Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>That was hyperbole.

>But also not entirely unrealistic

Well which is it? Hyperbole or not, the intent behind it is the same, which seems to focus the climate change problem on some of the weakest sources of fuel consumption who also happen to be some of the poorest, most vulnerable people.

I think it's a kind of subconscious projection, that the example you've brought to the fore is those poor people driving to buy their groceries, not the industrial behemoths doing the real dirty work.



> some of the poorest, most vulnerable people

That is a strawman you introduced into the conversation. Most cities in the west are planned around cars. I’ve been to a few of the largest cities in the US and don’t think those 6-lane highways were clogged with “the poorest most vulnerable people”. You see the same patterns in south america.

This is really about the average car-centric culture, consumption patterns, the system of centralized food distribution through massive supermarket chains. It’s about urban planning, incentives, regulations and public policies, not lords vs servants. Note that I didn’t suggest individuals should stop driving to fight climate change, these changes can only start happening at a much higher level.

The EPA says emissions from transportation are responsible for 29% of all pollution [1]. This is a bigger slice than industrial pollution, and 58% of it coming from light vehicles, 28% from trucks (including the ones that supply these supermarkets, and not accounting for the diesel used to bring our bananas, garlic and olive oil by sea from across the world).

[1] https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate...


No, poor people getting disproportionately harmed by many climate change proposals is not a strawman, it's a very real consequence that needs to be addressed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: