What they should say / 1: "By making public space available for storing private cars for free, the State is losing a lot of money. Think of all the revenue that you could make by renting out that space at market prices. If we waste money that way, we'll have to cut elsewhere"
What they should say /2: "People who don't have cars would subsidize car users. I don't think that's fair. Especially if we consider that households without cars have lower income - up to 50% of low-income households are without cars"
What they should say /3: "Making so much public space available for free does not cover the costs of providing & maintaining parking spaces. It's "redistribution". Drivers have this #Gratismentalitaet à la unconditional basic income when it comes to parking but that's wrong"
What they should say /4: "Currently the costs of providing, maintaining parking & enforcing parking rules are paid for with general taxation. That includes those who don't own cars, and are forced to rely on public transport & cycling. I don't think that's fair"
What they should say / 5: "What costs nothing is worth nothing. Nowadays people look at parking spaces as something worthless. We can do better with our urban public space. And if you live without a car, you get nothing from free parking, but you have to pay. That will not do".
What they actually say / 1: "We are strictly against parking pricing. These plans unilaterally disadvantage citizens who need their cars and who often have no other parking space available. The parking situation is tight already & will get worse"
What they actually say /2 (from Unna)
What they actually say /3 (from Elmshorn)
What they actually say/3 (from Celle)
What they actually say /4 (from Leverkusen)
[NB all the English-language screenshots are automatically translated from German by Google or Twitter. That's why they sound clumsy] [END]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Having grown up in Berlusconi's Italy, I can feel it in my bones that when they win the first time, it's tough, but when they win *again*, after all they've demonstrated, *that's* the really hard one to take
When it happens the first time, you can think "This is an aberration, this was a tantrum, people don't really stand behind this, this is not who we are". The second time around really brings home that yes, this is what many of "us" are & stand for.
But in a way, it cures you from populism. No there is no innocent, well-intentioned mass of people who have been misled. We live in liberal democracies with a lot of people who fundamentally reject key principles of liberal democracy.
[Little pedantic note before we start. For various good reasons the analysis in this paper refers to "fuel burnt", not CO2 emissions. But there is an almost perfect equivalence between the two so it doesn't matter in the end]
More than half of flights globally (54.5%) are over distances of less than 1,000km. The kind of flights you could imagined substituting with trains
The problem is that these flights account for *just 17.9% of fuel burnt*. Why? Because they're short
When my German-Italian son was born in the UK, with my family name despite us not being married, the German officials initially wanted to give us a passport with the mother's name, despite him having my name on both the UK birth certificate and the Italian passport 🤦♂️
There is something deeply amusing (and annoying ofc) in this "We refuse to acknowledge that foreign countries exist" when dealing with foreign countries that you sometimes encounter with Behörde.
OFC this attracted the usual responses along the lines of "How dare you question the holy rules"
Aviation emissions are booming. With climate targets looming, you would expect governments to act. And yet they don't - if anything they work to make sure that emissions increase even further. But why?
We tend to think of the aviation problem as one where we have this problematic sector, aviation, and then the State sitting outside of it. And we want the State to act as a REGULATOR so that emissions decrease.
What this study shows is that this is a very naive way of thinking.
To me the most striking thing in this chart is how much the Italian saving rate has *declined* over time: from nearly three times as much as the UK in 2000 to less than the UK today
And if you know the Italian social system, you know how much of it is based on household savings. Middle-class parents save their whole life to buy a dwelling for their children one day. Young people stay home & save for said dwelling rather than renting, etc.
Parents (and sometimes grandparents) use their savings to support children & grandchildren who find themselves unemployed - because no, many/most of them have no right to unemployment benefits or minimum guaranteed income.
In Germany as in the rest of Europe, we are reducing emissions in other sectors while not reducing them (and sometimes even increasing them) in the transport sector.
So each year transport accounts for a higher share of total emissions ⬇️
I think this means that the climate debate and the transport debate will progressively become *conflated*. Most of the climate debate will be about cars and planes.
Excuses such as "Let's pick some other low-hanging fruit!" or "Let's do nuclear instead!" won't cut it.