4 ms·

And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours

And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. > I never buy this, because corporate behaviours are driven by the market, which is driven by public behaviours. I’ve heard this many times, but it’s simply not true. There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. However, when something is required to maintain your job or current state of living, people will accept the corporate greed. No one but Adobe was happier because Photoshop removed ownership, but people need Photoshop for their work and have to live with it. No one wanted lightbulbs that die earlier than before, but that’s all they sell. And don’t even get me started on the righteous anger felt over the fact that Apple made ewaste trendy. Also, you obviously haven’t seen how much CO2 a 10kHP engine puts out after an 8 hour shift. > So regulating the oil companies and making fuel so expensive that people can't drive their cars appears to be the only way to do this. I’m glad you are far away from America, because even in Europe this is a hilariously stupid idea. Sure let’s just leave a large chunk of society stranded at home with no ability to have a job, they’ll surely be happy we “saved the planet” by cutting out minor CO2 emissions while corporate greed leads to mass produced garbage. > So I don't really understand I’m not surprised, considering your radical views.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
So what do you think the answer is?
- kbelder 3y ago
  Slow transition to electric cars coupled with a large investment in nuclear energy.
gochi 3y ago
>And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses. So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!
palata 3y ago
> And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. Hmm without saying that Americans need to do without a car entirely (because the country screwed up in that sense), I am pretty sure that in many situations, it is possible to not use a car. My experience is that Americans tend to not even consider taking a bike for a short ride. I have been in multiple places where I would use the electric scooters or bikes (bikes are better) for relatively short distances (say less than 30min), and I was often not much slower than with a car.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Even unpowered bikes are disappearing from regular use due to rampant theft. It’s sad.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Yes, this is a big factor. Where I live (around silicon valley area) I can easily bike to nearly everything I need. But! Secure bike parking is rarely available. So my bike is guaranteed to be stolen. So the result is I either walk (if within ~10 minute walk) or drive. I'm a cyclist so I'd love to bike everywhere but without secure bike parking, can't happen.
    - palata 3y ago
      I find it a bit sad that (secure) bike parking is missing in a country where it honestly feels like half of the constructed territory is parking lots. Not a criticism, but the area covered by parking lots in the US shocks me every time I visit. Instead of making half-working heavy autonomous electric cars, couldn't Silicon Valley somehow find a low-tech way to solve the secure bike parking issue? They are good at claiming that they want a better world, and this should not be rocket science.
      - 3y ago
noobermin 3y ago
The only two options are not "you, individual, drive less" and "go to wall-street^W^W the office of shell gas and tell them to cut it out." A lot of americans are forced into car dependency, but at the very same time, it is very easy to drive in downtowns in the US even where it is difficult to own a car. You need to do both, both disincentivize driving on the personal level and regulate companies and change land-use patterns and street design to facilitate other modes. It's a difficult problem to solve but if you think it's an actual problem you must solve it for our future climate and the other ills car culture leaves society. As for you continuing to insist that tut-tut-ing corporations is enough, the numbers are clear that just because 1 airplane moving packages produces more carbon per km, it doesn't matter as I said above, the majority of transport emissions are passenger cars and trucks, just because they are so many of them. There is room for amelioration for industry transportation numbers but it will not matter if you just touch that and still continue existing usage in the US. Even getting to European levels of car usage would change things significantly for the US. Regardless, know putting an onerous tax on gas producers will immediately see gas prices rise for everyone, so even if it is indirect, you still are disincentivizing driving. There is no way out of this problem without disincentivizing driving. Now, of course, you have to believe this really is a problem. Because only then do you think something as difficult as changing the prioritized mode of a transport for a country is a worthwhile thing to do.
- kelnos 3y ago
  The problem with making driving more expensive (which is what happens when you try to legally disincentivize it) is that it becomes a regressive tax: lower-income folks get hurt very badly by it. The rich of course don't love paying extra for something (and, being the ones usually in power, will fight against it), but can usually bear the cost without much pain.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    It's worth remembering that the poorest, those that can't afford a car or can only afford 1 car for the family, are reliant on public transit. But yes, making driving expensive often ends up hurting the lower-middle class the most because they usually live in the least walkable areas due to historical redlining and generally commute the furthest. The fact that this is a regressive tax is a big talking point for keeping driving cheap. The problem is, the alternative is to throw money at a public transit system and nobody wants to do that either. You can make the taxes highly progressive, but even then, I doubt anyone would agree. In general the only thing to do is what activist groups are doing already; fight the local institutions (DOTs, planning departments, city council, etc.) to make the changes necessary to make getting around without a car viable, fast, comfortable, and cheap.
firebat45 3y ago
>There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. Demand, no. That would be silly. However, there was/is a demand for lower costs, which is how every single one of these anti-consumer ideas is sold to the public, and the public is fully accepting of inferior products for (theoretically) lower prices. The irony, of course, is that lower up-front costs usually mean higher costs over time, which is exactly why companies are happy to oblige. This is where the whole concept that China makes poor quality stuff comes from. China is fully capable of high quality manufacturing. However, most consumers prioritize cost over quality, and China is willing to do the same.

marcus_holmes 3y ago

So what do you think the answer is?

kbelder 3y ago
Slow transition to electric cars coupled with a large investment in nuclear energy.

gochi 3y ago

>And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. The administration has already earmarked substantial amounts for various transit programs across the country thankfully. You can find out more https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD These programs also include zero-emission transit as a primary focus where possible, such as school buses. So the solution already exists and is in action. It just takes time!

palata 3y ago

> And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. Hmm without saying that Americans need to do without a car entirely (because the country screwed up in that sense), I am pretty sure that in many situations, it is possible to not use a car. My experience is that Americans tend to not even consider taking a bike for a short ride. I have been in multiple places where I would use the electric scooters or bikes (bikes are better) for relatively short distances (say less than 30min), and I was often not much slower than with a car.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Even unpowered bikes are disappearing from regular use due to rampant theft. It’s sad.
- jjav 3y ago
  > I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Yes, this is a big factor. Where I live (around silicon valley area) I can easily bike to nearly everything I need. But! Secure bike parking is rarely available. So my bike is guaranteed to be stolen. So the result is I either walk (if within ~10 minute walk) or drive. I'm a cyclist so I'd love to bike everywhere but without secure bike parking, can't happen.
  - palata 3y ago
    I find it a bit sad that (secure) bike parking is missing in a country where it honestly feels like half of the constructed territory is parking lots. Not a criticism, but the area covered by parking lots in the US shocks me every time I visit. Instead of making half-working heavy autonomous electric cars, couldn't Silicon Valley somehow find a low-tech way to solve the secure bike parking issue? They are good at claiming that they want a better world, and this should not be rocket science.
    - 3y ago

noobermin 3y ago

The only two options are not "you, individual, drive less" and "go to wall-street^W^W the office of shell gas and tell them to cut it out." A lot of americans are forced into car dependency, but at the very same time, it is very easy to drive in downtowns in the US even where it is difficult to own a car. You need to do both, both disincentivize driving on the personal level and regulate companies and change land-use patterns and street design to facilitate other modes. It's a difficult problem to solve but if you think it's an actual problem you must solve it for our future climate and the other ills car culture leaves society. As for you continuing to insist that tut-tut-ing corporations is enough, the numbers are clear that just because 1 airplane moving packages produces more carbon per km, it doesn't matter as I said above, the majority of transport emissions are passenger cars and trucks, just because they are so many of them. There is room for amelioration for industry transportation numbers but it will not matter if you just touch that and still continue existing usage in the US. Even getting to European levels of car usage would change things significantly for the US. Regardless, know putting an onerous tax on gas producers will immediately see gas prices rise for everyone, so even if it is indirect, you still are disincentivizing driving. There is no way out of this problem without disincentivizing driving. Now, of course, you have to believe this really is a problem. Because only then do you think something as difficult as changing the prioritized mode of a transport for a country is a worthwhile thing to do.

kelnos 3y ago
The problem with making driving more expensive (which is what happens when you try to legally disincentivize it) is that it becomes a regressive tax: lower-income folks get hurt very badly by it. The rich of course don't love paying extra for something (and, being the ones usually in power, will fight against it), but can usually bear the cost without much pain.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  It's worth remembering that the poorest, those that can't afford a car or can only afford 1 car for the family, are reliant on public transit. But yes, making driving expensive often ends up hurting the lower-middle class the most because they usually live in the least walkable areas due to historical redlining and generally commute the furthest. The fact that this is a regressive tax is a big talking point for keeping driving cheap. The problem is, the alternative is to throw money at a public transit system and nobody wants to do that either. You can make the taxes highly progressive, but even then, I doubt anyone would agree. In general the only thing to do is what activist groups are doing already; fight the local institutions (DOTs, planning departments, city council, etc.) to make the changes necessary to make getting around without a car viable, fast, comfortable, and cheap.

firebat45 3y ago

>There was no demand for glued-in batteries, lightbulbs that die prematurely, or SaaS. Demand, no. That would be silly. However, there was/is a demand for lower costs, which is how every single one of these anti-consumer ideas is sold to the public, and the public is fully accepting of inferior products for (theoretically) lower prices. The irony, of course, is that lower up-front costs usually mean higher costs over time, which is exactly why companies are happy to oblige. This is where the whole concept that China makes poor quality stuff comes from. China is fully capable of high quality manufacturing. However, most consumers prioritize cost over quality, and China is willing to do the same.