4 ms·

By paying for public transport i mean paying for transport, maybe a some app ordered transporters which can fit a family and stuff.

mantas 4y ago
So that transport would do be basically a family car with a lot of junk kilometers?
2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
It costs 20€ just to get a Taxi go come out here, and the total cost of taking a taxi to the closest bus stop is about 40€. Sure, if the weather is nice, I can ride a bike to the same bus stop and get some exersize at the same time, but that'll get a bit problematic during winter. I don't expect society to spend hundreds of millions on making public transport available to the 30% of the Finnish population who live outside urban areas. It will, however, take more than a decade before EV's are viable alternatives to everyone living in the countryside; the power grid needs extensive renovations, power production needs to get away from fossil fuels and the EV's themselves need to be both capable and cheap enough for people to afford them. I can buy 20 year-old car in working order for about 600€ today if I want to. Even cheaper if I don't care about electric windows. I know people who would barely be able to afford such a purchase if their current car broke down. None of them will be able to afford a used EV anytime soon, and I suspect, not in '25 either. That being said, EV's is a good thing. We need synthetic petrol and diesel until they're able to fill all needs currently filled by ICE cars, though. We're going to need it for farming and forestry equipment and the like anyway, so we might aswell get that ball rolling.
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  > It costs 20€ just to get a Taxi go come out here, and the total cost of taking a taxi to the closest bus stop is about 40€. What is unrealistic to me is your expectation to live in a remote area but still get easy access to other areas. Why don't you try to live closer to your job, or work closer to your home? I don't understand why I should also pay (breathing your pollution is paying for me) for your desire to live away from a city. If it's your choice, you should pay the full cost of it.
  - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
    I work remotely and have been doing so since I moved here. I'm not expecting anyone to pay for me either, I make more than enough to cover the expenses for my family. However, as I said, there's plenty of others who aren't as fortunate. Most of those I know, are born out here, work in agriculture, and don't see why they should keep producing cheap food for city-dwellers, when all they do is try to limit their ability to keep the production going. And I assure you; urban areas in Europe will not want to be depending on food imports this fall. Again, as I mentioned, synthetic fuels are the way to go until electrification is done. While food occasionally does grow on trees, harvesting is almost completely dependent on fossil fuels. The power grid is being upgraded, albeit slowly (and believe me: we're paying a lot for the work). The forestry industrycan't run without diesel. Electrifying everything will take time. If we want it done faster we need synthetic fuels. Preferably yesterday.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      I honestly think solutions like electric or synthetic fuels are a delusion. The only way to get out of this situation is to accept the fact that we developed in a totally unsustainable way in the past decades, thanks to private transportation. We will have to step back and give up some of our most recently acquired habits, I'm entirely sure of that. The question is, will we wait until it's too late to do it?
      - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
        Narh. We'll keep going until we don't. There's no silver bullet to solve all our problems. We have a few half-baked suggestions, but none is good enough. Getting everyone to agree on developing one into a state that will be good enough won't happen, so we'll have to make do with a dozen different solutions that is nowhere near enough on their own. With luck, we can control the damage sufficiently to prevent catastrophic failure and a repeat of the Bronze age collapse. Giving up on recent developments sounds good in principle, but the fact is that energy usage in the middle classes is slowly going down. If we want an equal distribution of energy usage, then we'd need to go back to pre-WW2 levels in order to be sustainable. And that somehow assumes we retain our current ability to produce clean technology while reducing usage to a level that most people simply won't accept. The middle class wasted a _lot_ of energy in the 60's and early 70's. I remain optimistic in hoping that multiple smaller solutions will be enough to prevent the proverbial shit from hitting the fan. Synth fuels is one such solution. As is EV's, insulating homes, or being better at keeping old infrastructure running for longer in order to avoid wasting resources on replacing said old infrastructure. Not because they solve the root cause of the problem, but because it's better than to keep going with fossil fuels, or to force changes without being at all prepared for the consequences. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I remain hopeful that you are.
iso1631 4y ago
Certainly a car club of some sort in the village replacing the 100 or so cars normally here with say 80 rental cars could be beneficial, not sure it would save much environmentally though, especially given that most vehicles passing are either vans or tractors

mantas 4y ago

So that transport would do be basically a family car with a lot of junk kilometers?

2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago

It costs 20€ just to get a Taxi go come out here, and the total cost of taking a taxi to the closest bus stop is about 40€. Sure, if the weather is nice, I can ride a bike to the same bus stop and get some exersize at the same time, but that'll get a bit problematic during winter. I don't expect society to spend hundreds of millions on making public transport available to the 30% of the Finnish population who live outside urban areas. It will, however, take more than a decade before EV's are viable alternatives to everyone living in the countryside; the power grid needs extensive renovations, power production needs to get away from fossil fuels and the EV's themselves need to be both capable and cheap enough for people to afford them. I can buy 20 year-old car in working order for about 600€ today if I want to. Even cheaper if I don't care about electric windows. I know people who would barely be able to afford such a purchase if their current car broke down. None of them will be able to afford a used EV anytime soon, and I suspect, not in '25 either. That being said, EV's is a good thing. We need synthetic petrol and diesel until they're able to fill all needs currently filled by ICE cars, though. We're going to need it for farming and forestry equipment and the like anyway, so we might aswell get that ball rolling.

pastacacioepepe 4y ago
> It costs 20€ just to get a Taxi go come out here, and the total cost of taking a taxi to the closest bus stop is about 40€. What is unrealistic to me is your expectation to live in a remote area but still get easy access to other areas. Why don't you try to live closer to your job, or work closer to your home? I don't understand why I should also pay (breathing your pollution is paying for me) for your desire to live away from a city. If it's your choice, you should pay the full cost of it.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
  I work remotely and have been doing so since I moved here. I'm not expecting anyone to pay for me either, I make more than enough to cover the expenses for my family. However, as I said, there's plenty of others who aren't as fortunate. Most of those I know, are born out here, work in agriculture, and don't see why they should keep producing cheap food for city-dwellers, when all they do is try to limit their ability to keep the production going. And I assure you; urban areas in Europe will not want to be depending on food imports this fall. Again, as I mentioned, synthetic fuels are the way to go until electrification is done. While food occasionally does grow on trees, harvesting is almost completely dependent on fossil fuels. The power grid is being upgraded, albeit slowly (and believe me: we're paying a lot for the work). The forestry industrycan't run without diesel. Electrifying everything will take time. If we want it done faster we need synthetic fuels. Preferably yesterday.
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    I honestly think solutions like electric or synthetic fuels are a delusion. The only way to get out of this situation is to accept the fact that we developed in a totally unsustainable way in the past decades, thanks to private transportation. We will have to step back and give up some of our most recently acquired habits, I'm entirely sure of that. The question is, will we wait until it's too late to do it?
    - 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
      Narh. We'll keep going until we don't. There's no silver bullet to solve all our problems. We have a few half-baked suggestions, but none is good enough. Getting everyone to agree on developing one into a state that will be good enough won't happen, so we'll have to make do with a dozen different solutions that is nowhere near enough on their own. With luck, we can control the damage sufficiently to prevent catastrophic failure and a repeat of the Bronze age collapse. Giving up on recent developments sounds good in principle, but the fact is that energy usage in the middle classes is slowly going down. If we want an equal distribution of energy usage, then we'd need to go back to pre-WW2 levels in order to be sustainable. And that somehow assumes we retain our current ability to produce clean technology while reducing usage to a level that most people simply won't accept. The middle class wasted a _lot_ of energy in the 60's and early 70's. I remain optimistic in hoping that multiple smaller solutions will be enough to prevent the proverbial shit from hitting the fan. Synth fuels is one such solution. As is EV's, insulating homes, or being better at keeping old infrastructure running for longer in order to avoid wasting resources on replacing said old infrastructure. Not because they solve the root cause of the problem, but because it's better than to keep going with fossil fuels, or to force changes without being at all prepared for the consequences. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I remain hopeful that you are.

iso1631 4y ago

Certainly a car club of some sort in the village replacing the 100 or so cars normally here with say 80 rental cars could be beneficial, not sure it would save much environmentally though, especially given that most vehicles passing are either vans or tractors