this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
1234 points (89.8% liked)

Fuck Cars

9669 readers
26 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Stumblinbear@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 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.

[–] MrOzwaldMan@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Private aviation is basically nothing in terms of emissions. Is pretty gross though.

[–] Francisco@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can you please support your statement with a reference to the source of that data?

[–] malaph@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

All aviation is 1.9% .. Private would be a vanishingly small amount of that.

[–] Francisco@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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."

[–] jesus_talks@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you already knew the answer why did you ask?

[–] Francisco@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

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?