The average modern person, by one calculation, spends more than 1,600 hours a year to pay for their cars, their insurance, fuel and repairs. We go to jobs partly to pay for the cars, and we need the cars mostly to get to jobs. We spend four of our sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering the resources for the car.
Since the average modern American, by one estimate, travels 7,500 miles a year, and put in 1,600 hours a year to do that, they are travelling five miles per hour. Before people had cars, however, people managed to do the same – by walking.
By contrast, a person on a bicycle can go three or four times faster than a pedestrian, but uses five times less energy in the process.
Because the fuel used by cars is the least of the problems with them. The real issue is the sheer about of space they take up, which ruins cities, destroys housing affordability, destroys the population’s health because people can’t feasibly walk places, etc. Oh, and by the way, the huge amounts of extra concrete they need for wider roads/parking lots/parking decks is a major contribution to climate change too.
Electrification will not fix this. Only ceasing to bulldoze our cities in a futile effort to accommodate will fix this.
I definitely agree. I mentioned this in multiple other replies to this comment, but I meant that how we present the climate friendly future matters. Modern people are desperately addicted to modern conveniences. Painting the solution as “wouldn’t it be great if the future was pedal-powered” is the next thing the right will latch onto like, “he left wants to take your car freedom away, make you eat crickets, sterilize you so you can’t have more children, and never be able to travel more than 15 minutes from your house.” It’s fucking stupid, but we have to stop falling into their idiotic traps. That was my point.
Yeah, how we present it does matter: in particular, characterizing walkability as some sort of deprivation instead of what it is – a straight-up improvement over car-dependent “modern convenience” – is ass-backwards. If your city is designed right (or in my case, if the part of it you live in is old enough that it mostly pre-dates the Suburban Experiment fuckery and has only been moderately damaged since), getting to places by bike is superior to doing so in a car: not just more fun and healthier, but literally faster too (because you don’t have to struggle to find parking or wait in long lines of cars). For example, taking my daughter to school on my cargo bike is maybe a 10-minute round trip, but takes at least double the amount of time in a car because the car drop-off queue wraps around the building and out into the street.
What we need are more people conveying the proper perspective and tone, like this guy and this guy. When the right tries to spin that bullshit, they need to be ridiculed as the pathetic invalids they are. They’re not being made to eat crickets; they’re just too squeamish to try and are projecting that cowardice on the rest of us. They balk at the prospect of walking for 15 minutes in a city because they’re so weak and flabby they’d fucking collapse and die within 5 and they know it. They think cars are “freedom” because they’re so used to the yoke of licensing/insurance/maintenance/being limited to roads and parking lots/etc. around their neck that they don’t even feel it anymore and don’t understand what true freedom – to ride anywhere, roads or not, for free – really is. (As for the sterilization part, that’s just a straight-up lie they made up from whole cloth, so the only proper response there is “fuck you; quit lying.”)
To frame it even more in their terms: what they need to be made to understand is that cars are for whiny girly-men and obese losers with no self-discipline, and that real men ride bikes!
Well, to show how ridiculous their shit actually is, the whole “the left wants to sterilize you” thing came from a study talking about how having kids is the biggest contributor to climate change, ahead of eating meat.
https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/
and all the articles from NYT, WP, The Guardian, etc (the “lIbRUl MeEdIa!”) probably all citing this study that looked at the effect of having children.
Yknow, studies. By scientists. To learn about the world around us. Lefty shit like that.
It’s unfortunate because this one doesn’t fall into the trap of right wing propaganda fodder, it’s literally just a study discussing what having children means in a time where everyone is worried about having kids because, yknow, the world might not be very hospitable by the time they grow up.
The climate solutions that we all agree are great personal choices you can make are easy pickings for them. But it’s funny, because all this talk about what we can do and most outlets just won’t even bring up large scale change that targets the biggest polluters, massive companies. Because that’s “anti-business” which is basically sacrilege these days.
sigh
…it’s a sad state of affairs. But I’ll keep riding my bike and taking the subway and buying local and all that. But it’s a drop in the ocean.