Not the person you commented on but, don't know if I agree with that, I am on the side of cars are needed but they should be supplemented with better alternatives as will to dissuade their usage unless actually required for the trip(for many of the reasons this community has stated).

it's why I joined the community because I do like the posts demonstrating why this is required, and the posts that give information about potential alternatives. That being said I've been on edge whether to stay as of late because I'm no longer seeing posts like that, and when I read the comments there's so much toxicity and always someone flaming another. Sometimes it's called for, others I do agree feel very cult like in behavior of "oh they are indicating cars might have usage? burn the witch!"

Note I'm not saying this specific instance qualifies as that, just saying what I've noticed in the past posts I've looked at.

note note: realized I skipped your emissions target part... fully agree changing the defacto tech for current day cars are a hard requirement if we want to meet goals as the current ones just aren't cutting it

I could see alternative options being implemented in some cities, but in many it's simply not an option, especially when you consider some of the commutes. There will never be a series of bus rides that would bring my spouse to work, which is only 25 minute drive. I like the idea, just really need remote work to take off in a huge way to support it.

This is pretty reasonable when you consider it's the only way we can meet emissions targets to continue living on this planet.

Reminder that claiming individual action can have any meaningful impact compared to corporate action is journalistic malpractice/misinformation.

Having trouble posting the image directly, so here is a link.

![Image][1] [1]: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png