BTW is this article generated from social media posts?
I love this expression!
I live in a "15 minutes city", Paris, I have 5 grocery stores in a 5 minutes walking radius, I go to work in 15 minutes using the metro, and if I want to I can get anywhere in France in a few hours by taking the train. That someone would not want this and instead fight for their rights to commute 2 hours everyday by car is insane to me.
I think bicycle paths and pedestrian access to places is extremely important, and not just for the environment, but being told that I should 'stay home' as part of some bigger picture plan to combat climate change is absolutely redolent of bureaucratic authoritarianism and environmental tyranny, and it really isn't hard to imagine a scenario running from this placard and the idea behind it to one where traveling away from one's 'neighborhood' (as defined in the photo) is punishable.
Please take a deep breath and step away from the Rupert Murdoch. This campaign is merely trying to get people invested in the areas in which they live, which is a noble goal. It's sad that some of the language it uses has been warped into trigger words by the media. Fear is a lucrative business.
On the off chance that you are actually attempting to persuade me in good faith, you might reconsider in the future the use of phrases like this one and the impact they are likely to have on a person, particularly if, while casting aspersions, they suggest a set of circumstances that aren’t true.
As a fellow Australian I well recall earlier campaigns that started out seeking to modify behaviour and later devolved into draconian law.
Recall the 1970s Life. Be In It campaign?
Started innocently enough and before we knew what had happened there were Aerobics Internment Camps for the ice cream eaters and Big Sister MTV alertotainments from Oliver Newton Goebbels.
Clearly I'm heavy with the sarcasm, there is a difference between enforcing policy with lawfare in the event of a life threatening health crisis such as COVID and doing the same in the event of a life threatening health crisis such as obesity, or a life threatening crisis such as AGW climate change.
I do seem to recall that we (Australia) made it through the AIDS years and increasing road accidents with mostly public campaigns and not so much law.
Probably the best path through public policy is to understand the issues, the risks, and to stay engaged at various levels of setting and enacting policy.
for one i don't think this poster is is presenting a government mandate but i believe it's a demand from people to the government to build like this (it's from the climate action museum, which, as far as i could tell is not supported by government)
likewise it is not about forcing people to stay home but demanding the right for people to do so and live their daily life without having to travel every day.
the title "stay home!" is an unfortunate choice. but to be fair, you also have to read the whole title: "your most radical move! stay home!" which clearly suggests that staying home is a choice you make (just like many of us refuse to return to work in the office) and not something forced on you from the outside. if you read anything else then you either miss the point or you are intentionally twisting it.
do you think fighting against neighborhoods like this is going to help you prevent that dystopia that you seem to be afraid of? negative thinking is not going to help us make the world better.
a commenter above mentions paris. i can share the exact same experience from vienna. literally. that's what we are talking about.
You might try to say this is just a slippery slope argument, but they are already advocating for something they (and you) admit is radical - the only caveat is that they qualify it as being radical for now. Clearly if a few radical environmentalists 'stay home!' there isn't going to be a dent in any metric that these people swear by - staying home will only begin to affect things if many or most people do it, whether by choice or by force, and that's the kind of wholesale societal change that I find absolutely bonkers and terrifying.
i believe many of the city states and islands would feel the same. even new zealand felt like that when your goal was to be among people. it is perfect to get away from people though.
Similarly why would I want to travel for an hour to go to an office to sit on zoom meetings all day instead of doing it from my spare bedroom.
Reducing required travel is a great thing for me, gives me more time to do things on interesting travel. Rather than spending 90 minutes a week driving to/from the shop I save 78 hours a year, which is more than enough time to take up a new hobby.
I live in a German city where I do not even have to walk a street with cars to get to a super market, a couple of restaurants, three bakeries, barber shop, drugstore, pharmacy, a butcher, a bookshop, a general supplies store, a post office, newspaper/tobacco store, a public library, about a dozen or more doctors and dentists, a massage studio, therapists, two tailors, a bunch of other shops like clothing and such, a cinema, multiple bus stops, a subway station, a park, multiple playgrounds, etc. Once a week there's a larger food market with fresh produce. There are office buildings, a kindergarden/preschool, a church, three hotels.
All within 5 minutes of _walking_ distance. All walkable on foot paths without even seeing or hearing the annoyance of a car. If you cross even just one street, there's a school and a lot more things.
I can take a public bus two stops to a large asia market (or a 20min walk/10min bike ride). There's currently a 50 Euro monthly train pass that is valid for all regional/subway trains and busses all across Germany, so I can simply hop on and off whenever I want. 10 minutes by subway to the main train station and city center, where a lot more can be reached by 5 more minutes of walking.
And no, I am not limited by any of that. It just _adds_ options and convenience.
I know they mean 15 minute walk and it isn't suyposed to be a limit / jal. However it doesn't always come off that way
Or do you just make the logical jump from "few trips should require a train" to "no trains exist"? There is no logical connection between those statements.
In the last week, I think I've been to work 5 times (bicycle), the supermarket twice or maybe three (foot), the doctor (foot), a bar (bicycle), a restaurant (foot), a fast food place (foot), visited a friend (train, 35 minutes + 10 walking) etc.
90% might be a better target then 95%.
I mean, I’m sure there’s someone out there advocating for efficient city design but who’s opposed to developing transport, but they’re an extreme outlier.
OOC, is this a purely theoretical bogeyperson, or have you ever actually seen anyone take this stance? If the latter, just how many (to the nearest ten, say) posters of Pol Pot did they have on the wall?
The issue is clearly with maga/qanon right-wingers who were told this benign left-wing talking point was in fact a plot to keep them in their homes.
The placard literally says 'Stay Home!'