this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
23 points (87.1% liked)

Canada

10307 readers
709 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Grappling7155@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Not as much as they hope it will.

Electric or not, we need less cars in cities, not more. Rather than making the next generation of mildly more sustainable but just as dangerous and space inefficient road congestants, we should be thinking harder about how best to meet people’s mobility needs in more safe, sustainable, and effective ways.

People need options not more car dependency.

Those resources are better used to build up public transportation, (e-)bike shares, sidewalks, and the accompanying infrastructure to go with it all, with seamless handoffs between modes.

Electric cars are here to save the auto industry, not the planet.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Electric cars are here to save the auto industry, not the planet.

This is an interesting bowling I haven't heard before.

Totally agree that for areas with any population density we need good, regular and frequent mass transit.

I also believe that areas without good density, we need to convert to pockets of density to enable funding for transit. Also, hoarding ornamental land in North America is a dead old throwback to frontier days and we need to remediate those out to more shared or natural or aggro space.

We've spent too many years enabling this land hoarding by changing natural and aggro space to fucking mcmansion estates and that shit has to stop.

[–] Benschnickle@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

Not just mass transit, we need to make cities walkable and pedestrian friendly. No more stroads. No more big box stores with ginormous parking lots. No more "outdoor" malls. It's just extremely inefficient use of land.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 years ago

Pay off for who, exactly?

It will definitely pay off for the billionaires who own the car companies.

[–] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Maybe, but probably not as much as investing in infrastructure that lowers the 15,000 km the average Canadian drives a year.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

So, internet service? That's has proven to be the most effective tool in seeing people drive a lot less. Driving to and from work is the bulk of those 15,000 kms and a good internet connection allows around 40% of the workforce to work from home, as seen during the COVID period. We are investing quite heavily in that.

In fact, we're investing so heavily in improved internet service that many farms in Canada now have two fibre runs as the government determined one was not enough!

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

If employees work from home middle managers loose their reason to exist. And seeing as middle management gets to decide on the question work-from-home...

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Id like more funding for infrastructure for Ebikes/Escooters

[–] nik282000@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago

Infrastructure and regulation. Too many death traps being imported that do not meet CSA standards.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Are these subsidies or tax breaks? I can never be sure tbh

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There's no significant difference between the two.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago

Tax breaks remove potential future tax revenue, but aren't spending tax revenue acquired from another source.

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It can make a big difference in who can use them. An income tax break, for example, is only useful to those who have income to tax. While a subsidy can fund a venture that does not yet have income.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

I meant in this context where it's established companies that have the means to build the factories they're planning to build.