You're viewing a single thread.
As much as I hate cars, removing them is only possible inside cities. North America has a very large rural area(and population) that needs to be converted away from fossil fuels.
Maybe yes, but a large part of society at least in America and Europe live in cities or suburbs, where cars are just bs
I completely agree with you on that one. Unfortunately I'm one of those rural people.
I'm banking on autonomous busing in hopes that we can eventually drop to one vehicle, we already have bus service but it's only 1/hour to the nearest little town, and only 3/day to the nearest city(commuting busses @ $20 round trip per day)
We did buy an EV though for cost and environmental reasons (I live somewhere with a 99% clean grid)
North America has a large suburban population. The rural population is almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels for the near future because of infrastructure scarcity and the energy density of fossil fuels.
trains
Trains are not financially viable for rural areas.
Cars are not ecologically viable for life to continue on planet earth
That's a pretty shit argument. Humans are not ecologically viable for life to continue on planet earth at our current population, even if we remove all cars.
That is just not true.
Yes it is. We hunted multiple animals to extinction and poisoned vast stretches of land long before the industrial revolution, we didn't need cars to be assholes to nature.
True, but we could sustain a lot more people and also not bring animals to extinction and destroy the environment with the right policies. Blaming overpopulation is just facist propaganda.
The number of people shouting the word fascist around here is hilarious. It's not fascist to limit immigration, it's a policy employed by literally every country in the world.
Yeah no, that's Malthusian shit you're arguing. It's not equivalent to degrowth
Yea no what? We are already setting population targets via immigration right now, the question is about what the target should be (and why) not whether or not to do it.
To do what? Limit immigration so that poor ppl from countries we immiserated, exploited, and put in danger of climate collapse from our overconsumption can die? Sounds like nazi shit to me
Wat? Should we just let anyone who wants to live in Canada do so? That sounds a lot like suicide to me.
Setting a fixed population target for optimized citizen benefit of available resources and then bringing in immigrants to make up for the birth shortfall seems like a fairly sensible option. It's not like our immigration would be "low" even if we did that, though it wouldn't be as high as it currently is it would still be hundreds of thousands of people per year.
Ppl from the global south have to immigrate bc of the plundering, immiseration, political violence, and climate catastrophe caused by colonial imperialist global north countries like Canada. You're advancing a fascist position, to force your country's victims to die so you can continue to live in undeserved privileged luxury
You can fuck right off with that nonsense.
You are right, but many people use electric cars as an excuse to delay or cancel car-related regulations in cities To the sound of "Why should the city be car-free when electric cars are quiet and don't emit fumes?!", and that's something we have to fight, because in the city there should be no (private) cars needed