469
Cycling like the Dutch would slash the world’s carbon footprint
(www.euronews.com)
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 29 Aug 2026
469 points (98.0% liked)
Climate
8960 readers
253 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
As great as that sounds there are many parts of the world (including where I grew up and most areas around my city) where biking 2.6km (1.6mi) would barely even get you 1/10th of the distance to the closest commercial building, which is likely a lonely gas station.
It's a shitty situation, but there is nothing we can do about it out here. If we want to eat food and take our kids to school, we need cars. Most of us are poor too, so there's no option (for those who would want to) to just move to a bike-able place.
On the other hand, around 80% of all people (worldwide) live in cities, so there is potential.
But at the end of the day this puts the blame on individuals. We need to take industries into account!
Edit: clarify world population
Agreed, and that is a good point I hadn't considered. I'm not anti-biking or anti-city, just anti-unrealistic-expectations for (what I guess amounts to) the remaining 20% of us haha. Those of us in cities who can bike (I now live in a sort of bikeable city. It's dangerous atm, but they're getting better) certainly should when feasible. When I can afford another, I plan to start biking to work again.
A question that comes to mind though is: Do suburbs (common in the USA, idk about other places) count as the "city"? They're often within "city limits", so one could say they live in the city of Memphis, TN, but actually live 5mi outside of commercial parts of the city.
100%! It's on the state and on industry. They designed the system, forcing or otherwise coercing us into using it, so it's on them to provide solutions like reliable public transportation and clean energy.
ETA: or we could, you know, abolish the state entirely, take over the industries, and do it ourselves 😁. might make a fun weekend
I'd argue you actually can, as it is usually (1) zoning laws that prevent commercial buildings to mix with residential use and (2) parking mandates that make no sense. Both can be changed and have great effects locally
I'd be inclined to agree except that no one wants to build a commercial center in an area where the roads are dirt and and the population density is < ~150 people per square mile, regardless of zoning laws.
That said, I don't mean to detract from the fact that you make a salient point for many areas of the world.
If the "nobody wants to build that anyway" argument were true, density-restricting zoning laws wouldn't have been 'necessary' in the first place. You can tell their supporters are operating in bad faith because their arguments are self-contradictory.
Both are directly related to zoning and parking mandates.
No one builds because they can't. Low density because they can't build higher density, and I'm not talking about high rises, you can't even build ADUs (accessory dwelling units), home businesses, multifamily housing, gentle density. It is literally missing the middle due to laws
Strong towns goes into great details about it, if you are interested. See this article as an example:
The 6 Zoning Reforms Every Municipality Should Adopt
Interesting, I will read more into this, thank you!