[_qwfv]

This policy is fine, easy to implement, and discourages the sociopathic behavior of ICEing charging stops.

That said, it's not going to fix the problem. The root cause is cars -- both electric and petrol. Yes, EVs are an improvement over petrol cars. They decouple energy generation and transportation, so they will get cleaner with time.

But fundamentally we should be looking at ways to reduce the number of cars. Parking is a blight in urban areas, trains and public transport are massively better people movers, and even EVs produce significant pollution from their production and tire wear.

[AmericanChopper]

I think this illustrates a problem with just about all areas of environmentalism. You start off with a premise that's widely agreeable like "ICE cars are bad for the environment" and slowly edge towards stuff like "private vehicle ownership is a blight on society", which is far less agreeable and completely ignores what most people in society actually want. 20 years ago I used to vote for local green candidates in various elections, but their main platform now is radical socialist economic reform. I'm not sure they're even bothered about the environment any more.

[Pfhreak]

Sure, but you've also set up a strawman.

> private vehicle ownership is a blight on society

I didn't say this, I said that in urban areas, parking is a blight. Parking uses valuable real estate to create surface lots at worst, or space that could be used for housing at best.

[jesstaa]

"consumerist capitalism is an environmental disaster" isn't a hard argument to make and people eventually realize most environmentalism is just stacking the deck chairs on the titanic.

[AmericanChopper]

I can’t see how consumerist socialism is going to somehow solve all those problems. In any election these days it’s almost impossible to cast a vote for environmentalist policies without also voting for radical socialist economic policies. I’d suggest this is actually quite a problem for anybody who cares about environmentalism, because the number of people who want full socialism is way lower than the number of people who care about the environment.

[_qwfv]

Are there any candidates running on a platform of 'full socialism' or even 'radical policies'? Candidates in America, even those considered to the left of their party (e.g. Sanders) aren't really radical socialists.

Sanders wasn't getting on the stage demanding we nationalize all our businesses. I never heard him mention a 'vanguard party'. I don't think I heard him say, "Businesses need to be run by worker councils, exclusively".

It's one thing to say, "I don't like the idea of democratic socialism/social democracies", but those ideas are hardly 'radical socialism' or 'full socialism'.

[perryizgr8]

> The root cause is cars

Root cause of what problem?

> But fundamentally we should be looking at ways to reduce the number of cars.

Why?

> Parking is a blight in urban areas

Sounds like a poorly designed urban area. Need to make enough parking available for a building. This is a solved problem in private residential apartments and office buildings.

> trains and public transport are massively better people movers

Absolutely not, a car is much better for moving me and my family. We have flexibility of time, space, luggage, comfort, temperature, health, music, speed, privacy, basically everything.

> EVs produce significant pollution from their production and tire wear.

Irrelevant, pollution is always produced. Do you think trains and busses do not produce large amount of pollution?

The biggest problem with public transport is that it is usually paid by taxpayers, who have no say in the operation of said services and no option of voting with their dollars. I would prefer not to pay for shitty trains and busses, thanks. If you like, you can start your own bus service and operate it as you see fit. Don't force me to pay for your little communist ideas and then force me with my own money to pay more for the privilege to use my own car.

Trains and busses are fundamentally less convenient and useful than cars, which is why we have much more cars and why almost everyone (unless otherwise coerced by oppressive government, using taxes on cars, or lack of parking on city streets) prefers to use their own car.

[Pfhreak]

> Why?

Cars are expensive, inefficient, and use a huge amount of resources relative to their transportation capability.

> Need to make enough parking available for a building.

Disagree. And we can agree to disagree on this one, but I am a big fan of urban areas not having mandatory minimum parking. Space spent on cars means space not spent on housing, which most urban areas need much more.

> This is a solved problem in private residential apartments and office buildings.

It's not a solved problem - offices do not have enough parking for everyone to drive in, and most residential towers spend a huge amount of space housing cars rather than people.

> pollution is always produced. Do you think trains and busses do not produce large amount of pollution?

Per person/cargo transported? Much, much less pollution. Like an order of magnitude less.

> We have flexibility of time, space, luggage, comfort, temperature, health, music, speed, privacy, basically everything.

You've never lived in a place with good public transport? Speed, time, and comfort are pretty normal for well funded transport. Yes, you lose some privacy.

But also, I'm not advocating for you to get rid of all your cars. There are plenty of models where a family does well with zero or one cars, relying on transit for most trips, and borrowing/renting a car or taxi when they can't make transit work.

[jesstaa]

> Don't force me to pay for your little communist ideas and then force me with my own money to pay more for the privilege to use my own car.

Parking and roads are massively subsidized by government taxes/council rates and are built in to the cost of all city real estate. Everybody is paying for your 'free parking' don't pretend that we're not.

> Trains and busses are fundamentally less convenient and useful than cars

This is only true for very low density areas which means low prosperity and opportunity. In any major city it's physically impossible to transport the majority of people to their work places in cars and impossible to store those cars for the work day.

Studies have shown that people are happy to use what ever transport is available as long as it's fast, frequent and cheap. For a high density city with lots of economic opportunities the only way to do it is with trains.

> Need to make enough parking available for a building. In an apartment building I used to live in 1/3 of the building was parking. That means that each apartment was 1/3 more expensive than it needed to be. Even though I didn't have a car I still had to pay for the cost of the construction and maintenance of the 7 level car park. Everybody pays the car tax.

[perryizgr8]

> Everybody is paying for your 'free parking' don't pretend that we're not.

I never asked for free parking. Private residential and office buildings provide proper parking. Only excessive regulations inside the city prevent private owners from making adequate parking available.

> In any major city it's physically impossible to transport the majority of people to their work places in cars and impossible to store those cars for the work day.

Yes, because the cities are poorly designed, by designers starting with the dehumanizing mindset of "moving" people efficiently. Remove the regulations and watch as people solve the parking problem.

> Studies have shown that people are happy to use what ever transport is available as long as it's fast, frequent and cheap.

LOL! People will use whatever best is available to them! Cause rents to soar so they don't have money to buy a car. Put excessive taxes on cars so they don't have money to buy a car. Design cities in a way that excludes parking, has narrow streets, so people don't feel comfortable driving and owning a car. And you get the current outcome. I'd be willing to bet that a large proportion of the people taking the bus or train would drive or be driven in a car, if their city were properly designed for human living and transportation.

> Everybody pays the car tax.

It's not a tax if you can choose. The problem with public transport is that I can't choose. You can find another apartment building without car parks. Or if you feel there is enough of a market you can make one yourself and earn big bucks by offering apartments without car parking (I have a feeling this business would fail miserably). What's the option for me who prefers driving? Will you give me a tax break equivalent to the amount that would have gone to public transportation?

[lokedhs]

> Yes, because the cities are poorly designed, by designers starting with the dehumanizing mindset of "moving" people efficiently. Remove the regulations and watch as people solve the parking problem.

Because driving is such a joy in countries with less regulation in this area? Please visit Jakarta some time, and compare it to neighbouring Singapore. One of those countries have strict traffic regulation, and the other does not.