines or just EV's using hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries? Not referring to the 911's but for trucking etc.

I think both options are on the table. Besides trucking, there is also diesel construction equipment. JCB has developed a Hydrogen combustion engine for their construction equipment, because they have found that battery electric construction equipment is simply not feasible if you have to be able to work an 8 hour shift with them. They end up way too heavy to have enough battery life to last 8 hours and if they have to charge during the shift that's lost time. I think long haul trucking will face a similar issue. Having to charge massive batteries is a lot of time lost on these long hauls. I think electric semis such as the Tesla semi will be limited to last mile type deliveries, but we need something else for the long haul.

The problem with burning hydrogen directly is NOx.

And the resultant crime.