572
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
572 points (99.3% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5052 readers
388 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You might notice I said we should “move away from cars” which obviously includes building alternatives not just abandoning cars.
If you’re responding in good faith and genuinely wanting to learn about this topic, you might try looking into how other countries (I presume you’re American or Canadian?) manage with fewer cars. For example, other cold countries like Finland and northern Japan walk, bike, and use public transportation all year round, even in -20 weather. Check out this video. Totally possible. Obviously, the US and Canada had big cities before the invention of cars, so I’m not sure why you think there are no possible alternatives to cars.
Am I wrong, or does Japan not have at least one car per household (obviously less in the cities, but the same is true with New York). I know this is less than the average American, but I'd suggest the reason for this has more to do with economics and space than public transportation options. In New York City, I can take the bus (why THE FUCK would I?) The rickety subway (which is quite good, despite its obvious age and lack of maintenance) The Railroads, or peddle down a hot, or frozen street on a Citibike. When all else fails, I can walk, which most for most places (in Manhattan at least) is a great option.....
.......Yet, traffic in New York City is still horrendous, and I still have a car -- Because I need a car to get to places those other options can't reach, and I'll bet that's true for a lot of people. I don't have TWO cars like those in rural areas because of the expense, the difficulty of parking, and I have a decent public transit system.
The second point being you can't get rid of cars. They're required for too many people to live and work. That's true for NYC. That's true for Japan and I'll bet it's even true for everyone's Darling Finland, which it doesn't take much googling to discover is true. The best you can hope for is 1 car per household ... unless we're going to start raising cities and completely redesigning them and even then I'm skeptical.
Indeed, it's not a question of cars vs. no cars. It's about the extent of car dependence. We will always have some cars, even Tokyo and Amsterdam has cars, but right now, in the US and Canada, we are often forced to travel by car because we have no other options.
It's also not just about whether one owns a car, but how much we use cars. The fact that most Japanese or Finnish families own one car doesn't mean much on its own. A lot of those families only use their car a few times a month. Most commute by train or bus, or just walk to the grocery store. As bad as New York city traffic is, it would be much worse if you didn't have options like subways and good sidewalks. It's a spectrum, not black and white. But, right now, we are FAR on the car-centric extreme.
I will say that for most trips into Manhattan I'll use public transportation (Train or Subway) just because it's easier and less subject to traffic jams. It's also just nice to read a book while traveling to work. Overall it's a less stressful experience. Almost anything in the outer boroughs I need a car to get to (Parts of Brooklyn might as well be on the moon) However Manhattan is very different then anywhere in San Francisco, whose public transportation I found mind numbingly slow and less frequent.
One place that could use some major improvement is cross-country train travel. My wife and I took a train to Montreal about five years ago and I swore never to do this again. It was painful how slow and shitty that experience was. It really wouldn't take a whole lot to improve this, the bar is that low. I would have paid more money! High speed rail will never get you to the West Coast as fast as an airplane, but if the experience and ease is worth it you can get more customers. However it doesn't seem like Amtrak gives a single good God damn. They might as well be carrying freight.
You can build all the infrastructure you want but none of that matters if people won't take public transport. I don't do it because only the sketchiest, creepiest people take public transport in the US. You can't get on a train/bus/subway/whatever in this country without fear of getting stabbed.
Until that problem is addressed, cars aren't going away.
I know what you mean, but that turns out to be empirically untrue. Good transportation infrastructure encourages use in measurable ways (economists and urban planners call this "induced demand"). When you build out a train of bus network so that it's actually useful, people start using it.
When it comes to safety and public transportation, I think the causality works the other way. In places with excellent public transportation, like New York and Toronto, everyone, including the middle class, uses public transportation. Not coincidentally, these places also have very low crime: New York is in the bottom 20% of US cities for crime severity, and Toronto is the safest city in North America. Under investing in the well-being of poor people, including public infrastructure, causes crime.
I've used the public transportation in several large US cities, and have never felt threatened by or fearful of the other passengers.
Finland and northern Japan are microscopic compared to Canada (or the USA). The reason it's feasible there does not make it feasible here.
I hear this argument a lot but it doesn’t make any sense. The size of the country doesn’t matter for your daily commute.
It’s also nonsensical because living without cars was feasible in Canada and the US 100 years ago, and remains feasible in many small towns and big cities. Winnipeg, Calgary, Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Kansas City… they all had efficient and extensive tram and bus systems in the pre-war era. The walkable neighborhoods made before cars remain some of the most valuable and sought after real estate in North America.
Maybe in the cities. However in the 20s, for rural areas, Horse and carts were still in use. Automobiles replaced them.
A lot of rural areas built walkable town centres which still exist today. But sure, some areas will always need cars. That said, over 80% of the population of US and Canada today lives in urban areas, so let's at least work on that 80%. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Most of the people in both Finland and Japan live in cities, while most North Americans live in cities. Moving away from cars in rural areas may not be easy, but there is no reason why it would not be possible in the cities. The things that are needed are: denser cities (less tight zoning laws) and more alternatives to driving, like bike lanes or trams. These things are achievable by policy change. Also, the USA has around five times as much population density across the country as Finland, so while it may be big, it is not too big for decent alternatives to driving
Quick googling says Finland has 3.6 Million passenger vehicles for about 5.5 Million people. You want to hold up a shining example of a carless culture? try North Korea.