Well that's bad for New Zealand.
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2023
8 points (72.2% liked)
Solarpunk Urbanism
1803 readers
33 users here now
A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.
- Henri Lefebvre, The Right to the City — In brief, the right to the city is the right to the production of a city. The labor of a worker is the source of most of the value of a commodity that is expropriated by the owner. The worker, therefore, has a right to benefit from that value denied to them. In the same way, the urban citizen produces and reproduces the city through their own daily actions. However, the the city is expropriated from the urbanite by the rich and the state. The right to the city is therefore the right to appropriate the city by and for those who make and remake it.
Checkout these related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
car pollution and deadly crashes are bad for New Zealand
We can certainly vote for better transit and cycling infrastructure, for less car parking, higher taxes for heavier vehicles, etc. Eventually the presence of private motor vehicles in dense urban cores should be minimal to nonexistent. There is a huge room for improvement in North America and we aren't moving fast enough in the direction of sustainability.
While I wholeheartedly agree with what is said the article, I cannot fathom how banning cars could even begin to happen. The car is strongly anchored in western culture, a majority of people own one, and there are no alternatives that would satisfy these people.
Evolving into a car-centric democratic society is a one way transition. By the point the majority of voters own a car, all possible alternatives are delayed and watered down to the point of become insufficient, if they are implemented at all. Some places in Europe have never fully adopted the car. North America though? Forget it.
Let's say some city administrators believe in transition. Thus, they decide to build a tramway for the city. Of all the voters, 70% own a car, and 50% oppose the project, perhaps having been convinced by the opposition that the project will make their taxes jump through the roof. By the time the project starts, the term has ended and the administration is voted out, the project is dropped.
The asbestos comparison is flawed in that asbestos didn't have a hundred billion dollar industry backing it, lobbying and brain washing the population into thinking a life without a car is impossible. People didn't need asbestos for earning their livelihood.
People know cars are dangerous. Everyone who has taken a walk down a busy street or uses a bicycle know it. Ironically, the best way to protect yourself from cars is to own a car, the biggest car you can get. So people who care about their safety buy bigger cars, exacerbating the problem.
Let's also not forget that most people lack the ability to plan years ahead of time. They make choices that will be good for them today. Hence a majority of the population don't give a fuck about the climate change, because they're not affected by it today (or so they believe). Now .when the choice to make is about diverging from a path taken by all your friends and family for three or four generations (owning a car), it's very nearly impossible to give a fuck.
So to be honest, I have zero hope for a transportation transition in western societies. I believe it will take something more. A collapse of the fossil fuel supply, lasting multiple years.