3 ms·

I totally agree. But another big contributor to the over-use of cars is the shared illusion that everyone has to “go to work”. I think the extended pandemic is

I totally agree. But another big contributor to the over-use of cars is the shared illusion that everyone has to “go to work”. I think the extended pandemic is contributing to shattering that illusion.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago
>I think the extended pandemic is contributing to shattering that illusion. Or, the opposite? How could you be so out of touch as to think society did not depend on all the masses of people who continued going to work continuing to go to work? Realize these are the low wage workers who will be tasked to pay for your carbon tax, and they won’t blink an eye at re-electing Trump, who in such a case would be the left wing candidate regardless of his party affiliation.
rindalir 5y ago
In 2017, only about 15% of vehicle trips in the US were taken for commuting [1], the rest are for shopping/errands (45%) and for socializing/recreation (the balance). So even if we eliminate half the commute trips, we still have a long way to go to reduce the miles traveled. [1] https://www.bts.gov/statistical-products/surveys/national-household-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-facts https://www.bts.gov/statistical-products/surveys/national-ho...
- leephillips 5y ago
  I thought it was more; thanks for the information. Although 15%, or say half that after subtracting the people who actually need to be physically at work, is still significant. Also, note that 15% of miles will be more, probably much more, than 15% of the pollution, because those miles are the slowest ones that people travel.
  - rindalir 5y ago
    I also thought it was more (I remember reading about 30% in the early 2000's), so I was kinda surprised. I think you are right that miles traveled will be higher, so from an emissions perspective the decrease in commuting is good news. From the perspective of cars being everywhere and making environments unpleasant, as long as people don't think twice about hoping in the car to go Starbucks twice a day, we've got a huge problem.
    - leephillips 5y ago
      I grew up in NYC and don’t regard cities, like Atlanta, covered in highways, to be cities. I never understood why places like this were built or how people enjoy living there, but clearly some do.
      - fennecfoxen 5y ago
        The major premise of such a city is generally that you own more space than you could ever get in New York.
      - Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Different strokes. Other people don't understand why someone would pay $4,000/month to live in an NYC apartment that would maybe qualify as a large closet elsewhere.
        leephillips 5y ago
        That they’re willing to pay that should tell you something!
        Turing_Machine 5y ago
        As I said, different strokes. I'd soon go batshit crazy (to the extent I'm not already) living in that kind of cramped space surrounded by that kind of population density.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Oh, I understand. Most of the people I know who grew up in less dense places feel the same way.
        pksebben 5y ago
        I grew up in Brooklyn, and I'm currently on team rural. I couldn't think straight with all those noises and distractions, and I was going broke trying to keep up with rent hikes.
  - willyt 5y ago
    But < 5 mile local errands are much more polluting per mile than longer trips though as the engine doesn’t heat up to an efficient temperature so it uses something like 4 times as much fuel per mile.
    - nkurz 5y ago
      I think your numbers are off somewhere. Maybe you are thinking of some particular form of pollution rather than fuel efficiency? Short trips before the engine warms up are less fuel efficient, but nowhere near only 1/4 as efficient. Here's the US government suggesting a worst case combination of cold weather and a cold engine can cause a 24% drop in miles per gallon (ie, still more than 3/4 as efficient): Fuel economy tests show that, in city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is roughly 15% lower at 20°F than it would be at 77°F. It can drop as much as 24% for short (3- to 4-mile) trips. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  >In 2017, only about 15% of vehicle trips in the US were taken for commuting This describes commuting as a percentage of total trips, but it would be more useful to find the percentage of total vehicle miles traveled. I imagine that would be higher than 15%.
- bparsons 5y ago
  If you live somewhere that requires a long commute to work (ie. an exurb) you are likely completely dependent on a private vehicle for all other aspects of your lifestyle. Good transportation policy is actually good land use policy, and good land use policy is great climate policy. We don't need fusion reactors in space to stop climate change. We need walkable neighborhoods, an international carbon price and more trains. The harmful fantasy being sold to the public is that we can solve climate change while still having the vast majority of people living in far flung suburbs and driving a seven person truck 10km to go pick up a carton of eggs.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  It's not the number of journeys, it's the duration and consumption for each trip. A daily 55 min commute - which is the average both-way time - generates far more carbon than a daily 20 min trip to the store and back.

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

>I think the extended pandemic is contributing to shattering that illusion. Or, the opposite? How could you be so out of touch as to think society did not depend on all the masses of people who continued going to work continuing to go to work? Realize these are the low wage workers who will be tasked to pay for your carbon tax, and they won’t blink an eye at re-electing Trump, who in such a case would be the left wing candidate regardless of his party affiliation.

rindalir 5y ago

In 2017, only about 15% of vehicle trips in the US were taken for commuting [1], the rest are for shopping/errands (45%) and for socializing/recreation (the balance). So even if we eliminate half the commute trips, we still have a long way to go to reduce the miles traveled. [1] https://www.bts.gov/statistical-products/surveys/national-household-travel-survey-daily-travel-quick-facts https://www.bts.gov/statistical-products/surveys/national-ho...

leephillips 5y ago
I thought it was more; thanks for the information. Although 15%, or say half that after subtracting the people who actually need to be physically at work, is still significant. Also, note that 15% of miles will be more, probably much more, than 15% of the pollution, because those miles are the slowest ones that people travel.
- rindalir 5y ago
  I also thought it was more (I remember reading about 30% in the early 2000's), so I was kinda surprised. I think you are right that miles traveled will be higher, so from an emissions perspective the decrease in commuting is good news. From the perspective of cars being everywhere and making environments unpleasant, as long as people don't think twice about hoping in the car to go Starbucks twice a day, we've got a huge problem.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    I grew up in NYC and don’t regard cities, like Atlanta, covered in highways, to be cities. I never understood why places like this were built or how people enjoy living there, but clearly some do.
    - fennecfoxen 5y ago
      The major premise of such a city is generally that you own more space than you could ever get in New York.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      Different strokes. Other people don't understand why someone would pay $4,000/month to live in an NYC apartment that would maybe qualify as a large closet elsewhere.
      - leephillips 5y ago
        That they’re willing to pay that should tell you something!
        Turing_Machine 5y ago
        As I said, different strokes. I'd soon go batshit crazy (to the extent I'm not already) living in that kind of cramped space surrounded by that kind of population density.
        leephillips 5y ago
        Oh, I understand. Most of the people I know who grew up in less dense places feel the same way.
        pksebben 5y ago
        I grew up in Brooklyn, and I'm currently on team rural. I couldn't think straight with all those noises and distractions, and I was going broke trying to keep up with rent hikes.
- willyt 5y ago
  But < 5 mile local errands are much more polluting per mile than longer trips though as the engine doesn’t heat up to an efficient temperature so it uses something like 4 times as much fuel per mile.
  - nkurz 5y ago
    I think your numbers are off somewhere. Maybe you are thinking of some particular form of pollution rather than fuel efficiency? Short trips before the engine warms up are less fuel efficient, but nowhere near only 1/4 as efficient. Here's the US government suggesting a worst case combination of cold weather and a cold engine can cause a 24% drop in miles per gallon (ie, still more than 3/4 as efficient): Fuel economy tests show that, in city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is roughly 15% lower at 20°F than it would be at 77°F. It can drop as much as 24% for short (3- to 4-mile) trips. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml
SantalBlush 5y ago
>In 2017, only about 15% of vehicle trips in the US were taken for commuting This describes commuting as a percentage of total trips, but it would be more useful to find the percentage of total vehicle miles traveled. I imagine that would be higher than 15%.
bparsons 5y ago
If you live somewhere that requires a long commute to work (ie. an exurb) you are likely completely dependent on a private vehicle for all other aspects of your lifestyle. Good transportation policy is actually good land use policy, and good land use policy is great climate policy. We don't need fusion reactors in space to stop climate change. We need walkable neighborhoods, an international carbon price and more trains. The harmful fantasy being sold to the public is that we can solve climate change while still having the vast majority of people living in far flung suburbs and driving a seven person truck 10km to go pick up a carton of eggs.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
It's not the number of journeys, it's the duration and consumption for each trip. A daily 55 min commute - which is the average both-way time - generates far more carbon than a daily 20 min trip to the store and back.