If the car industry is that important to the west, then we can nationalize it and strip the current ownership/management of everything they gained from the venture, since they've clearly squandered their lead in the space in favour of siphoning of cash instead.
Alternatively, we could reduce the relevance of the car market entirely by transitioning towards a transportation system that is not focused on automobiles, favouring trains (these are still competitive when built in Europe afaik) and bicycles (we'd have to learn to make these in the west again, but this is a smaller leap than doing the same for cars). This also helps with the energy consumption issue since these modes of transportation are vastly more energy efficient.
> If the car industry is that important to the west, then we can nationalize it
Nope. History has taught us --many times and across many cultures-- that this is a truly bad idea.
> we could reduce the relevance of the car market entirely by transitioning towards a transportation system that is not focused on automobiles, favouring trains
Nope. If we are talking about the US, this is impossible. It would require a complete re-engineering of not only our society but every single town and city. We have enough problems that we fail to address to add another pipe dream to the list. Look at the disaster that is the high speed train project in California. Now imagine that multiplied by a thousand, or ten thousand.
> and bicycles <snip>.
C'mon.
> This also helps with the energy consumption issue since these modes of transportation are vastly more energy efficient.
>> If the car industry is that important to the west, then we can nationalize it
>Nope. History has taught us --many times and across many cultures-- that this is a truly bad idea.
I don't think there's any valid argument for protectionism without accountability or in the very least any form of return from the car industry. Currently, there's very little of that.
>> we could reduce the relevance of the car market entirely by transitioning towards a transportation system that is not focused on automobiles, favouring trains
>Nope. If we are talking about the US, this is impossible. It would require a complete re-engineering of not only our society but every single town and city. We have enough problems that we fail to address to add another pipe dream to the list. Look at the disaster that is the high speed train project in California. Now imagine that multiplied by a thousand, or ten thousand.
China has built arguably the most expansive HSR network basically from scratch in 10 years - what essentially entails a complete re-engineering. Decarbonizing will be a complete re-engineering. Hell, building out the road network was arguably also a complete re-engineering.
Quit making excuses and start delivering results, there's no valid argument for the west adopting a position of patheticism given our past.
>> and bicycles <snip>.
>C'mon.
Not exactly what I would call a compelling argument.
>> This also helps with the energy consumption issue since these modes of transportation are vastly more energy efficient.
> I don't think there's any valid argument for protectionism without accountability
Why are you changing the subject? I replied to your idea of nationalization.
> China has built arguably the most expansive HSR network basically from scratch in 10 years
The US is not China. We cannot do what they have done. There are dozens of reasons for this.
Again, go study the California high speed rail project, stop and think.
>> and bicycles <snip>.
> Not exactly what I would call a compelling argument.
The idea is ridiculous. Even countries that are known for bike rarely get to even 10% bike utilization. Do your research and do a little analysis. In the US, the idea is just plain ridiculous. Our town and cities are not built for bikes or mass transport.
>>> This also helps with the energy consumption issue since these modes of transportation are vastly more energy efficient.
>> Given reality, this is irrelevant.
> Yikes.
Well, I am glad you learned something there. You have a lot more to understand yet. I mean, we can't even maintain our existing roads and you are talking about building entire new rail-based mass transportation systems. Again, while commendable in isolation, reality makes this either impossible or nonsensical.
I think a reasonably large fleet of self driving EV's is something that is within the realm of attainable reality in the US. If a robotic Uber-like service were to be available at a low enough cost, people might start to question owning cars or driving them all the time. That is also well within the practical reality of life in the US in most towns and cities. And that's within the realm of something that is attainable without having to rip-up and re-engineer every town and city in this country.
More importantly, this would not require a full electrification of our ground transportation system at a 1:1 scale; meaning, we will not need to replace 300+ million existing vehicles with 300+ million EV's. I have no clue what the right number might be. I could see a scenario where we end-up with 100 million EV's and 50 to 100 million IC vehicles in, say, 30 years. Most of the EV's might be robotic ride-share vehicles and the IC vehicles might serve special purposes.
That's the difference between ideas. What I am talking about is attainable and likely sensible. The energy, resource and ecological benefits are plain to see. Behavioral changes are not massive and align well with existing patterns. It might even save people money by making car ownership (and the insurance and maintenance that goes with them) less necessary. Etc. Trains and bikes will not ever work here. Nice dream. Not real.
Alternatively, we could reduce the relevance of the car market entirely by transitioning towards a transportation system that is not focused on automobiles, favouring trains (these are still competitive when built in Europe afaik) and bicycles (we'd have to learn to make these in the west again, but this is a smaller leap than doing the same for cars). This also helps with the energy consumption issue since these modes of transportation are vastly more energy efficient.