944
Fossil rule
(lemmy.world)
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 28 Nov 2023
944 points (100.0% liked)
196
16617 readers
2303 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We still don't have affordable alternatives for areas where there is no public transportation or non-car options. A lot of people are barely paying their bills and can't even consider buying an electric car right now. Not that electric cars are really the answer either. We have a long way to go from where I stand.
Remember that the reason that there is no public transport or non-car options is because of the auto industry lobby. They have actively worked to eliminate rail and other means of public transit throughout North America and in every other country where they have a presence (e.g. Germany). The US used to have trains crisscrossing the entire nation. One of the few truly cross-country commuter lines that Amtrak still has is, fittingly, called the Empire Builder. Horrors of colonialism and imperialism aside, it's a fitting name because trains really did build the US. They supplanted and replaced the Pony Express for delivering mail (and thus communication, something that older empires couldn't manage) among so many other things, like freight and even livestock--and, of course, people.
Where'd they go? How come there are so few left? Ask GM, Ford, and so on.
Yeah, like what are we supposed to do when there are few side-walks, work is 30-1hr away at freeway speeds, and public transit is either dirty, unreliable, or unsafe?
Most of us want to do away with our fossil fuel dependancy- but we need better options.
And before anyone says walk or take a bike, that isn't feasable for everyone
Or non-existant. See: most of the US (please send help, passenger rail doesn't exist here and I live less than an hour from a city)
The problem aren't those who can't afford green alternatives, the problem are those who can afford too much non-green alternatives. The ecological footprint is more or less proportional to the paycheck. #eattherich
And while the ecological footprint is problematic when applied to individuals, it shows quite good which group of people is the problem.
Interesting tidbit about public transport: there are electric busses. Those busses are used in the northern hemisphere, mainly to advertise to the public how "eco friendly the company is" to consumers. Those busses are heated by diesel aggrigators, and require to burn more fuel than what driving a diesel bus would need for the routes. And apparently diesel busses do not require this kind of upkeep when on standby.
A quick search does not yield a single site backing up your claim. Do you have a source?
I live in a nordic country, very proud of it's nature, and I know bus drivers.
In all honesty, I'd not be surprised if these cases were isolated, but that has been the greivance of these drivers.
The alternatives to this would be a heated hall, or finding a way to power the heating with renewable energy, but then again, diesel is cheaper than the alternative, and most of the passengers have no idea. There isn't any proper sanvtions to incentivice not doing this, and considering our current ruling parties, probably won't be either, but I consider this to be something that should be more talked about.
That is not true.
I'm okay with more rural areas if the cities have a robust public infrastructure and carbon emissions. Over time, rural areas should be integrated more intimately of course.
If I had a bus to take I'd save myself a gas tank at a time.
I feel like hybrid is a good middle ground until we crack some code.