Public transit advocates and road warriors have always competed for funding and attention, but now electric vehicles have introduced a sort of third choice, one that industry, government, and (most) environmentalists support. The 2009 federal stimulus package set aside $2.4 billion for electric vehicle investments—that’s in addition to $30 billion for roads and bridges, while mass transit got about $13 billion. Electric vehicles generate less greenhouse emissions and reduce our reliance on oil. But they’re also typically plugged into a coal-fired grid and, well, they’re still cars. So is the promotion of EVs just a supposedly “green” path that will keep us stuck in traffic? Next American Cityeditor-in-chief Diana Lind says yes. Plug-In America co-founder Marc Geller says there’s room for electric buses, trains, and automobiles.

Electric Cars Are Still Cars

by Diana Lind

As Editor in Chief and Publisher of Next American City, Diana Lind is constantly looking at ways to make cities sustainable. She also produces NAC’s signature events, Next American Vanguard and Open Cities.

Who wants to argue against the positive impacts of small steps toward sustainability? I don’t—but I have to.

There’s no doubt that small efforts are meaningful. Using compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent ones lower’s humanity’s carbon footprint. Recycling instead of throwing away plastic and paper saves acres of trash from landfills, and using plant-based detergents instead of harsh chemicals keeps harmful toxics out of our ecosystems. But taking a long view, these are minor ways to counter monumental climate change and the degradation of our natural environment.

What if, instead of promoting slight modifications to our behavior, we created new systems that led us on a radical path toward sustainability? What if, instead of promoting recycling, we taxed disposable items that could not be reused, making a plastic bottle of water cost $5 instead of $1? Think about how many bottles of water would never be purchased and instead how much more urgently the public would fight for clean tap water.

There are countless ways we could rethink our consumption and our carbon-fueled behavior, but instead we rally around “smarter” choices—compact fluorescent bulbs and recycling plastic, for example—that merely delay, rather than prevent, inevitable environmental catastrophe. Case in point: the move toward electric cars and the investment in new car infrastructure to accommodate these new vehicles.

Sure, electric cars may offer an improvement upon gas-?fueled cars, but this innovation is insufficient to create the kind of social, economic, and environmental sustainability our planet needs. You’ll hear electric car advocates praise the fact that hybrids can be fueled by solar and wind energy, rather than coal-sourced electricity. But recent estimates show that solar, wind, and geothermal energy account for only about 7 percent of the world’s total energy. While I am hopeful that one day our country will run on renewable energy, it is naive to assume that the country’s 250 million vehicles would, if plugged in anytime soon, be fueled by anything other than coal. That’s the very same coal whose high carbon emissions are guaranteed to push us past the ecological tipping point.

In any case, changing the source of a car’s fuel does not change the fact that the car still contributes to a number of other major environmental and socio-economic problems. To name just a few: Cars fuel sprawl, create hideous hours-long commutes, contribute to the obesity epidemic, and are accomplices to our ever-worsening social isolation. Consider the fact that car-oriented communities are much less sustainable than walkable communities. For example, our auto-dependent suburbs and exurbs typically are zoned for larger houses and bigger commercial spaces, all of which consume much more energy than compact, dense cities.

If you then agree that cities are the key to sustainability, then mayors and transportation directors shouldn’t be encouraging car usage. As Dean Kamen, the creator of the Segway, will tell you, cars move at a speed of about eight miles per hour in cities—they actually aren’t suited to the fast pace of urban places. Bikes, buses, and subways move much quicker and provide the public with a variety of other benefits—from the health benefits of biking to the economic benefits of inexpensive public transportation. Will cars ever really be “plug-in-and-play?” I don’t think so. And I fear cash-strapped cities are going to end up with a new kind of electric bill—the kind that pays for new infrastructure to service electric cars, at a time when economic strains should be encouraging greater public transit.

We are fortunate to live at a time when all major municipalities are serious about sustainability. But shouldn’t the advent of the electric car provide a perfect moment to rethink how cities incorporate cars in their urban fabric? Instead of creating new electric car plug-in infrastructure, which will undoubtedly become outdated within a decade or two, is it not time to rethink personal mobility altogether? What if cities outlawed private cars for leisure purposes? What if money otherwise spent on plug-in infrastructure went toward feasibility studies for car-free downtown centers?

Anyone who thinks that this kind of transformation in cities is beyond our capability for change should remember this: We once ripped up public transportation infrastructure and built highways through our downtowns. It is no more outlandish to think that we could reverse these changes today if we created comprehensive plans to wean cities off cars. Wouldn’t that be smarter?

People Want Cars, Give Them Better Ones

by Marc Geller

A veteran advocate for electric vehicles, Marc Geller is on the board of directors of the Electric Auto Association and co-founded the association’s San Francisco chapter and the San Francisco Electric Vehicle Association, as well as DontCrush.com and Plug In America.

Greater support for mass transit and appropriate land use policies that make mass transit accessible are essential. They are essential for more livable communities and more efficient use of resources, including energy. However, we have created a nation that is dependent, for the foreseeable future, upon the automobile. And many of the rest of the world’s inhabitants aspire to automobile ownership. China has opened up high-speed rail lines while the United States fiddles. Yet simultaneously, China has overtaken the United States in the number of automobiles sold annually.

Despite billions of dollars of investment, in most of the United States only a tiny percentage of people use mass transit regularly. The latest report by the American Public Transportation Association documents a 3.8 percent decline in ridership overall in the first nine months of 2009. Designing our cities and regions around mass transit is something we must do, but it is a multi-generational project.

In other developed countries—in Europe and Asia, for example—clean, electric public transit is the principal means of transportation. In most of the developing world, public transit remains the only viable means of getting around. But the commuters in poorer nations usually travel in a haze of pollution created by petroleum-powered trains and buses. The basic problem that faces transportation today isn’t whether people travel on mass transit or in automobiles, but rather the technology and fuel employed.

The question that faces us is how to ensure that our mass transit and private cars minimize the negative environmental impacts of travel. To do that we must set our nation, and the world, on a path to eliminate petroleum as the predominant fuel for transportation. To continue to rely on petroleum is to accept as inevitable the immense political power of the world’s wealthiest corporations and the resultant pollution, climate change, and war. There is no catalytic converter that can fully scrub the toxics that result from burning oil. And there is no way to democratize the production and distribution of petroleum.

There is, however, an alternative path: Electricity. It’s been around a long time and powers just about everything we use except transportation. It’s ubiquitous, relatively price stable due to government regulation, and is created in many ways, increasingly including renewable—such as solar, wind and geothermal—sources.

Of course we need energy to create electricity, and just as we’ve been burning petroleum for a century to move us and our stuff around, we’ve been burning oil and coal and natural gas to create electricity. While burning all those fuels has caused pollution just as surely as gasoline cars and trucks, we have options. As aging, filthy coal power stations are retired, they are often replaced with cleaner-burning natural gas generators. And now we are making a commitment to renewable electricity generation. Multiple sources of electricity generation make the grid reliable. In contrast, there is no effort to protect our transportation “grid” from vulnerabilities to petroleum’s monopoly.

While our electricity generation is becoming cleaner and more renewable due to state and federal mandates, switching to electricity for transportation immediately lowers emissions. On the existing U.S. electric grid, half of which is powered by dirty coal, an electric car already is less polluting and emits fewer greenhouse gasses than the average gasoline car. In the worst cases, like some nearly 100 percent-coal-powered states, the emissions profiles may be a wash. In others, like California and Texas, which use a preponderance of natural gas, it’s truly a slam dunk for electric transportation. Given our commitment to ever more solar, wind, and other renewables, electric transportation will only get cleaner.

Only with an electric car could you aspire not only to zero-emission driving, but to making your own zero-emission electricity to feed it. Putting solar photovoltaic panels on one’s roof is not rocket science, nor out of reach for millions of homeowners. With renewable power and plug-in cars, we can begin to get control over our energy destiny.

A central goal of the twenty-first century must be to bring the revolution of electrification to transportation—and that will include both mass transit and personal vehicles.

  • New York passes SAFE for Kids Act to protect children from social media addiction
    Photo credit: CanvaNew York hopes to improve children's usage of social media.
    ,

    New York passes SAFE for Kids Act to protect children from social media addiction

    New York hopes to curb social media’s access to young kids.

    “Kids and their phones these days” has been a complaint ever since the first cellular phone was introduced. However, there has been growing concern over the amount of time children spend not just on their phone, but scrolling through social media. The state of New York is hoping to address this issue through their finalized SAFE for Kids Act.

    The Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act aims to hold social media companies more accountable for the time children spend on their apps. It also seeks to limit kids’ exposure to their algorithms. Officials believe that constantly scrolling through social media feeds negatively impacts a child’s sleep and overall mental health.

    What are the restrictions?

    The new law requires social media companies to obey the following rules:

    • No addictive, algorithm-driven feeds for minors without explicit parental consent
    • No notifications about addictive feeds to minors between midnight and 6 a.m. without parental consent
    • No tricky website designs, called “dark patterns,” that manipulate or nag parents into giving consent
    • No degrading service, increasing prices, or retaliating against minors who don’t have parental consent for addictive feeds
    • Use certified age-assurance methods to distinguish minors from adults
    • Immediately encrypt data collected for age verification, use it only for age determination, and delete it immediately after use
    • Hire an accredited, independent third party to test and certify age-assurance methods every year

    Social media companies have until January 25, 2027 to comply. Failure to do so may result in a $5,000 fine per violation.

    New York Governor Kathy Holchul and Attorney General Letitia James made a public announcement to social media companies affected by this law, specifically Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, and X.

    “What changes is the default,” said James. “Platforms cannot automatically place minors into feeds engineered to maximize engagement. This is not a question of privacy, this is a question about content. This is not about the First Amendment. Again, this is about protecting children.”

    “Social media companies, you’re now on notice,” said Holchul. 

    Critics and the issues that still need to be addressed

    There are some criticisms of this law, particularly around age-verification. The law offers the option of using government-issued identification along with another proof of identity (such as an email address or an uploaded photo of the user). This complicates things aside from First Amendment rights. It would require millions of adults to share private information to scroll and post on social media after hours. While the law states that the companies must encrypt and erase such information upon age verification, that’s not guaranteed. This is especially concerning as social media companies already deal with users’ private information being hacked and leaked.

    Governor Holchul still believes this criticism isn’t a governmental issue but a business one that social media companies need to resolve.

    “Social media companies tell me, ‘We have no way of knowing whether someone’s under 18 or not,’” Holchul claimed. “I said, ‘You’re smart people. Use [artificial intelligence] to figure it out. Ask how you do it.’ And you’re not supposed to allow underage gaming anyhow—sports betting—so you must have some metric. So don’t tell me you can’t do it. Figure it out.”

    How parents can help their children on social media

    Regardless of where people stand on this law, experts offer some advice for parents who feel social media is negatively affecting their children. They recommend setting personal screen time limits for their children and taking advantage of built-in parental controls on their platforms. Parents limiting their own social media use can also influence how kids use it, too.

    Psychologists also recommend talking with children about how and why they use social media. Specifically, discuss the fantasy that social media showcases from influencers versus the real lives of those people. Talk about why there was a social media post (advertisement, sharing joy, hoping for engagement, etc.) along with the content of it. Asking how they feel after watching or reading content in their feed helps as well. Such practices, along with limiting exposure, creates trust between child and parent without judgement.

    Though how we fix screen and social media addiction is still largely in the air, take comfort knowing brilliant minds are exploring methods to address the growing issue.

  • New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years
    Photo credit: CanvaResearchers found what's preventing us from living longer.
    ,

    New Russian research suggests that the human lifespan could be up to 156 years

    Humans can live much longer if certain barriers are addressed.

    According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the oldest person lived to the ripe age of 122 years old. Such a lifespan is an incredible feat, but what if the average person could beat that record by 34 years? Recent research done in Russia has led scientists to believe that the average human lifespan could be up to 156 years.

    The researchers at Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center developed a mathematical model that allowed them to “switch on” a variety of aging mechanisms. This allowed them to calculate a human’s lifespan where mortality risk never increased with age. After experimenting with different scenarios and conditions, they found the biggest barriers to longevity were caused by non-renewable tissues and somatic mutations.

    What are these barriers against longer life?

    Somatic mutations are DNA changes within a cell. They accumulate over time during a human’s life and cannot be reversed with any existing therapy. These DNA errors that pile up in our cells contribute to the aging process.

    Many human organs like the liver and skin continually replace cells and regrow damaged portions of themselves. However, there are two organs that can’t do this: the brain and the heart. Brain tissue (neurons) and heart tissue (cardiomyocytes) cannot regenerate. This proves to be the most prominent biological limit that shortens our lifespans. This explains why issues like dementia and heart disease are prominent causes of death and morbidity later in life. Since those organs’ tissues don’t replace damaged cells, they’re prone to irrevocably decline over time.

    “The key finding of the study is the discovery of substantial differences between tissue types. Neurons and cardiomyocytes, which lack the ability to divide, turned out to be the main limiting factors: when all other causes of aging are eliminated, somatic mutations alone reduce the theoretical median lifespan from 1,759 years (for a hypothetical non-aging human organism) to 156 years,” said Evgeny Efimov, a research intern at the Skoltech Biomed Technologies Center, researcher at AIRI, and one of the key authors of the study.

    This suggests that somatic mutations and DNA damage is what ultimately prevents humans from living indefinitely, even if our brains and hearts regenerated cells like other organs.

    So what’s next?

    Now knowing these biological limitations, the researchers hope to study other areas of aging impacting the human lifespan that could plausibly be reversed. This includes mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, epigenetic drift, and loss of proteostasis. 

    The hope is to have a clearer priority list of issues for future therapies to tackle. This is not just to possibly extend life, but to improve lives in general. By developing a fully comprehensive theory of aging, Skoltech hopes to pinpoint which aspects of aging are within our scope to address. After all, thoroughly studying each puzzle piece that makes up human life gives us a better understanding of the whole.

    Of course, other impactful factors in a person’s lifespan can be addressed today. As most know, things like diet, sleep, and exercise are among them. A person’s living environment can also negatively impact their lifespan if it doesn’t have clean air, access to clean water, and so on.

    For now, the best method for living long is to follow instructions from your physician. Whether you make it to 156 years or not, living well is best for whatever time you’re given.

  • Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’
    Photo credit: @midnightchef_amir on InstagramAmir Jackson's late night cooking is going viral.
    ,

    Woman documents her nephew’s late night culinary quests as the viral ‘Midnight Chef’

    A 15-year-old cooking late night snacks is inspiring the Internet.

    One night in Apple Valley, California, Morgan Graham rose in the middle of the night. A smell had woken her up. It was pleasant, but at 11:28 p.m. she wasn’t expecting to smell delicious cooking. She went down into the kitchen to see her 15-year-old nephew, Amir Jackson, baking cookies.

    This was the first of several viral videos of Graham’s nephew cooking up a storm late at night. Jackson, who has been staying with his aunt during the summer, is taking advantage of her kitchen to whip up some sumptuous snacks.

    Birth of a Midnight Chef

    Nearly every night, Graham wakes up around midnight to the smell of cookies, cornbread, tacos, or whatever her nephew wants to prepare.

    “I don’t care,” said Graham in the initial video. “He’s very responsible. He’s not gonna burn the house down, so therefore, cook whatever you want.”

    Graham further explained in the video that Jackson looks at recipes daily. He also rummages through her pantry during the day to search for ingredients for his nightly cooking fest. 

    “In his world, he’s having the time of his life. In my world, I just want to stop waking up close to midnight to the smell of food,” Graham joked.

    Graham’s videos featuring her nephew have racked up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram. The commenters soon bestowed the nickname “Midnight Chef” upon Jackson, to general delight. In another video, Jackson explained he liked the peace and quiet of the night while preparing his dishes.

    “I was like, ‘Man, I could go for some cookies right now.’ I saw they had cookie dough, so I started just making them, just randomly,” Jackson told TODAY. “I was trying to make sure nobody was up. My thought process was just like, ‘Man, why not?’”

    Graham is encouraging her nephew to keep cooking even though it wakes her. In fact, Graham set up Jackson’s own Midnight Chef Instagram page for him to post his latest recipes.

    “I just want to experiment while I still got the chance to experiment. I’ll maybe like branch into different fields,” said Jackson. “Explore what I can do while I still got time to.”

    Why do we indulge in late night snacking?

    Jackson’s popularity has brought up a commonly asked question: Why do we crave food randomly in the middle of the night?

    Well, there’s actually a bit of science behind it. Turns out that late night snacking is a result of our circadian rhythm system. As part of our now-defunct survival mechanism, our ancestors would eat large meals at night to store energy in times of famine. This is also why most midnight snackers crave foods higher in fat, salt, and sugar compared to what they’d usually eat during the day. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with late night snacking, it could curb certain health goals if a person is trying to trim down.

    If you find yourself getting up in the middle of the night with a hankering for a snack, it may be worth taking a peek at Jackson’s videos. Who knows what kind of late night cooking it can inspire? Perhaps you’ll become a Midnight Chef yourself.

Explore More Stories

World

After 40 years in a Portuguese circus, elephant retires to become the first resident of a new sanctuary

Public Good

Oakland officials open ‘play-lending library’ to offset the cost of equipment for youth sports

Public Good

After a field trip for 100 low-income kids was canceled, police officer rents a whole movie theater for them

Local

14-year-old Montana kid rescues a drowning man with his lasso and rodeo skills