Isn't it enough to stop discretionary spending and increase retirement saving?

I have been a fan of the "Center for Creative Land Recycling". It's an organization dedicated to providing expert advice on urban infill and brownfield redevelopment. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce sprawl, to increase urban density, eliminate blight, and reuse old buildings. A local example they've worked on is the development of the park at Cooley Landing in East Palo Alto - but they've had projects world-wide. It's hard to put a precise number on the CO2 reduction of what they do - so a donation can't be treated as a carbon offset - but it definitely contributes to that, along with addressing other issues. Web Link

Please keep posts on-topic. Thank you.

Once again responsibility for Climate "Action" is being pushed down to the individual level. Every reputable scientific report I have read, combined with the inaction at the IPCC level implies that Climate Change is not addressable at the individual level anymore than SARS?CoV?2.

I went to downtown Mountain View last evening for some takeaway for dinner. The street was alight with towering flames from propane gas space heaters.

What part of "We don't get it" don't we get?

Ms. Listgarten: perhaps when you return you can shed some light on a couple of issues connected to the City's S-CAP goals. The push for conversion to electric is a constant S-CAP theme. Is there an estimate for how much energy is required for our current daytime population? And for one that is 30% larger as ABAG and many developers and politicians envision? What are the sources of this energy? And what is being done to improve the reliability of the electrical grid? Theory is great, but it doesn't warm a home or heat a meal.

And what about the issue Eeyore raises about remedies being pushed down to the individual level? Palo Altans have a pretty good "Green IQ" but are individuals able to move the needle on climate change? I kinda doubt we can and I think there's a real risk that people will stop incurring the inconveniences and costs associated with electrification if more isn't required of businesses. And higher standards placed on development. Why not reward re-purposing and attach fees to plans that are heavy on demolition? And why not develop a fee schedule for development that incentivizes and rewards projects that are carbon neutral and water-neutral (or near to it)and, again, attach fees for projects that have a high environmental impact?

Is anyone currently in a position of influence watching the big picture? This is a generalization, but it seems politicians are more narrowly focused on supporting donors who help them get re-elected than they are real problem solving. No issue underscores the need for big picture thinking better than housing. We sure do need it. But what about electricity and water? And other aspects of infrastructure?

Continuing to address problems individually rather than holistically will likely only make many matters worse. Right now, I think the best big picture thinker we have is Pete Buttigieg. I sure hope there are more out there like him.