Yeah that makes sense. I eat neither so no need to convince me. Just searching for some low hanging fruit for people ready to make some changes. Got this particular detail from a website focused on pets' climate footprint, and it sounded like chicken based pet food was significantly better than beef based, though I don't know how trustworthy that source was.

Even switching from beef to chicken makes a big difference, correct?

I will pick up a book because of its cover, but I confirm with the description, reviews, and a bit of the inside whether or not it's for me. I like sophisticated/artsy covers but I don't like overly pretentious writing, so it's a bit of a trick. My most recent discovery with this method was John Danielle's books. It was the Devil House cover that got me interested. Ironically I enjoyed this two earlier novels much more.

I think Curtis Sittenfeld is the author for me who is most betrayed by her marketing/covers. She's written some killer literature that gets marketed as chick lit, which is a fine genre, but her books surpass that.

I can understand that also. But as far as property value goes, if dense development is permitted these homeowners could end up with unprecedented wealth for retirement, their families, etc. when/if it's time to downsize. But to your point, not everything is about money.

But if we don't increase supply it would get even worse, correct? And these potential luxury apartment shoppers would compete for lower end properties that would otherwise be affordable, correct?

I can sympathize with that but what does happen if you don't increase supply in a desirable place, is that prices shoot up. So if you don't support developing more housing, get ready for rents to rise, house prices to rise, small businesses struggling or shutting down due to rents and issues with worker housing, friends and family getting priced out of the community and having to move far away. I mean, you will still have the buildings themselves technically, but over time you won't have the community itself because of affordability issues. It will all be rich transplants. And, respectfully, I think it is NIMBYism. Just maybe you don't think NIMBYism is always bad, and it's your right to have that opinion.

Speak for yourself.

We need density. And we need better public transportation and bike options. We need all of it.

https://www.fullstackeconomics.com/p/how-luxury-apartment-buildings-help-low-income-renters

Eh that's like Portland peninsula pandemic pricing. I don't think you're going to get that price in a town with the shittiest food scene in coastal Maine, no night life, and it's just a glorified mall.

The zoning as described that you're defending is a market manipulation so you're (unfairly by your own logic) excluding multiunit developers from competing against you. This zoning isn't a free market--it's a politically imposed regulation that favors current SFH owners at the expense of others. But it doesn't even favor those same owners in the long run. They'd have way more long term wealth if they allowed dense development. So they're just short sighted hoarder ding dongs.

I don't think idiotic zoning rules are libertarian. To me the libertarian stance would be to have as few regulations as possible and see if these "401k millionaires" can compete with deep pocketed developers who could spring up multiunits, make more money off that land than a single McMansion could bring, and increase the tax base, bring in more businesses now that they have a growing market, and raising property values over time. (Okay, caring about increasing the tax base isn't very libertarian.) But I guess popular libertarianism has strayed pretty far from original principles anyway.

Btw these potential farms would be better served by not being overtaken by and competing with suburban sprawl and development. Density at an inner core would hopefully help rural areas stay truly rural. It actually cruelly takes up potential farm land to force non farmers to develop in this way.

I agree with a lot of the individual actions that have been highlighted already. (Eating plant based, driving less, making our homes more energy efficient, etc.) I just wanted to highlight one I think is really important: we can consume less.

Just wrapped a holiday season where relatives think they're doing a great thing by giving my kids more cheap plastic toys, shipped halfway around the world, made so poorly that they fall apart in days, and so can't even be donated. These kids would actually appreciate spending time with these relatives, and they would REALLY love their environment not to become unrecognizable.

Consumption levels are bananas, and the social pressure to consume nonsense feels unrelenting.

Another thing we can do: support dense zoning around our cities: mixed use areas with retail and multi family buildings or townhouse style layouts will help make public transportation feasible and will allow our beautiful rural areas to not be taken over by sprawl. This is absolutely realistic political change to work towards, and helps with the housing crisis.

I haven't read this book yet but want to:

Living the 1.5 Degree Lifestyle: Why Individual Climate Action Matters More Than Ever https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57179585-living-the-1-5-degree-lifestyle

No offense meant here, but I think dead wood is an important habitat for animals and insects, and it's sequestering carbon. But definitely get rid of invasives.

It's great advice and really important. Vitamin D isn't a typical vitamin we get from eating. It's more like a hormone our body creates when exposed to the sun. Supplementation is probably necessary for most of us in Maine, but especially if you have much melanin in your skin.

Yes. Families with young children getting the support they need, whether those families are from here or from away would really help. Families decide whether to have kids and how many based on financial reasons.

Ha! Oops.

I was not Peugeot. :)