this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2025
999 points (97.6% liked)

Fuck Cars

10372 readers
1598 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

probably not going to save 95% of the trees

I was wondering that too... maybe they meant: plant new trees, and the total number of new trees would be 95% of the number of old trees?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I’m guessing they’re just not aware of construction impacts on trees. It’s not something most people think about.

[–] PugJesus 24 points 16 hours ago

I supposed they meant "And this amount of space is still available for greenery" rather than "These, specific, trees will be preserved"