6 ms·

> We already largely know how to drastically reduce our emissions--clean energy and electrification I think the parent is arguing against this premise. You ar

by trgn 5y ago

> We already largely know how to drastically reduce our emissions--clean energy and electrification I think the parent is arguing against this premise. You argue from a value system, in which cars for personal transportation, are an axiomatic condition. Not only that, cars, no matter their size, going as fast as geometry allows it, are an inherent fixture. Solutions like EVs are a solution to carbon emissions, but only within this value system. I can think of plenty of other solutions, all of them old-skool tech. Driving more frugal cars with high mpg (which will be lighter, smaller), would be a low-tech solution that anyone can implement today. However, since this is not in your value system, it does not occur to you. Since your value system is the dominant one, American car manufacturers no longer even want to put this solution up for sale. Not requiring people to commute, is another low-tech way we can curb carbon emission. Taxing cars by weight is a low-tech bureaucratic solution. A true forest of automated speed cameras to push top speeds down, and thus fuel consumption down, yet another one. Zoning which allows amenities in walking and biking distance is another, and infrastructure making walking and biking be safe, not having to worry about getting run over by 3-ton EVs, would be yet another low tech solution. None of the above curb quality of life. But rather, they exist in a world that cannot be imagined. > EVs involve much less "magic" to solve than any anti-car alternative. This quote is a perfect encapsulation of your solipsism. You cannot even imagine these other solutions, and if you do, they appear magic. While this "magic"is the reality on the ground in so much other parts of the world. Even within the US, they exist. EVs will not be a solution to curb carbon emissions. It is because EVs fundamentally do not address the root causes of why we have these emissions in the first place. The wasteful use of energy on personal transportation, caused by overly heavy, overly fast vehicles, having to drive over overly long distances, for even the most basic daily needs.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> You argue from a value system, in which cars for personal transportation, are an axiomatic condition. Not only that, cars, no matter their size, going as fast as geometry allows it, are an inherent fixture. ... However, since this is not in your value system, it does not occur to you. ... You cannot even imagine these other solutions You're making so many baseless and incorrect assumptions about my value system and thought process that it's very hard to assume you're arguing in good faith. You're welcome to try again without making assumptions about my beliefs or capacity for imagination.
- chii 5y ago
  I think the original poster is arguing the point that having personal vehicles is the wrong solution, and that the life style of the typical american cannot imagine that as a solution. I think it is impossible to put the personal vehicle genie back into the lamp. Any future climate solution cannot involve decreasing the quality of life for the typical american (or western person, i'm using american as a catch-all term). EV is the compromise already.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I generally agree, but cars are fully integrated into even the most non-western countries regardless of wealth or poverty. I admittedly can't imagine solutions that also help us meet our (time constrained) climate objectives or which don't cost trillions of dollars, but I think it's pretty rhetorically crumby to criticize someone's "ability to imagine an alternative" without proffering one's own proposal.
generalenvelope 5y ago
Piggybacking to plug notjustbikes on youtube who does a nice job of outlining why the US's obsession with cars and single-family-zoned housing areas has dug us into the value system you're describing. That is not to say that working to fix these vast infrastructure problems is a simple or remotely carbon neutral feat (Amsterdam has taken 50 years to get there). We got here because of choices about how transportation/freedom in the US should look (many lobbied by the car industry). I'm not saying cars shouldn't exist. I don't think that's realistic with an area as vast as the US. But places like Amsterdam and Tokyo can clue us in that it doesn't need to be like this in reasonably dense areas. What if we could eliminate the need for cars in many areas by creating infrastructure that's vastly more efficient, cheaper, safer, and healthier to use? We already have a lot of this technology (bikes/trains/buses/trams + relevant infrastructure). Building this would be expensive and create a lot of pollution. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
- trgn 5y ago
  notjustbikes is such a great channel. I think he paints a great picture of all forms of transportation existing side-by-side. It's not an either/or, but an and/and. Super inspiring channel. > What if we could eliminate the need for cars in many areas by creating infrastructure that's vastly more efficient, cheaper, safer, and healthier to use? Yes, that would be so great. Many neighborhoods in the US could accomodate it too. Roads are wide, there's absolutely space for different kinds of road use, side by side. And a lot of neighborhoods predate car travel, everything before the 30s or so, we know, as a historical fact, that they can totally be liveable without a car, if only it was safe for other road users to do so. > Does that mean we shouldn't try? Absolutely. The investment in safe road infrastructure, providing transportation options, has so many benefits.
admax88qqq 5y ago
Changing the value system of the American public is a ridiculous pie in the sky solution that is not going to happen in any reasonable timeframe. Those things change in small steps one generation at a time. Our best bet right now is to find carbon solutions that are compatible with the current set of values.
- trgn 5y ago
  I get that point for sure. It's and/and. And electric vehicles (which won't be a solution to climate change) will at least reduce noise and pollution. They're just more civilized, and I think invite more civilized driving overall. >"pie in the sky" I think that's where we disagree. I don't think it is at all. Much of the US city infrastructure is build before the 30s. These neighborhoods could accommodate biking, walking, (and yes, together with cars)... much more easily. They don't, it's because every single road is completely dedicated to multi-lane car traffic. It's basically unsafe for others. Slowing traffic down (top speeds mainly), would really only take bollards and paint. That is just a mental change; basically accept we need to share the road safely. It's unreal to me that such a small, almost insignificant shift, triggers such intense resistance.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    The claim we were originally disputing was something like "abolish cars", but it seems you're walking that back considerably to "slower speed limits". The right answer IMO is "slower speed limits on streets AND more, higher throughput highways" so cars can get where they're going quickly and without using streets for bulk of their transit (thus increasing safety for pedestrians). But this is an unpopular idea among anti-car people because it's insufficiently punitive toward drivers. Specifically, they often advocate for fewer, lower throughput highways even though that only pushes traffic out into the side streets, endangering pedestrians. (This isn't a straw man, I've had that debate with people in my own city about removing a major thoroughfare, essentially to spite drivers).
    - trgn 5y ago
      > more, higher throughput highways Please not. But maybe underground, then yes, sure why not. > removing a major thoroughfare, essentially to spite drivers) I don't really know the particular situation. I hope it was not out of spite! That'd be sad. (I do understand fwiw - how it can come across like that). I do think a city should never accommodate high speed traffic, only maybe on an interstate or a truly segregated roadway. A lot of these high-speed corridors are through residential areas, it's just plain dangerous, noisy, polluting. There's a reason nobody wants to live next to a high speed road, and if they do, it requires a lot of empty buffer space (huge front yards, basically) to make it tolerable. > lower throughput highways Again, not knowing the particular situation, since this can be very context dependent, and maybe we have radically different examples in mind, so ymmv, fwiw, etc... Just as an example: in my town, a recent a high throughput highway was reduced from 4 to 2 lanes. That did not reduce throughput. It did decrease top speeds, no more mad max style passing and jostling, and fewer accidents. Basically, cars now toddle along in single file, at a civilized clip, but no longer that accordion of rushing and breaking from light to light anymore. It also is so much safer for people crossing the road, or biking. It took decades to make this happen. When trying to get these, most drivers at these public planning meeting could just not imagine that removing lanes has any kind of net good. After two years now of this conversion, which is positive is so many ways (it does not even inconvenience drivers, only curbs their worst impulses), every other similar proposal still face this same kind of opposition. This mindset is completely ingrained to such a degree that it almost seems monomaniacal.
imtringued 5y ago
>I can think of plenty of other solutions, all of them old-skool tech. Driving more frugal cars with high mpg (which will be lighter, smaller), would be a low-tech solution that anyone can implement today. But I already do that and considering current gas prices in Germany an EV is cheaper to operate. It's the next small step that short sighted humans are willing to take. I would rather take it than not. Demanding that we stop driving cars would require a land value tax to encourage densification of downtown. Considering how many people are against letting people live in the place they want to live that's not an option. A car is effectively a tool to undermine the rent seeking done by land owners. If you can just drive away from the oppressor his power diminishes by how far you can get away from him. That's the true source of sprawl.

by trgn 5y ago

throwaway894345 5y ago

> You argue from a value system, in which cars for personal transportation, are an axiomatic condition. Not only that, cars, no matter their size, going as fast as geometry allows it, are an inherent fixture. ... However, since this is not in your value system, it does not occur to you. ... You cannot even imagine these other solutions You're making so many baseless and incorrect assumptions about my value system and thought process that it's very hard to assume you're arguing in good faith. You're welcome to try again without making assumptions about my beliefs or capacity for imagination.

chii 5y ago
I think the original poster is arguing the point that having personal vehicles is the wrong solution, and that the life style of the typical american cannot imagine that as a solution. I think it is impossible to put the personal vehicle genie back into the lamp. Any future climate solution cannot involve decreasing the quality of life for the typical american (or western person, i'm using american as a catch-all term). EV is the compromise already.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  I generally agree, but cars are fully integrated into even the most non-western countries regardless of wealth or poverty. I admittedly can't imagine solutions that also help us meet our (time constrained) climate objectives or which don't cost trillions of dollars, but I think it's pretty rhetorically crumby to criticize someone's "ability to imagine an alternative" without proffering one's own proposal.

generalenvelope 5y ago

Piggybacking to plug notjustbikes on youtube who does a nice job of outlining why the US's obsession with cars and single-family-zoned housing areas has dug us into the value system you're describing. That is not to say that working to fix these vast infrastructure problems is a simple or remotely carbon neutral feat (Amsterdam has taken 50 years to get there). We got here because of choices about how transportation/freedom in the US should look (many lobbied by the car industry). I'm not saying cars shouldn't exist. I don't think that's realistic with an area as vast as the US. But places like Amsterdam and Tokyo can clue us in that it doesn't need to be like this in reasonably dense areas. What if we could eliminate the need for cars in many areas by creating infrastructure that's vastly more efficient, cheaper, safer, and healthier to use? We already have a lot of this technology (bikes/trains/buses/trams + relevant infrastructure). Building this would be expensive and create a lot of pollution. Does that mean we shouldn't try?

trgn 5y ago
notjustbikes is such a great channel. I think he paints a great picture of all forms of transportation existing side-by-side. It's not an either/or, but an and/and. Super inspiring channel. > What if we could eliminate the need for cars in many areas by creating infrastructure that's vastly more efficient, cheaper, safer, and healthier to use? Yes, that would be so great. Many neighborhoods in the US could accomodate it too. Roads are wide, there's absolutely space for different kinds of road use, side by side. And a lot of neighborhoods predate car travel, everything before the 30s or so, we know, as a historical fact, that they can totally be liveable without a car, if only it was safe for other road users to do so. > Does that mean we shouldn't try? Absolutely. The investment in safe road infrastructure, providing transportation options, has so many benefits.

admax88qqq 5y ago

Changing the value system of the American public is a ridiculous pie in the sky solution that is not going to happen in any reasonable timeframe. Those things change in small steps one generation at a time. Our best bet right now is to find carbon solutions that are compatible with the current set of values.

trgn 5y ago
I get that point for sure. It's and/and. And electric vehicles (which won't be a solution to climate change) will at least reduce noise and pollution. They're just more civilized, and I think invite more civilized driving overall. >"pie in the sky" I think that's where we disagree. I don't think it is at all. Much of the US city infrastructure is build before the 30s. These neighborhoods could accommodate biking, walking, (and yes, together with cars)... much more easily. They don't, it's because every single road is completely dedicated to multi-lane car traffic. It's basically unsafe for others. Slowing traffic down (top speeds mainly), would really only take bollards and paint. That is just a mental change; basically accept we need to share the road safely. It's unreal to me that such a small, almost insignificant shift, triggers such intense resistance.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The claim we were originally disputing was something like "abolish cars", but it seems you're walking that back considerably to "slower speed limits". The right answer IMO is "slower speed limits on streets AND more, higher throughput highways" so cars can get where they're going quickly and without using streets for bulk of their transit (thus increasing safety for pedestrians). But this is an unpopular idea among anti-car people because it's insufficiently punitive toward drivers. Specifically, they often advocate for fewer, lower throughput highways even though that only pushes traffic out into the side streets, endangering pedestrians. (This isn't a straw man, I've had that debate with people in my own city about removing a major thoroughfare, essentially to spite drivers).
  - trgn 5y ago
    > more, higher throughput highways Please not. But maybe underground, then yes, sure why not. > removing a major thoroughfare, essentially to spite drivers) I don't really know the particular situation. I hope it was not out of spite! That'd be sad. (I do understand fwiw - how it can come across like that). I do think a city should never accommodate high speed traffic, only maybe on an interstate or a truly segregated roadway. A lot of these high-speed corridors are through residential areas, it's just plain dangerous, noisy, polluting. There's a reason nobody wants to live next to a high speed road, and if they do, it requires a lot of empty buffer space (huge front yards, basically) to make it tolerable. > lower throughput highways Again, not knowing the particular situation, since this can be very context dependent, and maybe we have radically different examples in mind, so ymmv, fwiw, etc... Just as an example: in my town, a recent a high throughput highway was reduced from 4 to 2 lanes. That did not reduce throughput. It did decrease top speeds, no more mad max style passing and jostling, and fewer accidents. Basically, cars now toddle along in single file, at a civilized clip, but no longer that accordion of rushing and breaking from light to light anymore. It also is so much safer for people crossing the road, or biking. It took decades to make this happen. When trying to get these, most drivers at these public planning meeting could just not imagine that removing lanes has any kind of net good. After two years now of this conversion, which is positive is so many ways (it does not even inconvenience drivers, only curbs their worst impulses), every other similar proposal still face this same kind of opposition. This mindset is completely ingrained to such a degree that it almost seems monomaniacal.

imtringued 5y ago

>I can think of plenty of other solutions, all of them old-skool tech. Driving more frugal cars with high mpg (which will be lighter, smaller), would be a low-tech solution that anyone can implement today. But I already do that and considering current gas prices in Germany an EV is cheaper to operate. It's the next small step that short sighted humans are willing to take. I would rather take it than not. Demanding that we stop driving cars would require a land value tax to encourage densification of downtown. Considering how many people are against letting people live in the place they want to live that's not an option. A car is effectively a tool to undermine the rent seeking done by land owners. If you can just drive away from the oppressor his power diminishes by how far you can get away from him. That's the true source of sprawl.