←back to thread

437 points Vinnl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.219s | source
Show context
maerF0x0 ◴[] No.43985046[source]
Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious.

The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like highlighting how many fewer chicken deaths would occur if we created an omnivore or meat tax.

IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas. How much fewer social interaction is happening across the distances that those car based trips used to occur. And how much harder is it to get goods into the areas. Is less economic activity happening.

In the long run, yes, maybe things will be net better for all, when the $45M per year has had a chance to make alternative transportation methods to be not just policy enforced, but truly _preferred_ option.

replies(12): >>43985091 #>>43985160 #>>43985212 #>>43985245 #>>43985252 #>>43985271 #>>43985285 #>>43985399 #>>43985482 #>>43985872 #>>43985908 #>>44001228 #
zzzeek ◴[] No.43985091[source]
there should be a meat tax, btw. I eat a ton of steak but it's costing the ecosystem dearly
replies(2): >>43985267 #>>43990702 #
shermantanktop ◴[] No.43985267[source]
How high would the tax have to be to get you to stop eating so much meat?
replies(2): >>43985393 #>>43985608 #
w0m ◴[] No.43985393[source]
Think about it more; if the vegan and steak options were ~equivalently priced - more would choose vegan than if it wasn't more expensive. The idea isn't to make it prohibitive; insofaras don't make the most environmentally-expensive choice also the cheapest.

To compare it to traffic; everyone is miserable sitting in traffic; so giving people an excuse for a bit more WFH is a WinWin.

replies(2): >>43985547 #>>43990233 #
1. zahlman ◴[] No.43990233[source]
> more would choose vegan than if it wasn't more expensive.

If?

Getting protein from vegan sources can already be done much more cheaply than getting it from steak, though the quality of the amino acid profile may be lower.

Getting protein from "the vegan option to a steak" - i.e. something marketed to be a direct substitute for a steak, with its vegan nature as an explicit selling point - is a different story.

I presume that, generally, people eat steak because they subjectively enjoy the experience of eating steak, and perhaps because they don't enjoy a carefully planned out plate of legumes and whole grains in the same way. But some seem to be much more extreme about this than others.

I personally eat meat (and dairy) regularly - but probably overall less than the local average, and usually not beef.