2) even the most polluting Ferrari, which according to this page (1) emits 385g/km , is still almost a quarter less polluting than this car (506 g/km according to the article)
(1) https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/cars/Car-CO2-and-fuel-economy-mp...
But hey look! That one car! Fuck that in particular.
Yes, but this entire thread is about de-revolutionizing the car industry. People in China and India would like to have a word with us.
We should be working on sequestrating CO2 from the atmosphere using novel means (Solar, Nuclear), making breakthroughs in efficiency and promoting domestic manufacturing. I don't have the answers. I am just pointing out the double-standards that are hidden behind massive sweeping statements like "Ban all cars".
These discussions tend to be about one-upping each other instead of discussing fundamental issues and solving them. It is mostly political, not objective and shying away from confronting reality.
How is it de-revolutionizing to optimize away from massive, wasteful cars like this and towards more efficient cars -- or perhaps even systems where personal cars are done away with entirely as a necessity?
> People in China and India would like to have a word with us.
India has roughly half of the country not owning a car, and the US, Japan, and Mexico all manufacture more cars than them. Not sure what bone they'd have to pick in this fight other than you assuming they're invested in manufacturing cars?
> We should be working on sequestrating CO2 from the atmosphere using novel means (Solar, Nuclear), making breakthroughs in efficiency and promoting domestic manufacturing.
All true, but we can do all those while also disincentivizing wasteful cars like the one described in the article that serve as nothing more than dangerous, pedestrian-killing status symbols.