> 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

> 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.