Cars are only a part of the problem, but people who need to drive any old car just to work are an even smaller one. There are many many people who drive oversized fuel inefficient cars for no particular reason, or are just as wasteful in the rest of their lives. Even in Europe many people drive alone in their cars even when great public transport is available just because it's more comfortable.

That's not the gas station's or the car manufacturer's fault, it's the driver's.

Cars are basically the entire problem. Cars allow everyone to consume more space per person, and more space per person means more mass can be consumed and that mass has to travel further distances. And all of that translates to more energy consumed per person.

When it comes to the overall problem of climate change cars are only one issue, the others being manufacturing, construction, services, agriculture, travel, etc. Many of these don't have a clean solution yet for the current demand so fossil fuels are here to stay unless we manage to reduce that demand, which the individual consumer needs to accept.

>unless we manage to reduce that demand, which the individual consumer needs to accept.

My point was no one needs to accept that as long as cars are around.

I don't think cars are responsible for waste in agriculture or air travel, but ok.

That is true, I guess if people did not have personal cars, then that consumption could be replaced by air travel and/or more food that travels further (even more than the current amounts).

If public transportation was as reliable, comfortable and cheap as driving a car, nobody would drive a car. That's my whole point. But it's not - it's expensive, unreliable and utterly uncomfortable.

In my city we have fantastic public transportation that's cheap, comfortable, reliable and faster than sitting in traffic. Despite that, the streets are full of single-occupant cars with drivers who just don't want to mingle with the plebs. They're not helpless against big oil - they're just wasteful.

> the streets are full of single-occupant cars with drivers who just don't want to mingle with the plebs

I assume the "comfortable" public transportation still requires one to occupy same space with many other people, perhaps even sharing personal space during rush hour?

If my assumption is correct, I'd say that public transportation is not nearly as comfortable as it needs to be to replace cars. Not many people like having to share room with strangers, especially when there is no requirement of personal hygiene or quieteness.

And that's not even mentioning the issue of safety - how safe are you from getting mugged and/or killed on your public transportation? The risk is drastically lower when you're in your own car.

> If my assumption is correct, I'd say that public transportation is not nearly as comfortable as it needs to be to replace cars. Not many people like having to share room with strangers, especially when there is no requirement of personal hygiene or quieteness.

Well then those people can't pretend that they have no choice but to pollute or that it's big companies' fault, they're just too spoiled to accept any change to their lifestyle. That's my whole point.

> And that's not even mentioning the issue of safety - how safe are you from getting mugged and/or killed on your public transportation? The risk is drastically lower when you're in your own car.

Where I live (Budapest) you're way more likely to die in a car crash than get killed on public transport (or anywhere). This isn't the US or Somalia.

For comparison, last year there were 89 murders and 201 traffic fatalities. People make 3.2 million trips on public transport every day.

> they're just too spoiled to accept any change to their lifestyle

You can blame people for not sacrificing their individual comforts (while probably enjoying many certain comforts yourself), but it's pointless, because you'll never get all the people to stop using cars individually one by one.

Why not blame government who doesn't want to create comfortable public transportation? Government is the only one capable of actually making a change, so how are they not to blame for not doing it?

The very view that "public transportation is supposed to be less comfortable than cars" is the reason why cars will never die out. At least until that view dies out.

According to you being among strangers is already uncomfortable, so by your logic comfortable _public_ transportation is impossible.

I'm not guilt tripping anyone, I'm just saying if someone gets in their car because they don't want to be next to other people then they lose the right to shift the blame to big companies. You don't get to blame McDonalds for pollution if you choose to eat a Big Mac there every day.

> According to you being among strangers is already uncomfortable, so by your logic comfortable _public_ transportation is impossible.

It is not necessary to be among strangers in public transportation - there are many trains that provide private cabins. It's just cheaper to not have them and just cram everyone into a one big room.

> You don't get to blame McDonalds for pollution if you choose to eat a Big Mac there every day.

I disagree. If McDonalds is polluting the environment, the government is to blame for not stopping them. Consumers are not, as they individually can't do anything about them.

You seem to imply that consumers should magically synchronize and all stop eating McDonalds at the same time to teach them a lesson, but I hope you see how that's just a pipe dream.

> It is not necessary to be among strangers in public transportation - there are many trains that provide private cabins. It's just cheaper to not have them and just cram everyone into a one big room.

This is totally impossible for urban transport like trams or buses. When you walk on the street, you're among strangers. It's exactly the same. This idea of travelling around in the city in your private little bubble is a half-century old luxury and not the standard (unless you were an aristocrat).

> If McDonalds is polluting the environment, the government is to blame for not stopping them. Consumers are not, as they individually can't do anything about them.

> You seem to imply that consumers should magically synchronize and all stop eating McDonalds at the same time to teach them a lesson, but I hope you see how that's just a pipe dream.

It's exactly the same argument as with democracy. No individual voter can decide the election but they have an individual responsibility to act according to their values. If many individuals vote with a spine, the dictator won't get elected. If many individuals consume with a spine, polluting companies will go out of business.

If you take that logic line one more step, it’s a good thing Exxon stands ready to supply those consumers with the oil products they need.

Yes, as much as it's good that a domestic abuser still pays the rent and puts the food on the table.

On the other hand, it is a failure of the government that people don't have any other choice but to consume what is available.

Don't blame powerless victims, blame the powerful who are responsible, but do nothing about the problem.

If 5% of the people on the road are victims and 95% of the people drive huge cars just because they feel like it, can't they be blamed?

The victims? Of course they can't be blamed.

The people who drive huge cars can be blamed, but it's pointless because you'll never get people to voluntarily stop driving huge cars if they want to drive huge cars. You can, and should, blame the government for allowing manufacturers to sell huge cars and people to drive them, if the problem is so huge.

If there's a point to your comment, I did not get it.

The point is that people who buy huge cars can't claim that it's Ford's fault for polluting when it's their personal choice to get a wasteful vehicle. Same with people who fly a lot for fun or any number of environmentally damaging things.

Yeah, but each individual, by themselves, cannot make any significant positive change by giving up huge cars, while doing so means giving up something they want. So the gain/loss tradeoff is not good on an individual level.

You can assign collective blame, but what good is that, except for virtue signalling and guilt tripping? It's not an effective method of social change.

There is an organization (government) that can make those changes that you want (ban huge cars) - so why not blame them for not doing it?