• lennster@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

  • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

    • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • malaph@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Yonrak@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Zloubida@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • AToM.exe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • glasgitarrewelt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Talos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can spend 17 minutes driving to work, or 1.5 hours catching buses. Easy choice for me.

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “The only factor I care about is my own personal convenience. Nothing else will influence my choices that affect others.” That’s you.

      • decenthuman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.