Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kalaminu t1_j64cbsx wrote

Reply to comment by Randouser555 in Amsterdam’s underwater parking garage fits 7,000 bicycles and zero cars by Ok_Champion6840

It doesn't matter what they spent on it. When will you people understand that doing nothing about climate change will be both more expensive and probably result in a serious case of death.

66

Tophatt69 t1_j66e3bb wrote

He never said anything about doing nothing, just that it's a lot for a underwater bike garage...that seems very impractical. You can easily store bikes at home, and it allows instant access to the bike.

You can also check his edit and he clarifies his issue with it. You're just jumping to some anti climate change argument that wasnt made.

−3

SubjectiveAlbatross t1_j676p5v wrote

>just that it's a lot for a underwater bike garage...that seems very impractical. You can easily store bikes at home, and it allows instant access to the bike. You can also check his edit and he clarifies his issue with it.

Which is all complete nonsense.

This garage is not a replacement for home storage – they're not stupid. Perhaps you didn't read the article beyond the title, but this is a garage at Amsterdam's central railway station. It's intended to (1) hold one's bike when one rides to the station to take the train, or perhaps more commonly given its city-center location, (2) hold one's second commute bike. That's a thing because there isn't enough room for everyone to take their bicycles onto the train. Many people thus have one bike they keep at home to ride to their local train station, and then another at the station near their workplace to complete the commute once they get off the train.

60 million Euros is not crazy for these large and highly-trafficked facilities (underground bicycle garages of comparable sizes in Utrecht and Den Haag in less challenging geology/geography cost 30-50 million), and not even remotely enough to "revamp every bike stall in the country" when there are 23 million bikes there.

It's not "a trek" nor "inconvenient" nor "impractical", because again you're not walking from home to this garage just to ride around the neighborhood, and also because it's right in front of the station it serves, connected directly with a tunneled passage. He's fabricating drama without knowing anything about the garage or the country.

11

alc4pwned t1_j64iss8 wrote

You say that as though you think cars are the primary cause of climate change. Even in a very car dependent place like the US, personal vehicles only make up like 11% of total CO2 emissions. EVs will lower that significantly. I think a lot of people are hyper-focusing on cars and ignoring many of the much bigger problems. Comfortable western lifestyles are incredibly carbon intensive in general, even in the Netherlands.

−24

SubjectiveAlbatross t1_j64u9nl wrote

It's a bit more than 15% (and probably higher once you account for all the supporting infrastructure and induced sprawl). Moreover the "it's only xx%!" schtick is itself disingenuous. I've seen an Australian argue for example that "we're only responsible for 1%, we shouldn't have to do anything!" (completely ignoring in that case their high per capita emissions), the problem being that if you take these locality/sector exceptions to the full logical extent then nearly everything is exempt and very little gets done. 15% is a significant slice of the pie, and there's very little else that's "much bigger".

21

alc4pwned t1_j64wyer wrote

That’s if you use emissions from all “light duty vehicles”. They break it down further in the pdf, for “passenger cars” it’s more like 9%. I think the 11% was assuming you add some portion of light duty trucks to that as well but I don’t quite remember.

I’m not saying 11% +/- isn’t significant. But the transition to EVs and renewables is already going to dramatically reduce that number. So perhaps it would be more productive if Reddit devoted half as much energy as they do to cars to other sources of emissions.

−7

kalaminu t1_j64mexd wrote

Ofc they're not but my point still stands. Doin nothing will be more expensive in the long run, both in financial terms and human costs.

The sensible ones of us know that the real polluters and wasters is big business who have done a very effective job of convincing the public they need to recycle when we all know that waste is their #1 product. And don't get me started on the super rich buzzing around on their private jets pumping out more co2 that whole countries.

−3

alc4pwned t1_j6501r3 wrote

> The sensible ones of us know that the real polluters and wasters is big business who have done a very effective job of convincing the public they need to recycle when we all know that waste is their #1 product.

That’s not sensible though, that’s also just shifting the blame. Those businesses are producing goods/services for us. The emissions required to manufacture a TV you bought is a part of your carbon footprint. The emissions generated by the banking system or by Reddit servers etc are also part of our carbon footprints.

0

Minneapolisveganaf t1_j64mtle wrote

Animal production is probably the biggest and easiest thing we could do to lower the footprint.

Flying for vacations. Just don't do it.

But the problem is that basically every person who can fly or eat a mostly meat diet does. Neither of which is necessary.

−4