The whole concept of "15 minute cities" was invented by Carlos Moreno (French -Colombian urban planner). Even just a brief perusal of the information is enough to tell you that this is mostly not about improving the environment. Take a look at the UK - Cambridge plans to axe a whole load of trees just to build a "Green Bus" route.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11887559/Cambridgeshire-council-plan-chop-orchard-500-mature-trees.html

Plymouth has already axed over a hundred trees

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/15/a-disgrace-more-than-100-trees-cut-down-in-plymouth-despite-local-opposition

This is nothing other than "greenwashing" - there are big budgets involved for "sustainable" walkways, cycle routes and bus route. As always "follow the money".

26 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Happy to restrict myself to a 15min drive if mandated by the government but they will have to build a lot of infrastructure to make the idea feasible.

I'm sure governmental plans will be idyllic.  Just like everything else government does.

Just curious, though.  Sincerely so.  Why would you be in favour of a government mandate to limit and control your movements?  How do you rationalise that acceptance?  And what about the next mandate?  And the next?  And the one after that?  Because you know that this will be taken to the extreme.  This idea of 15-minute cities is only a start.  You can take it to the bank that these social engineering wizards have many, many more "great" ideas for how they think you should live your life.

How about government mandating that you consume bugs?  Or not eat meat?  Or become cashless where every one of your transactions is recorded, eternally saved and sold to any entity that wants that personal info?  Do you have any lines drawn in the sand?  Or would you blindly follow any and all mandates?

As I said, anyone who wishes to freely walk into a jail can do so.  But I'd advise that one should think a bit more deeper before making such a decision, such as asking themselves the above list of questions.  Else you'll find yourself in a jail with no bars and windows and open air but a jail nonetheless.

 

15 minutes ago, cmsally said:

The whole concept of "15 minute cities" was invented by Carlos Moreno (French -Colombian urban planner). Even just a brief perusal of the information is enough to tell you that this is mostly not about improving the environment. Take a look at the UK - Cambridge plans to axe a whole load of trees just to build a "Green Bus" route.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11887559/Cambridgeshire-council-plan-chop-orchard-500-mature-trees.html

Plymouth has already axed over a hundred trees

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/15/a-disgrace-more-than-100-trees-cut-down-in-plymouth-despite-local-opposition

This is nothing other than "greenwashing" - there are big budgets involved for "sustainable" walkways, cycle routes and bus route. As always "follow the money".

Spot on.  The oligarchs see climate change as something that can be infinitely monetised.  Can you hear that giant sucking sound?

14 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Ah yes! But Ms Greta says they '''have stolen my dreams.'''

As they steal everyone's money.

15 minute city implementation seems to have been handed over to C40 and NREP (a large real estate company based in Denmark). They seem to have the backing of the Scandinavian govts with pension funds being invested in the company. There seems to be substantial financial backing, with the Clinton Foundation heavily involved in C40.

A number of the "big players" have a vested interest in this project being carried out. It's because of these big budgets you see the local councils going against their constituents wishes. It seems that you are the product.

After the disastrous medical experiment of the last 3 years to 'keep everyone safe', it's good to see that the Authorities' latest 15 minute city plans for the common good and 'saving the planet' are not embraced enthusiastically by those that would have to live in those virtual prisons...

 

12 minutes ago, cmsally said:

15 minute city implementation seems to have been handed over to C40 and NREP (a large real estate company based in Denmark). They seem to have the backing of the Scandinavian govts with pension funds being invested in the company. There seems to be substantial financial backing, with the Clinton Foundation heavily involved in C40.

A number of the "big players" have a vested interest in this project being carried out. It's because of these big budgets you see the local councils going against their constituents wishes. It seems that you are the product.

You raise a great point, cmsally.  If anyone doubts that climate change and all of the various outgrowths which will emerge from it, such as 15-minute cities, is one big hoax for the dual purpose of controlling the plebes by mandating their behaviours and taking their money one only needs to do just a little bit of digging as to what familiar names of oligarchs start to pop up everywhere climate change outgrowths create opportunities for investment and huge profits.

It's so in your face.

The oligarchs take this to the bank every day . . .

 

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

― Mark Twain

Once you've been fooled it's like leading the lambs to their slaughter.  They go willingly.  Just the way the oligarchs like it.  Not only does it keep them safe but the sheep become ardent, faithful and loyal supporters to boot.  And sometimes even serve as the jackboots for those who see clearly.

The UK creates just 2% of greenhouse gasses so whatever we do will not make any difference, the biggest polluters are Asia (China and India) and most of these people are very poor and need to do work just to survive. So if anybody thinks these people will give up their work and starve just because it will make these people that glue themselves to the M25 or the people that feel the need to throw tomato soup at priceless paintings feel better, I would seriously have a rethink, it is not going to happen.

Restricting personal movement to a 15 min drive.

No football matches, opera, Theatre, pop concerts, theme parks, holiday resorts, National Parks, Museums, Zoos, international sports, golf. Not to mention the end of air and sea travel, foreign holidays, ferries.

Probably not worth buying a car, so the end of the motor industry as well.

 

And that's just for a start.

That's a lot of business closures!

6 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

The whole 'climate thing' is a total hoax, it should be called 'green-washing for profit'.

The greater percentage have fallen under the slumbering spell - 

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm sure governmental plans will be idyllic.  Just like everything else government does.

Just curious, though.  Sincerely so.  Why would you be in favour of a government mandate to limit and control your movements?  How do you rationalise that acceptance?  And what about the next mandate?  And the next?  And the one after that?  Because you know that this will be taken to the extreme.  This idea of 15-minute cities is only a start.  You can take it to the bank that these social engineering wizards have many, many more "great" ideas for how they think you should live your life.

How about government mandating that you consume bugs?  Or not eat meat?  Or become cashless where every one of your transactions is recorded, eternally saved and sold to any entity that wants that personal info?  Do you have any lines drawn in the sand?  Or would you blindly follow any and all mandates?

As I said, anyone who wishes to freely walk into a jail can do so.  But I'd advise that one should think a bit more deeper before making such a decision, such as asking themselves the above list of questions.  Else you'll find yourself in a jail with no bars and windows and open air but a jail nonetheless.

 

bugs taste ok.

The Marxists that implement these policies never suffer the consequences of their ideology. 

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The Marxists that implement these policies never suffer the consequences of their ideology. 

Social Marxists please.

I'm a Marxist and we're way more extreme re women's rights (property has no rights) and other sexes (hanging)!

 

Karl Marx (the great man) married a Baroness, lived off her income and impregnated both her and her maid (yes, Karl had servants).

 

We're more interested in property redistribution and decent wages for the workers.

(first to be redistributed would be the ruling elites beachfront mansions)

Neither of which the Social Marxists would agree to!

I live in rural Kamphaeng Phet.

 

The nearest village with shops is 6 minutes away

My son's school is 15 minutes away and the nearest state hospital is opposite the school. The main state hospital is in Kamphaeng Phet city, 65 km and 1 hours drive away.

 

BigC, Makro, Robinsons etc are also in Kamphaeng Phet city. 

 

There is NO public transport until you reach the nearest village, and then there is the baht bus to Kamphaeng Phet city, or the National Bus company to Bangkok

 

The amphur offices are 20 minutes away as is the main police station.

 

The problem as I see it is that the idiots who come up with ideas like this line in cities where there is plenty of public transport and they can even work from home. They have no idea what rural living is all about.

I love the idea of a 15-minute city only for lefties and tree-huggers. I prefer to hug the rail!

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

While I think we are affecting/damaging our environment (as all animal life did in the past and still do) there is a lot of hype too.

Actually that was a quote the Guardian used, taken from the Observer who in turn took it from the Pentagon

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

 

“15 minute cities” is not a movement restriction idea, it is an urban planning idea.  Urban developments should be planned to allow people easy and convenient access to daily necessities such as schools, clinics, shops etc. 

For longer journeys, for example if you have a specialist career that is not suited to distributed working, then transit should allow you convenient access to urban centres, or for universities, hospitals, art galleries and other facilities that benefit from economies of scale.

9 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

“15 minute cities” is not a movement restriction idea, it is an urban planning idea.  Urban developments should be planned to allow people easy and convenient access to daily necessities such as schools, clinics, shops etc. 

For longer journeys, for example if you have a specialist career that is not suited to distributed working, then transit should allow you convenient access to urban centres, or for universities, hospitals, art galleries and other facilities that benefit from economies of scale.

Is this not pretty much not how urban areas already are? 

6 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

How does one discuss ludicrous ideas in a civil, open and honest manner?  "Are you in favour of restricting your freedoms in order to deal with a fictitious problem?"

What's to discuss?  Except perhaps how to put an end to the madness which seems to afflict so many.

When people take a sensible idea - like planning for liveable cities - and then misinterpret it into an oppressive restriction, and use that perverse misinterpretation to lampoon the original idea, then discussion can be difficult.  I can explain as best I can, but I can’t understand it for you.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Is this not pretty much not how urban areas already are? 

Older cities, generally yes.  Urban sprawl and suburbia, not so much.  The fifteen minutes is measured by foot or pedal, rather than SUV or motorbike, I believe.

6 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

When people take a sensible idea - like planning for liveable cities - and then misinterpret it into an oppressive restriction, and use that perverse misinterpretation to lampoon the original idea, then discussion can be difficult.  I can explain as best I can, but I can’t understand it for you.

This was the question: "Will you support laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement to no more than a 15 minute drive from your place of residence in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?"

 

Does: "...laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement..." sound like planning for livable areas? 
 

 

4 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

Older cities, generally yes.  Urban sprawl and suburbia, not so much.  The fifteen minutes is measured by foot or pedal, rather than SUV or motorbike, I believe.

I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles. I think when you google "Urban sprawl and suburbia" it will pop up. 

 

I walked to Elementary school, intermediate school and high-school. I walked or could walk to a grocery store, a drug store, three liquor stores, two barber shops, a beauty salon, a hotel, two bars, a pet store, a movie theater, a taco stand, a Tastee Freeze, a coffee shop, a slaughter-house, a dairy, a jewelry store, a real estate office, a camper manufacturer, a TV shop a tropical fish store, a pizza joint, a slot-car track, a metal center, and a park. I also walked to my first job at a tool & die shop. In the same little industrial park there was a dune-buggy shop, an ornamental iron shop, and an upholstery shop. All of this was within a half-mile of the little tract home I grew up in, and I'm sure I missed some. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

This was the question: "Will you support laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement to no more than a 15 minute drive from your place of residence in order to save the planet from man-made global warming?"

 

Does: "...laws and regulations that will limit your personal movement..." sound like planning for livable areas? 
 

 

I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles. I think when you google "Urban sprawl and suburbia" it will pop up. 

 

I walked to Elementary school, intermediate school and high-school. I walked or could walk to a grocery store, a drug store, three liquor stores, two barber shops, a beauty salon, a hotel, two bars, a pet store, a movie theater, a taco stand, a Tastee Freeze, a coffee shop, a slaughter-house, a dairy, a jewelry store, a real estate office, a camper manufacturer, a TV shop a tropical fish store, a pizza joint, a slot-car track, a metal center, and a park. I also walked to my first job at a tool & die shop. In the same little industrial park there was a dune-buggy shop, an ornamental iron shop, and an upholstery shop. All of this was within a half-mile of the little tract home I grew up in, and I'm sure I missed some. 

 

 

There is talk about pushing for "fifteen minute cities" in the general sphere of public discussion.  THis thread addresses a different topic from the topic that is discussed in the wider context of "fifteen minute cities" - (possibly deliberately) misinterpreting it as an affront to people's liberty to form traffic jams.  There are those - such as highway builders - who would rather that cities were car-centric rather than people-centric.  You and I are lucky to have grown up in places where people could get about the town - I have seen many places since then where the town was built for cars rather than people. 

 

Keep your subjects close.

Feudal/serfdom 101

26 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

There is talk about pushing for "fifteen minute cities" in the general sphere of public discussion.  THis thread addresses a different topic from the topic that is discussed in the wider context of "fifteen minute cities" - (possibly deliberately) misinterpreting it as an affront to people's liberty to form traffic jams.  There are those - such as highway builders - who would rather that cities were car-centric rather than people-centric.  You and I are lucky to have grown up in places where people could get about the town - I have seen many places since then where the town was built for cars rather than people. 

 

The same people that ruined/are ruining the neighborhood/culture I grew up in are the ones pushing for "fifteen minutes cities", and you can bet THEY won't be living in them. 

 

The same people demanding chickens have more space, will demand the hoi-polloi have less. 

 

11 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

The whole 'climate thing' is a total hoax, it should be called 'green-washing for profit'.

No, I think it's the exact opposite.

The way cities were designed in the past was for profit.

Why build cities that are monstrocities when all you need can be contained in a small area?

There never was any need for these massive cities.

Or maybe there was ... until Amazon came along. Now you can get everything delivered. No need to drive to go shopping.

In the past, they wanted to fuel the economy by getting everyone in their cars driving around all over.

Now, they've crunched the numbers and realize it's no longer sustainable for the planet.

Climate thing is not a hoax.

 

 

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Just curious, though.  Sincerely so.  Why would you be in favour of a government mandate to limit and control your movements?  How do you rationalise that acceptance?  And what about the next mandate?  And the next?  And the one after that?  Because you know that this will be taken to the extreme. 

what if we wreck the planet?

how will you rationalize that to your grandchildren who won't have a planet to live on?

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

The same people that ruined/are ruining the neighborhood/culture I grew up in are the ones pushing for "fifteen minutes cities", and you can bet THEY won't be living in them. 

 

The same people demanding chickens have more space, will demand the hoi-polloi have less. 

 

I can't really comment as I don't know your neighbourhood.  The people I know where I live that are pushing for fifteen minute cities live in the neighbourhood, one of the guys cycles along the highway to work.

It's easy to assume that other people are hypocrites, but not so easy when you know them personally.  It's easy to work up ill-feeling towards people you don't know.

 

At the moment, there are people saying something like "We need to reduce emissions by a large percentage and at the same time capture carbon", and there are other people saying "Even if I scrapped my car, it would be a tiny fraction of a millionth of the world carbon emissions".  Until people can understand that an inch in the right direction is better than a mile in the wrong direction, our grandchildren will have a very hard time of it.   

 

8 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

what if we wreck the planet?

how will you rationalize that to your grandchildren who won't have a planet to live on?

There is always Mars 

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

How does one discuss ludicrous ideas in a civil, open and honest manner?  "Are you in favour of restricting your freedoms in order to deal with a fictitious problem?"

What's to discuss?  Except perhaps how to put an end to the madness which seems to afflict so many.

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

Wasn't covid a peek into such silliness.  First couple months people weren't suppose to leave your province.  I couldn't do it and had to go Out & About.

 

What idiot, brain dead, lifeless moron would subject themselves to incarceration with a 15 minute radius.

 

Ankle bracelets and chips to follow.   Maybe electronic money, with a perimeter fence build in.