Re:Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficia...
by panzagl on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @12:53PM
(#20403807)
Do you understand at all how much damage you do to the cause of fighting climate change/environmentalism by playing these silly semantic games? How can I take you seriously when you arbitrarily redefine stuff you don't approve of as 'luxury'?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficia...
by ggm on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @07:10PM
(#20407534)
How can I take you seriously when you arbitrarily redefine stuff you don't approve of as 'luxury'?
It's not approve or disapprove it's afford or not afford in a wider sense than your personal affordability.
I don't disapprove of you or your life choices. I disapprove of a system which necessarily hangs up on this individualistic story against aggregates.
Not wanting to drive (hah) too far on this, the road system you drive on is a state and federal investment. If the heavy goods went by rail andnot road, and we did focus on deisel abatement and NO and particulates reduction you might have upsides.
Re:Fighting climate change may be cheaper and more beneficia...
by makerofspoons on Wednesday July 10, 2019 @01:09PM
(#20403968)
Is it not generally accepted that a personal car is a luxury? The vast majority of people in the world do not have one.