You aren't allowed to drive drunk because it hurts others, and that's not authoritarianism. It's simply not allowing someone to harm others, just as climate change is doing to many.
my lungs emit CO2, so you must either believe that infringes on your freedoms, or that some emission of CO2 is acceptable. What about the food you eat. How did it get to the grocer? How much energy did it take to produce the nitrogen that was used to fertilize the soil, or to drive the tractor that harvested and plowed the field? What about the structures that you dwell in every day? They took an enormous amount of concrete and steel which rely on fossil fuels to procure and assemble.
Unless you advocate going back to a caveman society, carbon emission is so deeply ingrained in our society that it cannot be eliminated in our generation. And you do not have the right to tell others to live like a caveman.
Given that, I have a really hard time reconciling the "we just can't do anything, sorry, it'll hurt our freedoms" attitude with the "I don't care about my CO2 output" attitude that is evident in the consumption behaviours of most people I see. It's as if they consider outputting tonne after tonne of carbon into the atmosphere as a point of pride or immutable entitlement.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissio...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-...
While total overall emissions (in the U.S.) may be steady or shrinking, the total amount of emissions for transportation is growing. There's no excuse for that. All it tells us is that an overall reduction in GHG emissions could be even lower if people made slightly more conscientious transport choices.
Just curious how you know this to be true.
I'm sure not everyone has a 'good' reason, but a fair number of people do make a conscious choice.
As far as what families feel they "need", I think it represents a larger societal issue around how we manage vehicle use and ownership. Most pickup trucks I see on the road aren't hauling cargo. And most 7 or 8 passenger SUVs have 1 or 2 people in them.
> Also, heavier vehicles are safer for the passengers.
Yes, for the passengers in that particular vehicle. More dangerous for others on the road who can't afford or are unwilling to purchase a similarly sized vehicle.
They absolutely do, it's about spite and punishing other people:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/business/energy-environme...
>“Why don’t you go live in Sweden and get the heck out of our country,” Mr. Blue wrote.” I will continue to roll coal anytime I feel like and fog your stupid eco-cars.”
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/29/17971903-to-figh...
>The negative impact of environmental messaging became apparent when 210 study participants were given $2 to go light bulb shopping. When energy efficient, but more costly, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) were sold with a sticker that read "Protect the Environment," conservatives shied away from them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
>Taking joy in that suffering is more human than most would like to admit. Somewhere on the wide spectrum between adolescent teasing and the smiling white men in the lynching photographs are the Trump supporters whose community is built by rejoicing in the anguish of those they see as unlike them, who have found in their shared cruelty an answer to the loneliness and atomization of modern life.
The article just describes what it is. It has no information on how prevalent the practice is.
All of the problems you have mentioned are solvable. And I think people's attitude towards environmental restrictions will change much more rapidly than you'd expect: https://www.positive.news/society/must-change-always-be-slow...
On the other hand we are very accustomed[2] to inequality having drastic effects in virtually all other respects, including such fundamental ones as how long you live and if you get to have your own room. For both of these, some countries have specialized solutions to absorb some of the shock (e.g. Medicaid, socialized health care, public housing, rent control). I guess it's not inconceivable to have something similar for transportation, no doubt with the same limited effect on inequality as with health care and housing.
But inevitably, global warming is going to affect the lower income groups first and foremost. If we wait, the effects of global warming will just be worse, particularly for them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_set [2] bizarrely so, in my opinion
It's not authoritarianism to simply increase taxes for kerosine to be more in line with car fuels. But the Gores and Schwarzeneggers like flying around the globe to Davos and other places to spread their message.
Look at car manufacturing. I doubt we will be able to 1:1 replace jobs related to combustion-engine based cars. There are so many parts and corresponding suppliers involved. It all vanishes with electric cars due to their comparative simplicity. From resources mining to car mechanic - many people are directly affected.
Of course new jobs will arise with electric cars, new mobility and computerized driving. But those are not for the drive train engineers, manufacturers and related workforce. Those will be for new, highly trained individuals or appear in a different sector, such as service - and that is if these new jobs aren't automated anyways.
Replacing plastic straws is facing severe opposition because the alternatives are not well liked. For quite a lot of people it is more important to have a non-soggy straw than to let one less bird die.
Many of us are also ready to reduce flying, especially ridiculously cheap flights that make your carbon footprint explode. Others, less fortunate than us, depend on such flights for their only vacation this year.
Are we going to take that away from them in the name of climate by imposing a carbon tax? Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€ while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere?
We are getting into authoritarianism here at some point...