9 ms·

If we all cycled like the Dutch, global emissions would drop 700M tonnes

40 points by Vinnl 4y ago

WantonQuantum 4y ago
“urged people to saddle up like they do in The Netherlands.” Oh yeah it’s completely my fault for being lazy and not cycling everywhere in my city where that’s totally infeasible.
- Vinnl 4y ago
  I think that bit is the article's editorialising. Actual quotes from the study say: > The study authors recognise that not everyone lives in a cycle-friendly place - but call for an “urgent” expansion of cycling infrastructure worldwide. > “Lessons learned from successful experiences in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, particularly on the city level such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam, would be essential,” they write. > “These include but are not limited to, for example, proper bicycle lanes planning and construction, pro-bicycle education and culture, and policies to discourage car use through tax.”
  - crapaud23 4y ago
    They should at least mention netherlands is superflat.
    - alamortsubite 4y ago
      And very wet and windy. Edit to add that e-bikes flatten any terrain, so Netherlands topography is increasing irrelevant to this discussion.
      - deafpolygon 4y ago
        And we have 2 weeks of summer a year, at the most.
      - account-5 4y ago
        I cycle to and from work. It's also wet and windy here, but it's not remotely flat. It's hard work. So yeah being flat is an extreme advantage. Also Ebikes are more expensive to buy, maintain, and run. I doubt they last even half as long too. I'm still using a hybrid buy I bought 10 years ago for 200 (exdisplay).
        alamortsubite 4y ago
        An e-bike is very expensive compared to your old hybrid, but it's dirt cheap compared to an automobile.
        ThunderSizzle 4y ago
        Perhaps, except that my automobile can move more people and property at a much farther distance while being protected from the environment, both the natural environment and the environment of a high speed highway.
        eesmith 4y ago
        As an ancestor comment by Vinnl points out, "The study authors recognise that not everyone lives in a cycle-friendly place - but call for an “urgent” expansion of cycling infrastructure worldwide." If you are a plumber making home visits in suburbs best accessed through a high speed highway, and need to have supplies and tools with you, then of course a vehicle is better. If you are a wind surfer, and need something to carry your gear with you back and forth to the beach, then of course a vehicle is better. There are many people in exactly the situation you are, and for good reasons need a vehicle. But those needs don't represent everyone. And with the right infrastructure, some things which require a car now, disappear. If the kids can (e)bike to/from after-school events, then there's much less need for one of the parents to be a dedicated chauffeur. With frequent bus service, it's easier to take the bus into town, so perhaps a family doesn't need one car per adult. When those who decide to go car-free still need to be able to move more people and property, they use a taxi, rent a car, or join a car share club, depending on their needs. But it's not easy! 50 years ago Amsterdam was car-centered, like US cities. It took decades to get where they are now. The point is to learn from that experience, not reject the possibility outright.
  - scoofy 4y ago
    Even in San Francisco, the second densest major city in America, the automobile lobby put a proposition on the ballot to remove the only car-free street in the city. The amount of push back from the against any infrastructure that limits the automobile here is so overwhelming, it's completely ridiculous. I've been pushing for more cycling infrastructure my entire adult life. In NYC, Austin, and SF. Basically the only way to get it done is for the politicians to actually take a risk like Bloomberg did, and just do it by fiat. So long as you're trying to build a cycling system, the existing NIMBY populace will freak out.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      And this shows the fundamental problem: it's the people themselves, the voting public, who in car-centric places oppose any attempts at making the place less car-centric. Then they whine about how it's infeasible to be less car-centric. Yes, that's true: it's because they, themselves, have opposed such efforts!
- nix23 4y ago
  Well, if you live in a democracy it's at least partially your fault that your city is like it is.
  - voisin 4y ago
    Not if you weren’t alive and voting in the 50s and 60s when main infrastructure in most cities was laid. It isn’t a tabula rasa for each generation!
    - throwaway049 4y ago
      Or, for quite a lot of Europeans on here, the 1850s and 60s
      - alamortsubite 4y ago
        Not really. We're talking about car-oriented infrastructure, which came about in Europe at the same time it did in the U.S. (even a bit later, if we're being honest).
    - nix23 4y ago
      The Dutch made the bike-lanes after the 60s ;) >It isn’t a tabula rasa for each generation! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city -> that easy ;)
    - sebazzz 4y ago
      So was in the Netherlands. But infrastructure can be changed piece by piece. Rotterdam restarted as a car centric city after WWII.
johncoltrane 4y ago
Yeah, 1.70% is less impressive than 700M.
- alamortsubite 4y ago
  Maybe, but the potential health benefits mentioned in the article are more impressive than either: People who cycle to work have a 45 per cent lower risk of developing cancer, and a 46 per cent lower risk of cardiovascular disease.
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    But what is the carbon footprint of all those people living longer?
    - luckylion 4y ago
      And the impact on the pension system. 5 more years will easily mean 15-25% higher payout that needs to be funded.
    - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
      If this mattered, then we should just limit everyone to 30 years. Why stop there? This is insane thought path under the guise of caring for the planet.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        >If this mattered, then we should just limit everyone to 30 years. And when their 30 years is up, then we can have a celebration called Carrousel to eliminate them. Anyone who tries to escape this will be chased by the Sandmen.
        readthenotes1 4y ago
        Or go on a Logan's Run!
vt85 4y ago
[dead]
fatneckbeard 4y ago
that's because the dutch had a massive social movement to completely reorganize their transportation infrastructure and bulldoze segregated bicycle paths through the entire cityscape, it was called "Stop Child Murders" https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-nl-roads/ https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-n...
rambambram 4y ago
I live in Nijmegen where I cycle a lot. I also lived in Arnhem where I was situated near some very steep hills, for some years I almost didn't cycle there and walked a lot. I guess walking is also good, but my point is: one needs enough flatness to make cycling attractive. Cycling in cities like Amsterdam is totally not attractive to me, just too busy with bikes. ;)
- alamortsubite 4y ago
  The obstacle to cycling posed by steep hills is being diminished greatly by e-bikes. Unfortunately, the problem with traffic in Amsterdam is not, but I think that only serves to reinforce how attractive bikes are for commuting. It reminds me of the old joke attributed to Yogi Berra, "nobody goes there anymore- it's too crowded."
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    How about long distances? Even zooming on ebike it still takes ages, even longer if you are on a bike line, obeying speed limit. Climate is another factor - in a hot weather it’s actually nice to be on ebike (other than sunburn), but rain and cold climates suck. In NL public transport always used to fill up on a bad day.
- nroets 4y ago
  I'd much rather cycle in busy Amsterdam than drive in congested Los Angeles, Paris, Tbilisi, HCMC etc.
- dvko 4y ago
  Driving in Amsterdam is much worse than cycling there… But yes, planning a city to support safe cycling while also having decent public transportation is important, I guess. We just need less car centrism.
- Vinnl 4y ago
  While technically true, there's still so much improvement to be had in flat-enough places that that's basically irrelevant for a while. Cities like London, Berlin or Paris are totally fine for cycling when it comes to flatness, and I'm sure many others that I'm less familiar with are too. And with electric bicycles, even cities like Arnhem are perfectly doable, as long as the infrastructure's up for it.
melling 4y ago
Wow, another crazy silly idea that requires huge behavior change. Did you know there are only 8500 coal power plants in the entire world, and they produce 20% of CO2 emissions? In fact it’s only a subset of those that are really bad. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power-plants-release-73-percent-global-electricity-production-emissions-180978355/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power... Decades and decades of “don’t eat meat”, “don’t fly”, … And all we had to do was stop using coal a couple decades ago.
- eloff 4y ago
  That’s not sufficient either, but it’s THE logical starting point. I feel like our politicians are too inept to deal with the issue of climate change. We need an engineering mindset.
  - melling 4y ago
    I imagine reducing emissions by 20% tomorrow buys us a bit more time. Another decade of R&D… Wouldn’t it be better to be talking about 2060 instead of 2050? The longer we do “nothing”, the more miracles we need.
    - eloff 4y ago
      Or the longer we do ineffective things instead of tackling the low hanging fruit, the harder the problem will be.
- nroets 4y ago
  So a country like South Africa can just turn off their coal plants and continue as normal ? Of course not ! They will go bankrupt ! Solar+storage is still too expensive ! Whereas if the US consumer stop buying oversize trucks and stop flying cross country for social events, they will actually save money! It's simply not equatable to expect a poor country like South Africa to make sacrifices while the US (a rich country) refuse to levy a carbon tax.
  - 4y ago
janalsncm 4y ago
A more tractable (in North America) way to reduce emissions: allow remote work. RTO was framed as a worker’s rights issue. It was that. But it was also an environmental issue. RTO is horrible for the planet.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
aww_dang 4y ago
Most people are simply not willing to bicycle. There are any number of reasons given. Many would express a desire to cycle more in an idealistic sense. It is similar to someone who expresses a desire to quit smoking next week or start a new diet. If people want to drive cars everywhere, that's a lifestyle choice they make. There's no need to make excuses for it. If they are happier, why not? Bicycling infrastructure is popularly cited as a reason, but this is an incomplete picture. I appreciate that some scenarios are intimidating to novice cyclists, but this is where skill building and progressive improvements in awareness, technique and fitness play a role. If people truly desired to use bicycles they might choose to live within 20 miles of their workplace and develop their cycling abilities incrementally. If this discussion is like any of the others which have been posted, we will see excuses where it is both too hot and too cold for posters to bicycle. Never mind the workarounds for these issues. If they are not comfortable, that's okay. These are not the voices which should be given precedence when we consider what bicycle infrastructure should look like. It isn't unreasonable to listen to these complaints about how impractical cycling is for their situations. There are many who will never become cyclists under any conditions. It is understandable given the political implications of the green agenda that posters wouldn't be forthcoming with these preferences. The result of this posturing is an ever changing set of trends for what cycling infrastructure should look like. An ideal tomorrow which can never come.
- Vinnl 4y ago
  > Most people are simply not willing to bicycle. That statement does not seem to mesh with statistics in the Netherlands [1]. Possibly people are simply not willing to bicycle using bad/unsafe infrastructure. Which, I should note, is not an "ideal tomorrow", but pretty good reality for a couple of decades already. [1] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/personen/fietsen https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/pe... - "Dutch people aged 6 and above on average used a bicycle 0.8 times a day."
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    In a previous lifetime I was a bicycle courier in the US. We rode around the city comfortably with traffic. It was as safe as we wanted to be. One of the unsafe points has always been the dedicated bike lanes. Drivers never expect you at that speed at that place on the road. People coming in or out of megamart parking lots have the wrong expectations or cannot judge speed well. Drivers attempting to make a right on red will overtake and t-bone the cyclist. Next, they added ridiculous fixed orange cones to the bicycle lanes. Now you cannot perform a lane change safely. Similarly, the bike paths have blind corners, people on in-line skates, joggers, women with baby strollers and other hazards. Not to mention the advantages of drafting a mid sized SUV or box truck. Moving with traffic is just better. The typical scenario in the US will have one or two points along a route where the novice cyclist is exposed to a road which makes them uncomfortable. With adequate planning a route can be selected which is appropriate to their skill level. Of course this is far from the ideal world of cycling. But if users were serious about their interests they could start now. Not sure it is reasonable to expect the rest of the world to become Dutch. There's more to say for the Dutch than just the geography (Posters here object to cycling on hills. If they loved cycling they would seek them out.) or the infrastructure. There's also the cultural values of thrift and efficiency. The avoidance of credit. Of the Dutch that I've known, they generally disdain a flashy automobile as a foolish purchase. You won't gain status pushing a bicycle in the US. Maybe for young angsty bicycle couriers there was an appeal in showing the world how indestructible we were. What is left is just empty green posturing... "I would ride a bicycle to work, but the gov. didn't tax and spend enough on my ever changing ideal of a fantasy bicycling experience. Oh btw, I hate pedaling or exerting myself. But yeah, I totally love bicycles. Except when it is raining, snowing or sunny. I love bicycling so much that I know how everyone else should ride..." https://www.moneyonthemind.org/post/the-influence-of-culture-on-conspicuous-consumption#:~:text=And%20in%20the%20Netherlands%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20blowing%20through%20money%20to%20show%20other%20people%20that%20you%20have%20money%20is%20a%20bit%2C%20weird https://www.moneyonthemind.org/post/the-influence-of-culture....
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
NickC25 4y ago
What we honestly need is to make sure all major cities have substantial public transportation infrastructure as well, so that people's incentives to drive are much lower. People need to be walking more, biking more, and taking public transportation more. I personally live in a crowded area of a fairly large city, but not a huge one. Anywhere I have to go that's within 1 mile of me, I walk. 2 miles, I bike. 3 miles or greater and within the city limits, I take the free public trolley and metro. I only drive when I absolutely need to. This mentality needs to not be limited to just me. We also as a society need to realize that urban sprawl is a really bad thing.
- metacritic12 4y ago
  While I like that sentiment and personally I fit into your lifestyle, I think it's worth considering the tradeoffs. Europe does the above because they have too -- their population density is huge and they historically hit the max humans / land ratio (given historic food production technology at the time). This is eminently not true for the Americas and much of Oceania. The massive amounts of land in the latter areas are probably one of a few primary factors in why there is so much sprawl there. In particular, I think many people fundamentally enjoy single family homes with a lawn, or having more space even within a city. Once you have a region (e.g. Bay Area) with enough people with single family homes, the road network has a network effect and a phase transition that suddenly favors car.
  - lonelyasacloud 4y ago
    > In particular, I think many people fundamentally enjoy single family homes with a lawn, or having more space even within a city. In that case surely it's better not to fill what land we have with roads and car parks?
    - dzhiurgis 4y ago
      Other than rush hour traffic I don’t have problems with cars i suburbs - they work really well if you work from home. I am pro bike lines and public transport tho which would do nothing to my weekly drive to get groceries.
byteman 4y ago
[flagged]
michaelaiello 4y ago
What time horizon are we solving for? I recall a case study (apologies I do not have the reference) in business school that if everyone cycled as suggested in the article - life expectancy would increase significantly for the population leading to more carbon emissions in the long run.
JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
If we all lived like the Dutch global emissions would rise by 3-4bn tonnes (back of the napkin math). That is IF each and every country had the standard of living that the Netherlands enjoy. Very easy to baamboozle people with hypotheticals constrained to just one fundamental.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
How much CO2 would be required to re-construct the road infrastructures of all the world to match the bike friendliness of the netherlands?
- alamortsubite 4y ago
  A crap-ton less than merely maintaining that same infrastructure for automobiles.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    They should do the math and show us by making the full case.
3327 4y ago
[dead]
kkfx 4y ago
Allow me a little game: what the Dutch who do most of their trip by bike eat? Because today too many pseudo-ecologist claim the live at 0km, meaning they do anything in a small enough area to move just by feet and bike. HOWEVER they omit in their computing the other humans who work to serve them. Time ago a friend claim he live at 0km and we start a little game: let's show what you eat&drink! The 0km bread bought from a local shop actually was made with a flower+the rest prepared by a local company roughly 800km away, with the flower itself from Ukraine, leavening agents from Turkey, salt from Spain. Oh that's just the bread. The locally bought seasonal fruits, let's say and apple came from north-est Italy, and I choose the apple as an example because they are normally collected one season before stored in a CO₂-saturated place and oxygenated a bit before going to customers-stores (so they look bright and big). If we try the locally bought "fresh" shrimp some are from India, some from Ecuador, they are fresh (in temperature sense) for sure, but seeing their color they are ALSO pre-cooked with a bit of steam before being packed and so on. Personally having left (few years BEFORE covid) the dense European urbe for the Alps I change a bit my behaviors like I now bought not-that-small quantity of anything and stock them at home, it's MORE comfy for me, just going to the garage opening some freezer/wardrobes etc instead of going shopping just for a single item. The result is that compared I produce FAR LESS packages waste, I tend to eat more healthy foods and I even tend to pay most of the LESS. Stock them is also not that complicated at all, yes it might took a bit of time regularly, but it's really a little bit, and a small investments in fridges/freezer and so on. But again NOTHING really "extreme". I have two cars, one diesel one electric, I refuel both at home, the diesel one with a 1000l liters jar with a simple tube+spilling pistol filled up casually by a tank truck, witch means I and the supply chain combined burn LESS fuel to resupply than those who resupply continuously with their own engines. Again, nothing really special. Diesel it's not explosive, does not produce dangerous gases and can be stored for very long periods. Oh, and at any (regular) strike I never have to go wasting hours to resupply for having a bit of a very small reserve. Long story short: PROBABLY (I can't compute everything) the most sustainable way of living is being spread in large not too dense, not too little dense areas pushing a distributed economy coupled with an effective PUBLIC logistic platform (to avoid the old classic Rockefeller/Standard Oil or now Amazon "market distortions") where we can evolve, meaning the density is sufficient to interact, have a reborn economy of scale that's now totally lost in cities, but not too much to impede redesign of anything, starting from residential buildings who can't really evolve in dense cities in Green New Deal terms or even in mere "they are EOL, we need to demolish them before they collapse", where there is room to evolve. Let's say future drone deliveries, fly cars etc. ALSO such areas are FAR LESS problematic to handle in case of catastrophic events (not even extreme like a nuclear strike eh! Just mere floods, wildfires, earthquakes, landslides etc). This probably live a big problem: too much population? That probably imply without having the gut to tell it directly that someone want to push "waste" humanity in modern slavery situations depicted as nice walled gardens, eco friendly etc. The issue is that such move can't work well not only for those internees but for the humanity at a whole. We are a society, it's normal to have rich and poor, but more than a certain level the result is a crash unhealthy for ALL.
28304283409234 4y ago
I just sold my car. After 12 years or so I'm back to bikes and public transport. It was an interesting mental battle that took me about 8 months to win. And I'm a greenhearted leftist that votes for the Animal Party here in NL! The decision to move to carless is just really really hard. Even in a country that is so bike friendly. In the end, it's not about the bike, or the car. But the ideas that it represents: the illusions of freedom, choice, safety.
kderbyma 4y ago
I walk, bike, transit, and almost never take a car. my city is a car city, but it's still walkable. biking is faster during the summer for anything downtown, walking is better for anything 5 minutes away, and transit covers the longer distances. I walked 200+ city blocks yesterday while I went across the city and diff places. Walking is also great exercise at those lengths and you go to bed like you just ran at the gym.
brudgers 4y ago
The Netherlands is flat, so cycling like the Dutch would require not just changing infrastructure and social behavior, but changing the landscape in many places where people live as well...Amsterdam is known for it's canals, San Francisco for its hills -- e.g. the highest natural point in San Francisco (area 121 km^2) is 283m, the highest point in the entire Netherlands (area 41,500 km^2) is less than 40m higher. I'm not saying the idea of everybody biking like the Dutch is as absurd as the idea of everybody boating like the Venetians, but it ignores the role of landscape in a similar way.
blastonico 4y ago
The Netherlands is plane, dense, safe, and small. Not sure if it will work in my 3rd world country. Besides, you'll be cooked under 30C (86F) to 40C(104F) degrees.
SecurityMinded 4y ago
Yeah, cycling in the US gets you nowhere fast. Netherlands is only one and a half times as big as State of Maryland and cities are built vertically rather than spread out. If your daily commute is less than a mile, like most of these people's are, you can even walk to work. Being ridiculous obviously has no limits.

40 points by Vinnl 4y ago

“urged people to saddle up like they do in The Netherlands.” Oh yeah it’s completely my fault for being lazy and not cycling everywhere in my city where that’s totally infeasible.

Vinnl 4y ago
I think that bit is the article's editorialising. Actual quotes from the study say: > The study authors recognise that not everyone lives in a cycle-friendly place - but call for an “urgent” expansion of cycling infrastructure worldwide. > “Lessons learned from successful experiences in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands, particularly on the city level such as Copenhagen and Amsterdam, would be essential,” they write. > “These include but are not limited to, for example, proper bicycle lanes planning and construction, pro-bicycle education and culture, and policies to discourage car use through tax.”
- crapaud23 4y ago
  They should at least mention netherlands is superflat.
  - alamortsubite 4y ago
    And very wet and windy. Edit to add that e-bikes flatten any terrain, so Netherlands topography is increasing irrelevant to this discussion.
    - deafpolygon 4y ago
      And we have 2 weeks of summer a year, at the most.
    - account-5 4y ago
      I cycle to and from work. It's also wet and windy here, but it's not remotely flat. It's hard work. So yeah being flat is an extreme advantage. Also Ebikes are more expensive to buy, maintain, and run. I doubt they last even half as long too. I'm still using a hybrid buy I bought 10 years ago for 200 (exdisplay).
      - alamortsubite 4y ago
        An e-bike is very expensive compared to your old hybrid, but it's dirt cheap compared to an automobile.
        ThunderSizzle 4y ago
        Perhaps, except that my automobile can move more people and property at a much farther distance while being protected from the environment, both the natural environment and the environment of a high speed highway.
        eesmith 4y ago
        As an ancestor comment by Vinnl points out, "The study authors recognise that not everyone lives in a cycle-friendly place - but call for an “urgent” expansion of cycling infrastructure worldwide." If you are a plumber making home visits in suburbs best accessed through a high speed highway, and need to have supplies and tools with you, then of course a vehicle is better. If you are a wind surfer, and need something to carry your gear with you back and forth to the beach, then of course a vehicle is better. There are many people in exactly the situation you are, and for good reasons need a vehicle. But those needs don't represent everyone. And with the right infrastructure, some things which require a car now, disappear. If the kids can (e)bike to/from after-school events, then there's much less need for one of the parents to be a dedicated chauffeur. With frequent bus service, it's easier to take the bus into town, so perhaps a family doesn't need one car per adult. When those who decide to go car-free still need to be able to move more people and property, they use a taxi, rent a car, or join a car share club, depending on their needs. But it's not easy! 50 years ago Amsterdam was car-centered, like US cities. It took decades to get where they are now. The point is to learn from that experience, not reject the possibility outright.
- scoofy 4y ago
  Even in San Francisco, the second densest major city in America, the automobile lobby put a proposition on the ballot to remove the only car-free street in the city. The amount of push back from the against any infrastructure that limits the automobile here is so overwhelming, it's completely ridiculous. I've been pushing for more cycling infrastructure my entire adult life. In NYC, Austin, and SF. Basically the only way to get it done is for the politicians to actually take a risk like Bloomberg did, and just do it by fiat. So long as you're trying to build a cycling system, the existing NIMBY populace will freak out.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    And this shows the fundamental problem: it's the people themselves, the voting public, who in car-centric places oppose any attempts at making the place less car-centric. Then they whine about how it's infeasible to be less car-centric. Yes, that's true: it's because they, themselves, have opposed such efforts!
nix23 4y ago
Well, if you live in a democracy it's at least partially your fault that your city is like it is.
- voisin 4y ago
  Not if you weren’t alive and voting in the 50s and 60s when main infrastructure in most cities was laid. It isn’t a tabula rasa for each generation!
  - throwaway049 4y ago
    Or, for quite a lot of Europeans on here, the 1850s and 60s
    - alamortsubite 4y ago
      Not really. We're talking about car-oriented infrastructure, which came about in Europe at the same time it did in the U.S. (even a bit later, if we're being honest).
  - nix23 4y ago
    The Dutch made the bike-lanes after the 60s ;) >It isn’t a tabula rasa for each generation! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city -> that easy ;)
  - sebazzz 4y ago
    So was in the Netherlands. But infrastructure can be changed piece by piece. Rotterdam restarted as a car centric city after WWII.

johncoltrane 4y ago

Yeah, 1.70% is less impressive than 700M.

alamortsubite 4y ago
Maybe, but the potential health benefits mentioned in the article are more impressive than either: People who cycle to work have a 45 per cent lower risk of developing cancer, and a 46 per cent lower risk of cardiovascular disease.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  But what is the carbon footprint of all those people living longer?
  - luckylion 4y ago
    And the impact on the pension system. 5 more years will easily mean 15-25% higher payout that needs to be funded.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    If this mattered, then we should just limit everyone to 30 years. Why stop there? This is insane thought path under the guise of caring for the planet.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      >If this mattered, then we should just limit everyone to 30 years. And when their 30 years is up, then we can have a celebration called Carrousel to eliminate them. Anyone who tries to escape this will be chased by the Sandmen.
      - readthenotes1 4y ago
        Or go on a Logan's Run!

vt85 4y ago

[dead]

fatneckbeard 4y ago

that's because the dutch had a massive social movement to completely reorganize their transportation infrastructure and bulldoze segregated bicycle paths through the entire cityscape, it was called "Stop Child Murders" https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-nl-roads/ https://www.dutchreach.org/car-child-murder-protests-safer-n...

rambambram 4y ago

I live in Nijmegen where I cycle a lot. I also lived in Arnhem where I was situated near some very steep hills, for some years I almost didn't cycle there and walked a lot. I guess walking is also good, but my point is: one needs enough flatness to make cycling attractive. Cycling in cities like Amsterdam is totally not attractive to me, just too busy with bikes. ;)

alamortsubite 4y ago
The obstacle to cycling posed by steep hills is being diminished greatly by e-bikes. Unfortunately, the problem with traffic in Amsterdam is not, but I think that only serves to reinforce how attractive bikes are for commuting. It reminds me of the old joke attributed to Yogi Berra, "nobody goes there anymore- it's too crowded."
- dzhiurgis 4y ago
  How about long distances? Even zooming on ebike it still takes ages, even longer if you are on a bike line, obeying speed limit. Climate is another factor - in a hot weather it’s actually nice to be on ebike (other than sunburn), but rain and cold climates suck. In NL public transport always used to fill up on a bad day.
nroets 4y ago
I'd much rather cycle in busy Amsterdam than drive in congested Los Angeles, Paris, Tbilisi, HCMC etc.
dvko 4y ago
Driving in Amsterdam is much worse than cycling there… But yes, planning a city to support safe cycling while also having decent public transportation is important, I guess. We just need less car centrism.
Vinnl 4y ago
While technically true, there's still so much improvement to be had in flat-enough places that that's basically irrelevant for a while. Cities like London, Berlin or Paris are totally fine for cycling when it comes to flatness, and I'm sure many others that I'm less familiar with are too. And with electric bicycles, even cities like Arnhem are perfectly doable, as long as the infrastructure's up for it.

melling 4y ago

Wow, another crazy silly idea that requires huge behavior change. Did you know there are only 8500 coal power plants in the entire world, and they produce 20% of CO2 emissions? In fact it’s only a subset of those that are really bad. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power-plants-release-73-percent-global-electricity-production-emissions-180978355/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/five-percent-power... Decades and decades of “don’t eat meat”, “don’t fly”, … And all we had to do was stop using coal a couple decades ago.

eloff 4y ago
That’s not sufficient either, but it’s THE logical starting point. I feel like our politicians are too inept to deal with the issue of climate change. We need an engineering mindset.
- melling 4y ago
  I imagine reducing emissions by 20% tomorrow buys us a bit more time. Another decade of R&D… Wouldn’t it be better to be talking about 2060 instead of 2050? The longer we do “nothing”, the more miracles we need.
  - eloff 4y ago
    Or the longer we do ineffective things instead of tackling the low hanging fruit, the harder the problem will be.
nroets 4y ago
So a country like South Africa can just turn off their coal plants and continue as normal ? Of course not ! They will go bankrupt ! Solar+storage is still too expensive ! Whereas if the US consumer stop buying oversize trucks and stop flying cross country for social events, they will actually save money! It's simply not equatable to expect a poor country like South Africa to make sacrifices while the US (a rich country) refuse to levy a carbon tax.
- 4y ago

janalsncm 4y ago

A more tractable (in North America) way to reduce emissions: allow remote work. RTO was framed as a worker’s rights issue. It was that. But it was also an environmental issue. RTO is horrible for the planet.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

aww_dang 4y ago

Most people are simply not willing to bicycle. There are any number of reasons given. Many would express a desire to cycle more in an idealistic sense. It is similar to someone who expresses a desire to quit smoking next week or start a new diet. If people want to drive cars everywhere, that's a lifestyle choice they make. There's no need to make excuses for it. If they are happier, why not? Bicycling infrastructure is popularly cited as a reason, but this is an incomplete picture. I appreciate that some scenarios are intimidating to novice cyclists, but this is where skill building and progressive improvements in awareness, technique and fitness play a role. If people truly desired to use bicycles they might choose to live within 20 miles of their workplace and develop their cycling abilities incrementally. If this discussion is like any of the others which have been posted, we will see excuses where it is both too hot and too cold for posters to bicycle. Never mind the workarounds for these issues. If they are not comfortable, that's okay. These are not the voices which should be given precedence when we consider what bicycle infrastructure should look like. It isn't unreasonable to listen to these complaints about how impractical cycling is for their situations. There are many who will never become cyclists under any conditions. It is understandable given the political implications of the green agenda that posters wouldn't be forthcoming with these preferences. The result of this posturing is an ever changing set of trends for what cycling infrastructure should look like. An ideal tomorrow which can never come.

Vinnl 4y ago
> Most people are simply not willing to bicycle. That statement does not seem to mesh with statistics in the Netherlands [1]. Possibly people are simply not willing to bicycle using bad/unsafe infrastructure. Which, I should note, is not an "ideal tomorrow", but pretty good reality for a couple of decades already. [1] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/personen/fietsen https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/pe... - "Dutch people aged 6 and above on average used a bicycle 0.8 times a day."
- aww_dang 4y ago
  In a previous lifetime I was a bicycle courier in the US. We rode around the city comfortably with traffic. It was as safe as we wanted to be. One of the unsafe points has always been the dedicated bike lanes. Drivers never expect you at that speed at that place on the road. People coming in or out of megamart parking lots have the wrong expectations or cannot judge speed well. Drivers attempting to make a right on red will overtake and t-bone the cyclist. Next, they added ridiculous fixed orange cones to the bicycle lanes. Now you cannot perform a lane change safely. Similarly, the bike paths have blind corners, people on in-line skates, joggers, women with baby strollers and other hazards. Not to mention the advantages of drafting a mid sized SUV or box truck. Moving with traffic is just better. The typical scenario in the US will have one or two points along a route where the novice cyclist is exposed to a road which makes them uncomfortable. With adequate planning a route can be selected which is appropriate to their skill level. Of course this is far from the ideal world of cycling. But if users were serious about their interests they could start now. Not sure it is reasonable to expect the rest of the world to become Dutch. There's more to say for the Dutch than just the geography (Posters here object to cycling on hills. If they loved cycling they would seek them out.) or the infrastructure. There's also the cultural values of thrift and efficiency. The avoidance of credit. Of the Dutch that I've known, they generally disdain a flashy automobile as a foolish purchase. You won't gain status pushing a bicycle in the US. Maybe for young angsty bicycle couriers there was an appeal in showing the world how indestructible we were. What is left is just empty green posturing... "I would ride a bicycle to work, but the gov. didn't tax and spend enough on my ever changing ideal of a fantasy bicycling experience. Oh btw, I hate pedaling or exerting myself. But yeah, I totally love bicycles. Except when it is raining, snowing or sunny. I love bicycling so much that I know how everyone else should ride..." https://www.moneyonthemind.org/post/the-influence-of-culture-on-conspicuous-consumption#:~:text=And%20in%20the%20Netherlands%2C%20the%20idea%20of%20blowing%20through%20money%20to%20show%20other%20people%20that%20you%20have%20money%20is%20a%20bit%2C%20weird https://www.moneyonthemind.org/post/the-influence-of-culture....

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

NickC25 4y ago

What we honestly need is to make sure all major cities have substantial public transportation infrastructure as well, so that people's incentives to drive are much lower. People need to be walking more, biking more, and taking public transportation more. I personally live in a crowded area of a fairly large city, but not a huge one. Anywhere I have to go that's within 1 mile of me, I walk. 2 miles, I bike. 3 miles or greater and within the city limits, I take the free public trolley and metro. I only drive when I absolutely need to. This mentality needs to not be limited to just me. We also as a society need to realize that urban sprawl is a really bad thing.

metacritic12 4y ago
While I like that sentiment and personally I fit into your lifestyle, I think it's worth considering the tradeoffs. Europe does the above because they have too -- their population density is huge and they historically hit the max humans / land ratio (given historic food production technology at the time). This is eminently not true for the Americas and much of Oceania. The massive amounts of land in the latter areas are probably one of a few primary factors in why there is so much sprawl there. In particular, I think many people fundamentally enjoy single family homes with a lawn, or having more space even within a city. Once you have a region (e.g. Bay Area) with enough people with single family homes, the road network has a network effect and a phase transition that suddenly favors car.
- lonelyasacloud 4y ago
  > In particular, I think many people fundamentally enjoy single family homes with a lawn, or having more space even within a city. In that case surely it's better not to fill what land we have with roads and car parks?
  - dzhiurgis 4y ago
    Other than rush hour traffic I don’t have problems with cars i suburbs - they work really well if you work from home. I am pro bike lines and public transport tho which would do nothing to my weekly drive to get groceries.

byteman 4y ago

[flagged]

michaelaiello 4y ago

What time horizon are we solving for? I recall a case study (apologies I do not have the reference) in business school that if everyone cycled as suggested in the article - life expectancy would increase significantly for the population leading to more carbon emissions in the long run.

JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago

If we all lived like the Dutch global emissions would rise by 3-4bn tonnes (back of the napkin math). That is IF each and every country had the standard of living that the Netherlands enjoy. Very easy to baamboozle people with hypotheticals constrained to just one fundamental.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

How much CO2 would be required to re-construct the road infrastructures of all the world to match the bike friendliness of the netherlands?

alamortsubite 4y ago
A crap-ton less than merely maintaining that same infrastructure for automobiles.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  They should do the math and show us by making the full case.

3327 4y ago

[dead]

kkfx 4y ago

Allow me a little game: what the Dutch who do most of their trip by bike eat? Because today too many pseudo-ecologist claim the live at 0km, meaning they do anything in a small enough area to move just by feet and bike. HOWEVER they omit in their computing the other humans who work to serve them. Time ago a friend claim he live at 0km and we start a little game: let's show what you eat&drink! The 0km bread bought from a local shop actually was made with a flower+the rest prepared by a local company roughly 800km away, with the flower itself from Ukraine, leavening agents from Turkey, salt from Spain. Oh that's just the bread. The locally bought seasonal fruits, let's say and apple came from north-est Italy, and I choose the apple as an example because they are normally collected one season before stored in a CO₂-saturated place and oxygenated a bit before going to customers-stores (so they look bright and big). If we try the locally bought "fresh" shrimp some are from India, some from Ecuador, they are fresh (in temperature sense) for sure, but seeing their color they are ALSO pre-cooked with a bit of steam before being packed and so on. Personally having left (few years BEFORE covid) the dense European urbe for the Alps I change a bit my behaviors like I now bought not-that-small quantity of anything and stock them at home, it's MORE comfy for me, just going to the garage opening some freezer/wardrobes etc instead of going shopping just for a single item. The result is that compared I produce FAR LESS packages waste, I tend to eat more healthy foods and I even tend to pay most of the LESS. Stock them is also not that complicated at all, yes it might took a bit of time regularly, but it's really a little bit, and a small investments in fridges/freezer and so on. But again NOTHING really "extreme". I have two cars, one diesel one electric, I refuel both at home, the diesel one with a 1000l liters jar with a simple tube+spilling pistol filled up casually by a tank truck, witch means I and the supply chain combined burn LESS fuel to resupply than those who resupply continuously with their own engines. Again, nothing really special. Diesel it's not explosive, does not produce dangerous gases and can be stored for very long periods. Oh, and at any (regular) strike I never have to go wasting hours to resupply for having a bit of a very small reserve. Long story short: PROBABLY (I can't compute everything) the most sustainable way of living is being spread in large not too dense, not too little dense areas pushing a distributed economy coupled with an effective PUBLIC logistic platform (to avoid the old classic Rockefeller/Standard Oil or now Amazon "market distortions") where we can evolve, meaning the density is sufficient to interact, have a reborn economy of scale that's now totally lost in cities, but not too much to impede redesign of anything, starting from residential buildings who can't really evolve in dense cities in Green New Deal terms or even in mere "they are EOL, we need to demolish them before they collapse", where there is room to evolve. Let's say future drone deliveries, fly cars etc. ALSO such areas are FAR LESS problematic to handle in case of catastrophic events (not even extreme like a nuclear strike eh! Just mere floods, wildfires, earthquakes, landslides etc). This probably live a big problem: too much population? That probably imply without having the gut to tell it directly that someone want to push "waste" humanity in modern slavery situations depicted as nice walled gardens, eco friendly etc. The issue is that such move can't work well not only for those internees but for the humanity at a whole. We are a society, it's normal to have rich and poor, but more than a certain level the result is a crash unhealthy for ALL.

28304283409234 4y ago

I just sold my car. After 12 years or so I'm back to bikes and public transport. It was an interesting mental battle that took me about 8 months to win. And I'm a greenhearted leftist that votes for the Animal Party here in NL! The decision to move to carless is just really really hard. Even in a country that is so bike friendly. In the end, it's not about the bike, or the car. But the ideas that it represents: the illusions of freedom, choice, safety.

kderbyma 4y ago

I walk, bike, transit, and almost never take a car. my city is a car city, but it's still walkable. biking is faster during the summer for anything downtown, walking is better for anything 5 minutes away, and transit covers the longer distances. I walked 200+ city blocks yesterday while I went across the city and diff places. Walking is also great exercise at those lengths and you go to bed like you just ran at the gym.

brudgers 4y ago

The Netherlands is flat, so cycling like the Dutch would require not just changing infrastructure and social behavior, but changing the landscape in many places where people live as well...Amsterdam is known for it's canals, San Francisco for its hills -- e.g. the highest natural point in San Francisco (area 121 km^2) is 283m, the highest point in the entire Netherlands (area 41,500 km^2) is less than 40m higher. I'm not saying the idea of everybody biking like the Dutch is as absurd as the idea of everybody boating like the Venetians, but it ignores the role of landscape in a similar way.

blastonico 4y ago

The Netherlands is plane, dense, safe, and small. Not sure if it will work in my 3rd world country. Besides, you'll be cooked under 30C (86F) to 40C(104F) degrees.

SecurityMinded 4y ago

Yeah, cycling in the US gets you nowhere fast. Netherlands is only one and a half times as big as State of Maryland and cities are built vertically rather than spread out. If your daily commute is less than a mile, like most of these people's are, you can even walk to work. Being ridiculous obviously has no limits.