A global climate solution – if it can get past conspiracy theories and NIMBYs | Hacker News Reader

A global climate solution – if it can get past conspiracy theories and NIMBYs

text.npr.org

25 pointsrntn11 comments

What fails this is many people don't want to live in cities. Living in apartments with others, taking public transportation with others and walking down the street with other is more unpleasant than cars.

No objection, but please live far away from the city so that useful land close to urban centers can be properly utilized. Or at least pay a land value tax proportionate to the current value of the land assuming it were properly utilized.

We'd also ask that you use a park-and-ride when visiting as to not cause undue congestion and noise, otherwise we'll charge a hefty congestion fee. Besides, do you really want to pay $100 just to park for the day?

Fuel taxes will need to tripple to fairly account for CO2 emissions and cover the cost of roads (we don't want to have to subsidize your car usage afterall).

But otherwise, it does seem fair that for those who can afford it, are willing to live within their carbon budget, and are willing to pay their share of taxes, should have the choice to live in a detached home.

Do install a native garden though, grass is horribly water inefficient.

"Properly utilized". Get a grip

I will live as close as I can afford thank you.

And as for paying land value tax, I will pay mine when cities pay theirs. Cities and states give abatements that are not needed but allow wealthy land owners to dodge taxes.

Increase fuel taxes, I expect to have an electric car. I also expect to have home solar and collect rain water. Something I cannot do in my home city of NYC. I would be more than happy to pay for the roads and needs of my community.

What I don't want to subsidize is all your social problems that cities seem to like to force me to pay for, which will save me a lot of money while I enjoy my distance from the city.

There are good and bad variants of the 15-minute cities proposals. The good variants leave driving alone, but make walking and transit better than driving is today, resulting in people freely choosing not to drive. The bad variants intentionally make driving worse or even ban it altogether.

Due to the zero-sum nature of physical space (only one thing can occupy a space at one time) driving will have to become more unpleasant.

Somehow there are entire countries who have managed to maintain walkability and humble drivers so they take more care around other modes of transit. It's really not complicated except for the stubbornness inherent in American and adjacent cultures.

You can’t make walking and transit better without making driving worse. It can be better for the people who still choose to drive, but shoving a 2 lane road with a 55mph speed limit through a pedestrianized neighborhood is just not possible.

> You can’t make walking and transit better without making driving worse.

I don't think I agree on this one. Persuading more people to leave the car at home most of the time makes the times when you do drive much more pleasant.

Case in point: The Netherlands, Notorious for being walking and cycling paradise, is actually quite nice to drive in.

One of the many excellent videos on the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel [1] shows how the Netherlands has done it.

[1] https://youtu.be/d8RRE2rDw4k?si=ZwrhmsdE_BUooY24

I don't see how you can make a 15 minute city and have street parking, for example.

Beyond being way less carbon intensive and less polluted, they're objectively better places to live.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com