4 ms·

This policy is fine, easy to implement, and discourages the sociopathic behavior of ICEing charging stops. That said, it's not going to fix the problem. The ro

This policy is fine, easy to implement, and discourages the sociopathic behavior of ICEing charging stops. That said, it's not going to fix the problem. The root cause is cars -- both electric and petrol. Yes, EVs are an improvement over petrol cars. They decouple energy generation and transportation, so they will get cleaner with time. But fundamentally we should be looking at ways to reduce the number of cars. Parking is a blight in urban areas, trains and public transport are massively better people movers, and even EVs produce significant pollution from their production and tire wear.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
I think this illustrates a problem with just about all areas of environmentalism. You start off with a premise that's widely agreeable like "ICE cars are bad for the environment" and slowly edge towards stuff like "private vehicle ownership is a blight on society", which is far less agreeable and completely ignores what most people in society actually want. 20 years ago I used to vote for local green candidates in various elections, but their main platform now is radical socialist economic reform. I'm not sure they're even bothered about the environment any more.
- jesstaa 6y ago
  "consumerist capitalism is an environmental disaster" isn't a hard argument to make and people eventually realize most environmentalism is just stacking the deck chairs on the titanic.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    I can’t see how consumerist socialism is going to somehow solve all those problems. In any election these days it’s almost impossible to cast a vote for environmentalist policies without also voting for radical socialist economic policies. I’d suggest this is actually quite a problem for anybody who cares about environmentalism, because the number of people who want full socialism is way lower than the number of people who care about the environment.
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Are there any candidates running on a platform of 'full socialism' or even 'radical policies'? Candidates in America, even those considered to the left of their party (e.g. Sanders) aren't really radical socialists. Sanders wasn't getting on the stage demanding we nationalize all our businesses. I never heard him mention a 'vanguard party'. I don't think I heard him say, "Businesses need to be run by worker councils, exclusively". It's one thing to say, "I don't like the idea of democratic socialism/social democracies", but those ideas are hardly 'radical socialism' or 'full socialism'.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Sure, but you've also set up a strawman. > private vehicle ownership is a blight on society I didn't say this, I said that in urban areas, parking is a blight. Parking uses valuable real estate to create surface lots at worst, or space that could be used for housing at best.
perryizgr8 6y ago
> The root cause is cars Root cause of what problem? > But fundamentally we should be looking at ways to reduce the number of cars. Why? > Parking is a blight in urban areas Sounds like a poorly designed urban area. Need to make enough parking available for a building. This is a solved problem in private residential apartments and office buildings. > trains and public transport are massively better people movers Absolutely not, a car is much better for moving me and my family. We have flexibility of time, space, luggage, comfort, temperature, health, music, speed, privacy, basically everything. > EVs produce significant pollution from their production and tire wear. Irrelevant, pollution is always produced. Do you think trains and busses do not produce large amount of pollution? The biggest problem with public transport is that it is usually paid by taxpayers, who have no say in the operation of said services and no option of voting with their dollars. I would prefer not to pay for shitty trains and busses, thanks. If you like, you can start your own bus service and operate it as you see fit. Don't force me to pay for your little communist ideas and then force me with my own money to pay more for the privilege to use my own car. Trains and busses are fundamentally less convenient and useful than cars, which is why we have much more cars and why almost everyone (unless otherwise coerced by oppressive government, using taxes on cars, or lack of parking on city streets) prefers to use their own car.
- jesstaa 6y ago
  > Don't force me to pay for your little communist ideas and then force me with my own money to pay more for the privilege to use my own car. Parking and roads are massively subsidized by government taxes/council rates and are built in to the cost of all city real estate. Everybody is paying for your 'free parking' don't pretend that we're not. > Trains and busses are fundamentally less convenient and useful than cars This is only true for very low density areas which means low prosperity and opportunity. In any major city it's physically impossible to transport the majority of people to their work places in cars and impossible to store those cars for the work day. Studies have shown that people are happy to use what ever transport is available as long as it's fast, frequent and cheap. For a high density city with lots of economic opportunities the only way to do it is with trains. > Need to make enough parking available for a building. In an apartment building I used to live in 1/3 of the building was parking. That means that each apartment was 1/3 more expensive than it needed to be. Even though I didn't have a car I still had to pay for the cost of the construction and maintenance of the 7 level car park. Everybody pays the car tax.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

I think this illustrates a problem with just about all areas of environmentalism. You start off with a premise that's widely agreeable like "ICE cars are bad for the environment" and slowly edge towards stuff like "private vehicle ownership is a blight on society", which is far less agreeable and completely ignores what most people in society actually want. 20 years ago I used to vote for local green candidates in various elections, but their main platform now is radical socialist economic reform. I'm not sure they're even bothered about the environment any more.

jesstaa 6y ago
"consumerist capitalism is an environmental disaster" isn't a hard argument to make and people eventually realize most environmentalism is just stacking the deck chairs on the titanic.
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  I can’t see how consumerist socialism is going to somehow solve all those problems. In any election these days it’s almost impossible to cast a vote for environmentalist policies without also voting for radical socialist economic policies. I’d suggest this is actually quite a problem for anybody who cares about environmentalism, because the number of people who want full socialism is way lower than the number of people who care about the environment.
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Are there any candidates running on a platform of 'full socialism' or even 'radical policies'? Candidates in America, even those considered to the left of their party (e.g. Sanders) aren't really radical socialists. Sanders wasn't getting on the stage demanding we nationalize all our businesses. I never heard him mention a 'vanguard party'. I don't think I heard him say, "Businesses need to be run by worker councils, exclusively". It's one thing to say, "I don't like the idea of democratic socialism/social democracies", but those ideas are hardly 'radical socialism' or 'full socialism'.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Sure, but you've also set up a strawman. > private vehicle ownership is a blight on society I didn't say this, I said that in urban areas, parking is a blight. Parking uses valuable real estate to create surface lots at worst, or space that could be used for housing at best.

perryizgr8 6y ago

> The root cause is cars Root cause of what problem? > But fundamentally we should be looking at ways to reduce the number of cars. Why? > Parking is a blight in urban areas Sounds like a poorly designed urban area. Need to make enough parking available for a building. This is a solved problem in private residential apartments and office buildings. > trains and public transport are massively better people movers Absolutely not, a car is much better for moving me and my family. We have flexibility of time, space, luggage, comfort, temperature, health, music, speed, privacy, basically everything. > EVs produce significant pollution from their production and tire wear. Irrelevant, pollution is always produced. Do you think trains and busses do not produce large amount of pollution? The biggest problem with public transport is that it is usually paid by taxpayers, who have no say in the operation of said services and no option of voting with their dollars. I would prefer not to pay for shitty trains and busses, thanks. If you like, you can start your own bus service and operate it as you see fit. Don't force me to pay for your little communist ideas and then force me with my own money to pay more for the privilege to use my own car. Trains and busses are fundamentally less convenient and useful than cars, which is why we have much more cars and why almost everyone (unless otherwise coerced by oppressive government, using taxes on cars, or lack of parking on city streets) prefers to use their own car.

jesstaa 6y ago
> Don't force me to pay for your little communist ideas and then force me with my own money to pay more for the privilege to use my own car. Parking and roads are massively subsidized by government taxes/council rates and are built in to the cost of all city real estate. Everybody is paying for your 'free parking' don't pretend that we're not. > Trains and busses are fundamentally less convenient and useful than cars This is only true for very low density areas which means low prosperity and opportunity. In any major city it's physically impossible to transport the majority of people to their work places in cars and impossible to store those cars for the work day. Studies have shown that people are happy to use what ever transport is available as long as it's fast, frequent and cheap. For a high density city with lots of economic opportunities the only way to do it is with trains. > Need to make enough parking available for a building. In an apartment building I used to live in 1/3 of the building was parking. That means that each apartment was 1/3 more expensive than it needed to be. Even though I didn't have a car I still had to pay for the cost of the construction and maintenance of the 7 level car park. Everybody pays the car tax.