That seems to be the case. I’m really surprised how many people are downvoting this thread of comments just for having a realistic discussion about the drawbacks to financially penalizing cars. Nobody here is advocating for big oil, but you’d sure think that from the reaction.
Eh it always turns into a touchy subject. Like yeah we needed to transition away from burning fuel yesterday, but at the same time we still need a viable path forward for people to move themselves and good around, which hasn’t really gone far. Yes EVs are a good solution and they’re improving at a good pace, but they don’t cover every use case yet, which is where we need to focus. At the same time, we also need to be leaning into building out public transit networks that render most personal transport needs unnecessary.
For instance, we need a viable EV for OTR transport, as well solutions for trains and ocean/air shipping. We also need better solutions for contractors and the like, as well as vehicles that can achieve longer range.
You seem to assume price doesn’t influence demand. When you assume that, it makes it difficult to figure out what kind of a discussion you are looking for.
If we keep gas prices low, there is little to incentive to switch.
If gas prices are high, it makes alternative transportation investment make more sense.
So … if you could clarify how you feel this should be approached that eliminates the burning of fossil fuels without some fairly fundamental societal changes that will be felt, that might be helpful.
I know price influences demand, but it doesn’t address need. Most of California is designed in a way that basically requires a car—it isn’t like the northeast with convenient and affordable trains to take you anywhere you need to go.
Yes, this method will likely convince some people to switch, and it will likely reduce car usage as well, but it will also place a huge financial burden on people who need their vehicle to live and who can’t afford an electric vehicle, which not only costs more to buy, but also costs more to maintain and has a shorter lifespan than gas cars.
California has an immense amount of money compared to other states. If you are asking me to come up with a better solution than making gas prohibitively expensive, my solution would probably be to emulate New York City, but statewide.
Make every city extremely walkable. Create subways in those cities for extended travel, ideally with more of an eye towards accessibility than New York has. Create an extensive high speed rail system that goes between cities and towns that is faster and more convenient than a car. Make the carrot of other transportation options absolutely massive, and then incorporate the stick of higher gas prices.
The downside to that approach is that it would likely be a multi-trillion dollar investment. You could potentially lower the cost a little by excluding some smaller towns from this overhaul, but those people should be given something to make that equitable, like giving them a massive discount on buying electric cars somehow.
I’m no politician or expert, I know I don’t have all the answers, but I do know that I am someone who would be driven to poverty if I had to buy a new car right now or pay $8 for gas, especially factoring in the extremely high cost of living in California.
That seems to be the case. I’m really surprised how many people are downvoting this thread of comments just for having a realistic discussion about the drawbacks to financially penalizing cars. Nobody here is advocating for big oil, but you’d sure think that from the reaction.
Eh it always turns into a touchy subject. Like yeah we needed to transition away from burning fuel yesterday, but at the same time we still need a viable path forward for people to move themselves and good around, which hasn’t really gone far. Yes EVs are a good solution and they’re improving at a good pace, but they don’t cover every use case yet, which is where we need to focus. At the same time, we also need to be leaning into building out public transit networks that render most personal transport needs unnecessary.
For instance, we need a viable EV for OTR transport, as well solutions for trains and ocean/air shipping. We also need better solutions for contractors and the like, as well as vehicles that can achieve longer range.
You seem to assume price doesn’t influence demand. When you assume that, it makes it difficult to figure out what kind of a discussion you are looking for.
If we keep gas prices low, there is little to incentive to switch.
If gas prices are high, it makes alternative transportation investment make more sense.
So … if you could clarify how you feel this should be approached that eliminates the burning of fossil fuels without some fairly fundamental societal changes that will be felt, that might be helpful.
I know price influences demand, but it doesn’t address need. Most of California is designed in a way that basically requires a car—it isn’t like the northeast with convenient and affordable trains to take you anywhere you need to go.
Yes, this method will likely convince some people to switch, and it will likely reduce car usage as well, but it will also place a huge financial burden on people who need their vehicle to live and who can’t afford an electric vehicle, which not only costs more to buy, but also costs more to maintain and has a shorter lifespan than gas cars.
California has an immense amount of money compared to other states. If you are asking me to come up with a better solution than making gas prohibitively expensive, my solution would probably be to emulate New York City, but statewide.
Make every city extremely walkable. Create subways in those cities for extended travel, ideally with more of an eye towards accessibility than New York has. Create an extensive high speed rail system that goes between cities and towns that is faster and more convenient than a car. Make the carrot of other transportation options absolutely massive, and then incorporate the stick of higher gas prices.
The downside to that approach is that it would likely be a multi-trillion dollar investment. You could potentially lower the cost a little by excluding some smaller towns from this overhaul, but those people should be given something to make that equitable, like giving them a massive discount on buying electric cars somehow.
I’m no politician or expert, I know I don’t have all the answers, but I do know that I am someone who would be driven to poverty if I had to buy a new car right now or pay $8 for gas, especially factoring in the extremely high cost of living in California.