Youth Plaintiffs In Hawaii Reach Historic Climate Deal 102
Justine Calma writes via The Verge: A group of young plaintiffs reached a historic climate settlement with the state of Hawaii and Hawaii Department of Transportation in a deal that will push the state to clean up tailpipe pollution. The 13 youth plaintiffs filed suit in 2022 when they were all between the ages of 9 and 18. In the suit, Navahine F. v. Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), they alleged that the state and HDOT had violated their right to "a clean and healthful environment," which is enshrined in Hawaii's constitution.
The settlement (PDF), reached on Thursday, affirms that right and commits the DOT to creating a plan to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2045. To hit that goal, the state will have to dedicate at least $40 million to building out its EV charging network by the end of the decade and complete new pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks over the next five years. The settlement also creates a new unit within HDOT tasked with coordinating CO2 emission reductions and a volunteer youth council to advise HDOT.
This is the first settlement agreement in which "government defendants have decided to resolve a constitutional climate case in partnership with youth plaintiffs," according to nonprofit legal groups Our Children's Trust and Earthjustice, which represent the plaintiffs. Back in 2018, Hawaii committed to reaching net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2045 -- in line with what climate research determined was necessary to meet the Paris climate accord goal of stopping global warming. But the state wasn't doing enough to reach that goal, the plaintiffs alleged. Transportation makes up the biggest chunk of the state's greenhouse gas pollution. Justine Calma is a senior science reporter covering energy and the environment with more than a decade of experience. She is also the host of Hell or High Water: When Disaster Hits Home, a podcast from Vox Media and Audible Originals.
The settlement (PDF), reached on Thursday, affirms that right and commits the DOT to creating a plan to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2045. To hit that goal, the state will have to dedicate at least $40 million to building out its EV charging network by the end of the decade and complete new pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks over the next five years. The settlement also creates a new unit within HDOT tasked with coordinating CO2 emission reductions and a volunteer youth council to advise HDOT.
This is the first settlement agreement in which "government defendants have decided to resolve a constitutional climate case in partnership with youth plaintiffs," according to nonprofit legal groups Our Children's Trust and Earthjustice, which represent the plaintiffs. Back in 2018, Hawaii committed to reaching net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2045 -- in line with what climate research determined was necessary to meet the Paris climate accord goal of stopping global warming. But the state wasn't doing enough to reach that goal, the plaintiffs alleged. Transportation makes up the biggest chunk of the state's greenhouse gas pollution. Justine Calma is a senior science reporter covering energy and the environment with more than a decade of experience. She is also the host of Hell or High Water: When Disaster Hits Home, a podcast from Vox Media and Audible Originals.
Montana... (Score:2)
Some kids did this in Montana a couple years ago to stop new oil drilling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't stop drilling for oil when there is no alternative? The younger generation have no alternative but to breath the particulates; they have no alternative but to clean the CO2 and mitigate the damage caused by that oil. So, perhaps they care more about this and are aware that there is always an alternative.
We don't need to drill for new oil and gas. We have already drilled enough holes to give us time to transition from fossil fuels. No cows in Montana need die.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Government incentives shift $ to encourage particular behavior in favor of other behaviors when done right. Go install some solar panels and stop ranting about fossil fuel. I'll
Infinite compounding (Score:2)
It's not the 98% center of the bell curve which causes issues, it is the 2 percent a the fringe which wants a never ending march towards removing anything which causes pollution (any form of motorized vehicles, motorized farming, transport, power generation, building buildings beyond straw, mud and hand tools) and anything standing in the way of more profits.
NIMBY will eventually lead to a Hawaii only populated with the ultra wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't even true. The Chain Home [wikipedia.org] early warning radar was rolled out starting in 1937 and was in full-time operation in 1938. The first operational Freya [wikipedia.org] units were also delivered in 1938. Radar was an obvious idea by the 1930s, and WW2 just happened to coincide with the period when it became practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like we do not have to kill cows in Montana, we don't need to sit in the dark either. We have a massive amount of capacity from existing infrastructure. Is there enough till we transition? That is a matter of conjecture although there are some good studies that show there is; no doubt, there are also studies that show there is not.
As you will have heard many people argue for other reasons, what happens in Montana will have little impact on the rest of the world because Montana is not that big; even if
Re: (Score:1)
they have no alternative but to clean the CO2 and mitigate the damage caused by that oil.
That's a myth. You can add things to the atmosphere that increase reflectivity of the sun and control warming. There was an article in science.org talking about how the efforts to clean up ship fuel have actually decreased the reflection of the exhaust that was helping to cool the earth. It probably is in part responsible for the drastic warming we're experiencing now. Oops. The things released into the atmosphere don't need to be toxic pollutants, just helpful. Even a pollutant with a relatively low toxici
Re: (Score:2)
That would help to address global warming if it works. But, ocean acidification would carry on, entirely untouched.
Geothermal (Score:2)
As for cattle dying because tractors did not truck in feed, that only happens in intensive indoor agriculture. Cattle free ranging will survive fine for days and weeks at a time. They only need to be brought in at calving time to vaccinate the calves and during the winter. Monatan is wide open spaces. Doubt very little of feed lot raising o
Re: (Score:2)
Also you dont need active lava vents to do geothermal. You just need to pump water down and you get geothermal almost anywhere in the world. Hawaii you just dont have to pump it very deep whi
Re: Montana... (Score:3)
People arenâ(TM)t paying the real price for energy right now, given how much the government is helping out. You just need to go to Canada or Europe to see what energy can be really costing. Itâ(TM)s enough to change your energy usage habits and the way you think your home.
Re: (Score:2)
People arenâ(TM)t paying the real price for energy right now, given how much the government is helping out. You just need to go to Canada or Europe to see what energy can be really costing. Itâ(TM)s enough to change your energy usage habits and the way you think your home.
I'm in Canada and pay ~$0.09 CDN per kWh. Nothing at all like Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Do settlements create legal precedents the same as a verdict would?
zero greenhouse gas emissions from transportation (Score:2, Insightful)
(spoiler: probably not)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean for tourists and food? No, the shortsighted kids have won in name only. If they were really serious, they'd have the diesel generators that power the islands shut down tomorrow.
Never is (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't China just convert everything to electric? And why would Chinese goods be cheaper when so much of their power comes from coal?
Re: (Score:1)
No I am not supposed to be smart. Who said that?
I am just way smarter than you.
Name applies again. Never fails with a certain DK type.
Re: (Score:2)
An American worker lives in a 4 BR ranch outside the city, eats beef(takes 10 kg of grain to grow 1 Kg of beef) grilled on his backyard BBQ and drives a big ass Ford 150 to work. And he has a second vehicle and a boat.
Thats why its cheaper to produce in China not because they have coal power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Just use solar, wind and EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Never is (Score:2)
We (in the U.S.) subsidize:
Basic solar research
Solar product development
Solar product factories
Solar Installer training
Solar panel purchase
Solar panel installation
AND we force Electric utilities to pay a premium rate for any surplus electricity private solar panels generate, regardless if the utilitity needs it or not.
Now, is Solar electricity still 'cheaper' than the alternatives if we suspend all the above subsidies? Of course not -now, let's just wait a tic for the solar advocates to give their best "wha
Re: Never is (Score:2)
Re: Never is (Score:2)
Let's define terms:
There's the wholesale cost of buying electricity from another company,
There's the cost of generating the electricity "at scale" in a power plant,
There's the retail price that a utility charges for the electricity,
And then there's the price the utility has to buy a homeowners 'surplus' electricity.
The power company should not be forced to buy electricity it neither wants nor has a use for, that they can't reject the electricity is a subsidy, regardless of the actual price paid.
I never said
Re: (Score:2)
USA claims to be reducing its carbon emissions while all the time the consumption is actually going up, its just that the manufacturing is done in China now and the carbon emissions are counted against China and not against USA where the actual good is being consumed. Carbon emission counting is a totally rigged and fraudulent game.
What manner of hatred against the US does a person have, when the US is claimed responsible for another country and it's emissions?
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that the pollution in China are getting emitted to support US consumption. You could even take that argument a step further. US politicians pass laws against polluting, driving up production costs in the US, which encourages consumers to buy goods made in a cheaper Chinese environment of lax regulation. This enables politicians to take credit for curbing pollution while actually making it worse.
And this way of looking at things is not actually *wrong*, it's just a little misleadingly selecti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We cannot reduce emissions if we do not control consumption to certain extent. But the first world which consumes 10 times as more per capita instead of trying and leading a more minimalist life insists on all its excess but tells people who dont even have electricity yet, they need to wait longer for electricity because "Global Warming". Its racist, classist and China and India have started ignoring these folks. India and China ARE building solar and wind BUT they are also building Coal and Gas plants and they will till their citizens have at least half the electricity availability of US consumers. At the same time US is outsourcing its energy hungry industry so keep in mind when you see Indian and Chinese emissions rising they are rising from a very low base and a lot of that is to produce goods for the American consumer.
Yes, the American consumer is the only user of Chines goods This link proves that no one else does https://tradingeconomics.com/c... [tradingeconomics.com]. I was really surprised to find out that no one else imports Chinese goods, SO all we have to do is get rid of the USA, and the problem will go away forever. Seriously big cure for the emission problem is to return the entire world to the 1600's, where people lived healthy long lives peacefully and in harmony with nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Never is (Score:2)
I'm not even sure it's misleading. Frankly if you're going to regulate CO2 then you have to have a mechanism to stop the CO2 emissions shifting 10 feet over the border of your jurisdiction. That means any serious plan to combat global warming will need a CO2 tarrif of some kind, and it needs to be in place early in the process not late.
That's going to be a double whammy for goods from SE Asia, as not only is electricity there CO2 intensive just the sheer distance involved in transport will gross up the CO2
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even sure it's misleading. Frankly if you're going to regulate CO2 then you have to have a mechanism to stop the CO2 emissions shifting 10 feet over the border of your jurisdiction. That means any serious plan to combat global warming will need a CO2 tarrif of some kind, and it needs to be in place early in the process not late.
That's going to be a double whammy for goods from SE Asia, as not only is electricity there CO2 intensive just the sheer distance involved in transport will gross up the CO2 value of goods.
This. Is blaming all of this on the USA, as if we are the singular user of Chinese goods. Hong Kong is number two for reference - but they are Chinese, and since this is soley the fault of the USA, and All the Chinese are 100 percent interest, we are apparently responsible for Hong Kong's consumption.
And what about mainland China's consumption by their citizens. They are enjoying a much higher quality of life, and are rapacious consumers. Also the fault of the USA. the people who hate us are getting to t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of China's export to Hong Kong is reexported to US as HK has a free trade agreement with US from when it was a British colony. A tiny city is not consuming all that stuff. Learn a little about how international trade works before shooting off your mouth.
Projection much? Allow me to reply to your claims. Read the whole thing. You need to take it up with the people who made this https://tradingeconomics.com/c... [tradingeconomics.com].
I took the liberty of posting their contact link for you to get hold of them to tell them to stop shooting their mouths off. https://tradingeconomics.com/c... [tradingeconomics.com]
You really need to contact these people about this as well, because their US imports from China data apparently does not include the Hong Kong data, it doesn't add up. https://tradingecono [tradingeconomics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is that the pollution in China are getting emitted to support US consumption. You could even take that argument a step further. US politicians pass laws against polluting, driving up production costs in the US, which encourages consumers to buy goods made in a cheaper Chinese environment of lax regulation. This enables politicians to take credit for curbing pollution while actually making it worse.
And this way of looking at things is not actually *wrong*, it's just a little misleadingly selective.
Would the USA have helped China By refusing to buy any of their goods? That way the Citizens wouldn't have to work in those factories, and could go back to subsistence farming, and then the US could claim they were doing the right thing. And the blamers would nod sagely, know9ing that we aren't bothering the people of China.
That sounds sarcastic, but if you think about it, it's much more complex than pointing the finger at the standard bogeyman. Would we prefer that Chinese citizens return to the days w
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese level of consumption is far below what the world can sustain while the G7 is far above. For the world to be sustainable US consumers
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy fails again (Score:2, Interesting)
This is more evidence of the failure of our politics. Whilst there's a good case for the elements of this deal, using the courts and the constitution to enforce policy actions which should be the role of the legislature is deeply unhealthy; in effect the elected representatives of the people are largely excluded from this process. In THIS case the executive agreed the settlement, but presumably only because they reckoned the kids would have won anyway.
In the culture wars issues of the past 70 years, we have
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
What I'm seeing is the stacking of two bad trends in the USA, both kind of feeding off each other to just make things worse.
One trend that comes to mind is the "there should be a law" thinking. This is that if there's something wrong about society then we need the government to step in to make things right. It used to be that society left much of this to social pressures to make things right. This requires a strong sense of community and family since social shunning doesn't work if people don't see immed
America was built by the shunned moving on (Score:2, Interesting)
That was the advantage of the open frontier: you just left. The most obvious example of this was the Mormons, who exiled themselves to Utah, of course. Then the USA filled up - and you had to do a bit better at living together - though the freedom to leave still persisted.
Now the formerly shunned are sometimes demanding respect - thus the Gay Pride movement etc - which is, at one level, a valid political demand, and at another the imposition of a particular ideology. The persecution of churches and mosques
Re:Democracy fails again (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this isn't true. The legislature sets the laws. The courts are simply saying that the rules contradict.
If you have a principle such as the right to a healthy environment and the right to drive in a fossil fuel car everywhere you go, these two contradict. The courts have to make a ruling. The legislature can change the law if they don't like the ruling.
For example, in the UK, there is a law about pollution. If someone builds a factory next to you, producing lots of fumes, you can get it shut down. If someone builds a road next to you, you can't because roads are specifically excluded from the pollution legislation. As are stream traction engines, curiously enough. Hawaii could do that.
No; the legislature can't change this court ruling (Score:1)
Because it derives from the constitution as interpreted by the courts. Which is why it's so damaging to democracy on its strict definition.
Re:No; the legislature can't change this court rul (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not "damaging to democracy". It is a fundamental component of it. The legislation branch legislated, the judicial branch judicates. If there's something wrong with the law, amend the law. If there's anything wrong constitutionally then amend the constitution. You elect the people who do the former (and in America also the latter). That is fundamentally how democracy works.
Complaining that something is poorly written causing the courts to disagree with *YOUR* desires (don't pretend that you speak for everyone, that would fundamentally be damaging to democracy) is no a failure of democracy.
Still more optimism on show (Score:1)
The legislature has NO role in this decision.
Many democracies fall when the courts become the instrument of a specific group in society. The usual pattern is for this to be an elected executive who then suborns the courts into allowing them to do whatever he wants - see Venezuela, Turkey. But the alternative is for an activist group within the court to push their luck. Granted, both of these are pathological, but that's no reason to believe that it couldn't happen elsewhere, especially in a country with a h
Re: (Score:2)
Many democracies fall when the courts become the instrument of a specific group in society.
The courts work within a legal framework they are given. The legislator has all the power in this decision. The courts rule on matters of law, the legislator writes the law. Did you ever take civics at school?
Yes, that's the theory (Score:2)
But when that nice Mr Erdogan or Mr Modi decide they want something which is clearly against the letter of the law, it's funny how they get it.
Here's a classic example; the son of the outgoing Indonesian president is allowed to stand as VP in the election despite being below the age required
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Africa is replete with examples of Presidents running for third terms despite explicit bans because the courts find an excuse to let them.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opin... [aljazeera.com]
Sadly, when push
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you must agree judicial overreach is at least possible in theory. Otherwise why don't we just chop off the Constitution after that nice fluffy introductory paragraph, and let a Wise Latina dictate everything from there?
Re: (Score:2)
A judge's job is to interpret. If you disagree with the interpretation then it's the role of the legislator to resolve. If the law left too much loose for the judge to make such a wild interpretation then there's something wrong with the law.
It really is that simple. Blaming the judicial branch for your desire of a different outcome is stupid. The legislator exists for that reason.
Surely you must agree judicial overreach is at least possible in theory.
Nope. Because it doesn't matter how high a court makes a ruling, democracy as a tool allows that ruling to be made irrelevant in
Re: (Score:3)
Replying because I have no points to mod up.
A court is not the proper place to address climate change, beyond specific companies violating specific regulations. Restructuring society so the next generation has a decent world to live in cannot be done through the courts, meaning, it won't work. It's not enough without a legislature (and more).
As far as the solution to the climate crisis, that sounds like magical thinking. It's a complex problem that will need continual management for the rest of time. There
Your optimism is showing (Score:2)
'I think people will be willing to accept this when there's a political party and leadership willing to say it.'
Really? On the whole the wider population won't accept tax rises even for a good cause, so they have to be smuggled into action. Green parties have been trying to get these policies voted in, and have failed to generate much support - though for me the other policies of the greens as their refusal to use the market to achieve their aims means I won't vote for them in the foreseeable future.
I hope
Re: (Score:2)
People won't accept their own taxes being raised. They do understand differing tax rates, and they will accept someone else's taxes being raised.
When you poll the US public, you find not only do they accept it, but they actively want taxes in the high brackets raised.
The reason it hasn't happened it because half the politicians fight against it, and the other half acquiesce after some nice words.
Re: (Score:2)
They do understand differing tax rates, and they will accept someone else's taxes being raised.
They don't seem to understand marginal tax rates though.
Ah yes, the definition of 'the rich' (Score:2)
Someone earning a little bit more than me...
Re:Democracy fails again (Score:5, Insightful)
A court is not the proper place to address climate change
The court is not addressing climate change. The court is ruling based on the legislative framework they are given, and in this case ruled in favour of people who complained current climate policies are not inline with the legal framework set up for them.
You don't like the outcome, change the framework. It's really that simple. Blaming the courts is the single most dangerous thing you can do in any western form of government.
Airplanes? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
LMGTFY.
1.2 million cars registered in Hawaii.
Average of 11k miles per driver.
Re: Airplanes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I checked.. and there is 1.3 million people in Hawaii. Are you saying there is one car per human counted there?
The US apparently has ~900 vehicles per capita (which is pretty lol in itself) so not impossible Hawaii would be slightly higher than average
https://www.visualcapitalist.c... [visualcapitalist.com]
Either way my point is that I would believe air traffic pollution is much higher than car pollution, but theyÃ(TM)re not interested in curbing incoming tourists via aircraft are they?
What are you basing this on? Aviation is 11% of emissions vs 70% for road transport.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehic... [epa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
There are nine states with more vehicles per household than Hawaii, which is in a four-way tie for 10th through 13th.
Hawaii is a good state to go all-electric as range considerations are moot. The average distance driven in a day per vehicle is 30 miles, and longest drive in Hawaii to get some place is half-way around the Big Island's ring road, a distance of 130 miles.
Gas prices in Hawaii. (Score:1)
I sort of assumed Hawaii going BEV was likely a given based on gas prices. It's nice to see that they won but it seems like they got what was already coming, perhaps a little sooner than Hawaii planned. Unlike most states with high gas prices, in Hawaii, it's not because of taxes.
Gas prices by state. https://www.gasbuddy.com/usa [gasbuddy.com]
Gas taxes by state. https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
Where does Hawaii get its electricity? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do own an EV and I believe it's the best car for well over 90% of the population, well over 90% of the time.
But the electricity has to come from somewhere.
Where does Hawaii get it?
Is geothermal feasible and sustainable there, like in Iceland?
And then, there's all the jets and the boats and cruise ships....
Re:Where does Hawaii get its electricity? (Score:5, Insightful)
a) that the grid can be made cleaner over time, whereas ICE remains ICE.
b) The distributed nature of the pollution that ICE vehicles produce, and therefore, the inability to remedy it in any way
Re:Where does Hawaii get its electricity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Geothermal is only viable in the Big Island. There is a lot of solar, a little wind, and batteries, along with waste-to-energy incinerators-- but the bulk of energy is from oil.
More wind is a political challenge, but offshore wind will eventually be necessary. More solar is pretty easy, but distribution systems will need upgrades to make it work. There are a lot of ~40-story high-rises on Oahu, so a level of centralized generation is going to be necessary, but for the balance rooftop solar works well.
Re: (Score:2)
I think, the smallest island of the Canaries, La Gomera, became energy-independent a couple of years ago.
But they have very little tourism and more the likes of "sit somewhere quite and read a book" type of tourism...
I suspect, Hawaii would need to get rid of 90% of their tourists first before becoming more sustainable...
Re: (Score:2)
The Hawaii island of Lanai is actually completely solar and battery powered, but it is a very special case-- a couple big resorts and under 1000 residents, with the bulk of the island owned by Larry Ellison. Really the only challenge to solar-only (or solar + wind) with batteries when you are 30 degrees latitude is urbanization and land use-- single-story buildings can pretty easily self-generate and store ~90% of their consumption (10% imported energy). As you move to higher latitudes then transmission a
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like they could do with some distribution cables between islands. And some big storage projects.
Floating wind farms are relatively new tech, expected to reach subsidy free pricing in the early 2030s. The deepest one currently is about 300m.
Re: (Score:2)
Transmission between the islands is a bit of a non-starter politically; Oahu has 8x the population of Hawaii (Big Island) or Maui, 80x that of our nearest neighbor (Molokai)... and isn't really a huge benefit at current scales.
Floating wind turbines could reasonably create an electrical bridge between islands eventually, but Oahu alone needs something on the order of 1GW of wind power to make it a significant source of power. The other islands can really get by with over 99% of their energy being produced
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I do own an EV and I believe it's the best car for well over 90% of the population, well over 90% of the time.
But the electricity has to come from somewhere.
Where does Hawaii get it?
Strawman argument. They could generate electricity by burning oil and it would still be better for the environment and health of the population than burning oil in hundreds of thousands of small engines in the street close to where people live and work.
And then, there's all the jets and the boats and cruise ships....
You're pretending like they are getting a free pass when in reality they are all facing increasingly more stringent regulations as well. This is whataboutism at its poorest since the thing you're deflecting on is also being addressed.
Re: (Score:3)
But the electricity has to come from somewhere.
Where does Hawaii get it?
As of three years ago 35% of its electricity was from renewables, the rest from oil. They do use geothermal on the island of Hawaii. They are on track to get to 70% renewable in 6 years (2030) and 100% by 2045. A 100% switch to renewables in Hawaii is slightly complicated by the fact that each island has its own grid so seven separate grids to build out to get to 100% (ignoring tiny N'iihau).
Suing for a nebulous goal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Literally nothing in 'clean and healthful environment' is nebulous.
The human body is designed for a CO2 ppm of ca. 280 in the air it breathes.
Whoever changes the composition of the air should be required to demonstrate that the changed composition is 'clean and healthful' with such change being applied.
Hard to demonstrate that? Not at all either. Just do a randomised controlled trial, where group A is exposed to 280ppm and group B to 420 ppm.
RCT studies are expensive? --> Boo-hoo. How can we be so m
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way, extend this to millions of other species of plants and animals on the planet whose bodies are *also* designed for 280 ppm.
Re: (Score:2)
The democratic part was electing the people who passed the law, and not voting for politicians who want to repeal it.
I'm not an expert on this aspect of the US legal system, but there have been similar laws in Europe for a long time and they generally work on the basis that a "reasonable effort" must be made. What counts as reasonable is for courts to decide, but tends to be limited by financial considerations and balancing other rights like people's right to electricity and clean water.
This is how it is su
Possible outcomes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two possible outcomes to this: a) it is subverted or undermined by redefining zero emissions b) Hawaii transportation becomes unaffordable, this also will make food and goods really expensive.
One part that is interesting is they plan on reducing the number of miles driven by private vehicles. If enacted, it results in keeping people localized, or forcing mass transit to everywhere in the island. City, country, anyplace that people live. 20 miles up some hollow? a bus needs to serve it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can significantly reduce private miles driven without covering everything with public transport. Which isn't really feasible outside the most urban areas due to low density.
Re: (Score:2)
You can significantly reduce private miles driven without covering everything with public transport. Which isn't really feasible outside the most urban areas due to low density.
Bingo! 70% of the entire population of the state lives in just one city - Honolulu. Build public transportation there and 70% of the state is served.
Re: (Score:2)
You can significantly reduce private miles driven without covering everything with public transport. Which isn't really feasible outside the most urban areas due to low density.
Bingo! 70% of the entire population of the state lives in just one city - Honolulu. Build public transportation there and 70% of the state is served.
Then the cost of the new system should not use any tax money from the 30 percent who are not worthy of public transportation
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as long as no taxes go to help you either.
Re: (Score:2)
One part that is interesting is they plan on reducing the number of miles driven by private vehicles. If enacted, it results in keeping people localized, or forcing mass transit to everywhere in the island.
Interesting the way your brain processes information. Providing mass transit for people to use does not exist in your world -- only forcing it upon people. I love mass transit if it is conveniently available. Never use a car in DC with the Metro, and I like taking LA Metro to downtown and not have to park.
Re: (Score:2)
One part that is interesting is they plan on reducing the number of miles driven by private vehicles. If enacted, it results in keeping people localized, or forcing mass transit to everywhere in the island.
Interesting the way your brain processes information.
Exactly. I'm skeptical, and quite analytical. The people paying me for a living rather like my pointing out possible unexpected outcomes. The people who do not like them tend to be yes men. I get paid a lot for my analysis.
Because if you don't analyze and come up with possible issues, you often get those issues. Homie, you probably think I'm just pessimistic. No, if there is something going on, a project of some sort, I think of failure modes to try to make things successful. And of course, they aren't a
A good lesson for the kids (Score:2)
Regardless of merit, a handful of people (Score:2)
redirected what is nominally a responsible government controlled by democratically elected representatives of over a million eligible voters.
If this action were the result of a law passed by those elected representatives, I'd criticize it only on merit (though electrifying a tropical island presents fewer practical obstacles than electrifying all of CONUS).
Since it wasn't even democratic, I'll also criticize it as a usurpation of the authority of elected government.
delusional (Score:2)
delusional. Now HI is delusional. No worries. Have some more aloha spirits.
Immature teenagers are ruling us now? (Score:1)
So now a bunch of immature knee jerk teenagers think they can decide law for the rest of us? Do they promise to stop riding in gasoline powered cars or use any electricity not generated by renewable sources?
Remind me... (Score:2)
Remind me, how does Hawaii generate electricity? How will they generate electricity in 2045 when everyone will be driving zero-emission vehicles?
Oh yeah, they burn stuff - https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid... [eia.gov]
Over 75% of their energy comes from burning coal, natural gas, petroleum products, biomass, etc.
Are we going to pretend that Hawaii will cover the island with solar panels? Litter their hills with wind turbines? Dam their inland waterways to generate hydro power? Oh wait, they'll likely put wind turbines o
All they did... (Score:2)
All they did was settle out of court to get the state to add a $40M line item to the state budget, and I would be *shocked* if the state hadn't already applied for a federal grant in the amount of $40 million to be 100% renewable by 2045...
The kids themself got nothing, except they 'forced' the state to do what they said they would do - YAY!
Self dealing? (Score:2)