deleted by creator
So it doesn’t apply to residents of Paris? Is that just saying that resident parking (in your street etc) is not effected or that if you live in Paris you can park anywhere without it applying?
If it’s the former, then fine, but if it’s the latter that feels a bit toothless (but probably required for it to pass the referendum).
How complex is their parking system to be able to do this though? I assume it’s a model lookup through the he number plate?
Italian here. Those of us that live in residential historic districts need permits exempting us from additional parking fees. But the way it works is through street cameras that verify license plates. I’m sure they have something similar in Paris.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Paris intends to triple parking charges for large sports utility vehicles (SUVs) in order to push them out of the city and limit emissions and air pollution, the mayor has said.
“It is a form of social justice,” Anne Hidalgo announced on Friday of the plan to deliberately target the richest drivers to tackle the climate breakdown and air pollution.
Paris will hold a referendum on 4 February asking residents to vote for or against a specific parking tariff for heavy, large and polluting SUVs.
David Belliard, a deputy mayor of Paris for the Green party, said: “SUVs cost between €6,000 to €7,000 more than a standard car and all the studies by car firms show that they are bought by the wealthiest people with high incomes … This measure, if applied, will be directed at the richest people in order to finance the transformation of our public space to adapt to the climate crisis, so it’s a form of social redistribution.”
Under Hidalgo, Paris has for years raised pressure on drivers by increasing parking costs and gradually banning diesel vehicles, while expanding the bicycle lane network in the congested capital.
The French motorists’ association, 40 millions d’automobilistes, denounced what it called an “unjustified” clampdown and restriction on liberties.
The original article contains 550 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The dumb thing about this taking myself as an example.
I drive a large heavy diesel 4x4, yes it’s not great on the pollution front I understand that.
But it’s all about perspective, I use mine to go on camping holidays for example.
Listening to someone who drives a Tesla criticise me for my lack of environmental awareness while going on 4 overseas flights per year that I don’t take is peak hypocrisy.
One long return flight per year contributes almost as much as my evil 4x4 does in a whole year.
Has the possibility of renting a camping-suitable car for that couple-of-times-a-year-event while driving something less wasteful for an everyday commute, crossed your mind?
Or is paying for the additional fuel and taxes year-round on a bigger car genuinely cheaper?
If it is, I’d point out that the whole point of a tariff like this, is to change that.
why you have to turn everything into a culture war, it’s a tariff on inefficient polluting cars, that’s it.
I have no idea what "camping " means to you, but I can tow a pop up camper with my Impreza.
Wait till they find out it’s also damn near just as easy to go camping with a bicycle. Not the solution for every one or every climate, but it’s certainly viable for many.
I live in a very camping friendly part of the US, but I’d have to be a hell of a lot more fit than I am now to even consider trying to bike to a place where camping is permitted, unless you count the local homeless encampments.
It definitely varies on locale for sure. Where I live (BC) it isn’t much more to do, but still isn’t for everyone. Just to tack on to that as well, good transit options for the first leg of the trip is a massive help.
Everyone should get the same carbon budget a year. Maybe as a separate currency. It can then be saved up or traded to use as you see fit. Want to go on oversee flights? Better buy some carbon from some tree huggers with budget to spare.
On paper it isn’t the worst idea but given the current levels of corruption in the financial industry I would be wary. You can totally imagine one of those Wall Street fucks corning the market right before a big travel day and send gas prices skyhigh grounding flights and causing people to be stranded literally not able to afford enough gas to get their cars moving before it snows. And of course when they fail to pull an Enron or GameStop or Goldman Sachs they will just get a bailout.
Or just invent some new way. Like argue that a corporation is a person and form a thousand corporations or run some scam where they buy future credits off the elderly like a reverse mortgage
If you live in a big city, then unless you’re using it for more than camping, you’re absolutely wasting money (your money), and polluting unnecessarily.
If you don’t live in a big city, then I totally get it. You need a bigger vehicle to deal with undeveloped rural roads, and adverse weather conditions year round. Personally, I’m a hunter, so I need my big truck nearly every weekend during hunting season, and in the off season I love to camp as well.
You often go camping in Paris? Also you know you can rent vehicles. It hasn’t happened yet but my family and another are looking to rent a big van for a camping trip this summer.
the point here is not to blame large 4x4 owners for global pollution, it is to prevent them from parking in the city’s streets, to avoid local air pollution and endangering other road users (pedestrians, bicycles…).
When you want to enter the city there is no issue if you leave your vehicule in a public parking around the city and take transports to go downtown.
It is only a message sent to carmakers, and suv buyers, saying big cars are not adapted to cities (no shit sherlock)
