3 ms·

> 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 co

by 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.

leaflets2 5y ago
> That has to tell you something I wasn't completely serious with that comparison (that they bought all the toilet paper). But saving energy, turning down the heating, isn't that mentally advanced? And people do plan a bit ahead, otherwise people couldn't have survived in the cold parts of Europe (if they didn't plan for the winter). > When it means not being able to sleep because of cold Seems to me that the state and municipalities should be able to save some gas and oil, for the coldest days. But I'd say it's not that cold. Where I live (in northern Europe), I frequently wear extra jumpers, instead of using the heaters at all -- works also with snow outdoors and the lake frozen to ice (did you try? Put on a jacket and a winter cap, if it doesn't seem to work, and double trousers and 3 x socks). > So the solution is to subsidise people on the countryside, subsidise people needing vans or trucks [...] subsidise [...] subsidise [...] subsidise ... the list goes on [...] Sounds like too much subsidies. Instead, look at society's covid response: Public transport drivers, and health care workers, and teachers -- all of them got to continue working, in spite of the virus. Such job roles could be prioritized, now as well. > Benelux is the poster child for a society built for bicycles, in practice it only works for 5~10% of the population That's interesting. What about buses and subways? Where I live, few people go by bike. Instead, buses and subways. Couldn't the state hire more bus drivers, in Benelux, so fewer people needed cars. And people could do ride sharing, so there wasn't just 1 person per car. There could be ride sharing websites, and the state could ask everyone to use them. Look at this: Occupancy rate (passengers per vehicle), Commuting to/from work: 1.1 - 1.2 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029.html https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029.... But one can fit 5 people in a car. This indicates that by coordinating traveling to / from work, the gas needed for commuting, could be reduced (theoretically almost 80% but I suppose 50% would be more realistic). > Trigger points are : getting a child, changing jobs to something further away [...] Interesting. > We are very far away from a carless world Hmm, what you describe sounds like a careless world to me? I mean, people prioritizing their cars and gas, and being okay with others then more likely getting bombed, elsewhere. (Don't know if you meant to write something else) > puts the biggest amount of the weight on the poor. I don't find that acceptable Do you find it acceptable, though, to give money to Putin so he can continue bombing? That sounds like a greater evil to me. It's about choosing the least bad thing, I think. There's also rationing -- controlled distribution of gas and oil, so everyone got the same amount. Or, prices could be low, until one's household had consumed X amount of gas -- then, the prices would rise, sharply, for that household. A bit like progressive taxes, but for gas and oil.

by IMTDb 5y ago

leaflets2 5y ago

> That has to tell you something I wasn't completely serious with that comparison (that they bought all the toilet paper). But saving energy, turning down the heating, isn't that mentally advanced? And people do plan a bit ahead, otherwise people couldn't have survived in the cold parts of Europe (if they didn't plan for the winter). > When it means not being able to sleep because of cold Seems to me that the state and municipalities should be able to save some gas and oil, for the coldest days. But I'd say it's not that cold. Where I live (in northern Europe), I frequently wear extra jumpers, instead of using the heaters at all -- works also with snow outdoors and the lake frozen to ice (did you try? Put on a jacket and a winter cap, if it doesn't seem to work, and double trousers and 3 x socks). > So the solution is to subsidise people on the countryside, subsidise people needing vans or trucks [...] subsidise [...] subsidise [...] subsidise ... the list goes on [...] Sounds like too much subsidies. Instead, look at society's covid response: Public transport drivers, and health care workers, and teachers -- all of them got to continue working, in spite of the virus. Such job roles could be prioritized, now as well. > Benelux is the poster child for a society built for bicycles, in practice it only works for 5~10% of the population That's interesting. What about buses and subways? Where I live, few people go by bike. Instead, buses and subways. Couldn't the state hire more bus drivers, in Benelux, so fewer people needed cars. And people could do ride sharing, so there wasn't just 1 person per car. There could be ride sharing websites, and the state could ask everyone to use them. Look at this: Occupancy rate (passengers per vehicle), Commuting to/from work: 1.1 - 1.2 https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029.html https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029.... But one can fit 5 people in a car. This indicates that by coordinating traveling to / from work, the gas needed for commuting, could be reduced (theoretically almost 80% but I suppose 50% would be more realistic). > Trigger points are : getting a child, changing jobs to something further away [...] Interesting. > We are very far away from a carless world Hmm, what you describe sounds like a careless world to me? I mean, people prioritizing their cars and gas, and being okay with others then more likely getting bombed, elsewhere. (Don't know if you meant to write something else) > puts the biggest amount of the weight on the poor. I don't find that acceptable Do you find it acceptable, though, to give money to Putin so he can continue bombing? That sounds like a greater evil to me. It's about choosing the least bad thing, I think. There's also rationing -- controlled distribution of gas and oil, so everyone got the same amount. Or, prices could be low, until one's household had consumed X amount of gas -- then, the prices would rise, sharply, for that household. A bit like progressive taxes, but for gas and oil.