3 ms·
> It’s unlikely that Schalkx will drive 12,000 km per year, and so, ultimately, he will produce less pollution than the drivers of more sustainable-looking cars
by tsimionescu 3y ago
> It’s unlikely that Schalkx will drive 12,000 km per year, and so, ultimately, he will produce less pollution than the drivers of more sustainable-looking cars that face none of these problems.
> Somehow, the Dutch authorities, who are not known for their permissivity, officially approved the car after inspection. Schalkx drives tax-free and – thanks to his car being an oldtimer – can enter low-emission zones, where he parks alongside the latest electric SUV. Justice is not yet out of this world.
To me this seems to be an overall endorsement of the project as an environmentally friendly idea.
- h0l0cube 3y agoIt's a bit of a wild interpretation that the author claims that making driving unpleasant is an effective way of reducing carbon emissions. The second quote seems more a wry observation from someone who has disdain for wealthy people. And of course you can cherry pick the one or two positive notes from the article but then you'd have to ignore: > the CO2 emissions from fuel production and combustion are not praiseworthy > Nobody in their right mind would propose a switch to cars fuelled by plastic waste. > The car is not a pleasure to drive, at least not regularly. It is dirty. Its interior stinks of plastic, which cannot be healthy I'm not sure how this could be an overall endorsement.