1y ago

Study calls US infrastructure spending a "climate time bomb"

www.motherjones.com

28 comments

It’s unfortunate there weren’t more restrictions for sure, but I think replacing bridges and tunnels should be ok, even if they’re for cars.
Widening highways is worst, directly contradicting the climate goals of the bill
Repaving needs to be part of a regular budget - irresponsible use of a one-time funding source
New bridges - ok, needs to be done, is infrastructure, may not be possible in regular budget.
obviously the best use is expanding transit, electrification, or other non-car transportation
So, why weren’t there more restrictions? Were they able to? Was it a condition of passing? Is it just practical that we have way too much infrastructure overdue for repairs or replacement?
- It should have been a Republican infastructure bill because it was the bare minimum to keep the status quo, but instead the actual Republican infastructure bill was "build nothing and cut taxes for the rich." Doing nothing is what they want, as close to literally as possible.
  So on the scale of the real world of one party fighting literally paving roads and shoring up crumbling bridges, it was actually a successful bill to pass.
So for years we've been threatened by our crumbling infrastructure, and now we're threatened by fixing our infrastructure?
It looks like a no-win situation.
- Widening roads is not fixing infrastructure.
- If it was just fixing bridges, that would be understandable. However, states and localities are also spending it on expanding lanes, and all but ignoring public transportation.
- its almost like the people that end up spending the money don't really want to fix the problem.
- Oh you can win.
  Start building walkable and cyclable cities. Take a hint from the Netherlands, the entire country is like that and it works. Doing mere cities like that should be no problem for the mighty America
"the largest investment in public transit in American history"
5 times 0 is still 0.
time bomb
... I don't think I would specify the 'time'-part when describing a bomb that is already mid explosion, feels like an irrelevant detail.
The US doesn't really need more infrastructure. It needs to de-infrastructure. Fewer bridges, and roads. Create large national parks, where development is not allowed.
- I have some good news: those national parks were created over a century ago.
  The US doesn't have a problem with having large tracts of undeveloped space.
- State of Nevada: “Am I a joke to you?”
  
  Would it make you feel better that the people running Arizona's infrastructure are the worst shitheads I have ever dealt with in my career?
- L take. Especially in the western states where up to half of the states land is taken up by natl parks they have no governance over. Large tracts of land unable to be developed actually hurts making smaller more walkable neighborhoods, when you have to pack everyone in half the land the state should have.

28 comments