• Spost@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      8 months ago

      If we couldn’t do that, it’d be pretty difficult to ever back down from a bad policy decision, which isn’t exactly great either.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      If it weren’t already unethical and obnoxious to drive an SUV in Paris, I’d agree that it should be phased in. As it is, however…

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      but I don’t really like the idea that something you already own outright can be regulated to the point where it’s highly inconvenient or impossible to use.

      It was highly inconvenient for all of those people who had cars that took leaded gasoline to have to either keep buying lead substitute to put in their tank at an extra cost or sell their car.

      Guess we should have kept lead in gasoline.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      How else would regulation work? If we didn’t allow changing anything that already exists, there’d still be cars with leaded fuel everywhere.

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s not like it would be impossible to sell. Yeah maybe not to Paris people but it is possible. Yeah is a bit of a burden…

      But tbh most didn’t need a SUV in Paris…for the off chance they went somewhere else were it makes sense…once or twice.

    • bigFab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      One has to take responsibilities for what he purchases. Most SUV buyers have not ‘cutting costs’ as a priority.