• HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I hate to be the one to break this to you, but people travelled in the country before cars were invented

    • wsweg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Really? You mean when people in rural areas had to stay overnight if they went to town for supplies because the trip there took so long? And that’s before a century of planning around the convenience of cars.

      • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I mean then. Some people got used to driving their SUV 200km into town to get a haircut and buy out of season fruit every saturday. And that lifestyle relies on unsustainable and dangerous technologies that we can’t afford to keep running. It was never going to be permanent. If you want metropolitan conveniences, you’re going to have to live in a metropolitan area. This isn’t difficult logic.

        • wsweg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Let’s say you need a plumber to come fix a leak. How does he get his tools and supplies there? On his mule and cart?

          For this example I’ll use the US average commute of 27.6 miles (44.4 km) one way. Based on what I looked up, a donkey pulling a cart is ~4.5 mp/h (7.2 km/h). That’s 12 hours of travel time there and back. Help me understand how this is reasonable.

            • wsweg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, most traffic isn’t. A large portion of the population would be just as well off if they used public transport. However, there’s also a portion that the complete banning of road vehicles would be extremely detrimental to their livelihoods.

          • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            He loads up his hand cart with his tools, he walks 500m to the train station, he travels 43.4 km on the train, and then he walks 500m to my house.

            • wsweg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Where’s all this rail infrastructure coming from? If cars are banned it will take exponentially longer to complete. What does the population do in the meantime?

              • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think 5 years is a reasonable span of time to transition out of cars if it’s our top priority and we put all our resources into a green new deal.

              • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That is a very vague term and I don’t think my job fits neatly into blue collar or white collar. If you’re asking whether I do hands on work at jobsites, the answer is yes.

          • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Again, sufficiency and resilience. If you live in a rural space, you learn to fix shit yourself. Famously: tractors.

            If you believe that rural just means “own a house in a village or next to a town”, that’s not it, that’s tourism. That’s like owning a cabin in the woods or like the car-dependent suburbia. What makes you a rural dweller is participation in the rural economy or subsistence living. If you live like a guest, you are a guest.

            • wsweg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Based on your replies to my comments, I agree with you a lot. I haven’t been saying that we shouldn’t transition away from car-focused infrastructure and living. Rather, OP’s pipe-dream of banning cars and solving the infrastructure/living issue in 5 years is ridiculous.

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, you “went into town/city” rarely. Rural life meant a lot of local sufficiency.

        Commuting was not a thing. Only trains started to make that an option.

        • BassTurd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It depends how far back you want to go, but it absolutely was true.

          Ignoring that fact, everything is designed around car transportation. You can’t just kill that off in any reasonable amount of time with a different solution. You’re talking no less than 50+ years if that is the main focus, ignoring all of the other much more significant issues. Rails don’t just pop-up. Rural living residents and small townships aren’t just gonna up and leave. Cars are here to stay, the best you can hope for is better public transport, some functional rails, and realistically, more efficient vehicles. Welcome to reality.

          • SwingingTheLamp
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If that’s true, and it’s going to take 50+ years, shouldn’t we start, like, now?

            • wsweg@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Which is why it’s not the right solution to emitting less pollution. It would take far longer than we have until we’ve fucked the planet completely at the rate. That’s why switching to green vehicles is a far more achievable goal. Humans are selfish and they’ll burn the world if their short-term livelihood is at stake.

              • SwingingTheLamp
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Green” vehicles aren’t doing to do it, though. They solve the problem of tailpipe emissions, yes, but not the resources needed to manufacture, operate, and dispose of them. I saw an infographic recently that pointed out than an electric car uses (generously speaking) only about 2/3 of the energy of an ICE car over its whole lifecycle. That’s… good, but not enough. It also doesn’t account for the direct CO2 emissions from the chemical process of curing concrete. EVs still need concrete to run on.

                Also, CO2 emissions are not the whole story on how cars fuck the planet. There are the lifecycle resources, all of the plastic, glass, and metal, which still take fossil fuels to produce, either as a raw material, or as energy. There’s ecological destruction to get those resources, to get the resources to build the roads, to clear the space for the roads, for the sprawl that they facilitate, in the fragmentation of habitat, and the heavy toll taken on wildlife directly by roadkill. There’s also the pollution, like PM2.5 from tires, which causes asthma and heart disease in humans, and runs off into waterways and destroys zooplankton. There’s groundwater, lakes and streams becoming saline from widespread use of road salt.

                I mean, we’re in the midst of a sixth mass extinction event on Earth, and it’s only fractionally driven by climate change. Automobiles, even the “green” variety, contribute greatly to the problem.

            • BassTurd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Cars will be around for our entire lifetimes. I do think that having a modern rail system in place would be great, to complement cars. In cities it’s easier and makes more sense, but there will never be a train that comes to my house, and if there is, I’m moving, because I sure as shit don’t want to live next to a train. I’d love to be able to jump on a cross Continental, high speed rail to go on affordable trips, but that isn’t possible and won’t be. As long as I can pay roughly the same for a flight to my destination, and get there significantly faster, I will probably never opt for a slower option, and I’m definitely not in the minority by saying that.

              With that said, assuming we spend the next 50 years eliminating cars and moving to rails, it still won’t touch emissions, because cars are not the leader and are continuing to get better and more efficient. So starting now would be convenient and not a bad idea, but it won’t change anything substantial from an emissions standpoint.

              • SwingingTheLamp
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                In 2021, transportation accounted for 28% of U.S. CO2 emissions, the largest source by economic sector. Absolutely, we need to address cars to reduce emissions; they’re not getting that much better. Getting rid of them won’t fix the problem, but conversely, fixing the problem requires getting rid of most of them. But why does it have to be rails? What if it was a café near your house? A doctor’s practice? A bookstore? It’s not foreordained that everything has to be so far apart that you need motorized transport (car or train) to get to it. The large majority of car trips Americans take are short distances, not cross-country journeys for which we need high-speed rail or airliners. Do away with single-use zoning, put the places people go every day close to where they live, and we eliminate the need for a huge number of daily car trips. No rails through your front yard needed.

                • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Because unless the Rockies are gonna move to the Midwest, they won’t be within walking distance of me. Having some places closer would be great, but I very deliberately chose to not live in a bustling neighborhood. If a bunch of businesses opened up on my block, I’d sell and move out. If I had to choose between a 10 minute round trip car ride to the store vs walking for 5 minutes, I will drive everytime. There’s a golf course literally a block and a half from my house, and the three times I’ve been, I’ve driven. I don’t have to be in the elements whether that’s hot, cold, snowy, or rainy and I start and finish in my garage.

                  • SwingingTheLamp
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s your choice, and as long as we stop subsidizing it, and make drivers pay the full cost (direct and indirect), I’m fine with that.

          • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We don’t have 50 years. As Bill Nye said, the planet’s on fucking fire. Emit less carbon, motherfuckers.

            • BassTurd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Cars aren’t the main problem. They are a factor, yes, but not the big fish. Good thing EVs are become more mainstream and as technology progresses, they will be the dominant choice. Trying to get rid of all cars is quite frankly fucking stupid.

              • HardlightCereal@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                We need net zero by 2030. We need to turn that 100% of CO2 into 0%. Cars are 12.1%. Cars are our second priory behind manufacturing and construction, and we need to eliminate ALL of the priorities. No half measures.