• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I always have felt like blaming cars, of all things, misses the bigger picture.

    On the contrary, doing anything other than blaming cars misses the bigger picture that car-dependent development is what drives, directly or indirectly, almost all the pollution except for industry and agriculture:

    1. The emissions of the cars themselves, of course.

    2. The emissions associated with producing all the extra concrete you need to build places to store the cars, as well as wider roads to fit all the traffic. (EDIT: and longer roads, for that matter, because inserting all the space for car storage forces your destinations to be further apart!)

    3. The emissions associated with restrictive low-density zoning codes forcing 90% of the population to live in single-family homes exposed to the environment on all six sides, instead of giving them the freedom to choose to live in denser housing where shared walls increase thermal efficiency.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget that even if you have a lawn and a few trees/flowers on your single-family home backyard, that area is mostly dead to nature.

      So spreading the suburbs out that much means that much more nature will be destroyed.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You even said it.

      Car dependent development. There’s your actual enemy.

      Susie buying a car to get to work every day because cycling is not feasible is not your enemy.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          “doing anything other than blaming cars”

          “Car dependent society”.

          Blame the dependent society, not the vehicle within it