We should really be investing more in public transit, it’s way better than electric cars and could be way more convenient if implemented properly
It all starts with fixing the zoning code. Cars will always be “more convenient” if we keep destroying our cities to make space catering to them.
Design a city around electric wheelchairs and you’ll have a system accessible to everyone.
Conveyor belts everywhere ♥️ no need for electric wheelchairs.
Dunno of you’re being sardonic, but that would actually be smart.
What about people with a fear of wheelchairs?
Checkmate atheists!
Go start a public transport company. If you’re right the market will reward you :)
That’s not really how that works.
When it comes to public transportation, they rarely pull a profit on their own. What they do is drive the economy in the places they go, make a city more accessible to everyone (further driving the economy), and cut costs for the city in other places. They’re a loss leader to save money and improve quality of life in a multitude of other areas by huge margins.
Everything is profitable if you raise prices. In a way you’re just offsetting a certain segment of the populations transportation costs to everyone else under that system. Maybe you could privatize the roads too and use the tolls to fund more buses which operate at a profit. Its fun think of insane libertarian free marker solutions to such problems :) Cars might be less appealing if people had to pay the associated infrastructure costs on a per km basis.
The US government subsidizes farmers by a huge amount because for every dollar they spend they get a dollar and some change back in value. This happens all across different sectors and is beneficial for everyone involved. The farmers get a new pond for free and everyone else in the US gets a reliable, cheap supply of food. It’s a win/win.
Public transport is the same way. It needs to be cheap so everyone can afford it, otherwise you leave huge swaths of the population without access to their basic needs, or you cut their already short supply of money even shorter. There’s a reason progressive tax rates are ubiquitous across the world. By supporting public transport, you send people to places they produce value or spend money, increasing taxes earned across the board, while simultaneously reducing the cost of maintaining the roads because there’s significantly less wear and tear. It’s also CHEAPER to use public teansport. Cars are goddamn expensive! Repairs, insurance, the cost of it in the first place! A ride on the bus is like $2. You’d have to TRY to ride it enough to make it more expensive.
I digress. The point is that you indirectly get more out of it than you pay into it.
We’re at a point (and have been for a few decades) that just taxing cars isn’t going to fix the problem. We’ve demolished cities to replace them with vehicle infrastructure. If you tax cars without fixing the walkability, all you’ve done is make people pay more in taxes. You have to have the infrastructure before you can incentivize using it.
The reasons for farm subsidies are… Debatable. If you keep food cheap people don’t notice currency debasement as much. Personally I think it might make more sense for prices to rise to a point where farmers are profitable without subsidies. Those subsidies are value extracted from the tax payer anyway… You’re paying for it.
You’re right too in that buses and trains are a lot cheaper and should always out compete cars. How much do you think fares would have to rise to make public transport self sufficient ? Make it so it funds its own expansion and service improvement.
The Toronto Transport Commission is my local example. From what I can napkin math they get about 1 billion dollars in subsidies per year from the city (maybe some provincial and fed money too… I rounded up generously). They collect a little over 700k fares a day. Wouldn’t take much of an increase with like almost 250 million fares a year to close that gap.
Privatize the roads and have cars users pay their share of that infrastructure cost and get the burden off of working people and I bet a small share increase would be pretty affordable.
The farm subsidies are to ensure enough farms are profitable enough to have an excess in the event we lose a ton of farmland or crop. If something happened we would not bounce back fast enough if we did not have excess, and excess would not happen if the free market pushed prices so high or low that the change in demand caused people to stop farming.
On the subject of bus fares, it’s not that simple. If bus fares increase, some people will stop riding the bus and switch to cars or other forms of transport (or not go at all) which will likely reduce fares and possibly increase congestion which would slow down the busses which would cause less people to ride them which would…
I’m not saying that’s exactly what would happen, I’m just saying you have to be careful. People only ride the bus when it’s more affordable or more convenient
Ideally taxes are progressive, whereas food price increases are always regressive. That is to say that taxes affect the rich more, and food prices affect the poor more.
Market forces don’t work for every industry. Car transportation included, think how roads exist.
Yeah I just- put that in another comment. Made a funny crack about privatising roads to incorporate the true cost of infrastructure with tolls lol. Might incentivize more people to use transit.
Im just gonna ignore the overall stupidity of going “The market will solve it” and instead point out the fact that a public transit company would almost definitionally be under the umbrella of the government. Private transit company is the term youre looking for.
Okay done. Now that I have eliminated this here my contribution to CO2 emissions, what do we do about the 100 companies that cause 70% of global CO2 emissions? Or is that no longer an issue once my car is taken out of circulation?
Transportation is a quarter of global emissions, with passenger vehicles making up half of that number and is only getting larger as more people in the world decide they need a car.
The number you’re looking for is 20 companies making up 30% of emissions. They’re almost exclusively oil companies, with more than half of them being state owned enterprises. Reduce the need for oil and you reduce the amount they pollute.
So, how do you do that?
Personal vehicles are the most flexible in terms of emissions. Increasing the usability of public transportation has a direct correlation with the number of vehicles on the road. Sure, people out in the middle of nowhere need a vehicle and nobody is looking to take that from them, but you could HALF the number of people in the US with a car if cities had proper public transport or were as walkable as they were barely 80 years ago.
The private sector is more difficult. We’d need to rebuild our train infrastructure that has been gutted and raided by our rail companies in order to get trucks off the interstate. Coincidentally, that would get MORE people off the road since you wouldn’t need a car to go between cities.
Additionally, you seem to be under the impression that we’re incapable of solving multiple problems at the same time. We can make cars unnecessarily (not GET RID of them) while also cutting emissions in other areas.
Make no mistake, we do need to address other areas, but cars are an easy target that would reduce tons of emissions and increase people’s quality of life as well. Cars are a massive waste of space and a huge ongoing drain on taxpayer dollars for very little benefit when you compare it to the alternatives.
I am not saying that we are incapable of solving multiple problems at once, I am saying that we are incapable of solving the main problem.
I was not joking when I said that my car is not a factor. My individual part in this regard is done. But the point remains that by considering the main sources of pollution too “inflexible” to tackle, it seems that we are debating about which colour to best repaint a sinking ship here while being utterly, completely powerless to address the big hole in the hull.
So in conclusion, I’ll now pat myself on the back for having done my part while sailing this doomed (but [for some at least] highly profitable) planet to hell in a handbasket.
I am saying that we are incapable of solving the main problem.
Has to be done via government. Government action is how to address many industrial practices.
But also, when you say “70% by industry”, that ignores that industry is producing stuff for us. They don’t exist without a consumer.
Absolutely right that it has to be legislated by Government and enforced. Pricing in externalities is important, but at the very least they should be accounted for/reported on honestly (and also not over-inflated).
Consumerism is complicated, of course. It is often manufactured, one way or another. From lack of viable or convenient alternatives (eg. public transport / safe walking and bicycle paths), to straight up advertising and social pressures, to incentives or requirements from above (eg. job, laws, etc.).
If we assume that you’ll have a car even if they become unnecessary, then sure, you’ve done all you’re willing to do. However there are tens of millions of people that would happily stop driving if it weren’t absolutely required to function. They have not finished doing their part. That includes me.
While we’re in cycles, the elites are riding in their luxurious car, and flying in their private jets producing all the emissions the world needs.
Yet! We have to deprive ourselves from vehicles, and they be enjoying life.
Private aviation is basically nothing in terms of emissions. Is pretty gross though.
Can you please support your statement with a reference to the source of that data?
https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
All aviation is 1.9% … Private would be a vanishingly small amount of that.
That link does not have information on the contribution of private aviation. You are assuming it.
In this BBC article on What’s the climate impact of private jets you can read that
"Emissions per kilometre travelled [using an airplane] are known to be significantly worse than any other form of transport.
(…)
Private jets generally produce significantly more emissions per passenger than commercial flights."
Yes the BBC article is correct too. Just because CO2 emissions per km travelled are high doesn’t mean they’re statistically relevant in terms of total emissions. All aviation at 1.9% is basically not a meaningful amount of CO2 if you need a 50% reduction.
When weighted for KMs travelled a riding lawn mower is probably worse than a private jet by that logic.
1.9% is significant and meaningful, objectively, mathematically and statistically. It might not feel high to you. But that is your feeling.
And I suspect you are assuming that the path, you think uses the best strategy, to reach 50% reduction on emissions is the only available. Reducing emissions of the persons with most emissions is a valid priority, and these high emitters likely include aviation emmlissions.
If you already knew the answer why did you ask?
Did I knew the source that supported the comment of /u/malaph, no, I didn’t. I don’t have premonition abilities.
Are you okay?
I mean… they’re making things for us generally. I don’t think they’re emitting recreationally. Look at a pie chart of total emissions and figure what you could cut to hit 50%. Do away with all transportation… Boats planes etc and you’re not even close.
If the average person cut out 100% of their carbon emissions for the rest on their life, they’d save, on average, the amount of CO2 that industry creates in ~1 second. Our personal emissions are but a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme. Change is best brought about by voting both metaphocally with our wallets and literally with our ballot papers.
The industries produces CO2 to provide us goods and services. Car is one of them; not using a car, not only I don’t produce gazes directly (or less), but I also don’t use something “the industry” produced CO2 for.
Why is industry creating carbon? They’re building the things we need and generating our power. Probably 100% of industrial CO2 emissions are conducted for us. This is just our emissions upstream from the things we consume directly.
Also if you cut 100% of your emissions you’d be dead. Breathing emits CO2.
Now stop consuming animals.
But now you can ride around on your high horse and look at all the scum ruining our planet with their cars.
We are never gonna have a chance against climate change if we try to plead to the individual to live a “greener” life.
Well, we are also never gonna have a chance against climate change if the individual didn’t help.
Both need to put in effort.
Which companies are those? Coca Cola, who make your drinks that you drink? Ford, who make the car you drive? One of the oil companies who fuels your car? A company that makes the clothes you wear?
It all comes down to consumers in the end - we are the end point of the chain and these mythical 100 companies exist for us. Stop ducking the issue.
Ok, so give us your plan to stop billions of people from buying cars, clothes and cola.
I, personally, would love to hear it.
As a consumer, i cant find ways to make the products i buy cause less environmental damage and i cant just stop buying clothes, and theres only one place to buy them
or food. And i can only get that from one place.
I cant suddenly not own a car, or else how do i get to work? Public transport isnt an option where i live. and i dont have a choice in how that car is made.
There are alternatives out there for all of these but they are significantly more expensive and i already live on a tight budget and cant afford to suddenly increase my spending.
If you cant see how that traps consumers and the change has to come from above then you are lost
Also theres nothing ‘mythical’ about the companies that produce 70% of the emmisions.
Thats not even the point of the argument. We are expected to separate our waste into special bins or buy electric cars (soooo expensive) or produce less waste and reduce our individual emmisions but its pointless. we can only affect 30% of the global emissions and ee wont get our individual emmisions to zero so it wont even be 30% reduced if we make all the changes we need to.
This isnt an us or them situation, companies need to be held accountable for their emissions and be forced to reduce them. They will always follow the money, consumers will get used to whatever options they are given.
I feel like bikes are a good alternative to cars. At least to address one of your points about getting to work. Even an ebike has far less total emissions than a car… Assuming people actually use them instead of just leaving it in the garage
I appreciate that i could be a fringe case hut an ebike would turn my 30-50minute commute into 1-1.4 hour journey along a dangerous road with no cycle lanes or pavement for 90% of the journey.
This would work for alot of people but not for me unfortunately
Bikes are only good for small distances.
What a better alternative for cars would be is public transport.
Just imagine if all the money and time we put into building a highway network would have been put into public transport instead.
How many people live more than 10 miles from work? I know I never have.
90% of people can ride bikes and the rest can take public transit.
I live in the Midwest too, my city is really spread out, but biking is still possible. It would even be enjoyable if there were feewer cars
How bout making government accountable for the people instead of relying on a state machine that consistently needing funds from the lobbying? We have to utilise our collective power to enforce our will onto the goverment, isn’t that how democracy works? Sure it is hardly significant for one’s contribution to the emission reduction, but we still have to voice out our concern on the matters. This particular post is one of such effort. There’s no shame on doubting OP on pushing their voice on the issue, but this community is dedicated for such problem, of course you’d expect post like this to raise the awareness.
Just like all other environmental legislation Chinese imports will just fill the void. They use mostly coal.
What if alternatives for heavy emitters like steel and concrete producers do not exist at this time… Just dictating targets might be unproductive.
Companies emissions are exclusively to provide you the consume with goods and services. Companies will respond to the marker dictated by the consumer. Really we are also driving the 70%…
Companies will respond to the marker dictated by the consumer.
This is a lie that you’ve been told by econ 101. Companies will manipulate the markets through lobbying and anticompetitive behaviours so that the consumer has no other choice.
For instance, the suburbs are not a natural outworking of market desires, they are mandated by legislation that prevents medium rise and high density urban development, which necessitates cars and also massively overloads the roads so you have terrible traffic.
This wasn’t a natural outworking of a market, but a deliberate push by capitalists to destroy public transit, build more roads, and lock you the consumer into a world in which you actually do not have any choice. This, not coincidentally, also creates the most wasteful possible way to organise our cities and transport ourselves - individualised cars and dwellings with enormous demands on space. More wasteful systems are as a rule better for capitalists because they create the largest possible market for consumables and redundant equipment.
Yeah if you want to fix zoning to increase density that’s a local government issue. I personally like having a car and large house outside of the city. I’m absolutely in support of government fixing multi residential zoning … Would have loved better options when I was younger. I’m sure a lot of developers would gladly respond to those market forces if given the option … Do you think it’s nimbys preventing that or capitalists?
We live under capitalism. That means, explicitly, that capital has all the power. To the extent nimbyism is a real problem that’s because it’s been stoked by capitalist propaganda and fueled by the artificial fear that their property prices will go down. Homeowners have been taught to think in those terms rather than about what will actually affect their quality of life because the nuance-flattening logic of the market permeates our thinking.
You show me a single home owner who’s enthusiastic about having a large multi-unit built next door … I wouldn’t be happy personally.
If you think capital has all the power look at TC energy’s keystone pipeline. Look at LNG facility approval in Canada. No shortage of capital there but those projects are dead.
If there’s demand for something (housing) markets will solve that problem you just get out of the way and let them. Capitalists would love to sell the same acre of developed realeatate to more than one person. Remember - they’re greedy.
You’re both right. We need massive systemic change, but that’s not an excuse to not do what you can in your own life. It’s really easy to get disillusioned (hell, I am half the time) but defeatism gets us nowhere.
sort of, but also not. Sure, those companies are funded by us, but they lobby governments and shit so we NEED to buy their stuff. I wouldn’t think GM would be such a big company if they didn’t get rid of all the streetcars for example
The problem is that citys are built around cars.
The first question is not how people can reach shops by foot, or with public transit. The first step is always to build streets to stuff and later figure out if you can might fit in a bus route, or maybe a cycling lane.
In the USA at least. In Europe it’s everything but perfect, of course, but at least we have some public transport in cities and between them.
But yeah, the bike paths here in Austria are just getting bigger since some years again - and every cm seems to be a hard fight…
Cities were not built around cars, they were bulldozed for the car.
Cities were built to be walkable, and had trams for everything else. Then we invented the car and General Motors essentially took america by the balls and forced everyone in americs to become dependant on the car
And Goodyear.
Fuck that blimp.
You’re whining about something that happened decades before any of us were even born.
US cities are built around cars now and that is the only life most Americans have known their entire lives. You have to fix that problem first to get what you want.
Im not whining about anything? I was just pointing out that saying cities were built around cars is just not true.
Im in agreement with you that we need to make our cities walkable again by building proper walking infrastructure and public transportation in our cities. But i disagree with OP that the way to fix it is by building more streets to things lol
The problem is that destinations are spread too far apart for walking, viable transit, etc. because the zoning code forces developers to build low density and massive amounts of parking.
I can spend 17 minutes driving to work, or 1.5 hours catching buses. Easy choice for me.
Right, that’s why we need to stop subsidizing streets and roads, make users pay the cost of them, and put the tax money toward transit. It’s really impossible to ask anybody but the most devoted to make extremely inconvenient choices. Certainly, there are some lunatics who’d drive a car even if it took 1.5 hours, but most people would choose the 17 minute bus.
Cheaper, sustainable, safer, better for mental health, better for non-drivers (children, elderly, disabled). It just makes sense.
I really underestimated the effect on my mental health. My commute takes double the time now but that’s alright because since switching to public transit, I’m getting to work and back home much calmer.
You are right, if a bus ride was 17 or even 30 minutes to work I would take the bus. But in my area a bus ride is 2 hours one way.
I also had a commute of about 17min with car. The same route with an electric bike takes me 35min. I’m not out of breath with it and I still have some exercise. I still take my car when it rains.
Alot of people forget that just becuase a bus commute works for them doesn’t mean it works for everyone.
Alot of people have a legitimate reason for owning a car, and if we want then to use public transit then we need public transit to fit their needs in travelling.
But if there was more demand for public transport, don’t you think they would increase the supply?
And if there are more bus lines, you would only need like 30 minutes instead to get to work.
“The only factor I care about is my own personal convenience. Nothing else will influence my choices that affect others.” That’s you.
Literally no one is going to quadruple their commute as a good deed. Right or wrong.
People are struggling for free time from capitalistic slavery as it is.
Sure, I’ll just take the…
Oh wait, I’m in the US and they would have rather destroyed the planet than set up public transport
Oh wait again…
deleted by creator
You don’t have to replace your commute, if its not feasable. But you could try replacing other smaller trips with a bike if you can. Like trips to the grocery store or doctors appointment.
Truthfully if the infrastructure to do these things doesn’t exist for you, then don’t endanger yourself.
I’m trying to figure out how to fit a month’s worth of groceries onto a bike? Or even a week’s worth?
40 minutes is a long ride, true. Maybe buy a foldable bike or a bike rack for your car, park your car outside of the city and reduce car traffic by riding from there to your workplace by bike? It sure would make this city a better place.
deleted by creator
You’ll also keep fit and you won’t have to spend time stuck in traffic!
deleted by creator
park your car outside of the city
I like this kind of scheme, it should be promoted more maybe if it’s not being pushed much
40 minutes is a warm up, not a long ride.
It is if you have to do it twice every single day. Going to work shouldn’t take longer than 20 minutes.
No it’s not, I used to cycle 1 hour one way without any issues. Every day. Including during cold European winters in -20. 40 minutes is nothing special.
I used to do a 40 minute bike commute twice a day. Once it becomes part of your routine those 40 minutes are easy to conquer. Now I do the same distance by speed pedelec in 25 minutes. I’m faster at work now than when I used to go by car.
If you can’t make the trip safe though, than you shouldn’t. But you can, like me, start out on nice days and incorporate into your days as a workout just to try an see.
You’re allowed to drive if there’s no other infrastructure connecting point A to point B. This post is dumb because it lacks nuance. There are some cases where driving makes sense. If you live in a city where other options are safe and reliable, you should use those instead. And if you live in a city where there should be safe and reliable options but there aren’t, well that’s what you should be really upset about.
Nobody is trying to get rid of cars for those in rural areas, as that’s unfeasible. The ONLY place people genuinely care about cars existing is in cities where they can be built and changed to be walkable. I shouldn’t NEED a car to get to a grocery store. I shouldn’t NEED a car to get to work. I should NEED a car to get to anything fun to do. This is a feasible goal.
It’s about choice. I have no choice but to have a car. I don’t want a car. I am forced to have a car because the alternative is… There is no alternative, right now.
It’s about the freedom to have the choice to not drive.
deleted by creator
I live in Minneapolis which is one of the more walkable cities in the US and it’s still not fantastic. I have to walk 30 minutes to the nearest bus stop with only 1/3 of it on sidewalks. After that I can get to downtown (or anywhere but suburbia) on the busses and metro, but it’s pretty slow
Doesn’t you rural area come with horses or donkeys?
deleted by creator
Fresh eggs for breakfast?
By forcing your elected officials to work on a public traffic infrastructure that could get you to the city in 30 minutes.
“How am I supposed to maintain all my privilege and continue a lifestyle that emulates a landed aristocrat?” Fucking move to the city like the rest of us exploited working class assholes. If you can’t afford to live in the country without externalizing the expenses on other people, then you can’t fucking accord to live in the country. Suck it up.
deleted by creator
Question. How did they move that sign there?
In case anyone wants to correct a corrupted sign that the department of transportation hasn’t gotten around to: https://www.safetysign.us/my_weblog/2011/07/instructions-on-how-to-hack-electronic-road-signs.html
The comments on this post are such a joke. The name of the community is literally ‘fuck cars’ and people are getting bent out of shape because we’re posting about our dislike of cars.
deleted by creator
I like cars. They’re comfortable and convenient.
I like trains. They’re comfortable and convenient.
I like trains too. Unfortunately they rarely go anywhere I need to go where I live. In Toronto they also sadly win out in the homeless urine category over my car.
I like most trains, but fuck that one I took up to Washington. I was on that thing for 36 hours and my ass started chafing 5 hours in, admitedly I think that train was built when Nixon was president and last updated under when Clinton was president.
You can like cars, go ahead. What I don’t like is that I’m forced to have one to complete each and every task outside of my house. I am forced to have and use a car for everything. I WANT to take a quick walk to a shop for milk, not take a 15 minute drive to a big box store, a seven minute walk across its ridiculous parking lot, then do it all again in reverse. Why am I forced to have a car each and every day without fail in order to survive?
If you really want to you can structure your life in a way where food is close to home… did that through college. Paid for cabs for groceries … Walked and used transit or my bike. Was pretty miserable in Canadian winters and not very convienent. Plus pretty expensive… You can do it. Or just admit you like cars :) as long as most people secretly actually like cars and use them then society will be structured in a way to accommodate that. The world’s a big place and in order to have most of the things you need really close isn’t really entirely realistic.
You paying for cabs to get groceries is not “not needing a car” that’s still needing a car to do anything. I’ve been to enough countries in Europe personally for extended periods that I know it’s feasible to have a completely 100% walkable life. WALKABLE. Not “I still need to pay for a cab to get groceries.”
It’s completely realistic for most of your basic needs to be met within walking distance in the world today. Sure, you may want a car to get to some specialty shop across town or to go to some other place more quickly. But that a choice you can decide to make over public transportation.
My only complaint is that I’m absolutely, 100% FORCED to have a car in order to survive. This is absurd and a uniquely American problem.
If you rented or bought a house close to a grocery store you’d mostly be able to do it. European cities were built when horse and carriage were still the best option. I think if city centres were designed to be car free and have everything organised to be walkable that’d be great for people who want that… There are certainly a lot of situations where someone needs to have a car … Here and in Europe.
If you rented or bought a house close to a grocery store you’d mostly be able to do it.
Very expensive to do. Also due to zoning laws you’d have a hard time living near a grocery store since they’re literally not permitted to be next to each other in most places.
Yes, there are a lot of situations where someone would need a car. However, the difference lies in how big “a lot” is. Right now, pretty much everyone needs a car to survive unless they’re deep in a city center. This should not be the case.
If you like cars so much you won’t mind paying for it instead of forcing the rest of the country to subsidize 50% of your little hobby.
A world where roads and public transit are all operated as for profit ventures without any tax ? Man now you’re talking … I’d love that
i like turtles
Me too
What purpose does this serve other than alienating the people you’re trying to get on your side?
You have to have the alternatives in place before you can convince people to make a change.
Buses already take hours vs. minutes and any road construction that closes stops & routes down adds time and distance to an already long commute.
If you want people to choose your option, you have to make it an option worth choosing.
It’s more like a chicken or egg problem. No alternative without masses knowing about the problem. It took me 25 years to see what we sacrifice for cars. Maybe this flashy billboard approach helps to shorten that time for someone else.
deleted by creator
The British people conceive of the bike as an exotic machine used for Olympic time trials. We would never actually use one to go to the shops. This is fundamentally a nation of bigoted Dunning-Kruger morons that keep voting for the people who don’t build cycle paths and other progressive policy. Every day we fall further into irrelevance. These people think that if we act like Victorians we will achieve the success of that era, meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on.
deleted by creator
Amazing. Like a 1960s throwback, the Mark Lamarr of dystopian politics.
Jay Foreman has some nice (and very funny) video’s about why Cycling isn’t more common in the UK in his series Unfinished London.
This is a hack of matrix boards like these that I can 100% get behind.
Removed by mod
Cars raped my father!
They turned me into a newt!
Do you know where we are?
Are you incorrectly assuming I’m being facetious?
You seem to not understand the nature of this community.
And you seem to think my comment was facetious when it wasn’t. Humorous, but still in the spirit of fuck cars.
No, I feel your comment was genuine, yet ill conceived.
I would if I could right now and I’m going to move next year to a place where I can sell my car and forget about it.
