This is clearly false. It may feel like a personal attack on your freedom but:

1. It's not personal, this is a systemic problem and no one is trying to punish or harm you. The aim is ultimately to prevent harm, not just to you but to your whole community.

2. It's not an attack. The goal is not to cause you harm, again it's to prevent harm.

3. I'm not even sure what "freedom" means in this context. Do you feel that your freedom has been infringed upon when you have to stop at a cross walk for a pedestrian? Does not taking a shit in a public pool infringe upon this "freedom"? Freedom, for social organism, cannot mean complete and unrestricted action. The only people who have this view are actual toddlers, and part of them growing up to be elementary school kids is to learn about their role in society and the limits of their own rights in the face of others.

BUT, 1) it is personal, 2) it is an attack and 3) it is a limitation on personal freedoms.

If we wish to make actual changes to save the planet rather than just preach, we need to recognize these truths. Telling people that their feelings are wrong just makes them dig in their heels all the more. IMO, a better approach is to recognize these sort of objections and think creatively about how to deal with them or mitigate the impact. Remember, the objective isn't to win arguments, it's to heal the Earth.

The poor always suffer most. What do you use your money for, if not to avoid suffering? Immediate, short term, and long term, that's probably how you spend most of your money, plus spending to avoid your children and family suffering.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way: since the environmental improvements of the mid-20th century, urban environments have been the clear winners for living affordably, to say nothing of the accessibility of public services. Poor people may not be able to live in the most expensive zip code of NYC, LA, SF, etc., but then they were hardly going to be living on 100-acre estates when they're living in rural or suburban settings. Car-dominated infrastructure poses enormous personal costs for every single person and miserable additional costs to ferry around non-driver children.

So, enough of your government-subsidized 'freedom'. I want the freedom to safely cross the street to church without a police officers (and half the other cars) accelerating into me in the crosswalk. I want the freedom to bike to work safely. I want the freedom for my children to bike to parks, schools, and libraries, like I could growing up. I want the federal and state governments to stop dumping money on my town to build roads as wide as runways to facilitate firetrucks doing 3 point turns and police flying through neighborhoods like action-movie jackasses.

Revenue-neutral carbon tax is pretty much equivalent to giving everyone carbon credits and allowing trading them (just with less overhead). If some rich people pay more tax to pollute more, then more money would be distributed back to everybody.

Is there only one poor person?

Harming a class of people is not a personal attack.

This is the most tone deaf statement. If green policies make it harder for me to provide for my family, live our life as we see fit, or force me to do things I don't want to it is _very_ personal, like incredibly personal. There is no reason for you or anyone else to have any power over my life as a voter or a king, period.

Unless you have your own private air that never touches anyone else's air, we all have a right to control your actions that change our collective air. If you don't agree, go find your own planet and live there.

Yes, it's terrible. Were it not for that accursed law thar robs us of our liberty, I would murder you on the spot for such an asinine comment.

Understand now partially what a society is about?

You are simply a product of an environment you had no say in creating.

It is if the justification you provide for having this right is that it is "God-given" or a consequence of "natural law" or something like that. Because what that boils down to is that you are claiming the right to ignore the economic externalities of your actions because you are somehow special, despite being unable to provide any evidence for your specialness beyond your own personal beliefs. That is the defining characteristic of extremism. Extremism does not have to be extreme, it just has to be unassailable.

Definition 3 is:

"any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies"

I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies even if the right you claim doesn't seem "extreme" at first glance. (And I qualify it in this way because "the right to drive" doesn't seem extreme at first glance, but could in fact result in the destruction of technological civilization if enough people claim it, so whether or not driving is "extreme" depends on your perspective.)

'I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies even if the right you claim doesn't seem "extreme" at first glance.'

Just because someone claims an improper reason, doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong (you could have false premises and a true conclusion - that makes a bad argument but the conclusion can still correct). Often times the people claiming natural rights (or really any of their rights) just don't know the proper reasoning and instead resort to claiming something gave them that right - nature, God, government, etc.

It would be hard to fully explore any argument without getting to the point of someone's subjective reasoning that something is good or bad as perspective can come into play (good for me vs bad for you, why is society more important than individuals, etc).

I don't dispute that, but 1) you used the word "privilege" rather than "right" which really changes the tenor of the claim. "Driving is a privilege, not a right" implies that the "privilege" can be revoked while the (putative) right could not. And 2) my claim was about the justification that people offer for their claimed rights, not the rights themselves.

> Just because someone claims an improper reason, doesn't mean their conclusion is wrong

I didn't say it was. Just because someone is an extremist doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. The problem with extremism is not that it always leads to wrong conclusions or even to bad outcomes. The problem is that it makes it a lot harder to correct errors.

This is particularly relevant in the case of climate change. When the Taliban chops people's heads off it produces an immediate visceral reaction in most people, which helps motivate them to act. Our collective decisions to keep driving today don't have the same effect on our psyches, even if a lot more people are going to end up dead in the future as a result.

"2) my claim was about the justification that people offer for their claimed rights, not the rights themselves."

The definition that you provided says nothing about justification being a part of something being extreme.

"Our collective decisions to keep driving today don't have the same effect on our psyches"

That's because driving is not extreme. It's considered a moderate position and people accept compromises on it. Even the people that say it's a right accept some level of restrictions such as traffic laws, at least from a standpoint of not wanting to be punished.

Simply wanting the freedom to move about by driving is not an extreme position.

There is a compromise position - accepting that driving a car is right, but also accepting that everyone must pay for its externalities, w.r.t. CO_2 by uniform revenue-neutral carbon tax, like any other fossil CO_2 emission.

Revenue-neutral carbon tax is an approach proposed by many economists, but governments are hesitant to use that and instead go with selective bans and subsidies.

Sure, but what most people mean when they say they have a "right" to something is that they are entitled to that thing without strings attached.

Also, there are factual disagreements about what the externalities of driving actually are. For example, should you have to pay for the people who suffer respiratory illnesses because of vehicle emissions? The cost of accidents? By what mechanism should these costs be assessed and payment made? How should the costs be distributed? If I drive 5000 miles a year should I pay the same as someone who drives 10,000? And how exactly do you assess the cost of moving the needle on an existential threat by a teeny tiny bit?

And just look at people's reaction to the recent increases in the cost of gas! They are indignant, outraged, because they think that they are entitled to cheap gas. It's their right.

"Pay for the externalities" is a fine principle, but very hard to put into practice.

>I think that "I have this right because I say so" qualifies

I (and pretty sure a sizeable portion of HN) want precisely zero on-device CSAM scanning and encryption backdoors. I'm not willing to compromise on this (eg. "okay we'll backdoor encryption but only for terrorists"). Does that make me an extremist? Based on your definition it certainly sounds like it.

That depends on the justification that you offer. If your justification is (say) that you have a God-given right to sexually exploit children with impunity, then yes, I'd say that qualifies you as an extremist. If your justification is that CSAM scanning does more harm than good, and you can back that up with actual facts, then no.

It's easy to call pedophiles "extremists", but what if my argument is

"I have a God-given right to not have my on-device data searched"?

Justification isn't really part of the position, it's how you arrived at it.

It's a really interesting comment which I wish we could explore deeper.

I get the same feelings but about different things. So I know you are sincere. But also, it's cultural and quite superficial. In psychology it's called "identification". An attack on a thing you identify with feels like an attack on you personally.

So for example, for me, attacks on free software, or my "right" to program in a language I choose, or to run a server, feel like actual attacks on my fundamental "freedom" as you say.

In reality though, if the world took those things away, within a couple of months or years I'd have forgotten and moved along with the flow. I know this from the experience of being half a century old :)

Now, if I took away your car, I can promise you'd feel the same in no time at all. Why? I don't own a car, and haven't for about 30 years. I git rid of my car when I moved to London, because private cars are a liability there. One or twice it's been a minor inconvenience. But apart from that I feel as free as ever - I go where I like, when I like, with who I like.... just rarely by car.

Even though I'm a fairly conservative person in some ways, I think we must recognise that many things we cling to as "essential freedoms" are actually just in our minds.

Are you arguing that all it takes is the saturation of public transportation for the entire US? Or are you arguing that people should just all move to mega-cities? I'm genuinely confused about what you're trying to explain to OP.

"You'll adapt just like I did" is not very convincing for the majority of people.

That's not my assertion, nor the point of my comment. The point is that identification (and misplaced sense of ownership) makes us very reluctant to be convinced [1]. A point which you agreeing with.

Nonetheless, people adapt when change comes. Another example, only just in my living memory was "decimalisation" (and for other Europeans when the currency switched to Euro). My grandmother swore blind the world would end if they brought in decimal currency. Within weeks she was the strongest supporter.

In 1752 people in England rioted because the calendars changed from Julian to Gregorian. People thought they were being robbed of 11 days. When the day arrived everybody awoke, got on with their lives as usual and in no time completely forgot it ever happened.

EDIT:

[1] In fact people can be so challenged by identification they'll downvote the most polite and reasoned of comments to feel better rather than respond intelligently.

ALCOHOL FUEL! (Forgive me for shouting.)

If they are that spread out, they almost certainly have room to grow some sugar beets or sugar cane or potatoes or something like that, then they can ferment and distill alcohol fuel. This was pretty common for a long time.

> Before the American Civil War many farmers in the United States had an alcohol still to turn crop waste into free lamp oil and stove fuel for the farmers' family use.

> In 1826, Samuel Morey uses alcohol in the first American internal combustion engine prototype.

> By the 1890s, alcohol-fueled engines are starting to be used in farm machinery in Europe, making countries more fuel independent.

> By 1896, horseless carriages (cars) were showing up on roads in Europe and the United States. Because gasoline is so cheap and abundant, and also because ethanol is taxed at a high level, early US automobiles are adapted to gasoline from the beginning. Racing cars, on the other hand, usually used ethanol (and other alcohols) because more power could be developed in a smaller, lighter engine.

> In 1902, the Paris alcohol fuel exposition exhibited alcohol powered cars, farm machinery, lamps, stoves, heaters, laundry irons, hair curlers, coffee roasters, and every conceivable household appliance and agricultural engine powered by alcohol.

&c.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_alcohol_fuel

Alcohol is clean-burning, non-toxic, carbon-neutral, much higher energy density than any battery, cheap and easy to make, feed stocks are everywhere (I knew a guy who had a deal with a donut shop to collect and use their old scrap dough!), and the leftovers are a nutritious and valuable animal feed (yeast are protein.)

I honestly don't think I have any suggestions. Not technical ones. I am neither an expert on transportation nor planning. My comment is about psychology, and to some extent about history.

As you say, given enough time maybe new solutions would make changes possible. But also, maybe not. Given enough time it may be that people living in rural areas accept that the world has changed, and travel far less. Given time, maybe the societal pressures to travel will ease. It may be that in time the main attraction of rural life returns to being its pace and relative isolation. These are not necessarily good or bad things, progressions or regressions, just change.

To the extent that change involves loss as well as gain I do think that change is like the stages of grief. The early stages, before acceptance, involve various mental tricks to try carrying on as before.

Not accurate.

Isaac Asimov pointed out that people only got paid for 19 days' work, but had to pay a full month's rent, so they were perfectly reasonable to demonstrate.

That people adapt. That deeply held beliefs about the importance of some things turn out to be skin-deep.

Yes, and if you hadn't moved to London then you would indeed have a car and consider it being part of your transportation "must haves"

In most of North America, and now Latin America and bits of Asia, car dependancy is a serious problem, cities being built, such as in China which are wholly car depending, and designed to punish non-car moving people, it is a bad, bad, bad state of affairs

Hopefully eventually most cities will move to a scheme closer to London's, but if anything, things might be moving the other way

I've since moved out of London, and still have no car.

> transportation "must haves"

There are no "must haves" in this world.

> car dependency is a serious problem, cities being built, such as in China which are wholly car depending, and designed to punish non-car moving people, it is a bad, bad, bad state of affairs

Yes, that's tragic. And I don't think those places have a long-term future as they are. Fortunately urban areas can undergo radical redesign. I think the post-pandemic is going to force that on us anyway.

Yes in the core of a few other cities (New York is most obvious) you can reasonably live without a car. Most people don't live close enough to the core though.

The bad transit options is the first thing that needs to change. However nobody actually cares about that. Democrats are more interested in union jobs even though it drives costs up to the point where it isn't cost effective. Republicans don't even realize that it would be possible to have useful transit and so they fight throwing good money after bad.

Because you live in one of the densest, oldest and most public transit-packed urban areas in Europe, you think that your easy shift to not having a car is worth a damn to hundreds of millions of people who don't live in London, or another big, dense, highly developed city like it? A Texas farmer or Louisiana fisherman isn't just being a selfish, green-hating ass when he or she says that they NEED their truck or car. They really do, to live, and almost every day. What kinds of mental bubbles do some of the privileged people who comment on this site live in?

And people will adapt to it, because that's what we've been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. That's not ugly, it's beautiful. It's beautiful that humans are adaptable, resilient and inventive.

Well most of us anyway.

That aside, it really is absurd to dismiss the needs and complaints of hundreds of millions of diverse vehicle-owning non-urban dwellers based on how smugly easy you think it was to not own a car in London of all places. There's nothing psychologically obtuse about pointing out the closed mindedness of your notion. Yet you speak of identification and its effects.

Well, you've said it yourself. There's nothing a reasonable person can add to that, or hope to gain by doing so. So, have a lovely day. :)

What most "anti-car" people are advocating for amounts to the option to not drive. As it is now, driving is practically a requirement for full participation in society.

1. Is the climate being changed by human activity and rapidly so?

2. What should one do with this knowledge if the answer to 1 is yes?

Perhaps you don’t want to do anything about it. That is fine for you to decide this. But one should not answer ‘no’ to question 1 because doing something about it feels personal to you. The answer to 1 should have nothing to do with 2.

If you properly price an externality, the free market will help you deal with it.

It can be in the form of direct support of various activities of the petroleum industry, such as drilling, refinement and pipelines in the name of creating new jobs, but also in giant infrastructure projects reserved for cars, and legal requirements of square meter prices for car parking many orders of magnitude below market cost.

It was the way post-war society was built up and will take a very long time to change. It's so entrenched that once you start seeing it, it is really everywhere.

Yes, it is, and it is important to grow up and realize that actions have got consequences, heating meats is also unsustainable, flying planes is also unsustainable, the general levels of developed countries consumption rates are also unsustainable

As that rather famous "debater" says, "reality doesn't care about your feelings"

Liberties go partnered with duties and responsibilities, it is widespread commonplace at least in US related discourse to behave in a wholly entitled manner and simply ignore the most important parts of these social system (responsible freedom)

250 years ago, it would have been completely unfathomable to imagine feeding 8 billion people with the technologies of the time. I'm not just talking about it being unsustainable but temporarily doable, it would have simply not happened without maybe two thirds of the world rapidly dying of hunger. Yet, here we are today, with the lowest relative proportion of the world in recorded history in danger of famine.

This of course slowly isn't sustainable WITH present technologies being widely used. If those technologies change however, it could indeed become sustainable, just like what we have now is far beyond the capacities of previous centuries. Instead of default leaps to new prohibitions in environmental and climate change discussions, more focus should be made on promoting new developments that let us both live well and in large numbers while harming the world less.

And yes, maybe that restricts a car owner's "freedom", but should those car-based externalities be free?