zlacker

>>onnnon+(OP)
There’s nothing much to do. An environmentalist told me that it’s a few big companies that are causing it all but that I was greenwashing it by buying Terrapass so now I’ve stopped. I grew up in the city, too, but apparently that was the problem because you’re surrounded by a concrete jungle so now I’m buying a home in the hills. It’s pretty cool, honestly. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t just live in the hills since it’s better for the environment.

>>renewi+o9
Wouldn't per capita emissions in a city be lower? Simply because of transport - we're far more likely to use public transport than folks living in rural areas.

>>nindal+9a
But use transport daily. Ironically, at least in the typical North American city, you can’t do anything without a machine to take you over long distances.

In the rural area, you maybe travel once a week to stock up but otherwise don’t need transportation at all.

>>random+Ek
The bicycle machine emits nothing and can be used pretty easily in cities.

>>Whoppe+Yk
> The bicycle machine emits nothing

The tires and some types of brakes still emit micro plastics.

>>pxeboo+Uy
How much? If that's 1% of car (making this up), would this be a real practical issue?

By the way this argumentation is great to sabotage any argument to keep the statusquo. When someone argues for a way better solution, tell why it's still not 100% perfect to make people to believe it has the same flaws than the previous state. Repeat until someone finds a 100% perfect solution (hint: there is never such a thing).

>>maigre+OO1
I am not arguing against biking, just pointing out that with current materials, there is still pollution emitted. As you said, cars are likely exponentially worse.

Shoes have the same problem, except for some very expensive artisan brands. They may actually be worse per mile than biking.