[–] 2 points 8 months ago

The key point of this interesting article, imo, is that we have to start planning NOW for what is up ahead. This is not happening as urgently as it should so we need to ask our esteemed politicians what they are doing to prepare all the different communities and ecosystems so they may be better protected and also our food security is not put in jeopardy. We should ask them straight out and test their understanding and what solid strategies they have in mind. It'd be 'interesting' to hear what they have to say.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    There seems to be a lot of posts in this community focusing on the negative. Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm not aware of the situation we are in, but can we look also at what we CAN do to make a positive difference? Maybe some of us oldies have a death wish but for the sake of the young and for the sake of the innocent plants and animals let's find ways to go counter to the greed or helpless status quo.

  • source
  • [–] [S] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I like the idea, but its a sure-fire way for a government to get canned. At best you could possibly do a small segment of the most egregious monstrosities on our roads and get away with it as a government. But the more people you tax the fuck out of, the more people will remember it at the ballot box. People can be a depressing bunch a short-sighted, self obsessed cunts.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    And our government keeps approving fossil fuel projects. So if the signal given is that fossil fuels are viable of course banks and investors will continue putting money into them. Their objective in life is profit first, whereas you would think that our governments' objectives would be the present and future welfare of the people they represent.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    There are quite a few banks (like Bank Australia) that are refusing to play this game. I suggest taking your business to them over the big four. You shouldn't be using the big four anyway as they absolutely rort you as a customer.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Tax the fuck out of cars/SUVs/trucks based on size and weight.

    How many times do you see just one person in a vehicle?

    Force them into smaller vehicles.

    Also, I"d be terrified riding a cycle/scooter in Sydney πŸ™. Maybe that's an incentive to drive less.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I did understand what you meant (I think). You mentioned 'better transport' and for me that would involve greater investment in public transport and transport that doesn't just have one person per vehicle but can move groups more flexibly and cleanly. If EVs where to be subsidised it might be worth subsidising people on lower incomes and people in group households (family or otherwise). Subsidising the well-off is just subsidising them for brandishing another status symbol.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I follow the E-moto and scooter space closely, as I really want to swap the petrol bike for electric. I think the gap is much bigger for 2 wheelers than cars. But agreed I would love to see their uptake increase for the reasons you mentioned. There are also a lot of barriers to entry (outside of electric) for the ordinary person to consider a 2 wheeler.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί