Tolentino
2021-10-27 09:58:27
- #1
And the waste is already present anyway and purely a matter of quantity. Qualitatively, the waste problem remains whether there are new nuclear power plants or not.
And the waste is already present anyway and purely a matter of quantity. Qualitatively, the waste problem remains whether there are new nuclear power plants or not.
The petty bourgeois. The neighbor, the environmental pig, burns 30 thousand liters of oil per year. So what, Germany has a 2% share of climate change, converted into CO2, and of these 2% there is at most 1% with swimming pool and 30,000 liters of oil, so, let him be, it's his money, there's no point in crucifying him, it won't save the world.
It only works to a limited extent. Reintroduce connections between the village and surrounding towns and more than just 3 times a day. Village to village is not possible without individual transport. For most people I know who do not work directly in the village, the factory, or the district town, the bus would have to run just for one person. Ecologically and economically crazy. Work must be possible and without punishment. Maybe the commuter allowance could depend on whether there are alternatives. By that, I mean real ones. I have to leave at 4 p.m. to be at work by 8 a.m. What must go is individual transport in private life. That is why I did not mention lowering the fuel tax. Going to the district town by car for a school notebook because the store in the village wants 10 cents more for the notebook is not acceptable, or going for pleasure. However, I do not want to be visible as a country bumpkin again because the store in the district town only carries granny clothes. The parcel shipping system needs to be changed.How about investing all the money spent on the commuter allowance into public transport? In my opinion, that would be the fairest way to reduce commuting without immediately making anyone's job impossible.