7656Re: [carfree_cities] RE: ETT and Canterbury Tales
- Sep 16 6:56 PM
> Eventually bikes and trains proved to be unsustainable because=v= What an odd statement. The latter three are *far* less
> of the greater efficiency of the car, motorcycle and airplane.
efficient and sustainable than the former three!
=v= Indeed, I would argue that the domination of cars and planes
can be attributed in part to their inefficiency. These modes
consume more oil, thereby making oil interests wealthier and
more powerful than when trains were doing the consuming. These
interest have in turn arranged massive subsidies for fuel, the
building and maintenance of roads and airports, and just about
everything else that has to do with cars and planes. Actual
costs become "externalities," out of sight, out of mind, for
others to pay. (Perhaps this qualifies as "efficiency" in a
certain convoluted economic model? Help me out here.)
=v= Sustainable? The "externalized" costs of ecological
damage from (non-newable) gasoline, exhaust, roads, airports,
ozone depletion, toxic tire dust, and even lead poisoning from
cars' wheel weights are Staggering! While bikes and rail are
of course not zero-impact, they aren't even in the same league
as cars and airplanes.
Ads below? Just ignore 'em.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>