Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Climate goal and public transport is also more of a joke than scientifically sound.

For example, the gear for the participating teams at the latest EM in Germany was transported in parallel by the empty buses the teams usually use.

The whole VIP travel caused a lot of additional cars on the street.

Don’t confuse means for an end. There is a lot of marketing and money involved - especially in green energy.



These 3 reputable, scientifically backed, sources disagree with your anecdote:

United Nations:

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2021/10/trans...

US Department of Transport:

https://www.transit.dot.gov/climate-challenge

WRI:

https://www.wri.org/insights/current-state-of-public-transpo...


Ideology and science do not mix well. The "UN Sustainable Development Goals", the current Biden/Harris-led DOT and the WRI are ideologically driven and use "Science" - in quotes because the term does not denote use of the scientific method but rather the institutional credibility, whether the scientific method was followed or not - to justify their targets and actions. Keep that in mind when you refer to these (and similarly ideologically driven) institutions as 'reputable, scientifically backed, sources'.

Do I need to add that the opponents of these organisations and institutions can also be ideologically driven? I hope not, that should be clear. Check your sources for ideological bias - no matter whether you happen to agree with that bias or not - and take that into account when you use them to defend or oppose a viewpoint.


If you question something like public transportation being climate friendly as being scietific sound, maybe you should bring up some evidence or data to back this up.

Also some anecdote about how buses where used at some major event does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about public transportation in general.

Also "there is a lot of marketing and money involved - especially in green energy" is a rather general polemic statement, which could also some clarification.


These commenters exist (usually as bots) simply to sow a false narrative for political reasons - the views they extoll are not based on measurement or research. When active as bots, they present a idea of discord and doubt - this is a common tactic to give the appearance of the matter not being long-settled. It's also not uncommon for them to cite an unsourced anecdote which other than being irrelevant, most likely never even existed.

Rather telling is that the same user had also commented twice nearly simultaneously. These types of replies are typical for comments that mention climate or government spending.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: