Hacker News Reader

Comment by blowski | Hacker News Reader

The whole point of dealing with climate change and pollution is that we all have to make some compromises. If yours needs to be either paying more to drive in London, or driving a more eco-car, or not driving there at all - that sounds pretty good to me.

View on HN

Oh I don't care about paying to drive in London, I'd be celebrating if they raised the congestion charge tenfold.

I'm just pointing out that the current vehicle market forces anyone seeking a comfortable, low-NVH car to get something quite large.

EDIT: HN ratelimits prevent me from replying below, so here you go:

> You can drive whatever car you like in London, but you'd have to pay both congestion charge and ULEZ charge

I know! I very happily pay these charges and want them to be vastly higher.

> Alternatively, you might need to be less fussy about what you call "comfortable"

No, why? I didn't work this much to be less fussy about comfort.

I just think it'd be nicer for everyone if there were cars on the market that filled my needs without wasting absurd amounts of space on a rear seat that gets used a couple of times a year.

Regulators should address this by imposing taxes on vehicle size.

You can drive whatever car you like in London, but you'd have to pay both congestion charge and ULEZ charge. Alternatively, you might need to be less fussy about what you call "comfortable".

  >The whole point of dealing with climate change and pollution is that we all have to make some compromises...

Said a load of government ministers and other junketeers, after flying halfway round the world in private jets, to attend a conference discussing the environment.

I always dislike this line of argument, it feels unproductive.

I detest frivolous use of fossil-fuel private jets and all flights of them should absolutely be taxed to the roof and the funds used for climate mitigation.

However, if you’re a bigshot person who can have outsized influence (like POTUS or some billionaire or something) then by all means attend the relevant conferences and make an impact.

If your beef is that the conferences are not effective then that’s something we can discuss, but don’t distract by talking about the way people arrive, unless it’s to propose some kind of carbon/pollution tax in which case I wholeheartedly agree.

  >I always dislike this line of argument, it feels unproductive.

Even if you believe these kind of conferences are productive; why couldn't they have organised it virtually over Zoom/Skype/etc.? If ever there was a chance to 'lead by example' COP27 [and previous COPs] were a golden opportunity. But, instead it was the same old same old; lots of rich political and industry leaders and their hangers-on, flying off into the sun in their private jets, for a cozy get-together. And then emerging aterwards to tell the rest of us to try harder.

Zoom meetings are good for quick status checks, routine procedures or information dissemination without much interaction.

Real work, hard work and sensitive work does not happen over zoom, but face to face.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com