to developers that they could fit another 2 or 3 stores in a lot that was previously going to be dedicated to parking

That is exactly my point. Underground parking adds 35-50% to a mid rise building construction cost. That means people have the choice between larger or cheaper units without a parking spot and more expensive ones with a parking spot. Even with underground parking mid rise buildings are already cheaper then single family housing. Especially ifthe area we are talking about has high land prices, like pretty much every city.

Imho the best policy is to require a permanent parking space close to the main residence of the person owning the car. With permanent access I mean that the space is only to be used for the car and has to be either rented or owned by the person using it. This is rather easy to do in a rural setting, but much harder the more urban the area becomes.

The next part is making access worse for cars. Place parking further away from interesting destinations then bicycle parking and public transport access. Like having bicycle racks right next to the shop doors. That also includes just removing parking as much as possible. Besides handicap spots obviously. Also modal filters to block cars to move through certain streets, but allow bicycles and pedestrians to use those. That can also mean one directional roads.

Slow down cars as much as possible. When cars are as fast as bicycles, cars loose a massive advantage. This has to be done using built infrastructure and not just street signs, but those are an important start. So narrow roads, little viewing space and speed bumps. Also traffic lights are a good option. Give priority to other forms of transport(default green for pedestrians and bicycles for example).

Macron actually did some good work on reducing single use plastic using a presedential decree. That would very likely be reversed under RN.

Thanks very much.

The problem is that there is really no great alternative to Googles search. Most of the other ones use Bing in the backend, which ends up being Microsoft. If anybody knows of a good search engine, which works well and is none commercial that would be great.

There are quite a few earlier cases for drilling though. For example Biden tried to stop new leases for oil and gas projects on public land, but that got struck down by a court. That was three years ago.

Also this is about new export terminals. Due to new emissions regulation for cars, the inflation reduction act and a few other laws, US oil and gas consumption is likely to fall. So the oil and gas companies try to export more. Hence more terminals.

What about slow driving? Cars are bigger anyway and if you for example need some time to slowly cross a red light one car per phase, it completly crashes the cities transport system. For a city like London that would work perfectly.

And this is why there is more drilling under Biden. Court orders to keep up drilling, court orders to allow exports and court orders stopping climate legislation. The courts being stacked by Trumps judges.

deleted by creator

Sure, but why would you built a nuclear power plant, when you are faster in having a clean grid with wind and solar. The workers building the npp could built more wind and solar after all.

Because solar and wind can be deployed much faster. You rather easily have a decade of extra coal or gas emissions, if you built nuclear today.

That is quite simply a lie. There are plenty of studies, that even just introducing a speed limit on the autobahn would have been enough. There are other nearly free options as well, like allowing municipalities to implement anti car urban planing more easily.

The problem is that the ministry for transport is moving billions from the railways to car infrastructure, while delaying the switch to EVs as much as possible.

The law, which has been weakend by the current government, was made due to the constitutional court ordering the government to strengthen its climate commitments. So this one has a decent chance of working.

Main question is why people still have cookies for what could be a static website.

So they want self driving cars, which do not brake for pedestrians and cyclists? Do I understand this correctly?

Most emissions are caused by rich people. Quite frankly as soon as you forget about the car, the rest is rather cheap. Solar panels powering a home are not crazily expensive and organic food staples are also not that much more expensive then the conventional competition. Electric cars are expensive, but the proper choice is to try to live car free anyway. A bicycle is cheap after all.

Anybody who actually is emitting more then the global average can live in a way that massivly reduces their emissions and afford to do it. Not to zero, but to a point, where it is absolutly reasitic to demand companies and governments to push for the rest.

The UK offshored most of its emissions. So as soon as you adjust for that it is about at the level of the EU on a per capita bases. However the EU has much more laws passed to actually reduce emissions in the coming years.

Yeah what a shame that the UK still allows some form of protest and does not just shoot them like the Chinese. /s

Seriously the UK is the fithed largest cumulative emitter and even though that is over litterally centuries even recent emissions are well above the global average. Combine that with a government, which allows even more oil and gas drilling, while even opening up a new coal mine. The UK is doing better then quite a few other countries, but it is not exactly great.

China emits nearly twice as much as the US these days. At this rate China is overtaking the US in 25 years or so. Probably sooner as US emissions are dropping, whereas Chinas emissions are increasing.

Obviously Chinas per capita emissions are below the US, but they are still nearly twice the global ones and above those of the EU or UK for example. When you look at cumulative per capita emissions China is about averge. However that includes a lot of emissions from dead people and for China those are nearly zero. If you only look at cumulative emissions since 1990 China is about as bad as the EU on a per capita bases. However with 30% of annual emissions.

So please do not pretend that China is not responsible for climate change. They absolutly are.

Imho hydrogen on trains is only a good idea, for long distance trains running on not electrified track. Hydrogen is more energy dense and easier to refill then a battery so a good idea for say US freight trains.

However Germany has all its mainlines electrified. In this case all three towns have electrified main stations. Battery trains are a good solution for that relativly short sections of unelectrified track, as long as charging can be done in stations. This would be the case here, as in most of Europe to be honest.