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.