• spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Okay cool. Wasn’t trying to be disingenuous, just seeing where you stood. There are more than a few that would subscribe to this community that don’t agree with that, so that’s why I asked.

    Now that we have established that, personally I think if there is a “greener” way of doing something, that should be the standard moving forward. I see no issue with the federal government stipulating how the funding is spent in this instance.

    • Throwaway@lemm.eeOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m torn. It’s the federal’s money to do with as they wish and it’s a fair stipulation, but highway infrastructure is not in a good state and adding stipulations when it’s not in a good state is just making it worse.

      • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Right? Isn’t that a simple solution?

        Fix the infrastructure in accordance with “the green stipulation” and the feds fund it. And it starts asap. Then the roads are fixed AND it’s done in a way that doesn’t make our climate issues worse.

        Everyone wins.

        Why not support this?

        • Throwaway@lemm.eeOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          Just takes more time and money, but yeah. Now that I’ve thought about it for a few days, it makes sense.

      • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        The only thing stopping it from being done is the current state government, though. The money is there as long as they do it the proper way.