• Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    158
    ·
    4 months ago

    The only reason I would be against this is because it disincentivizes removing large parking lots, which are primarily a waste of space. If we could replace some of that wasted space with housing (which could also have solar slapped on it) that would be ideal.

    • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      4 months ago

      This picture/render looks like it’s in Europe, where that could maybe be feasible. In the US, though, I think we need to take what we can get.

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          They must, but they aren’t. The infrastructure investments to make mass transit preferable in sprawling cities will not happen soon enough. The people in power will not compromise their worship of free markets for climate change. Over time, the market will transition that way, but not any faster under the current system.

          • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            US auto-domination isn’t even the result of market forces though.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of laissez-faire policy or capitalism in general, but government funded highway lanes are no more capitalist than government funded rail tracks. The current situation in the US required enormous government intervention to establish, in the form of the forced seizure of property to make way for highways, hundreds of billions of dollars (inflation adjusted) to build those highways, mandatory parking minimums for new construction (to store all the cars from the highway), government subsidies for suburban style development and later on tax schemes that resulted in poorer inner city areas subsidizing wealthy suburbs, and zoning laws that made it illegal to build a business in a residential area (which worked together with anti-loitering laws to make it so that if you didn’t live in a neighborhood you had no “legitimate” reason to be there. It’s not a coincidence this happened in the wake of desegregation.)

            Similarly fossil fuel production in the US actually receives direct government subsidies at the federal and sometimes state level (some of which have been in effect since 1916).

            Now, we can get into the weeds and talk about how government action is actually a necessary part of capitalism and the intertwined nature of power structures and so on and so forth, but it’s important to remember that there’s nothing inevitable or natural about the mess we’re in right now, as some would have you believe. It required conscious planning and choices, as well as tremendous effort and tremendous injustice to get here.

            • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Oh, I know full well that the free market did not get us here. I’m saying that the politicians will, at best, force us to use the free market to make progress. Rules for thee and whatnot. Things will probably happen more slowly than that, as auto makers will resist the market forces more than we can push in the markets’ direction.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        My comment specified large parking lots for a reason. The amount of space wasted around seldom used, high volume areas (like stadiums) is absurd, and other countries have shown they’re much better served by increased public transit, not giant parking lots that sit empty 300+ days of the year.

          • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah but asphalt is usually chosen due to it being the cheap and easy option, I can’t imagine anywhere that hasn’t already used concrete is happy to spend more on their parking lot unless forced, and tbh if of there’s enough solar panels in the world to match US’s parking lot surface area

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              The energy generated by commercial solar installations is then sold, generating income. No one’s expecting parking lot owners to do this out of the goodness of their heart

        • KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          How so? A) Less transmission lines to where it’s needed and b) more qualified/trained staff centralized to the solar installs.

          I’m not against rural solar by any stretch but I can’t fathom being against urban solar? We need to solar all the things.

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            In my post I literally said that solar can be put on top of houses so I’m not sure why you want to argue with me about this. I just think urban areas are better served by homes with solar on top than parking lots with solar on top.

            • KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              Okay, reasonable enough, I had read your response as “no solar, just homes and put the solar in rural”.