- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
c/penultimatepanel
lets go through the third item a bit more in depth please
I’m sorry, best we can do is still allow you to invest in our stock market to hoard more so you can retire with a pittance through the magic money generation machine that requires unlimited GDP growth.
But their corporate store probably started selling your main ingredients for meatless Monday.
It was sarcasm.
Imagine how much cheaper that ingredient would be!
Is there a way to take care of billionaires that’s not so hard to carry around on a bike?
Guillotine would transport well by bike, like a canoe or kayak…
- Secure the blade
- add wheels to heavier end
- add bike attachment to the other
In fact, you could even make the wheels reusable for a nice kayak trip after using the guillotine! Win win!
So wholesome :)
Meatless Mondays doesn’t go far enough. It should be everyday. Meat is murder.
I’m sure with that attitude you’ll surely convince a lot of people. /s
So when you don’t have any actual arguments against their point of view, you resort to criticising their ‘attitude’. I see
And when you don’t even try to ask my point of view, you resort to assumptions.
I’m not vegan to make friends. I do it for animals rights and the environment.
being vegan doesn’t help the environment
Being less of an extremist about it would result in fewer animals being eaten, though.
In other words, you are killing animals via your attitude.
Lmao why I’m responsible for your actions? I don’t financially support animal exploitation and murder. You need to stop eating animals and get with the times. That is a lame excuse and you know it.
If you want to learn more of where vegans are coming watch Dominion 2018
I don’t financially support animal exploitation and murder.
no one does.
You are responsible for my actions because you are so combative I’m going to order a hamburger because of you. And today is salad day.
Lmao meatflake.
I decided to order two
Sounds to me like you were just looking for an excuse to do something you’re not totally convinced is the right thing… Your comment also reads way more aggressive than it would have had to be, which makes me think that vegan got to you more than you’d like. But that’s just me. And I’m in permanent conflict myself for trying to eat vegan myself and raising two kids (as predominately vegetarian omnivores - if that makes any sense.)
Sure if you want to read into psychology of a comment and “who got to who hardest” go ahead. I just saw a combative vegan and ordered burgers which I didn’t plan on eating today. Do with that what you will, attribute some internalised guilt, whatever.
you should give a trigger warning when you link gore
Factually untrue lmao. All social rights movements historically only brought about major change by being loud and disruptive
There’s some truth to that. However, not all loud and disruptive activities have been successful at achieving their goals. Most are counterproductive.
I would say that militant veganism is about as productive at promoting a plant-based diet as the Westboro Baptist Church was at promoting heterosexuality.
Why not vegetarian first? Improving step by step?
Vegan is not sustainable and far more effort, not possible for most. People try to get by. Unlike with emissions, a poor person essentially eats as much as the richest. But those are also those with the least free time and money to change to a different diet.
Why not vegetarian first? Because dairy is seriously messed up.
Cows have an average lifespan of around twenty years off the top of my head. Cows are mammals, and produce milk to feed their young. To keep them producing milk, you have to keep them perpetually pregnant. This is done via artificial insemination the overwhelming majority of the time, where a farmer puts her in a rape rack, sticks their hand up her ass far enough to grab her cervix and align everything, then jams a syringe full of bull semen into her vagina.
A side effect of pregnancy is children. Her calves are stolen from her after she gives birth, and murdered to be sold for veal. This cycle is repeated continually for four or five years until she becomes physically incapable of functioning from the repeated pregnancies. Then she’s slaughtered for her flesh too.
Dairy is the meat industry, just with additional abuses. Vegetarians are continuing to support the abuse of animals. It makes much more sense to just go vegan from an ethical standpoint.
Her calves are stolen from her after she gives birth, and murdered to be sold for veal.
almost no calves end up as veal at all. the vast majority of cattle are brought to full weight before slaughter.
Cows have an average lifespan of around twenty years off the top of my head.
no, they don’t. they have an average life span of about 18 months as beef cattle and maybe 6 years as dairy cattle.
To keep them producing milk, you have to keep them perpetually pregnant.
this just isn’t true. they aren’t perpetually pregnant.
A whole foods plant based is 30% cheaper and will save thousands of dollars in healthcare related costs.
I’m low income can manage just fine as a vegan. The only extra time needed is to learn the new recipes.
Abstract
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements.”
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/abstract
A whole foods plant based is 30% cheaper and will save thousands of dollars in healthcare related costs.
not for everyone.
“It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that
no, it’s not. this position expired. from your link:
This position is in effect until December 31, 2021.
they had been renewing it every time it expired, with as much of a gap as abut a year. it’s been 3 years. i don’t believe there is any reasot to think they are going to keep this same language if it is ever renewed at all.
“Whole Foods” is not what you want there.
Yeah, no, raising children vegan is the hardest possible thing to do safely/healthy. example from a study in Poland
And this comes on top of the fact that vegan people are richer and spend much more time thinking/planing food than average people.
So what does it mean for children on vegan and vegetarian diets?
This doesn’t mean every child who follows these diets is going to have these nutritional and health benefits or problems. And we also can’t say whether these problems will persist into adulthood.
But it does highlight potential risks which health practitioners and parents need to be aware of. And it’s a reminder to either find suitable replacements that align with the family’s diet philosophy, or prescribe supplements if a deficiency is diagnosed through a blood test.
In particular, parents and caregivers need to be careful their children are maintaining a good intake of protein from a variety of vegan sources (beans, lentils, nuts) and calcium (from calcium supplemented plant milks).
Whether you’re following a vegan, vegetarian or meat-eating diet, you still need to make sure the diet is balanced across all food groups.
I get it might not be easy, especially if you’re just starting out, but “hardest possible thing to do safely” seems like a stretch.
It is the hardest thing possible in terms of proving the right nutrition to your children using only vegan food. Any other form is easier. Any other age is easier.
Sounds like you’re vegan to make enemies tbh
According to that logic vegans are seen as enemies to everyone who is ignorant, cruel and lazy.
The more education someone has the more likely they’re to be vegan.
We should have toxic vegan zealot free Mondays on Lemmy.
Serious question, what would convince them?
We all learnt about the atrocious living conditions on factory farms long ago. We all know that the meat industry is terrible for the environment and climate. We learnt about the avian flu being spread on cattle farms, with owners hiding the cases from the authorities, with 0 regard for public safety. We all know that migrants and children are systemically exploited by slaughterhouses, many get PTSD or become alcoholics, some get severely injured or die because of accidents.
Yet after all of that, meat eaters still happily give their money to these places every time they go to a supermarket or restaurant.
The meat industry got people so hooked on animal products that they can get away with basically anything, change my mind.
Price.
That’s a good point actually. If meat and animal products weren’t ridiculously subsidized and the price at the cashier reflected the true cost then there would be an overnight surge in veganism. Nobody would have the political will to completely tank massive well lobbied industries though, regardless of any long term benefit.
Vegans should stop trying to guilt others into veganism and start lobbying to end meat subsidies (or reapply them to vegan food).
The reason people hate vegans is because many of them do it for personal moral superiority, not to actually help anything.
We’ve already come a long way on price, thankfully. When I go to local supermarkets or discounters (Lidl, Kaufland, Aldi, Penny,…), the store brand meat alternatives are already as cheap as their factory farmed products. Same for the milk alternatives, soy yoghurts, and so on. So price parity has already been reached in many cases, at least here in Germany.
I guess now the issue is that many of the discounter alternatives don’t taste quite the same as meat yet (although they’re getting better), and the premium plant-based products taste great, but are still more expensive than the cheapest meat products.
I for one don’t really give a shit about murder. Less animal cruelty would be nice, but it’s not a deal breaker for me.
I’m cutting back on meat because I researched the climate effects and it’s ridiculous, especially for beef. I care about the climate far more than I care about the lives or wellbeing of animals bred for slaughter. “Meat is murder” annoys me. “Meat is destroying our climate” resonates with me.
I know there’s a lot of people who don’t give a shit about the climate either, but there’s a lot more people who give a shit about the climate than there are people who give a shit about the wellbeing of animals. So maybe focus on that?
Buddy vegans are always calling out animal subsidies. Like I have been with Canada wasting 2 billion dollars on it. You need to pay more attention about the vegans you claim to know so much about.
Because it is the animals are sentient, they have feelings.
“People in the US consume far more meat than is normal or necessary for human beings to consume. This has resulted in an obesity epidemic, were heart and circulatory system problems are the biggest (second biggest?) cause of death in America and tens millions of people (probably more but I didn’t check) spend decades of their lives suffering from chronic health conditions related to food overconsumption. Eating less meat is not only good for Environment of the planet you live in, it’s also good for you”.
There you go.
Start with an “eating less meat is good for you” message (that can even sway selfish assholes) and then as they get used to doing it slowly convince people to eat less and less meat, which is basically the step by step approach that Meatless Mondays is going for.
Even just a reduction of the demand for meat might reduce the use of the worst, industrial, methods of killing of animal for food and will certainly reduce the number of animals getting raised just to be killed for food - it’s basic Economics.
Demanding that others MUST fully obbey your morals is just going to generate pushback and actually strengthen resistance to even the practical positives of being more like what you want, which ends up resulting in far more killings of animal than an approach that accepts that the way to perfect goes through less than perfect.
May I ask you nicely then? Because I think they have a point…
The most effective forms of activism are those that are the most disruptive
That’s true.
It’s also true that the most counterproductive forms of activism are those that are most disruptive.
Turns out that the degree of disruption does not accurately predict the effectiveness of the activism.
Pretty sure it literally is not murder, since that requires killing another human. I do love animals, but I will never agree to put animals and humans on the same level. I don’t want animals to suffer and die horribly cruel deaths, but other than that I do not care. I do not eat much meat nowadays, but that is because meat is bad for the environment. I care a LOT more about that, then about animals being killed.
Definitions are perscriptive, not descriptive.
Animals are moral agents, it is murder. It is unnecesary and cruel to forcefully breed and take lives for the sake of taste.
They have desires, ability to suffer, ability to love, build social bonds and connections. They don’t deserve to die.
Animals are moral agents
no, they aren’t
It is unnecesary and cruel to forcefully breed and take lives for the sake of taste
most livestock is bred and killed for profit.
Profit from from consumers which buy because taste and habits.
Farmers are paid long before their products are on the shelves
They’re paid because there is demand for their bloodshed and torture. Supply and demand. If consumers stopped demanding it the supply would diminish
supply and demand isn’t a magic phrase that makes your theory true. there is no reason to believe animal husbandry will ever stop before people are extinct.
If consumers stopped demanding it the supply would diminish
this isn’t causal.
They have desires, ability to suffer, ability to love, build social bonds and connections. They don’t deserve to die.
True but still not murder. You can use words to mean just what you choose them to mean if you please but murder requires a human victim
If some killed your dog it’s not murder then?
obviously not
They don’t deserve to die.
everything alive dies. why should livestock be an exception?
We’re forcefully enslaving, breeding, and killing billions annually. Theres a difference from killing and dying naturally.
humans are natural. what people do is natural.
Naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is “natural” doesn’t make it good
i didn’t say it’s good. if anyone is claiming that natural things are good, it is you, by claiming something you want to paint as bad is unnatural.
The whole point of the meme is contrasting tiny ineffectual lifestyle changes with actively targeting the people responsible for climate change. Changing the “meatless mondays” panel to “going vegan” ruins the meme by replacing what’s supposed to be small and ineffectual with something that’s actually radical.
Posting about it on Lemmy is pretty much the same as being in the revolutionary vanguard.
Vanguard means the front. So either you don’t know what that means, fam, or you’re being sarcastic. O:
Indeed
Hmm…one of these seems more important to do than the others…
Wow, way to not care about the environment. If you’re suggesting systemic change that can work, then I’m just saying you should make half-assed unilateral sacrifices that aren’t working. Or else you’re a dirty hypocrite!
/s
Installing solar panels?
Recycling right?
Recycling is literally the least important thing you can do (despite still being important).
The phrase “refuse, reduce, reuse, repurpose, recycle” is listed in order of importance.
It is also important to mention that most plastic recycling still ends up in landfills. Plastic recycling was sold as myth by big oil and plastics companies to make consumers think the waste problems magically disappeared.
I hate that they added more shit. “Reduce, reuse, recycle” was perfect.
“refuse” is literally the same thing as “reduce”
“repurpose” is a subset of “recycle”
What the fuck is it nowadays with wanting to tack on more useless shit to perfect mnemonics? Especially for a mnemonic whose entire point is to prevent wastefulness.
Cause people often misunderstand the meaning of words.
I’d think ‘repurpose’ is part of ‘reuse’ rather than recycle. Doesn’t recycle mean that you’re going to destroy the object to extract its raw resources to be made into a new product? Whereas ‘reuse’ just means that you are going to use it again. I’d say ‘repurpose’ means you are going to use it again, but not in the same way it was used the first time.
In any case, I agree that the added words are unnecessary. Maybe they were added to deliberately weaken the slogan. Sometimes people deliberately try to make sustainable living sound like a lot of work, by adding a whole lot of extra steps and conditions.
Repurpose is also similar to recycle though.
Because recycling’s entire point is to repurpose it into something else…
Which might be why people also want repurpose… but I’m old and RRR is better than RRRRR. A mnemonics entire point is ease of memory.
Recycle reuse damnit!
“repurpose” is a subset of “recycle”
Repurpose is reuse, just for a different use than originally intended.
Your point about reduce, reuse, recycle being enough is absolutely correct and all I ever hear about is the recycle part which is counterproductive when it is used to justify mass consumption and disposable products.
I should have known that my comment needed a “/s” at the end…
Just missing “revolution” in that list
Based on what do you say that? Any sources?
Hm, those are just saying it too, without data to back that up.
I mean, it’s really more of an intuitive kind of thing: recycling takes more than zero energy, while refusing or reducing take less than zero.
Okay, let’s look at it again: refuse - not buying it at all reduce - buy less reuse - use a thing multiple times for the same purpose repurpose - use a thing for a different purpose recycle - recovering (parts) of things
Why is buying less, without even specifying how much, automatically better than recycling (more of) the mountain of stuff anyone uses to live? (Note the indirect impact too, just because someone is rich and can outsource their impact does not make the net impact lower)
Also, many would see reuse and repurpose as forms of recycling. Like making trash bags from recycled plastic.
This is a complex topic and everything but simple.
EU Waste Framework Directive
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en
Recycling is not at the bottom there and generally it is not the same argument (not showing the different impacts of these things).
The bottom is disposal, and recovery is energy recovery - as in, burning it. Part of the disposal process.
Yes, recycling is the bottom for what individuals can do.
Recycling your glass bottles won’t negate the effect of a private jet taxing or a yacht sailing for 20 seconds even.
Always recycle. But don’t compare it to the incredible environmental impact the rich has on the planet. Everyone has equal rights of polluting. Some polluting is just necessary as a human life require energy to sustain. The rich and poor have the same quota.
Stop making it sound as if “the rich” are the sole producer of emissions. Everyone has their share in this problem. Some more, some less, some far more. 1 million average people reducing emissions a bit is still more than one “rich person” reducing it a lot.
Stop making it sound as if “the rich” are the sole producer of emissions. Everyone has their share in this problem.
Yeah, except it would be more accurate to say that the richest one percent have their 48 shares each.
1 million average people reducing emissions a bit is still more than one “rich person” reducing it a lot
So because each rich person isn’t responsible for a MILLION times as much, you want to pretend that they’re no worse at all? Fuck off with that nonsense!
Hahaha, that is not what I said. I said everyone is responsible for driving less, looking at what they are buying, flying less, … Instead of just throwing their arms in the air and saying the rich are to blame for everything. And note that probably all of us here are part of the world’s top 10 %, given how poor most of the world is.
I agree. The rich are the main problem, and that should be top priority. But that also shouldn’t be used as an excuse to not improve oneself personally. My suggestion is that people shouldn’t worry about aiming for personal idealism, but should just make a conscious effort to be less environmentally damaging than their peers, their family, work colleges, and friends. If a person achieves that, then they can be confident that they are not the problem.
[edit] Obviously if everyone did what I’m suggesting then it would be a kind of race-to-the-bottom. But obviously that’s not happening. If it was, then we wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. All I’m suggesting is a rough heuristic for is reasonable for an individual to do on their own.
everyone is responsible
Yes, but the ultra-rich are on average 48 times as responsible, so let’s start with them.
saying the rich are to blame for everything
Nobody’s saying that they’re solely to blame, but they’re many times more to blame than anyone else, so it makes sense to focus on them.
And note that probably all of us here are part of the world’s top 10 %, given how poor most of the world is.
Nope. The vast majority of us are in the 2nd highest quartile. Reminder since you seem to be horrible at proportions: 25% is two and a half times as much as 10%. Moreover, 10% is ten times as many as 1%.
In conclusion: you don’t know shit and should stfu with your ridiculous attempts at invalidating the whole concept of differences in scale.
You only need 100k net worth to be in the richest 10 % of the world. Wiki: Distribution of wealth
Maybe stop talking about me personally and instead discuss the topic.
You are right, we should all do something. That’s why I solemnly pledge never to take a private jet and to not engage in Space tourism. I dare any billionaire to follow my lead.
The only way
Hmm…one is not like the other.
It’s recycle isn’t it. As so much stuff you put into recycling doesn’t end up actually getting recycled.
People needs to realize this.
Technically they are just feeding the demand from a growing population so killing any humans is one of the most environmentally responsible things you can do. Down vote me all you want skanks
Oh so that’s Israel’s game. It all makes sense now
It’s amazing how great the world can be when we work together. Until we have religious wars so devastating that people are scared to bring it up again, the killing can’t stop won’t stop. It’s all been done before and it’ll be done again so just kick back and enjoy the ride(or get to killing). It sure would be sad if both sides killed each other off😿 carbon emissions would go down tho
The guillotine is so well drawn and the bike is not… I think there a message there.
I get the meme but consider watch this video. Makes you think.
Wow. Your video made me want to guillotine EVEN HARDER. It’s almost like the same shit happens in every revolution. But you know what, I’ll take my chances once I know the ones who are actively raping the planet are gone.
Your video is interesting because I’m french, and there’s currently a comeback in the public space about Robespierre, that he wasn’t the monster the medias are trying to make of him. You can check some videos here:
- wikipedia’s page
- Cécile Obligi - La légende noire de Robespierre
- Robespierre, un terroriste ?
- LE GRAND MÉCHANT ROBESPIERRE
- ROBESPIERRE, DANTON, ETC : LES JACOBINS, AUX ORIGINES DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE
This means that the beginning of you video is most likely wrong about Robespierre.
After saying that, I don’t legitimate the usage of the guillotine, and most readers understood it is usually associated with the french revolution 😉
Rebellion is always illegal in the third person. While it is a less productive solution, guillotines are a perfectly legitimate cure for economic anxiety. It would be preferable for the Wealthy to be taxed fairly, however should the attempts to equalize the field fail, eventually the guillotine shall result. That is the whole point. It is a warning of History repeating, well rhyming any way, itself when society does not learn from said history.
we’ll see, but if it has to come to this, it will be a bloodshed.
Lemmy made your links unreadable. Not your fault just voicing my complaint.
The corporations made me buy a big ass SUV
Way to miss the forest for the trees.
the forest is personal vehicles make up the single largest source of emissions in the US, and SUV’s are by far the most sold new vehicles currently making up the majority of that.
SUVs are passenger vehicles, the emissions of which have been trending flat or lower year over year since about 2004. It’s not individual passenger vehicles, including SUVs, that’s the source of increasing emissions. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/420f24022.pdf.
The forest that you’re missing is the fossil fuel industry driving decisions for what the hell we as consumers can even access, in nearly all sectors of the economy.
I can see it trending upwards until 2020 thanks to covid, and it’s back to trending upwards, because sales of trucks and SUV’s have continued trending upwards. Even if it was flat it wouldnt change my point that personal vehicles are the single largest source of emissions in the US.
the fossil fuel industry driving decisions for what the hell we as consumers can even access
fuck off if you’re trying to cry to me that you’re forced to buy a big ass SUV.
U mad bro?
Americans when you try to get them to stop fucking up people’s lives.
Yep and if we push harder for 4 day work weeks and work from home for everyone that can do so, emissions would plummet and we could still drive our SUVs…
Right give me electric hatchbacks and sedans. Then start funding public transit as we fix North American infrastructure gore.
Fix the transit first. It is far more environmentally friendly and it is more accessible to more people.
No fix me first! I am even more friendly and accessible but very lonely and kinda bummed out
Look the transit in my town is 3.9 times longer than driving also it is not connected to other towns as of yet. But I will support any initiative to get people out of cars. I don’t want to be forced to drive the one I have. Active transport/transit is the most sustainable and safest way to get around. Damn I really wish I was living in Amsterdam right now.
I will support any initiative
Well it’s not the hug i was looking for but you know what? Thanks :D
hugs
Why are you bummed out?
Aah i was just joshing but yeah i got some personal things going on, did some soul searching, and i don’t like the answer so far. Thanks accepts hug
They gave you the options you can choose from and they all suck.
There are plenty of options that arent trucks or SUVs
Sure. But where’s the option of a sedan where I can detach 75% of it when I just need to drive someplace alone? Where’s the electric car with 300 miles range under 30k?
You can hate on trucks all day long, and I do too because trucks suck, but we’re still stuck with horrible polluting expensive options that were designed with efficiency of cash flow as their primary goal.
bikes? mopeds, motorcycles? you dont need 300 miles of electric car range. none of this shit is any excuse to buy a big ass SUV
Most of North America has been built to prioritize the big ass SUV making the alternatives more difficult (farther distances) and often dangerous (bicycles gutters)
What part prioritizes big SUVs instead of cars?
Mostly government standards making bigger vehicles easier to pass emissions regulations.
Also wide lanes and large parking spots.
Oh thanks! Here I thought I knew myself, but thanks to you I now know myself even better!
track your miles tomorrow
Me personally? I own a Nissan leaf. I just don’t have a presumption to know everyone else’s lives.
Ah yes, a single day’s travel is the best way to figure out what kind of range someone needs.
For real, I was looking at the newer subaru models. Outside of the BRZ (which is a rebranded toyota 86) all of em are SUV. It’s insane
Crosstrek is pretty awesome though. It’s basically just an off-road lifted Impreza. I mountain bike and climb a bunch and some times get onto some pretty questionable roads. It’s great to have something that handles that, but also feels more or less like a smallish 2.0l hatchback the rest of the time.
They are definitely getting bigger though this last year, and sad none of them are manual anymore. Luckily got the last model year that was
No manual is truly a shame
More like the Toyota 86 is a rebranded BRZ. The platform of both cars are made by Subaru, using the Subaru boxer engine, in a Subaru factory.
Oh my bad! I thought it was the opposite
Some suck less than others.
And driving it around needless. Impressing peers is not natural and imposed by corporations.
If anything, impressing peers is very natural, it probably predates humans as a species
I know, it was sarcasm like the comment I replied to. Corporations are not to blame for everything.
Not everyone has the luxury to choose their ideal car. Electric and hybrid cars are fucking expensive. Some of us have to just buy whichever shitbox we can afford at the time and we choose said shitbox based upon its relative drivability and how many kilometers you can squeeze out of it until it’s well and truly undrivable anymore. Of course, I could buy a bicycle and use that to go everywhere. But what about people who commute for hours just to get to work, or pick up their kids every other weekend, or people living with a disability?
wElL iF wE hAd A fUnCtiOnAl PuBlIc TrAnSpOrT sYsTeM… Shut the hell up with that shit. you and I both know that will never happen in America in its current iteration. The only way that pipe dream will ever happen is if we first get rid of the billionaire class and their lobbies in congress.
The worse enemy of public transport and other changes to cities are probably Nimbys and culture.
SUVs and trucks are more expensive than smaller cars.
2000 for a shitbox grand Cherokee vs 30000 for a hybrid.
Why are you comparing used to new? Spend that 2000 on a used Prius
Pretty much the only option.
Obama passed some great regulations to improve fuel economy and reduce pollution, but there’s different li.its for car type and an SUV is a truck standard so much easier tegs then sedans. That’s why you see so many SUV car things. It’s bullshit heaven forbid you do the right thing automakers.
Easier to get an car/SUV ev then a sedan, model y, Lexus option, Kia etc are all half way SUV with the functionality of a sedan is dumb.
https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/cars/versa-sedan.html
there’s you another goddamn option
