They pollute more than you think, and using concrete is very rare in certain parts of the world. Outside of elevated roads I’ve never seen in used in my area or any part of the northern US.
They pollute more than you think, and using concrete is very rare in certain parts of the world. Outside of elevated roads I’ve never seen in used in my area or any part of the northern US.
I must say, you’re the first person I’ve seen to cite ChatGPT as a source.
I literally just told you two things that make them more dangerous, what makes them safer?
I don’t fully understand why SUVs are more profitable. What makes them worth more than a minivan or wagon for instance. I know premium versions of both those vehicle types exist (actually I’m pretty sure some of the only new wagons you can buy today are from premium German brands.)
We would also have to get rid of tires to do that, tires pollute a lot. And roads too, heavier vehicles wear out roads faster, and asphalt requires petroleum products to produce.
I’d wager most people have been in one considering how common they are, doesn’t make them any less terrible. Size is definitely a problem, they are very space inefficient, and quite dangerous. The center of gravity is very high, and because the front end is high up, anyone hit by it is more likely to end up under the vehicle. The solution is to lower them down to make them safer, and replace them with safer and more efficient vehicles like station wagons and minivans.
So I read through the article, and it seems like this guy has a lot of selection bias. He makes the claim that nothing is done about right-wing protesters, but completely ignores that the J6 trials happened, and right-wing extremists do actually face charges for violent or criminal acts.
He also spends more time on that than elaborating on his claim that “inequality demands oppression” or talking about that in greater analytical detail.
This just seems like ragebait.