Since you refer to Ireland as home I'm reminded of a conversation with a colleague where we were talking about pollution. I suggested flying be restricted to migrants who needed to visit family. My colleague thought that was a great idea. Then I continued that migration should be restricted since it creates demand for air travel. Colleague liked that far less.

Disclosure: my spouse is a migrant and we both fly to visit.

All these things are great except one point in my opinion. I never understood "I won't have any children so I can minimize the effect on the climate". How about "I will have 2 children at max and teach them what I've learned so far but at younger stage? so that they will act responsibly in the future regarding climate issues while living and maybe doing things to lessen the climate change effects in the future?".

In the end, it is your choice with what you want to do. Things you're doing to contribute less like being car-free etc. are good, but I really find this extreme stance of "not having children for climate change" short-sighted.

Edit: typo

> I've no kids, yet (maybe never).

IMO this is short term thinking. What happens to the planet when you are gone? If all the like minded individuals who cared about the climate opt to not have kids, then those who inherit the earth will keep polluting.

Polluting is not some habit that people inherit genetically from their parents.

"The Marching Morons", Cyril M. Kornbluth

So in your mind, despite being in the top 1 percentile of historic carbon output, you have the moral high ground for not owning a vehicle?

Yeah those impoverished parents sure are pieces of shit for driving thier kids to school and commuting between multiple underpaid jobs. They should just take a pay cut and quadruple their commute time for the earth!

Let me paint it another way:

A vegan, car free, childless, software engineer in a big city has the carbon output of 100 Ugandan farmers.

Why do you get to use electronics, power, internet, and take occasional trips to Iceland while everyone else is morally bankrupt for having a vehicle?

I have the moral high ground over the person I was a few years ago.

The fact of the matter is: car use kills people through pollution. Minimizing car use kills fewer people. To use your car less is OFTEN an available choice.

Morally bankrupt would be someone arguing against reducing car use.

> To use your car less is OFTEN an available choice.

Only to wealthy privileged people who can discuss their first-world problems on forums like this. As folks get poorer on the scale the more a car becomes an unavoidable necessity for many.

I applaud to your personal choices and sacrifices, but please don't make it sound like everybody can and should make the same/similar ones.

Most of us here have/want kids. I say something very opposite to what you say - folks here, please have kids! Not many, but take your time and raise them properly. It basically means sacrificing large portion of your life to them, without a guarantee they will even appreciate it. Which is fine, that shouldn't be the motivation for it anyway.

You who are reading this, are a part of smart elite in this world, whenever you are, and can raise next generation of elite with disproportionally large amount of decisive powers in their hands.

Why, you may ask? Raise them well so they are balanced happy individual with clear drive to help make this world a better place, and they may very well become next leaders, business captains, politicians, or just good citizens helping those around them, environment, mankind.

Now imagine what kind of world would that kind of attitude bring. Don't just minimize your 'bad' footprint on this existence, try creating more of the positive one.

I live in a small non wealthy town in the UK, it's five miles across and everything is accessible without cars.

My neighbor has five to seven cars on their driveway. To let others out they start them all and play musical cars. Two of them drive to jobs less than two miles away. They use them for practically every trip over 200 metres. Their extended family visit every weekend, in separate cars and all live within five miles.

My other neighbors have three cars for two people, including a pickup truck. Again, they drive literally everywhere. Even walking distance.

Many of the young people here drive terrible modded cars up and down all day for no actual purpose than vanity.

If you tried to have to have a conversation with these people about their car use, they would claim it's their right and that they "pay for it". Yet what they pay is < 10% of the damage they cause.

Obviously, if you are remote, or have a disability or need to carry a heavy load you should probably use a car.

But many people think it's literally their God given right to drive a dangerous metal box, badly, burning irreplaceable oil, spraying pollution, noise pollution and brake dust literally straight into your home.

Every single car journal under 10 miles should be excessively taxed, with extreme taxes for trips under three miles. You should literally be forced to think twice, then twice again.

All of these people are literally saying: "Fuck other people's health, their sanity, their happiness, their time, their environment, the environment as a whole. Me drive metal box"

The entitlement of drivers is literally staggering.

I’ve got no problem with taxing carbon-emitting fuel much higher than today.

If you tax three mile trips extremely enough, you turn a 4 mile roundtrip into around 15 miles of driving in a lot of cases. Need to go A to B to A which are 2 miles apart? Drive A to C (3.5 miles) to B (4 miles) to C (4 miles) to A (3.5 miles). Does that policy make sense in light of the obvious workaround?

Tax the fuel and you align the incentives much more closely and much more difficult to workaround in ways that work against your intention.

>Only to wealthy privileged people who can discuss their first-world problems on forums like this. As folks get poorer on the scale the more a car becomes an unavoidable necessity for many.

I'm living on countryside in Eastern Europe and by no metrics I'm anywhere near to being wealthly

You don't have to be wealthly to have privilege of not having to own car, it's often about job.

Majority of people I know needs their cars due to their jobs. Of course part of people I know actually enjoys driving and stuff.

WFH helps with it significantly, but even before I've been commuting by train due to it being cheap and allowing me to e.g read a book, sleep and generally have time for me

For things that are within e.g 10km radius like shops, services, then I tend to use bike (unless its winter ofc)

but I think it's hard to do it pernamently, at some point I think I may need to get one just in case.

In cities it may be easier cuz you can always call Uber/Taxi

______________

> As folks get poorer on the scale the more a car becomes an unavoidable necessity for many.

Sometimes I believe that car is what actually keeps people poor

When I look at friends they spend significant amount of their salary on car - insurance, fuel, maintenance - it ranges between like 3k PLN to 10k PLN where minimal wage is around 2K

So if you have to pay 4K per year for your car when your year salary is 24K

then shit's no cheap and I think we're optimistic here, but often it allows you to have job, so it's terrible situation.

The person you're responding to is asking themselves questions about the decisions they're making, the impact of those decisions, and if they can make better decisions to reduce the harm they might be causing. Is this so bad?

Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws.

The purpose here is probably not to be a “better person” but to inflate their ego while belittling others.

What does it accomplish to shame drivers while simultaneously using AC and running water in the California desert?

I replied to a comment about the detrimental effects of air pollution with how I try not to be part of the problem.

If it were conversation about activism, I can talk about my engagement with the city council and contributions to relevant charities.

If this were a conversation about energy use in California I could talk about the premium I pay on my electricity so it is from renewable sources.

https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Get-Green-Energy/Residen...

Reducing car usage is, in that journal article I referenced, the number 2 thing you can do to reduce your climate impact.

I have not misrepresented anything.

You’re right about the water. That’s something I’m still learning about.

The simple action proposed was to not drive if your journey is under 10 miles. I don't think it was ever suggested that this would solve all our problems. Just that, if you can avoid contributing to the pollution, then maybe you should consider not contributing if you are an able-bodied person who could as easily bike that distance.

Most car journeys are under 5 miles. Imagine the benefit if the majority of these journeys were made by bicycle instead! Public health from less air pollution and more exercise. Less stress, less traffic, less potential for vehicle accidents. Governments might even decide to improve pedestrian/cycling/public transit infrastructure and turn car parks into people parks with green spaces (which would reduce absorption of solar radiation and cool your city and clean its air).

It's a really simple proposal with many obvious benefits and no clear downside whatsoever. And just because it isn't a silver bullet you are all up in arms against it? Tell us more how BrianHenryIE is the actual source of the problem here and how you should still drive everywhere because of his equivalence to 100 farmers...

You’re missing my point. FWIW, I agree people should try to minimize driving where feasible.

OP isn’t just suggesting that people drive less. According to him, drivers are “abhorrently selfish” and are directly responsible for death, disease, and need to take pay cuts and live in smaller homes so they can more easily fit into his little box that defines a good person.

I’m not up in arms about the idea of biking. I’m up in arms about people with extremely carbon expensive lifestyles claiming that everyone else is reprehensible for engaging in $specific_activity.

> Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws.

I've encountered this sentiment many times here. It's a bit baffling to me, to be honest. Yes, we all know that personal actions are small compared to massive structural changes. But why exactly do you think that it's one or the other? I'd wager that the majority of politically active people trying to change things at a high level are also changing smaller things in their day-to-day life, because it's an issue that they are passionate about.

In my opinion, the attitude that you promote ("why do the little actions when only the big ones matter") is more likely to cause inaction, and the people I've met who espouse that viewpoint say a lot and do nothing at all.

I must be coming off the wrong way.

Sure people should make those lifestyle changes where possible! I’m not against small change.

I get frustrated when I see people generalize the rest of the population as “abhorrently selfish”. Especially when their own lifestyle comes from a position of excess and privilege.

To clarify my position:

If you wanna make lifestyle changes for the environment, more power to you! I’ve got no beef with that. Just don’t use those tiny aspects of your modern life to paint the rest of the world as immoral.

I see, that's fair. Labeling and generalizing others in that way is not productive.

> A vegan, car free, childless, software engineer in a big city has the carbon output of 100 Ugandan farmers.

citation needed

> citation needed

seriously, it's got to be more like 1000 or 10,000 farmers.

I agree, for what it's worth. You're not alone with this.

Of course, there are many individual life circumstances that mean a car is an absolute necessity, but for many people it's a choice, whether they acknowledge they've made that choice or not. This is especially true for people who are more affluent.