Like Tree39Likes

Germany: Free Public Transport Proposed

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Mefisto:
    Oh the undying defensive love interefering with reading comprehension again.

    They already are running the show (against election results as you well know) and I even happened to mention why I don't think they will allow this to happen in Hong Kong.
    But it is moving in that direction in Hong Kong. There is the Public Transport Subsidy Scheme introduced last year and if successful, it can be expanded further towards reaching that goal for all.

    You're not realizing that the system described in Germany will not require a wealth transfer. What's basically happening is that some cities in Germany surpass the pollution levels as mandated by the EU. Hence they're sued by the EU Environment Commissioner who can impose a hefty fine on the EU member states. So instead of having to pay that fine again, they use the money to offer free public transport in those particular cities. This will not apply to all cities in Germany and it is not a scheme based on ideology of having to provide free public transport to all. In the end it is simply a money equation. The same technique that Hong Kong uses in order to offer the Public Transport Subsidy Scheme.
    shri, Jaz Paul and UK/HKboy like this.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Wrong side of the door to hell
    Posts
    6,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiaque:
    It could be unfounded public opinions, but I think one of the main points people against it make is that the nuclear power is too close to residential areas and if an accident happened it would have devastating causes. The waste also is transported and people aren't happy with that passing through their neighborhoods either and the risk it poses.
    People are unhappy with wind turbines being built or the risks they pose, they are unhappy with damns being built. Nimbys are present whenever any form of power generation is proposed. Where our house is in central France, the opposition to wind turbines is massive.

    With regard to the actual versus perceived safety, people not understanding facts and getting their information from Face Book is the problem. We need to stop the spread of false information and start being able to tell people when they are being gullible, stupid and ignorant. It is the same with organic versus conventionally farmed food, people believe the nice, cosy, feel-good myth, and ignore the solid facts about which method really is better for the environment. If we really want to stop environmental harm we have to start believing scientific consensus and stop trusting activists with flawed ideology.

    Nuclear energy is THE safest option we have, it is virtually zero carbon emissions, and the risk posed by waste is negligible. New generation reactors are also now able to use nuclear waste as a power source. The planet's electrical energy needs are about to take off, nuclear is the only solution to provide the increased need without harming the planet.

    Germany can't meet current demands without burning coal; they want to provide free public transport but they don't want to address the energy demands of that transport. It's just dressing up a problem in nice green clothes without solving it.


    https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/0...as-vs-reality/

    Why we need nuclear - Generation Aromic
    HK_Katherine likes this.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cramped island
    Posts
    5,585
    Quote Originally Posted by kimwy66:
    With regard to the actual versus perceived safety, people not understanding facts and getting their information from Face Book is the problem. We need to stop the spread of false information and start being able to tell people when they are being gullible, stupid and ignorant. It is the same with organic versus conventionally farmed food, people believe the nice, cosy, feel-good myth, and ignore the solid facts about which method really is better for the environment. If we really want to stop environmental harm we have to start believing scientific consensus and stop trusting activists with flawed ideology.

    Nuclear energy is THE safest option we have, it is virtually zero carbon emissions, and the risk posed by waste is negligible. New generation reactors are also now able to use nuclear waste as a power source. The planet's electrical energy needs are about to take off, nuclear is the only solution to provide the increased need without harming the planet.

    Actually it works both ways, without the internet based social media, what we hear are the mass media based reporting and what the authorities want us to hear. Unfortunately, many of these are not scientifically proven as well. i suspect the objection to nuclear energy actually stemmed from some sensational reporting by MSM that are spread to Facebooks.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    θ–„ζ‰Άζž—
    Posts
    47,963
    Quote Originally Posted by kimwy66:
    Why does Germany want to wean itself off nuclear power?
    I found this puzzling as well.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ex Sai Kunger Sunny Qld for now
    Posts
    8,318


    Germany is well on its way to achieving its 2050 goal...

    To achieve these goals it requires a multi pronged approach, the free public transport idea is just one of many areas that the Germans are looking at, which ultimately will achieve their C02 goal of reducing it by 95%.

    as the worlds biocapacity rapidly decreases I think countries like Germany will be in a much better position tan say most of Asia from 2050 when energy costs, food production and access to clean water are going to bite many on the arse.

    too many people...
    Last edited by Skyhook; 15-02-2018 at 12:10 PM.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New Territories West
    Posts
    1,359

    Notwithstanding the pros and cons of the scheme...it's not 'free'. Germany has one of the higher tax rates in the world and, as usual, it will be the middle classes who are paying for this 'free' service, again!

    Skyhook likes this.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Location Location
    Posts
    1,201

    From what I recall during my student days when I was studying this kind of stuff, free public transport has only a limited impact on modal shift. Car owners still make the same number of car journeys as before.

    However, everyone ends up using public transport more. So car owners drive just as much, but they also make more public transport journeys. Public transport users increase the number of journeys. So overall there are social benefits from improving accessibility to amenities.


  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    I found this puzzling as well.
    One word. Democracy.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    New Territories West
    Posts
    1,359

    Perth, Western Australia had free public transport within 'zone 1' for as long as I can remember...at least 40 years. They also had touch screens at the train stations.

    Another thing they had was one newspaper, state run public transport and utilities and a massive social safety net.

    In the 80s and 90s, they routinely had the highest per capita rate of car theft in the world. Home invasions are common and prisons are overcrowded. Unemployment is normal and there is a massive problem with heroin and crystal meth.

    I wonder if giving poor people free shit means that it becomes more attractive to other people at the bottom to stop trying and start depending...asking for a friend.


  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,745

    If it's happens, it will be in a few selected small towns

    Headline totally misleading