There's plenty of people, myself included, who don't have a car but would otherwise probably get one if effortless car services on-demand like Uber didn't exist. You need to take that into account.

According to some estimates I've seen just constructing a car is equivalent to 3-4 years of carbon footprint of driving it[1][2].

You might say "buy used!". I would, but over the entire economy it would add up to the same amount, the net demand for new cars would increase.

1. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t...

2. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20...

That EPA link says nothing about the embodied carbon footprint of manufacturing vehicles.

The Guardian article is very deceptive:

"... the emissions from the manufacture of a top-of-the-range Land Rover Discovery ... may be as much as four times higher than the tailpipe emissions of a Citroen C1."

Did you see the trick they pulled there?

They took carbon emissions from manufacture of a large vehicle (Land Rover Discovery), and divided it by the tailpipe emissions of a very efficient small vehicle (Citroen C1) in order to concoct a large-sounding, but ultimately meaningless comparison "4 times higher". You may as well compare the manufacturing emissions of the Land Rover to the tailpipe emissions of a cow.

But even assuming your point about manufacturing emissions, while you don't buy a new vehicle yourself because of your use of ride services, the cars used for ride services will be replaced more often, because they are more heavily utilized, and hence will have to be replaced more often.

On second look, yes that Guardian source is pretty shitty. I couldn't find some authoritative source for the CO^2 emissions required to produce a new car. My point was that you had to consider it.

    > cars used for ride services will be replaced
    > more often.

It's not meaningful to consider how often they're replaced, but what mileage they tend to get if we're going to look at how the CO^2 cost of producing the car is amortized over its lifetime.

According to EPA statistics a typical car gets used for 100-200K miles[1], for taxis that number seems to be easily 2x or 3x larger[2]. So for the same amount of moving people from A to B taxis are mor CO^2 efficient.

Of course there are all sorts of secondary effects you're not taking into account. Once people don't own a car because they have something like Uber available to them, they're more likely to use a bike or public transport for a trip they'd otherwise take by car. Just compare somewhere like NYC to LA in terms of how much CO^2 a typical person emits while going about their day.

I don't know what the exact numbers are, but this is a lot more complex than what you're making it out to be.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_longevity#Statistics

2. https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-does-a-NYC-taxi-do-in-i...

Have you ever used Uber pool? Two different customers sharing the same vehicle, lowering greenhouse gas.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, that people sharing a vehicle increases greenhouse gas. Citation is required that it would.

This is too short-sighted. In my city a lot of people use Uber INSTEAD of readily available public transit (anecdotal observation). That's kind of a bad deal if it's a widespread truth. This would continue to hurt public transportation funding over time.

Ummm...are you arguing against better customer value? Because taxi-like services are now more affordable for more people that is a bad thing?

Uh. Please decide whether you're arguing for increased customer value or decreased emissions.

With Uber Pool you can have both. People can choose to use Uber pool and in exchange for a bit of additional time for transit, save both money and save the environment. Win Win (lose as far as time).

Still a net loss against public transportation, the current savings are also largely driven by artificially low fares that Uber subsidizes with driver bonuses (to undercut the market).

Capitalism isn't the best way to solve public infrastructure problems.

Public transportation better serves: the poor, those without smartphones, people with small children, people in trafficked areas, the handicapped...

Uber/Lyft fails on all of the above in most areas it serves, and potentially decreases overall public transit use (which hurts funding overall).

Buses and trains carry a lot more people per trip so the use of Uber pool does not negate the greenhouse gas argument. Uber pool will pollute more than other forms of mass transportation. Uber pool is only a subset of Uber users too.

Uber pool takes two or more unrelated passengers and puts them in the same vehicle. This is clearly less greenhouse gas generated than if all passengers take independent cars. Therefore, Uber pool reduces greenhouse gasses.

By your argument, because Uber/Lyft provides better customer service overall compared with Taxi service which is why they are commanding such a large market share, that is a bad thing because people are taking more cars over mass transit as a result.

You're missing the point. The comparison isn't everyone taking a single car vs using Uber pool, the comparison is people using Uber (pool or not) vs using public transit.

Uber pool might lower the amount of greenhouse gases compared to everyone using individual Ubers, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the increase from people using Uber instead of public transit

I have to flag you because you are not discussing this in good faith. You are constantly dodging questions, and trying to put words in people's mouths.

What I have said is logical and true: Uber Pool saves greenhouse greenhouse gas because instead of having separate vehicles people are sharing the same vehicle. What people seem to be arguing is that because taxi (or taxi equivalent rates) are more affordable for low-income people and are no longer taking inconvenient mass transit, then that is some sort of negative, which is terribly elitist.

Why not argue for doubling taxi fares and banning Uber, equivalents altogether and force anyone without a private vehicle (which is the majority of people in Manhattan and perhaps even NYC) to take mass transit? It is a silly argument. Because Uber is provider better customer service at a lower cost, that is a bad thing? Really?

Not only is what you’ve said not logical or true, you keep putting your irrelevant Uber love in threads where we’re discussing Uber’s toxic office culture. Whatever you feel about the NYC taxi industry is irrelevant when discussing a culture that fosters sexual harassment.

And even more in bad faith is your constant assertion that people who are not fans of Uber are somehow against poor people. Your entire second paragraph is filled with this. Based on that, I could easily say that, because of your comments of Uber love, you’re a huge fan of the kind of office culture that Susan Fowler wrote about. Would it be accurate? Probably as accurate as your assertion that those who are against Uber is against poor people.

> This is clearly less greenhouse gas generated than if all passengers take independent cars

But it's MORE greenhouse gas generated than if all passengers took the subway.

Where I've used Uber, buses, subways, and trains have simply not been an option most of the time. You can't throw a subway at every transportation problem.