Hacker News Reader

Comment by nvarsj | Hacker News Reader

Surely there is some compromise.

Diesel is far worse than petrol for local pollution for example. So let's ban diesel in the city, then as electric becomes more viable, we can finally ban petrol as well.

We shouldn't have sympathy for things that actively harm people's health. Society shouldn't favor an individual over the harm they do to many more people. A white diesel van driving around all day, idling in front of schools and parks, has significant negative impact on others.

It's similar to how coal fueled power plants used to exist in the middle of dense cities. Coal worker unions objected to them being closed down, but the health interests of millions of residents fortunately prevailed in most cases.

View on HN

> We shouldn't have sympathy for things that actively harm people's health.

This is besides the point and no-one has suggested that.

Politically, economically, and socially, we cannot take livelihoods away from people. If ICE vehicles are no longer acceptable then there has to be a viable alternative for everyone, not only for city-dwellers or people who don't need cars/vans.

I mentioned the yellow vests in France because the protests were triggered by exactly this lack of consideration for people who live outside of central Paris: The government wanted to slap extra taxes on petrol and diesel (which are already heavily taxed) without any way around them for people who currently have no choice.

Some countries, e.g. the UK, have already said they'll ban new ICE vehicles from 2030, so we're hopefully going to see a drastic change in manufacturers' offering but governments have also to plan and ensure that affordable alternatives hit the market by then in order to avoid both economic disruption and social unrest (which both come with a significant political price).

That's indeed the compromise I suggested in my previous comment.

What else can be done?

In order to reach climate change targets we must reduce car dependency. How can we do this without nudging people away from cars? And how can we nudge them without taxes?

When people live miles from supermarkets and offices and public transport is not a viable option, which is actually the case for most people outside large cities (and even for some large cities), we are not going to be able to nudge people away from cars, this is simply not realistic. It's not realistic either to suggest that we can just rebuild everything so that cars aren't needed. We can try to build so that car are less needed but that's a very slow process.

The only realistic option is to have affordable EVs ASAP that fit all needs because people aren't giving up cars. With the current policy schedule we have about 10 years for this to happen.

Of course, EVs have their own issues, both environmentally and in term of impact on electricity grids, so this is not that simple, either.

How do you think we got to this state? It didn't happen overnight. Society used to be orientated around walkable neighbours. Sprawl is a relatively recent development and a product of auto-mobilism. I don't think it would be impossible to walk things back.

This started during the industrial revolution when factories started to need a large workforce and then it continued with offices that also require a large workforce.

When people could not really commute you had company towns so that people could live right next to work, and also be controlled by their employer.

I don't think people want to live in company housing, surrounded by company employees, they also tend to change jobs more often, with both spouses working (so likely 2 different employers).

"Auto-mobilism" is not going anywhere as long as this is the case and I don't see any indication that it is changing. Remote work can help reduce the need for commuting but it won't make it disappear.

You are assuming that commutes are only possible by private car. Sure some of them are, but it would be preferable if commutes were by foot, bike, train, bus... and private car a distant last. This has been achieved in a few places in the world, most of them in Europe.

You get the outcomes you build for, when it comes to transport infrastructure.

I don't assume anything.

I have explained that in practice it's not possible for people to live within walking distance from their work. Cycling extends the range but it's still not enough, and not always practical. Public transport is not always viable either because not practical and economical, and people actually don't like to have to rely on public transport for everything unless perhaps (and again) when they live in the centre of large cities.

All of this holds true including in Europe.

> people actually don't like to have to rely on public transport for everything

I'm not advocating complete removal of private cars, but people need to be able to build daily routines that do not require them.

For example, you might live in a village or suburban town, walk to the station and get the train to nearest city where you walk to work. You still have a car for weekends and random errands.

Even within a car dependent lifestyle, car usage can be reduced. This was possible with old style "high streets" where you could drive there, park once, visit a number of shops and businesses then drive home. Now, you travel between a few big box stores much further out of town.

> Diesel is far worse than petrol for local pollution for example. So let's ban diesel in the city, then as electric becomes more viable, we can finally ban petrol as well.

This is less true than it used to be unfortunately. Most manufacturers have moved to Gasoline Direct Injection engines for efficiency reasons, but GDI engines produce a lot more particulates than regular gasoline engines, although not quite as many as diesel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com