In the mid-1900's, my parents raised 6 kids. Owned a decent home. And put the 6 of us through good colleges, debt-free.

All on dad's so-so white collar income, with close to zero "family" wealth on either side. Mom was a mother and housewife, but not a helicopter parent - it was normal and accepted to let us kids walk to & from school every day, and to roam the neighborhood (alone or with friends) during daylight hours.

There wasn't anything special about this - plenty of relatives, friends, and neighbors did similar.

Vs. these day - unless you were in the lucky 0.1%, could you even dream of doing that?

On the one hand - d'oh, yes, why didn't they do this years ago?

OTOH - from current comments on the article's site, Brit's seem to have very low opinions of their government's competence. Ditto both intentions, and police practices.

Because the financialization of homes, plus the interests and insecurities of tens of millions of homeowners, create hellishly powerful incentives to restrict the supply of homes.

Everything else is just piddly details on exactly where & how & how much water is inevitably flowing downhill.

People don't need incentives to try and block projects; they do that on their own. NIMBYism only requires that someone not like change and that desire often prevails despite financial benefits of change.

So...did all Americans like change pre-1970, when America was building plenty of affordable new homes? I'm thinking "no".

And whatever sepia-toned tales of the quarter century from 1945 to 1970 are currently being told by right-wing folks, that was a period of enormous change.

(Yes, in philosophical theory, "NIMBYism only requires that someone not like change". But getting from there to "that desire often prevails", in the real world, requires the support of very large social, regulatory, and legal structures. You might want to talk with an old attorney in this area, or someone on a local zoning board.)

Perhaps. But if you look into the history of that idea, you may notice that it's almost always applied to the young and the lower classes. Perhaps the Baron, Bishop, and Business Magnates are too godly to be at risk?

I don't mean it in a clock more hours in at the factory way. Some people can direct themselves. But you've got to do something, even if only for the personal outcomes, i.e. comparing retirees who keep busy to those who do not, you'll find a significant effect on health, satisfaction with life. And of course there's a ripple effect on others, I am one who gets many presents cooked up in that workshop, and am hardly alone.

Your most important point:

> (Honest disclaimer: I am talking here solely about my white collar bubble, no idea about blue collar to be honest. Not much contact with people from that field unfortunately)

Even ignoring your "BUT! Is this a survival strategy? While [...]" point - try talking to the farmers and blue collar workers upon whom your day-to-day life is critically dependent.

Become an electrician or power systems electrical engineer. Because in a gold rush it's a crap shoot which prospectors will win & lose. But being in the Picks & Shovels business is a (relative) sure thing.

Good article, but the actual title:

> The Climate Crisis: Illusion of Action in the Age of Green Capitalism

The HN title is just one brief point in it.

> Why is it relevant...

I'd say the point is "An Ordinary Guy did X". Vs. an engineering genius, or somebody with deep pockets, or a Hollywood special effects model builder, or 3D printer junkie, or whatever.

"Engineering genius" not being an "ordinary guy" is a kind of classism. The whole tenor of the "truck driver did something interesting" is essentially classist thinking.

The point is that he came to the table with "ordinary" talents, equipment, skills, financial resources, etc.

That he had to get extremely focused on the task, and devote years to it, is pretty well spelled out in the article's title.

Jesus christ this is pedantic. You do understand that not all statements can be universally distilled to true or false right? That there's nuance and opinion here right?

This being HN - might there be any Costa Rican lawyers in the house?

It would be extremely interesting to hear about the legal merits of the rival company's lawsuit, and the politics of the Supreme Court.

The kind of issue that's better decided by an ecologist than by a judge, true.

My curiosity is about how the legal system got it wrong - simplistic or outdated laws, or clueless or corrupt judges, or some combination, or something else?

<sigh/>

Seems like pretty much all US citizens should rushing to amend city charters, county charters, state constitutions, etc. - to remove their so-called elected representative's legal power to approve many sorts of things...