Observe wrote: ↑
Fri, 16. Aug 19, 20:12
Ultimately, we need to stop driving anywhere as much as possible. Our large population centers (cities) probably should ban personal vehicles altogether. Air travel should also be illegal under most circumstances. Buying a product from Amazon and having it delivered in one or two days should include carbon taxes to cover the environmental impact of such expediency.
Here is the thing, do you know that most people live in Downtown already don't drive? I mean ... why would they?
- Super expensive parking fee.
- Work and shopping are usually within walking/distance.
- Most place in old downtowns are single or double lane traffics.
So ... where do you think all the cars come from? It's mainly from people who had to commute from the suburb to the city to work. You can see clear evidence of this in the winter in place like Denver. On heavy Snowdays that you would expect slow and congestion, the metro area is usually "empty", you're like ... having the whole boulevard to yourself in the morning. It's not because people staying at home, it's because all in the inbound traffic got stuck on the highways leading into the city, which made up the majority of the rush hour commune. Then after those traffic trickle in during the day, in the evening it's the Metro traffic that takes turn becoming a shit show because people try to leave the city. Trust me, people in the city limit don't drive, or drive very little. In fact, try to look up research on this, there are several out there that break down the #of mile drive by population, age group ...etc... the Metro people are at the bottom in term of average mileage per year.
Advocating for people to not drive or drive less is one thing, but that's merely empty drivel if you don't provide them with meaningful alternative. Will you pay the bill for a family who have already spent 2h commune to get to work even if they drive, otherwise I don't see how they can keep their job. I personally know someone who take a 4h commune EVERYDAY to go to college via public transportation, God bless his heart for what he does, but the only reason he can do it because he's an old man, retired, and only do 2 classes per semester for fun.
I know people tend to make fun about "America loves their car" joke, but there is one thing they tend to forget is just how freaking big this country is. You should take a look at the map of our population distribution, and you will realize not even when we have something as good as the Japanese has, it will not become a completely substitute for cars. And heck, I think even our best system is still about 20 years behind what the Japanese currently has.
Buying a product from Amazon and having it delivered in one or two days should include carbon taxes to cover the environmental impact of such expediency.
How is that any different than me going to the supermarket in my own car? Why single out Amazon? In fact, isn't in this case it's actually better to shop from a place like Amazon? I mean ... it's like taking the bus to work instead of driving your own car. Have one truck deliver items to 100 houses a day is better than having 100 cars driving to the shop seperately surely? Adding the fact that the delivery truck will most likely be operated base on the most efficient route, while the 100 cars will not since they will at least waste half of the distance on the round trip. I don't think you really thought this example through.
So yeah, in many ways, electric cars are just sticking a new label on an old problem and kicking the can down the street for someone else to throw in the trash.
Do you remember the sequestration a few years ago and why we do it? I'm not talking about logic here, I'm talking about "mentality", and sadly mentality a lot of time doesn't follow logic. Sometime we take up extreme action and even have to refuse small corrective measure for the sake of something actually matter to happen. You can give a man a fish every day, or you can teach him how to fish, and a lot of time even after that, you might have let him have a taste of starvation to work up that motivation of fishing for himself.
Still, buying a gasoline car because electric isn't a perfect solution,
I don't see electric car in this environment a non-perfect solution, I see it as a "pointless" solution. It have large upfront cost while does not result in a net positive for the environment. It's like a farmer try to save water by cutting down his shower time from 5m to 3m, while continue wasting thousand of gallons on poor farming practice.
is kind of like saying let's not outlaw guns, because outlaws will still be able to get them. We know we are in dire straits, but let's ignore solutions until we find the perfect one. There is no "perfect" solution to the climate change problem, short of putting a dam on our excessive consumption.
Nope, I don't see it like that at all. The difference between our views you are trying to sell it as a "somewhat a solution", while I don't see it that way. The way I see this is more like you're trying to tell people to help putting a fire with a bottle of water because "hey it's something". The day I see our grid draw less than 30% from fossil fuel, I'll consider an electric car. But right now like I said, I'm pretty sure my gasoline car does less damage to the environment than the supposed "clean energy run car" but technically run on coal.