I strongly disagree and this kind of virtue signaling leaves a bad authoritarian taste. We used to look at amazing engineering in supercars, now all we hear about is woke fetish for reducing life quality, living in a pod and driving a scooter. The current trend is to ban all luxury and prevent people from excelling at craftsmanship. It gives people jobs, reduces income inequality (transfer of wealth from top to bottom) and propelling culture forward. Nevermind that.
All this is very perverse, like a race to the bottom with double-standards and contradictions everywhere. "For thee, not me".
Funny, living in cities that prioritize other modes of transport (biking, buses, trains, etc) has drastically improved my quality of life, as opposed to places that prioritize cars and inevitably end up being traffic-locked hellholes.
Living in cities that make you want to bike is good, you're choosing to bike and that means you're happier biking than driving. Living in a city based around driving when the government tries to ban ICEs is bad, because you wish you were allowed to drive. Good policy finds a way to align top-down directives with bottom-up preferences.
1) this isn't a Ferrari, the article literally describes this car as an anti-Prius
2) even the most polluting Ferrari, which according to this page (1) emits 385g/km , is still almost a quarter less polluting than this car (506 g/km according to the article)
Yes? An individual can't choose to revolutionize the shipping industry themselves but they sure as hell can choose a car that's not as polluting and less of a hazard to pedestrians. That's very much a personal choice that I'm happy to judge.
> An individual can't choose to revolutionize the shipping industry
Yes, but this entire thread is about de-revolutionizing the car industry. People in China and India would like to have a word with us.
We should be working on sequestrating CO2 from the atmosphere using novel means (Solar, Nuclear), making breakthroughs in efficiency and promoting domestic manufacturing. I don't have the answers. I am just pointing out the double-standards that are hidden behind massive sweeping statements like "Ban all cars".
These discussions tend to be about one-upping each other instead of discussing fundamental issues and solving them. It is mostly political, not objective and shying away from confronting reality.
> Yes, but this entire thread is about de-revolutionizing the car industry
How is it de-revolutionizing to optimize away from massive, wasteful cars like this and towards more efficient cars -- or perhaps even systems where personal cars are done away with entirely as a necessity?
> People in China and India would like to have a word with us.
India has roughly half of the country not owning a car, and the US, Japan, and Mexico all manufacture more cars than them. Not sure what bone they'd have to pick in this fight other than you assuming they're invested in manufacturing cars?
> We should be working on sequestrating CO2 from the atmosphere using novel means (Solar, Nuclear), making breakthroughs in efficiency and promoting domestic manufacturing.
All true, but we can do all those while also disincentivizing wasteful cars like the one described in the article that serve as nothing more than dangerous, pedestrian-killing status symbols.
Interestingly, when we live in a society where people disagree, this is exactly the way you can frame any policy you disagree with. Car owners have imposed their lifestyles on me my entire life. See? :)
Where did I say anyone was forcing me? I'm talking about the fact that most cities don't have car-less areas for pedestrians and bicyclists only, and that initiatives like the closure of JFK drive in SF to drivers being met with fierce resistance. Things like refusing to make protected bike lanes, refusing to build out adequate public transit, all in favor of... More highway lanes. More parking.
But sure, don't engage with the argument at hand, I guess.
Right, but not forced since OP literally said "Funny, living in cities that prioritize other modes of transport (biking, buses, trains, etc) has drastically improved my quality of life"
it's forced since i need to live where the jobs are, and kids who can't drive need to live where their parents are.
we all need to be able live together, and just as a completely carless city is unrealistic, a car only city is no better, but the latter unfortunately is often the reality.
We still look in awe at the amazing engineering in supercars. it's just that now, low to no carbon emissions is part of being an admirable super car. A gas guzzler is bad engineering
All this is very perverse, like a race to the bottom with double-standards and contradictions everywhere. "For thee, not me".