• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Hear me out here, less cars regardless of their enegry source will reduce both exhaust and microplastics. We don’t have to trade one for the other when we can build alternatives that don’t produce either.

    • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Yea, sure, but cars are still needed in many areas outside of cities

      In rural areas or in small villages, it’s basically the only real good option, or for someone in a city to reach those areas in a timely manner

      I do believe that public transport should be way more developed in cities, to the point where it becomes more worth it to go by public transport than in a car (ex: Paris)

      And alternatives will always cause some sort of pollution. Way way less, but not zero.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Those areas don’t have nearly as high a concentration of these pollutants as a busy, 6 lane road the center of the city. Thats where improving air quality can matter the most, especially because that road is likely to have more pedestrians breathing the pollutants than a rural road.

        • MajesticElevator@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          And on this I agree. But I still think for the air we breathe, the old polluting cars should go. I’d love a future where public transportation is way more developed and used, and the only remaining cars are electric or at least efficient (bye bye diesel)