Just_a_fan wrote: ↑03 Feb 2020, 00:05
Phil wrote: ↑02 Feb 2020, 21:42
Just_a_fan wrote: ↑02 Feb 2020, 13:19
One issue which often gets ignored is changing use patterns. We all do it - we drive to work in a car, on our own, and sit next to other cars that are single occupancy and going to the same places. Car sharing could easily half the number of miles driven at a stroke. Of course, we like our personal space which is why we drive one-up.
You mean public transport right? If you dont, which i assume is the case, the paradox is that i drive my car as a single occupant (rather than the train) because i like my privacy and also the freedom it brings of deciding when, how and if.
I don't necessarily mean public transport because as I said above, car sharing can do much to ease single occupancy travel where suitable. And as I also said, people don't do it because they like their own space.
But there are many people who go from point A (or close enough to it to be the same thing) to Point B (or close enough...) that car sharing can be effective. If two people live close by each other and work in the same building with the same work hours, then taking two individual occupancy cars is part of the problem. Sharing - and it needs to be people you can get along with etc. - can be an effective way to reduce costs, emissions etc., and improve traffic flow and local air quality.
I don´t think asking people to change their lifestyle is the way to go, technology must adapt to our needs, not the other way around
Car sharing obviously will help, and is very useful for many people, but many other will never take that route. Phil and myself are two examples, to me my own car (and bike) are just a form of freedom, and I will never renounce to any of them, no matter if they pollute or not. But I´m looking for sustainable options, if technology adapt I´ll be glad to follow
But people in power must allow it, because they´re effectively stopping it for around 4-5 decades now
so petrol companies can continue with astronomical benefit numbers. Many people like myself would like using more sustainable options without renouncing to their own freedom, because both things are perfectly plausible.
Situation has reached a point where even a teenager knows how politicians have been manipulating our future for their own benefit, but technology reached a point where not even petrol companies can continue stopping progress (nowadays even a smal company can build an EV, and none can fight that), so they can´t stop it anymore. The only question now is the real cost of those decades of delay we all will pay for the benefit of a few
)
) accuses me of being a "commie", I'm not suggesting that Jeff Bezos et al should be stripped of their wealth, but there has to be a better economic model that allows more of the wealth to be spread further. Perhaps Jeff and his ilk could spend some of their cash on education programmes around the world. That would probably help. Until that happens, population control will only be realised at the end of a gun barrel.