4 ms·
> I would rather focus our efforts on improved density There are many places in the Midwestern US where there will never be density and the people there don't
by PretzelPirate 3y ago
> I would rather focus our efforts on improved density
There are many places in the Midwestern US where there will never be density and the people there don't want it. In those places, people drive everywhere. Shouldn't we try and make their transportation less damaging to the environment? Public transportation isn't practical there due to the size of the area and the lack of density (which won't change).
It's easier to give people better tools than it is to try and change how they live their entire lives.
- snapplebobapple 3y agoThe short answer to that is: No. The long answer to that is: Change zoning so that people can actually respond to a carbon tax that is high enough to capture the externalities of using gasoline and people will make choices that are better for the environment, while being the best for their particular needs, all on their own (You don't need to make the current thing illegal and you don't need to leave this with the NIMBY captured city government either, you can push allowances at higher levels of government that are not as NIMBY captured). The extremely inelastic demand for gasoline is largely driven by the geography of cities, which is directly dictated by zoning and building codes that force extremely low density, large dwellings. Change the zoning, change the cost of petrol and people will demand smaller and denser, which makes public transit and maintained bicycle infrastructure feasible, which increases elasticity of gasoline demand and in turn lowers the carbon tax needed to drive lower usage. It's a vicious or beautiful cycle all driven by what is allowed and not allowed in your zoning and building codes.