3 ms·
These 3 reputable, scientifically backed, sources disagree with your anecdote: United Nations: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2021/10/transpor
by quitit 2y ago
These 3 reputable, scientifically backed, sources disagree with your anecdote:
United Nations:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2021/10/transport-transformation-critical-to-address-climate-change-and-universal-access-to-safe-affordable-resilient-mobility/ https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2021/10/trans...
US Department of Transport:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/climate-challenge https://www.transit.dot.gov/climate-challenge
WRI:
https://www.wri.org/insights/current-state-of-public-transport-climate-goals https://www.wri.org/insights/current-state-of-public-transpo...
- hagbard_c 2y agoIdeology and science do not mix well. The "UN Sustainable Development Goals", the current Biden/Harris-led DOT and the WRI are ideologically driven and use "Science" - in quotes because the term does not denote use of the scientific method but rather the institutional credibility, whether the scientific method was followed or not - to justify their targets and actions. Keep that in mind when you refer to these (and similarly ideologically driven) institutions as 'reputable, scientifically backed, sources'. Do I need to add that the opponents of these organisations and institutions can also be ideologically driven? I hope not, that should be clear. Check your sources for ideological bias - no matter whether you happen to agree with that bias or not - and take that into account when you use them to defend or oppose a viewpoint.