3 ms·

I guess the question is do we think twice as many tornadoes a year and billions of dollars in coastal property lost is a fair trade off for a small percentage o

I guess the question is do we think twice as many tornadoes a year and billions of dollars in coastal property lost is a fair trade off for a small percentage of people getting to live in the sticks. Seems easy if you're not the one paying for the cleanup I guess, except if you're a taxpayer then ultimately you will be.

dyauspitr 2y ago
Automobiles, especially if they’re electric contribute relatively little to overall climate change (6-9% currently for ICE vehicles). Your proposed justification is a ridiculous reason to force people to live in coops.
- Turskarama 2y ago
  A walkable city and a coop are not the same thing, but anyway here are some more justifications. Even if you discount CO2, cars still produce a lot of plastic waste in the form of tyre wear, estimated as about 9% of that currently produced (https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Breaki...). EVs actually produce _more_ of this because of their weight. Cars are also the primary source of noise pollution (again, even EVs) and are responsible for a considerably number of deaths (number 1 cause of deaths outside of disease). Road maintainance is also one of the highest financial burdens on towns, to the extent that towns actually are unable to pay for their own road maintainance at all and taxes from people living in cities needs to make up the shortfall. A massive reduction in driving would constitute an enormous cost reduction for the federal government, allowing taxes to be allocated to other sectors. Maybe none of these seem particularly compelling by itself, but taken together it adds up to a lot of reasons to reduce car reliance to whatever extent we can.
- RGamma 2y ago
  The ecological impact of the transitive hull of car infrastructure is far greater. Consider sand and lithium extraction, noise and particulate pollution.

dyauspitr 2y ago

Automobiles, especially if they’re electric contribute relatively little to overall climate change (6-9% currently for ICE vehicles). Your proposed justification is a ridiculous reason to force people to live in coops.

Turskarama 2y ago
A walkable city and a coop are not the same thing, but anyway here are some more justifications. Even if you discount CO2, cars still produce a lot of plastic waste in the form of tyre wear, estimated as about 9% of that currently produced (https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BreakingThePlasticWave_MainReport.pdf https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Breaki...). EVs actually produce _more_ of this because of their weight. Cars are also the primary source of noise pollution (again, even EVs) and are responsible for a considerably number of deaths (number 1 cause of deaths outside of disease). Road maintainance is also one of the highest financial burdens on towns, to the extent that towns actually are unable to pay for their own road maintainance at all and taxes from people living in cities needs to make up the shortfall. A massive reduction in driving would constitute an enormous cost reduction for the federal government, allowing taxes to be allocated to other sectors. Maybe none of these seem particularly compelling by itself, but taken together it adds up to a lot of reasons to reduce car reliance to whatever extent we can.
RGamma 2y ago
The ecological impact of the transitive hull of car infrastructure is far greater. Consider sand and lithium extraction, noise and particulate pollution.