4 ms·

Thanks for the reply -- seems there's some misunderstandings. Details below. > people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more

Thanks for the reply -- seems there's some misunderstandings. Details below. > people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. > Those who can't will start rioting, Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. > It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari It's easy. The parents tell the kids: "we're doing this, to save the lives of people in Ukraine, who are hiding in basements without food and water. This is how we build a society -- taking care of each other and others, as best we can." If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > > could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. > In practice, many people just can't do that. Seems I wasn't detailed enough. There would be subsidies for people on the countryside, who needed their cars (no buses or subways nearby). And for farmers and public transport, and other for society important things, like, like you mentioned, electricians. And ambulances, plumbers, some others. But most people aren't farmers or electricians. > Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well -- hit poor restaurant workers. Seems like insignificant, a luxury problem, __compared to__ tens of thousands dying in the war.

gruez 5y ago
>Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. 1. While I acknowledge that people you talk about exist, I suspect that they're predominantly middle class, not the poor (ie. "people who can't swallow the cost"). If you don't have a baseline amount of wealth, then it's hard to have a car to go to costco to buy those 48 packs of toilet paper, and if your home is a shoebox 1bd apartment, you'll have a hard time finding place to store all the stuff you bought in advance. 2. there's only so much you can do "planning months ahead". You can hoard toilet paper but not gas. >Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. >But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396 >If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. Why's that not happening right now? >I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it?
- leaflets2 5y ago
  Sorry for the late reply. Maybe you'll never read this? >> They bought all the toilet paper > 1. While I acknowledge that [...] > 2. You can hoard toilet paper but not gas. Yes that's true. Actually my comparison here wasn't totally serious. But you're right that the state and energy companies, and the citizens, would need to co-operate a bit for this to work. Or the state could raise the gas and oil prices, for a household that has used too much. And the state could calculate the prices, so heating would work out okay I believe. Combined with jeans and sometimes a jacket and winter cap, indoors. >> [People wouldn't get angry when] they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine > see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences Hmm. Two things: 1) revealed preferences, for example by saying one would care about the environment, but continuing buying environmentally destructive things. This is "passive aggressive", in that they aren't actively trying to sabotage anything -- they're just continuing life as usual, in the old more comfortable ways, not doing what they said they would. Or 2) revealed preference, by actively protesting against the new policies -- demonstrations, even riots and smashing windows etc. But this is lots of effort. Personally, I'd be surprised if people were willing to spend time demonstrating, instead of just accepting the fact: gas and oil now cost more, so I'll put on another jumper. -- If they go outdoors to protest, they'll need to put on even more clothes! And travel somewhere. That's more work. Meaning, raising the gas prices, and explaining why, could work pretty well I'm thinking. -- Even if people are dissatisfied, although they said they were ok with it, they are unlikely to protest or riot -- because that's more work, than just accepting the new situation? >> If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > Why's that not happening right now? I don't think people see a relationship between their cars and indoor temperature, and how much bombs Putin has. Most humans are already poor at abstract thinking and seeing anything else than what's in front of their nose -- and this, with cars and bombs, is a slightly complex relationship? Plus, humans being a bit lazy and selfish, they wouldn't want to think in this direction at all? I think the government and newspapers, would need to explain for and motivate the people. >> In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it? I'd think it's simpler to reduce fuel consumption -- there're subway lines built already, and possible to increase the subway train frequency, without having to spend 20 years building new subway lines. Most, or everyone, I know with a car, use it for convenience, to save time. Probably I'd done this me too, if I had kids to drive from and to school. And I would have been happy if the city where I live, introduced school buses, or built a ride sharing website, so I could let others go with me in my car and save fuel. (I also replied to a sibling comment of yours, maybe you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 -- did you know that there's just 1.1 - 1.2 people on average, in a car on the way to work. But if people shared their cars, 50% or more fuel could be saved.)
IMTDb 5y ago
> Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. Where you live, people chose to ensure that their comfort would be safeguarded, above all else, even if that lead to shortages for other people. "I don't care if I have too much and other people don't have enough, as long as I am confortable" was their motto. That has to tell you something. > Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. Some might care, and some will accept that. Many won't. It's easy to accept some sort of disturbance when overall you don't need to worry about putting food on the table, or when a few less degrees means putting your thermostat on 21 instead of 23. When it means not being able to sleep because of cold, your view change quickly. And you start wondering why Ukraine just doesn't accept Putin offer, which after all does not sound that bad. Are people in Crimea that much worse ? And do you care so much ? > It's easy. No, it's not. Some will manage. Many won't. > There would be subsidies for people on the countryside So the solution is to subsidise people on the countryside, subsidise people needing vans or trucks, subsidise people working during nightshift, subsidise people living far away from a public transportation hub, subsidise people working far away from a transportation's hub, subsidise people who adapt to other people schedule, ... the list goes on. Creating a society where people depend on the state subsidies to just maintain their activity is not exactly sustainable. > In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. I live in Benelux. I can tell you that people are stopping to work because it does not financially make sense any more with current gas price. Today !. And Benelux is the poster child for a society built for bicycles, in practice it only works for 5~10% of the population. That number is increasing, but very slowly and we are going to hit a ceiling sooner rather than later. Anecdotal evidence, but in my social circle, almost everyone moved from "bicycle and public transport" to "cars only" in the past 5 years. Trigger points are : getting a child, changing jobs to something further away from their homes, promotion that gave access to a company car: when you are taxed > 50% taking the cash makes little sense. None are remotely considering letting go of their car, the value is simply too big to ignore. We are very far away from a carless world despite what politician want you to believe. And this is in a country that is usually considered to be a cycler dream > Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well You are acknowledging that what you are proposing puts the biggest amount of the weight on the poor. I don't find that acceptable: if we need to have measures, the more fragile part of the population should not be the one paying for it. The upper/lower class gap is a ticking time bomb. COVID has increased it. We need to find ways to close it, not extend it even more.

gruez 5y ago

>Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. 1. While I acknowledge that people you talk about exist, I suspect that they're predominantly middle class, not the poor (ie. "people who can't swallow the cost"). If you don't have a baseline amount of wealth, then it's hard to have a car to go to costco to buy those 48 packs of toilet paper, and if your home is a shoebox 1bd apartment, you'll have a hard time finding place to store all the stuff you bought in advance. 2. there's only so much you can do "planning months ahead". You can hoard toilet paper but not gas. >Eh, no. Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. >But if they didn't know why, then, yes maybe. see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30794396 >If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. Why's that not happening right now? >I wonder where you live. If it's in the US? In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it?

leaflets2 5y ago
Sorry for the late reply. Maybe you'll never read this? >> They bought all the toilet paper > 1. While I acknowledge that [...] > 2. You can hoard toilet paper but not gas. Yes that's true. Actually my comparison here wasn't totally serious. But you're right that the state and energy companies, and the citizens, would need to co-operate a bit for this to work. Or the state could raise the gas and oil prices, for a household that has used too much. And the state could calculate the prices, so heating would work out okay I believe. Combined with jeans and sometimes a jacket and winter cap, indoors. >> [People wouldn't get angry when] they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine > see my other comment on revealed preferences vs stated preferences Hmm. Two things: 1) revealed preferences, for example by saying one would care about the environment, but continuing buying environmentally destructive things. This is "passive aggressive", in that they aren't actively trying to sabotage anything -- they're just continuing life as usual, in the old more comfortable ways, not doing what they said they would. Or 2) revealed preference, by actively protesting against the new policies -- demonstrations, even riots and smashing windows etc. But this is lots of effort. Personally, I'd be surprised if people were willing to spend time demonstrating, instead of just accepting the fact: gas and oil now cost more, so I'll put on another jumper. -- If they go outdoors to protest, they'll need to put on even more clothes! And travel somewhere. That's more work. Meaning, raising the gas prices, and explaining why, could work pretty well I'm thinking. -- Even if people are dissatisfied, although they said they were ok with it, they are unlikely to protest or riot -- because that's more work, than just accepting the new situation? >> If the politicians make it clear that it's for stopping the war, then, there'd be some social pressure for saving energy. > Why's that not happening right now? I don't think people see a relationship between their cars and indoor temperature, and how much bombs Putin has. Most humans are already poor at abstract thinking and seeing anything else than what's in front of their nose -- and this, with cars and bombs, is a slightly complex relationship? Plus, humans being a bit lazy and selfish, they wouldn't want to think in this direction at all? I think the government and newspapers, would need to explain for and motivate the people. >> In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. > Doesn't that argument work in the opposite direction? ie. "there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars", so people are already taking public transit. From there, it's pretty hard to reduce fuel consumption even further as the people who are driving probably really need it? I'd think it's simpler to reduce fuel consumption -- there're subway lines built already, and possible to increase the subway train frequency, without having to spend 20 years building new subway lines. Most, or everyone, I know with a car, use it for convenience, to save time. Probably I'd done this me too, if I had kids to drive from and to school. And I would have been happy if the city where I live, introduced school buses, or built a ride sharing website, so I could let others go with me in my car and save fuel. (I also replied to a sibling comment of yours, maybe you're interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803577 -- did you know that there's just 1.1 - 1.2 people on average, in a car on the way to work. But if people shared their cars, 50% or more fuel could be saved.)

IMTDb 5y ago

> Where I live, people aren't that short sighted. They bought all the toilet paper, planning months ahead. Where you live, people chose to ensure that their comfort would be safeguarded, above all else, even if that lead to shortages for other people. "I don't care if I have too much and other people don't have enough, as long as I am confortable" was their motto. That has to tell you something. > Not when they know the higher prices are for saving people in Ukraine. Some might care, and some will accept that. Many won't. It's easy to accept some sort of disturbance when overall you don't need to worry about putting food on the table, or when a few less degrees means putting your thermostat on 21 instead of 23. When it means not being able to sleep because of cold, your view change quickly. And you start wondering why Ukraine just doesn't accept Putin offer, which after all does not sound that bad. Are people in Crimea that much worse ? And do you care so much ? > It's easy. No, it's not. Some will manage. Many won't. > There would be subsidies for people on the countryside So the solution is to subsidise people on the countryside, subsidise people needing vans or trucks, subsidise people working during nightshift, subsidise people living far away from a public transportation hub, subsidise people working far away from a transportation's hub, subsidise people who adapt to other people schedule, ... the list goes on. Creating a society where people depend on the state subsidies to just maintain their activity is not exactly sustainable. > In Europe, there are more buses and subways, and fewer people have cars. I live in Benelux. I can tell you that people are stopping to work because it does not financially make sense any more with current gas price. Today !. And Benelux is the poster child for a society built for bicycles, in practice it only works for 5~10% of the population. That number is increasing, but very slowly and we are going to hit a ceiling sooner rather than later. Anecdotal evidence, but in my social circle, almost everyone moved from "bicycle and public transport" to "cars only" in the past 5 years. Trigger points are : getting a child, changing jobs to something further away from their homes, promotion that gave access to a company car: when you are taxed > 50% taking the cash makes little sense. None are remotely considering letting go of their car, the value is simply too big to ignore. We are very far away from a carless world despite what politician want you to believe. And this is in a country that is usually considered to be a cycler dream > Yes a bit. You could say that about the covid restrictions as well You are acknowledging that what you are proposing puts the biggest amount of the weight on the poor. I don't find that acceptable: if we need to have measures, the more fragile part of the population should not be the one paying for it. The upper/lower class gap is a ticking time bomb. COVID has increased it. We need to find ways to close it, not extend it even more.