4 ms·

I wonder if there is anything we can do to affect those who do have a choice. I know a lot of people who drive and are perfectly able to take public transport o

I wonder if there is anything we can do to affect those who do have a choice. I know a lot of people who drive and are perfectly able to take public transport or live closer but they chose to live a far way away and drive because they can afford it.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
I don't think that's the right approach. Removing choice is a great way to motivate people to resist your mandates. Why do so many people want to play dictator these days?
- SilverRed 5y ago
  Because driving is unsustainable and destroying the planet. It can not be allowed to continue in its current form so the easiest option would be to push people away from it when they are able to.
  - _carbyau_ 5y ago
    Less pushing, more enticing please. If you give people a better option, they will take it.
    - thebradbain 5y ago
      Better options need money, unfortunately. And barring a complete change in how the US works [1], that money isn’t there at a federal level. That leaves cities with no other option than to pay for a better option on their own — by raising taxes (e.g. congestion pricing, gas taxes, tolled roads), which also has the side effect of disincentivizing driving [1] the infrastructure bill that’s looking to pass, while it gives much needed funding to public transit, still centers car-centric planning, and nothing paradigm-shifting (e.g. a comprehensive regional high speed rail network, a dedicated bus line on every street, a protected bike lane on every arterial) will likely come from it.
      - _carbyau_ 5y ago
        Agreed. The issue was that in the thread so far it seemed to have a "punish the unbelievers who drive" feel to it. Happy to tax one option to support a better option. In a social practice sense I'd prefer transparency to see the tax money actually making a better future. But this is often lost or not communicated.
    - SilverRed 5y ago
      These are both the same thing. If I say "I will give you $20 to not drive" or "I will take $20 from you if you drive", the only thing that really matters is that there is a $20 price differential between two actions so you will be at a $20 disadvantage to do the current thing regardless of how you word it. Money and wealth is relative so the actual final amount doesn't matter as much as how much you have compared to the average person.
      - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
        And if we were all emotionless machines, you'd be right. But we're not, so you're not right.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    7.5% or so of total greenhouse gases isn't destroying the planet, but it's not helping either. EV's going to take this to about 1% this in about 10 years.
    - SilverRed 5y ago
      7.5% is significant. And this doesn't even touch the particulate pollution which ruins health, or the ground poisoning which combustion engines cause. A tax/higher prices on fuel would push people to more efficient methods faster and will put more money in to investments on new technology.
      - dzhiurgis 5y ago
        I'd argue installing more solar panels is way more important than EV's. It's way cheaper, offers way better ROI (EV TCO are just barely cheaper than gas, especially without gov incentives) and helps with main problem - power generation. Sure it's boring af, regulated, politicised (Uighur solar) and inconvenienced in every possible matter...
        SilverRed 5y ago
        I think both are needed. Nothing on its own will work and we need to be doing everything that we can at the same time right now. The current models are showing if we make every improvement we can right now we are only just barely scraping by. There is no time to do everything sequentially.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Is that 7.5% including all the knock on effects of non dense living? Does it include the effects of flying to Tahiti or Maldives for honeymoons?
    - nradov 5y ago
      The average vehicle on the road is 12 years old. It's going to take a lot longer than 10 years to shift most of the fleet to EVs.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
    You've obviously never trained a dog. You use treats, not threats and violence.
lumost 5y ago
The only solution IMO is urban planning. If cities and towns are designed for cars, then people will drive. If they are designed for feet or bikes they will use those. If you look at the layout of popular North American towns built prior to the 1800s you'll see very few cars even venturing into town. Cars are also one of the few greenhouse emissions sources which we have a plausible market driven path to eliminate over the next 2 decades via battery electric vehicles.
- SilverRed 5y ago
  The problem is people who have the ability to move closer to work or who have a working PT system still choose to drive because they can afford to because they value not sitting next to a stranger above protecting the environment. We need good planning but then we also need to factor in the environmental costs of driving to eliminate it.
  - lumost 5y ago
    I own a car, but live on an inner city rail line. I drove 9000 miles in 2 years, which was exclusively done for nature trips on weekends. In my case driving would increase my commute time by about 20 minutes due to traffic. My city has no appetite for improving driving options or reducing congestion through the addition of new roads.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago

I don't think that's the right approach. Removing choice is a great way to motivate people to resist your mandates. Why do so many people want to play dictator these days?

SilverRed 5y ago
Because driving is unsustainable and destroying the planet. It can not be allowed to continue in its current form so the easiest option would be to push people away from it when they are able to.
- _carbyau_ 5y ago
  Less pushing, more enticing please. If you give people a better option, they will take it.
  - thebradbain 5y ago
    Better options need money, unfortunately. And barring a complete change in how the US works [1], that money isn’t there at a federal level. That leaves cities with no other option than to pay for a better option on their own — by raising taxes (e.g. congestion pricing, gas taxes, tolled roads), which also has the side effect of disincentivizing driving [1] the infrastructure bill that’s looking to pass, while it gives much needed funding to public transit, still centers car-centric planning, and nothing paradigm-shifting (e.g. a comprehensive regional high speed rail network, a dedicated bus line on every street, a protected bike lane on every arterial) will likely come from it.
    - _carbyau_ 5y ago
      Agreed. The issue was that in the thread so far it seemed to have a "punish the unbelievers who drive" feel to it. Happy to tax one option to support a better option. In a social practice sense I'd prefer transparency to see the tax money actually making a better future. But this is often lost or not communicated.
  - SilverRed 5y ago
    These are both the same thing. If I say "I will give you $20 to not drive" or "I will take $20 from you if you drive", the only thing that really matters is that there is a $20 price differential between two actions so you will be at a $20 disadvantage to do the current thing regardless of how you word it. Money and wealth is relative so the actual final amount doesn't matter as much as how much you have compared to the average person.
    - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
      And if we were all emotionless machines, you'd be right. But we're not, so you're not right.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  7.5% or so of total greenhouse gases isn't destroying the planet, but it's not helping either. EV's going to take this to about 1% this in about 10 years.
  - SilverRed 5y ago
    7.5% is significant. And this doesn't even touch the particulate pollution which ruins health, or the ground poisoning which combustion engines cause. A tax/higher prices on fuel would push people to more efficient methods faster and will put more money in to investments on new technology.
    - dzhiurgis 5y ago
      I'd argue installing more solar panels is way more important than EV's. It's way cheaper, offers way better ROI (EV TCO are just barely cheaper than gas, especially without gov incentives) and helps with main problem - power generation. Sure it's boring af, regulated, politicised (Uighur solar) and inconvenienced in every possible matter...
      - SilverRed 5y ago
        I think both are needed. Nothing on its own will work and we need to be doing everything that we can at the same time right now. The current models are showing if we make every improvement we can right now we are only just barely scraping by. There is no time to do everything sequentially.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Is that 7.5% including all the knock on effects of non dense living? Does it include the effects of flying to Tahiti or Maldives for honeymoons?
  - nradov 5y ago
    The average vehicle on the road is 12 years old. It's going to take a lot longer than 10 years to shift most of the fleet to EVs.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
  You've obviously never trained a dog. You use treats, not threats and violence.

lumost 5y ago

The only solution IMO is urban planning. If cities and towns are designed for cars, then people will drive. If they are designed for feet or bikes they will use those. If you look at the layout of popular North American towns built prior to the 1800s you'll see very few cars even venturing into town. Cars are also one of the few greenhouse emissions sources which we have a plausible market driven path to eliminate over the next 2 decades via battery electric vehicles.

SilverRed 5y ago
The problem is people who have the ability to move closer to work or who have a working PT system still choose to drive because they can afford to because they value not sitting next to a stranger above protecting the environment. We need good planning but then we also need to factor in the environmental costs of driving to eliminate it.
- lumost 5y ago
  I own a car, but live on an inner city rail line. I drove 9000 miles in 2 years, which was exclusively done for nature trips on weekends. In my case driving would increase my commute time by about 20 minutes due to traffic. My city has no appetite for improving driving options or reducing congestion through the addition of new roads.