Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

You know we have to build roads for the cars to drive on right? Wonder what the C02 emissions for a mile of new highway is. You're also not accounting for the construction, transportation, maintenance, and other CO2-producing activities for cars - none of which are necessary for walking. Nevermind the other benefits like attacking obesity and deaths due to car crashes.

> 1. Get people into electric cars, which even on the current grid cuts your CO2 emissions by over half due to better efficiency, then

> 2. Convert the electric grid to 100% clean energy.

These both need to happen, yes. Cars existing is fine, just need to reduce usage for daily activities by 90% or so and also convert most of the grid to clean energy.

View on HN

> You know we have to build roads for the cars to drive on right? Wonder what the C02 emissions for a mile of new highway is.

Then after that factor in parking lots! Sometimes I think more solutions need to involve "reforest parking lots". In some areas that alone would do far more for walkability than adding sidewalks. Parking lots build heat deserts that radiate heat back up to pedestrians (sometimes alarmingly so), but trees add pleasant shades and cool and hydrate the air around them. Add a bunch more trees and other foliage to existing parking lots and a lot of currently inhospitable suburbs would become a lot more hospitable to pedestrian travel.

Certainly that could be the answer for some or part of them, but we should also be looking at building housing on top of them as well. Heat discourages people from walking but so does the distance between destinations.

This may seem counter to the goal of reducing emissions, but if it means there's less low-density development at the fringes (which involves a lot more roadway, etc per person) then it's really not.

Of course, it's not either/or - there's plenty of underutilized land devoted to parking, we can do both!

> Cars existing is just fine

I disagree with this sentiment. I hate cars, and what they have done to society. They are demonstrably and objectively not “fine”. They are the primary destructive force in society, and can and should die. Quickly.

I agree with your sentiment, but I'm not sure we'll get many people on board with "ban all cars".

But we probably can get many people on board with something like, own only one car and stop wasting money on new highways and items like that.

I think people can understand a world where they are walking to the grocery store and their car is for some random trip to the lake (one that ideally takes a bit longer with just two lane road and such). I'm not sure they'll be able to understand a world where cars don't even exist.

I disagree on the absolutism in this. Cars can take you places that not many people want to go, and whenever you want, which is one of the coolest things a person can do. You're never going to build transit to all of these places, and it's too far to walk or bike. Used in this way, cars increase human freedom which is one of the most important values for humans to pursue.

The real problem with cars is that we use them for everything. It makes zero sense for us to use cars in dense in cities, or between popular locales, or for short distances. We could probably eliminate more than 90% of car usage. But trying to eliminate cars period is too far.

>They are demonstrably and objectively not “fine”

Aka "my opinions are the objective viewpoint".

>They are the primary destructive force in society

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Today's mobile society with cars is better than anything else that has ever existed.

Strong disagree. Cars are great for freedom of movement. I like having a car and being able to go wherever I want, whenever I want. Good public transportation is fine, so is cycling, electric scooters and walking paths. But I still want my car, and I suspect so do a majority of people. I'll never support banning cars. And just because you hate them doesn't mean you're right.

I don't know about the primary destructive force, but on the whole I agree. A good start would be for the US to stop subsidizing fuel so that overly complex supply chains are more expensive to operate. Also, some kind of last-mile delivery system would be good: I die a little every time I take my 2000 lb car over the hill to get a 2 lb burrito.

> I die a little every time I take my 2000 lb car over the hill to get a 2 lb burrito.

so.... dont? :)

I usually don't. I went carless for a decade (not easy where I live). But sometimes I didn't plan ahead enough to cook at home, and my wife comes home exhausted. I just don't have the spine to demand that she bike a few miles for her dinner, nor do I want to bring her something cold. People with kids are in a similar situation.

You can be a purist if you want, but you'll never convince anybody if you can't meet them where they're at.

im not saying you shouldnt do it, im just saying, it is your choice. I would personally not suggest you stop using the car

oops, wrong r-username. Sorry for being a bit in your face about it. I was matching someone else's tone...

Maybe look into getting an e-bike. They are pretty darn awesome for stuff like this. :)

> They are the primary destructive force in society

What a deranged belief to hold. Rationalizing that cars of all things are the root cause of all of society's ills is reductionist and lazy, equally so as to believe that simply removing them would cure those ills.

Let me start with the remark that I am on team car hater! I have to admit that hey are useful for some things.

1. People are not really able to live in rural areas without owning a car.

2. I can’t think of a viable way of last mile transport for goods. Supermarkets can’t really exist without Lorries.

3. Emergency services.

I think the main issue is personal transport by car, Especially in (semi) densely populated areas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com