Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bp8z6 wrote

Reply to comment by PrestigiousEbb4608 in How transit affects emissions: A map of average household CO2 emissions, with Metrorail routes added by Golden_Kumquat

The liquor store comment was just showing that the map more closely correlates to the presence of wealth, not the presence of a metro. So I said you could also say “the presence of liquor stores drops carbon emissions”, “the presence of check cashing stores drops carbon emissions”, etc. None of those things are the real cause of lower emissions, it’s the lack of wealth which means they aren’t big players in consumerism.

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bpje2 wrote

The presence of a metro/bus stops/ public transit of any sort indicates lack of wealth. Because overwhelmingly, the users of public transit are poorer or just more dense overall.

But what happens to the majority of people when they aren’t a broke 23 year old anymore? They buy a house in the burbs and get a nice car to go with it. No more metro, and their emissions go up

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bqly9 wrote

Capitol Hill and Manhattan are insanely wealthy, extremely well served by transit, and the rich do use them. And because they use them, their emissions are lower.

Your prejudices about who uses transit, and who lives where, are just that, prejudices. Your desperation to believe suburban lifestyles don't harm the environment does nothing to change the reality.

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0brbzq wrote

What about anything I said would make you assume I think suburban lifestyle doesn’t harm the environment?

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bsdha wrote

Your desperation to shift the discussion away from a real achievable goal (we should densify and increase transit to reduce emissions) to an absurd one (transit doesn't matter because of wealth so we should all just yell at the rich and not change our lifestyles)

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bsve8 wrote

From the beginning, you have missed my point. I never said transit doesn’t lower emissions. My main point, is that transit is a very small part of people’s overall emissions. So no it is not “the presence of transit” that predicts low emissions. Moreso it’s “the lack of wealth that predicts low emissions.” Irregardless of how they transport themselves

You’re getting emotional, and not understanding anything I’m saying.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bttpy wrote

Bro you are such a dense donut. For the 10th time, your assumption that this is only a wealth effect can be immediately refuted by the many walkable wealthy areas served by transit where emissions are lower than average. The data includes emissions for goods, services, etc. These areas still have lower emissions. Transportation is a much larger source than you seem to think.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bu0oe wrote

And I'm not getting emotional, I'm getting frustrated with the person repeatedly saying "no its wealth" despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary right before their eyes.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bqvjc wrote

Manhattan. Capitol Hill. San Francisco. Literally just look at any rich area that's walkable and we'll served by transit on the map and you will see lower emissions despite their absurd wealth.

1