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.
Just so I understand this, you would rather there NOT be any environmentally friendly vehicles out there, because right now the poor can't afford them?
This is true about all aspects of life, not just environmental ones. The poor always have it worse off.
I read that post differently and its easy to understand that isn't what the individual meant.
Where did you read that the individual said they would rather not there be any environmentally friendly vehicles out there? Clearly that was said by anyone nor implied by anyone.
Trying to co-opt posts seems to be a common theme with the do anything crowd.
But to your point, while the poor always have it worse off, does that mean the wealthy get to do as they want instead of as they demand of others when it comes to being environmentally conscious?
Why is it that the same people who complain about potential hazards and dangers always exempt the potential hazards or dangers when it comes to EVs? Are EVs perfected to the point where all the consequences to the environment resulting from their manufacture and use are known? It would seem so considering absolutely nothing can ever be said without someone putting words in other's mouths.
Proof that what the government entities in Paris are doing (reducing the number of cars legally able to be driven on any day) is sheer stupidity and solves nothing.
They did this before, in 1997, something the do anything crowd doesn't want to talk about. Did it solve the problem then? If so they wouldn't have the problem now would they?
Yet, certain people will jump for joy that someone is doing something, even if the proof is before their eyes that it doesn't solve any problem.
It would be one thing if a meaningful solution came from this stupid effort but all it really does it get people to figure out a way around the nonsense. Two cars anyone?
With all the crime there, it is amazing that they have the ability to put 700 police officers at checkpoints. What a way to use a police force but then that is just fine with the do anything crowd where the ends also justify the means.
I had a question, not a statement. I wanted the person to answer the question, because I didn't know what they meant. I want to know what they think the answer is. I don't have one. I struggle with it philosophically myself.
No car has been perfected yet, newer ones are a whole lot cleaner than older ones, especially in the diesel segment. Even the fuel is a lot cleaner. Gas, Hybrid, Hydrogen, CNG, BEVs have come along was as well. No car, no matter what the powertrain is, will ever be totally environmentally friendly unless we have an environmentally friendly way to make the "carriage part" of the car. To my knowledge we don't. Subaru probably has one of the most environmentally friendly plants and some would argue that is like saying it is the best, dirtiest plant. Or advertising the healthiest cigarette. In the car - the glue, carpet (which uses oil to make), plastics, and fabric all have an environmental cost. The animal rights crowd goes nuts over leather seats. Somethings are more recyclable than others, but we've already established that recycling isn't totally environmentally friendly either.
Paris could have just banned people by their driver's license number instead of car tag, but that would have absolutely prevented the wealthy from driving. So in order to ensure the wealthy are not impacted by this, they just did the license tag thing because the wealthy will just rent a car, or use their second or third car which has a different ending license plate number.
This holds for most environmental schemes; they end up just punishing the poor while the wealthy are not impacted at all, this is just another example of this.
It is not illogical at all. The more well off people will have two cars, or means to rent a car, while the less well off are stuck with what they have. The wealthier are not inconvenienced by such things which again, places more burden on the poor.
What this ignores is that the public transportation system in Paris is among the best in Europe, and automobile traffic is among the worst, so you really can't look at it in "American" terms. Car ownership in the city is a burden to all because traffic is horrendous and parking is a challenge, so many people have no car at all, and relatively few have two cars. Repeated surveys have shown that about 2/3 of Parisians are in favor of permanently banning all private automobiles from the central section of the city. It's a different mindset than we have in the US.
Quote:
This goes for taxes and every other ill conceived environmental idea.
Sorry, but broad strokes of the tar brush, like this one, are essentially meaningless in a debate. If you have a point to make you need to present some factual evidence to support your view.
Quote:
And as I stated, environmentalists wonder why there is always opposition to the most trivial things when it comes to the environment; because every idea imposes a burden on the poor while it does not impact the wealthy at all.
The air is public, and shared equally by all. Have you considered that the air pollution issue in Paris negatively affects the poor to a greater extent than it does the wealthy, who can afford air filtration equipment to mitigate their personal risks? So it seems to me the poor actually stand to benefit more from this effort to clean up the air from dangerous levels than the wealthy do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k350
Paris could have just banned people by their driver's license number instead of car tag, but that would have absolutely prevented the wealthy from driving. So in order to ensure the wealthy are not impacted by this, they just did the license tag thing because the wealthy will just rent a car, or use their second or third car which has a different ending license plate number.
Well, if you're going to stretch imagination beyond reason, I can imagine the wealthy getting around your proposed restriction based on driver's license numbers, by having their OTHER driver take them in on Monday.
Seriously, how would you enforce this proposal of yours? It's completely impractical. Cars at least have big visible license numbers that cops can see, and that are machine readable if desired. If cops had to set up checkpoints and stop cars to check driver's DL numbers the traffic jams would have been enormous, and the fuel wasted by driver's idling in line would have been great, possibly washing out the air pollution gains expected from cutting the number of cars on the road in half.
As it was, the 700 police officers on traffic direction and enforcement duty Monday issued an average of 5 tickets each for violations... which they could easily detect because of the big, clear license plate numbers on the cars. It was widely considered that public cooperation with the ban was excellent.
Quote:
This holds for most environmental schemes; they end up just punishing the poor while the wealthy are not impacted at all, this is just another example of this.
Punishing the poor? I'm afraid that's a stretch too far for me. Matter of fact, the ridership on public transportation in Paris was up by 60,000 over normal levels, and everybody rode free. That richy rich guy you're so worried about with the multiple cars and the multiple drivers who didn't take the subway in to count his money missed out on a good thing!
In any case, after 5 days of high risk air pollution, over double safe levels on Friday, the half-ban on Monday was deemed successful, and the results of the effort, plus changing weather conditions, dropped pollution levels and led government authorities to cancel the planned second day of the ban on Tuesday.
Quote:
Martin said the government decided against extending the restrictions because the weather conditions were improving and the pollution level would not breach the safe limit on Tuesday. But experts said it would take some time to determine the impact of the car ban on the pollution levels.
Minute particles of PM10 emitted by diesel exhausts, woodsmoke and industrial emissions are blamed for causing the smog. The level peaked last Friday at 180 microgrammes, more than double the safe limit of 80 microgrammes.
From Al Gore to almost any other prominent environmentalist, notice where their revenue streams comes from? Not producing much but from telling everyone else what they should be doing, all the while they tweet from 50,000 feet aboard ozone damaging private jets. Then they trade or buy carbon credits, one of the biggest shams ever perpetrated on societies. Carbon credits, the Bitcoin for environmentalists that allows them to live unrestrained by the very impositions they want others to suffer.
All of these highlighted comments are off-topic, and part of the same-old same-old rant you've trotted out over and over and over again, rather than dealing with the actual topic at hand. Instead of constantly dominating the conversation with a fog of broad stroke accusations like this, how about simply engaging in what the moderator of another forum here calls "cordial debate?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
Like what you say isn't filled to the gills with ideology? Lack of planning isn't a crisis. That is what environmentalists prey upon though, sensationalism, another crisis and agenda driven ideologies.
I agree that the Parisian government's lack of planning on this issue, and paucity of effective actions has been a setup for the inevitable crisis to emerge. But stretching that government ineptitude to attack environmentalists, who have been warning of this eventuality for years, is ridiculous.
Quote:
Talk about out of touch with reality. More of the same swallow camels and choke on mice.
I know you love that ridiculous metaphor, which you also pull out frequently, but it's meaningless in this context. Simply meaningless.
Quote:
The "...everyone that they do not need to drive alone" comes straight out of guess what? An ideology. Can you figure out which one? Hint, needs testing.
Drop the arrogance. Drop the arrogance. Drop the arrogance.
It's a simple, observable fact that a large majority of commuters drive alone. In the US studies regularly show that about 76% of American commuters drive alone.( Commute Statistics | Statistic Brain ) I can't find stats for Paris, but a buddy who lives in Paris says it's about the same there.
Quote:
Just who gets to choose which of the everyone gets to drive alone and which do not? Ideology indeed. Sooner or later, this was going to come out, finally.
Nonsense. Various factors influence people to self-select ride sharing and car-pooling. Time and money are the big ones. When fuel prices go up significantly, as they have through various fuel crises, average passenger count per car goes up, and total number of cars on the road goes down. That has an effect on air quality. When two-passenger or three-passenger High Occupancy lanes offer faster traffic movement, average passenger count per car goes up, so they can take advantage of the faster commute, and total number of cars on the road goes down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
Trying to co-opt posts seems to be a common theme with the do anything crowd.
Name calling and dragging posts off topic is forbidden behavior here. So is aggressive hostility. There's absolutely no need for it here. None. And it's against the rules.
Quote:
But to your point, while the poor always have it worse off, does that mean the wealthy get to do as they want instead of as they demand of others when it comes to being environmentally conscious?
No, but the point of exempting hybrid vehicles, which have very low emissions, and EVs, which have zero emissions, is obvious... to publicize the improvement possible by adopting those types of vehicles.
Quote:
Why is it that the same people who complain about potential hazards and dangers always exempt the potential hazards or dangers when it comes to EVs? Are EVs perfected to the point where all the consequences to the environment resulting from their manufacture and use are known? It would seem so considering absolutely nothing can ever be said without someone putting words in other's mouths.
Not so. Reasonable, civil discussion of differing viewpoints is fine. It's the blanket attacks based on political bias that have been so exhausting here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
Proof that what the government entities in Paris are doing (reducing the number of cars legally able to be driven on any day) is sheer stupidity and solves nothing.
There's no such proof, and it will actually take some time for the analyses to determine what the practical effect actually was. Maybe it helped reduce the particulate count in the air to safe levels Monday, maybe it didn't. One thing for sure, it drew a lot of attention to the problem and to a major cause of their unhealthful air. Changing people's attitude is hard, and it takes time. First you have to get their attention.
Quote:
They did this before, in 1997, something the do anything crowd doesn't want to talk about. Did it solve the problem then? If so they wouldn't have the problem now would they?
Another reductio ad absurdum fallacy dragged into the discussion. Nobody actually expects a huge change to occur simply because of a single day event, especially not one that happened 17 years ago.
Quote:
Yet, certain people will jump for joy that someone is doing something, even if the proof is before their eyes that it doesn't solve any problem.It would be one thing if a meaningful solution came from this stupid effort but all it really does it get people to figure out a way around the nonsense. Two cars anyone?
In Paris, I don't see that as a realistic outcome. Owning and driving a car there is far more expensive than in the US, requiring a much larger chunk of a worker's income, and parking is ridiculous. The idea that people in that culture will buy an additional car, in their circumstances, just to get around an occasional odd day ban is unrealistic, in my view.
Quote:
With all the crime there, it is amazing that they have the ability to put 700 police officers at checkpoints. What a way to use a police force but then that is just fine with the do anything crowd where the ends also justify the means.
Another straw man argument, with no real relationship to the subject. Just more fog and distraction. Oh, how I would love to have an intelligent conversation about the lessons to be learned from this experience.
I think the whole thing is rather silly. It will cut down the number of cars for about 3-4 days and then people will figure out how to get around it. The people who drive cars to work will still be driving cars to work.
I've been on public transportation in Paris and it is very good, but it also is limited as to how many people can ride on it. Subways were already filled to over capacity during commuter hours. If cars are banned, then the carrying capacity of the public transportation would have to be greatly increased.
What does work and has a proven track record, is to require a yearly smog certificate on every car. Unleaded gasoline is available all over Europe, but as far as I know, catalytic converters are not yet required. We took the catalytic converter off out family car when we took it to the UK and drove it in Europe.
Los Angeles, California, did not ban cars, but they did start requiring the emissions certificate every year, and that made a huge difference in the air quality.
Governments can offer huge incentives for electric cars, or for cars with excellent gas mileage, if they so choose. That does some good to reduce emissions. Not that I think those cars are any less polluting, but they don't have the same volume of gasoline or diesel emissions, if that is the goal.
I think the whole thing is rather silly. It will cut down the number of cars for about 3-4 days and then people will figure out how to get around it. The people who drive cars to work will still be driving cars to work.
If it works, it's not silly, even if it looks silly at first. And at least at first glance, this impromptu event appeared to work pretty well. The majority of drivers cooperated, despite very short notice; total traffic volume dropped, and there was enough reduction in the particle count in the air that the second day of the planned ban could be canceled. As I said earlier, it will take some analysis to determine exactly what the contribution from reducing traffic amounted to, but I think it's safe to say it was a positive result.
As far as people cheating the system, I'm sure there will be some, but I don't foresee it being a big issue. And compliance doesn't have to be 100% for the plan to be effective. The beauty of basing it on license plate numbers is, it's a very simple concept which is easy to enforce and hard to beat.
Quote:
I've been on public transportation in Paris and it is very good, but it also is limited as to how many people can ride on it. Subways were already filled to over capacity during commuter hours. If cars are banned, then the carrying capacity of the public transportation would have to be greatly increased.
OK, and if a permanent ban were to be instituted, yes, there would need to be advance planning and probably some infrastructure improvements made. But it seems to me you are overlooking another possible outcome of the kind of odd-even ban they just tried... that people actually start carpooling. And with smartphone apps to facilitate pairing up that way it could be easier than ever before.
Quote:
What does work and has a proven track record, is to require a yearly smog certificate on every car. Unleaded gasoline is available all over Europe, but as far as I know, catalytic converters are not yet required. We took the catalytic converter off out family car when we took it to the UK and drove it in Europe.
One of the unique things about the situation in France, as the original articles pointed out, is that for a variety of strategic reasons, years ago France chose to promote diesel cars, and kept taxes low on diesel fuel, so now diesels far outnumber gasoline cars there. Newer technology allows the latest diesels to be greatly improved, but the older diesels blow a lot of particulate matter... the most problematic pollutant in this particular crisis... and there's no practical way to retrofit them with any kind of fix. So the only way to cut the emissions from the old smokers is to get them off the road. Doing that on alternating days of the week is a simple and fair way to spread the inconvenience around while cutting their total emissions in half.
And in fact, there have been similar plans operating effectively for as long as 30+ years in a number of cities, such as São Paulo, Brazil; Mexico City; Santiago, Chile; Athens, Greece, and others. .
Quote:
Los Angeles, California, did not ban cars, but they did start requiring the emissions certificate every year, and that made a huge difference in the air quality.
I agree that enforcing emissions standards with testing is best, but it requires a lot of long range planning to implement. Though crude by comparison, vehicle bans are quick and simple to implement, yet can produce an immediate effect. Coupling them with longer range efforts would obviously be best.
Quote:
Governments can offer huge incentives for electric cars, or for cars with excellent gas mileage, if they so choose. That does some good to reduce emissions. Not that I think those cars are any less polluting, but they don't have the same volume of gasoline or diesel emissions, if that is the goal.
When the pollutants in the air are double what is considered the top limit for healthful breathing, then yes, getting those pollutant levels down quickly is the goal.
You can retrofit diesel cars with DPF's which traps soot and particulate. Although it may be cost prohibitive.
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.
And with smartphone apps to facilitate pairing up that way it could be easier than ever before. 
