This guy’s the worst at putting together a pursuasive argument. Almost all the problems he wrote wil have solutions we engineer in the future. Dismissing electric cars, the very real and imminent problem they have of CO2 emissions, based on cherry picking current problems they have in different countries is disingenuous and short sighted. eg. California’s CO2 emissions problems at night cannot be generalized to other places.
And the punchline of this article is an apples-to-oranges comparison - you can’t harp on transport trucks and then argue the solution is walking and biking.
Lithium batteries (or their successor) will get cheaper, lighter, and more energy dense because there’s a massive market opportunity for that now. This article completely ignores our ability to advance technology to solve problems, lol.
To cut him some slack, it’s hard when you start with a thesis that’s not actually supported by the facts. Mashing together a bunch of tidbits without actually logically connecting them is probably what I’d end up doing too.
I don’t know this guy, and I don’t know why he tried this in the first place, but I’m guessing he’s one of those people that will only accept a radical, even deliberately painful solution nobody else will go for.
It is a childish argument. A walkable/bikeable city is a chicken and egg scenario and the author has it all ass-backwards. Infrastructure to encourage walk/bike/bus comes first. People will not walk/bike if there is no safe way to do so, or places near by to go to. I love walking and biking but it will not get groceries to the store or lumber to/fro the Home Depot. It has its place, but it is not a panacea.
This guy’s the worst at putting together a pursuasive argument. Almost all the problems he wrote wil have solutions we engineer in the future. Dismissing electric cars, the very real and imminent problem they have of CO2 emissions, based on cherry picking current problems they have in different countries is disingenuous and short sighted. eg. California’s CO2 emissions problems at night cannot be generalized to other places.
And the punchline of this article is an apples-to-oranges comparison - you can’t harp on transport trucks and then argue the solution is walking and biking.
Lithium batteries (or their successor) will get cheaper, lighter, and more energy dense because there’s a massive market opportunity for that now. This article completely ignores our ability to advance technology to solve problems, lol.
To cut him some slack, it’s hard when you start with a thesis that’s not actually supported by the facts. Mashing together a bunch of tidbits without actually logically connecting them is probably what I’d end up doing too.
I don’t know this guy, and I don’t know why he tried this in the first place, but I’m guessing he’s one of those people that will only accept a radical, even deliberately painful solution nobody else will go for.
It is a childish argument. A walkable/bikeable city is a chicken and egg scenario and the author has it all ass-backwards. Infrastructure to encourage walk/bike/bus comes first. People will not walk/bike if there is no safe way to do so, or places near by to go to. I love walking and biking but it will not get groceries to the store or lumber to/fro the Home Depot. It has its place, but it is not a panacea.