Why do cars and other transportation sectors get so much stigma in sustainability (vehicle, 2011)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now I am all for pushing sustainability into our human transportation needs, but I still definitely wish people looked more into the issue and realize they are using the transportation and automotive industries as a shield. If they really cared for sustainable transportation than the research shouldn't have to buy into political agendas or into more bashing about our transportation supply. Is not like our vehicles give 90% of carbon out.
First off fix our traffic issues, 2nd cut down the population and then 3rd encourage for people to be again responsible car owners(I know ironic coming from someone who hasn't owned a car yet), but how you also maintain your car(or just about any vehicles) plays a big role into sustainability.
Would you rather ban all transporting devices and have the economy collapse?
Cars, boats, lawn mowers, buses, planes, tractors, etc you can't just give the stigma of environmentalism to all our mobility devices when these serve our need still for transporting goods and people and help us with things like farming or mowing lawn.
Smoking and cooking outdoors isn’t even on the list because burning wood (charcoal bricketts) or tobacco is essentially considered carbon neutral since the carbon being released was consumed from the trees and tobacco leaves while the plants were being grown. Burning oil however is releasing carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. One truck idling in line at the drive through is probably releasing more emissions than all the world’s smokers combined.
In terms of emissions, the idea of going after big rocks first is the goal. Electricity and transportation are the biggest sources. Reducing population is a big one as even the most ecofriendly human is bad for the environment over the long run, but good luck pushing that agenda.
Smoking btw is stigmatized, but not from a sustainability standpoint.
Smoking and cooking outdoors isn’t even on the list because burning wood (charcoal bricketts) or tobacco is essentially considered carbon neutral since the carbon being released was consumed from the trees and tobacco leaves while the plants were being grown. Burning oil however is releasing carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. One truck idling in line at the drive through is probably releasing more emissions than all the world’s smokers combined.
In terms of emissions, the idea of going after big rocks first is the goal. Electricity and transportation are the biggest sources. Reducing population is a big one as even the most ecofriendly human is bad for the environment over the long run, but good luck pushing that agenda.
Smoking btw is stigmatized, but not from a sustainability standpoint.
What does this have to do with automotive this belongs in the environment section for tree huggers only.
What does this have to do with automotive this belongs in the environment section for tree huggers only.
Right, but this is discussing primarily why transportation and vehicles for other purposes get so much stigma from a sustainability standpoint.
I mean for instance, why are electric cars still struggling to have their technology set-up?
I also think vehicles/transportation are the most stigmatized sector in pollution because of car culture and because theoretically speaking of things like agriculture and trade.
But let's be real
Would you rather just outright ban all our transportation supply(especially privately-owned transportation) and have the economy be destroyed and have a global crisis of mass starvation?
Or just actually do your **** and stop using the auto and other transport industries as shields. And yes I understand driving for pleasure and racing, however as emission standards become more versatile anyways, then hardly you should feel any guilt.
There needs to be a balance. For example, look at the vehicles that were/are available in strict communist countries where the government/party decided what was best for the people and then compare them to what is/was available in other countries. On the one hand you had horrible design, engineering, and heavily polluting vehicles for a limited number of citizens and on the other hand you had great beautiful designs, many different styles and types to choose from, but little to no safety consideration. When there is a measure of government regulations regarding safety and emissions you force the companies to care more about these things. But the balance is allowing the companies to compete by changing and making their vehicles better and allowing the consumers a choice of vehicles. As transportation technology increases, so does the growth of industry and commerce. But when one industry or business grows, one must fail or reduce. First was cruise ships crossing the oceans, horse drawn carriages, trains, and buses all greatly reduced as personal automotive transportation increased.
As for the hatred towards these vehicles, their hatred is merely an extension of their ultimate hatred towards the oil and gas industry which they blame for everything. Even the most hard core environmentalist politicians and celebrities are invested in the oil and gas industry either directly through investments in oil companies or indirectly through their personal choice in private vehicles (planes, boats, and many different automobiles) and numerous homes (high utility usage). If their ultimate goal is realized, getting people to stop using gasoline powered vehicles and put the oil and gas industry out of business, then they can kiss good-bye all the things they enjoy. However, because they believe like communist then it'll be like Animal Farm where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
There must be a balance. Continue government regulation on safety and emissions, continue to allow private industry development, continue to allow consumers the freedom to choose the vehicle that suits their needs and personal taste. As technology progresses, so will the efficiency.
There needs to be a balance. For example, look at the vehicles that were/are available in strict communist countries where the government/party decided what was best for the people and then compare them to what is/was available in other countries. On the one hand you had horrible design, engineering, and heavily polluting vehicles for a limited number of citizens and on the other hand you had great beautiful designs, many different styles and types to choose from, but little to no safety consideration. When there is a measure of government regulations regarding safety and emissions you force the companies to care more about these things. But the balance is allowing the companies to compete by changing and making their vehicles better and allowing the consumers a choice of vehicles. As transportation technology increases, so does the growth of industry and commerce. But when one industry or business grows, one must fail or reduce. First was cruise ships crossing the oceans, horse drawn carriages, trains, and buses all greatly reduced as personal automotive transportation increased.
As for the hatred towards these vehicles, their hatred is merely an extension of their ultimate hatred towards the oil and gas industry which they blame for everything. Even the most hard core environmentalist politicians and celebrities are invested in the oil and gas industry either directly through investments in oil companies or indirectly through their personal choice in private vehicles (planes, boats, and many different automobiles) and numerous homes (high utility usage). If their ultimate goal is realized, getting people to stop using gasoline powered vehicles and put the oil and gas industry out of business, then they can kiss good-bye all the things they enjoy. However, because they believe like communist then it'll be like Animal Farm where all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
There must be a balance. Continue government regulation on safety and emissions, continue to allow private industry development, continue to allow consumers the freedom to choose the vehicle that suits their needs and personal taste. As technology progresses, so will the efficiency.
So what's your hope for EVs and hybrids anyways?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
