As soon as you start talking about raising prices artificially (they are already dependent on real costs, but real costs are heavily influenced by supply and de

As soon as you start talking about raising prices artificially (they are already dependent on real costs, but real costs are heavily influenced by supply and demand too) to discourage a certain lifestyle, you are essentially talking of making it "exclusive to the rich". What you are talking about is not about cars though, it's about changing the entire lifestyle of humanity. If only the rich can have their private gardens, then we'd need a lot more gardens (parks) in urban areas, perhaps some of them with private spaces for when you need some solitude. You are also going to discourage a new trend: work from home (though it's not so new for some of us, I've been WFH since 2006). All of your premises about subsidizing cars are false, in my opinion. Unless you move all people close to where they work, we need public infrastructure that's harder to maintain (as I said, buses destroy roads more than cars do) than what we already have for cars. And while we might need less of it, we'd still need more than what we need for buses and trucks today since more people and needs would move to use them, so it's not so certain we'd be spending less on maintaining and building it. You keep talking about energy optimization. Most optimal for energy use is hardly most optimal for human well-being. Shared apartments would definitely be most optimal: you only need a private sleeping room, and only if you are a family. Otherwise, why would you mind having a bunk bed in a bedroom that has 6 of them? This would optimize building, heating and cooling costs. Sharing kitchens or even cooking meals centrally (say, for an apartment block) and distributing to tenants would be even more optimal. I hope you don't want your own kitchen when it's more optimal to have someone cook a large quantity at once. It's easy to see where that is going, and that's not the future I want to live in. It's been a theme of not just one dystopic book or story or movie. While people frequently bring up an argument that humans are already taking up too much space on this planet, they fail to remember that it's not because of our settlements. It's mostly because of agriculture. Human settlements are a tiny fraction of the land we use for agriculture, and sprawling settlements are not the biggest issue (sure, they are an issue locally where humans might be pushing other species out, but not so much on a global scale). So, while you proclaim how getting rid of cars will solve a bunch of problems (CO2 included, even though cars contribute 6% of CO2 emissions annually[1]), I don't see it. And I don't buy the subsidy argument either (fuel throughout Europe is taxed at at least twice the price: compare prices in EU vs US): it's an attempt to attribute entirety of the cost for infrastructure to cars when we'd need some of that infrastructure anyway. [1] As per https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#energy-electricity-heat-and-transport-73-2 https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#energy-electr..., all road transport contributes 11.9%, of which 60% is passenger transport which includes other forms of road transport like buses