You can greatly regulate the use of gasoline and provide viable alternatives (bike lanes, public transport, electric vehicles) that don’t disrupt society in the same way we can reduce meat consumption or use far more sustainable agriculture practices (less factory farming and more permaculture practices).
Yes this will result in things being more expensive and ‘line not going up’ as fast.
If people democratically vote for extinction, it should at least be clearly stated on a ballot, on all ballots, on all receipts, on everything. (Democracy requires informed participants, it’s not optional)
I agree completely, which is why I’m a very strong proponent of sustainable urbanism and sustainable agriculture. Only thing I’ll add is that reducing our car-dependent suburban sprawl will actually be good for the economy, not just the environment. Not only does the housing crisis knee-cap the economy (and the housing crisis is largely a consequence of our pursuit of car-dependent suburban sprawl), but car-dependent suburban sprawl is a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme. Building denser, more walkable and transit-oriented cities would save money, stymie the housing crisis, reduce inequality, and reduce emissions.
Alright, lets get rid of gasoline and meat on a systemic level.
This is a false dichotomy.
You don’t need to all or nothing these.
You can greatly regulate the use of gasoline and provide viable alternatives (bike lanes, public transport, electric vehicles) that don’t disrupt society in the same way we can reduce meat consumption or use far more sustainable agriculture practices (less factory farming and more permaculture practices).
Yes this will result in things being more expensive and ‘line not going up’ as fast.
A plant based diet can reduce 75% of land use and cut 14.5% of emissions, then the freed up land can be used for rewilding.
So we really should go all out on ending meat consumption.
Going 0-100 is impossible. You need to find a compromise that people will actually agree with in a democracy.
If people democratically vote for extinction, it should at least be clearly stated on a ballot, on all ballots, on all receipts, on everything. (Democracy requires informed participants, it’s not optional)
I agree completely, which is why I’m a very strong proponent of sustainable urbanism and sustainable agriculture. Only thing I’ll add is that reducing our car-dependent suburban sprawl will actually be good for the economy, not just the environment. Not only does the housing crisis knee-cap the economy (and the housing crisis is largely a consequence of our pursuit of car-dependent suburban sprawl), but car-dependent suburban sprawl is a fiscally unsustainable ponzi scheme. Building denser, more walkable and transit-oriented cities would save money, stymie the housing crisis, reduce inequality, and reduce emissions.
We can tax them into oblivion. Or at least stop subsidizing them as a start.