Comments by "Fox" (@tomlxyz) on "DW Planet A" channel.

  1. It was anti nuclear, unrelated to co2 emissions
    11
  2.  @Free-g8r  idk about that. I'd bet that in many European countries with good public transportation the average politician doesn't use it. It's just that in Europe public transportation isn't usually potrayed as a poor person's option who can't afford a car
    9
  3. ​ @logans3365  To me it seems many Americans who object to that idea want to live in a quiet suburban area with no other people hanging around. And why do they want that? Because (their) cities are loud. But cities are loud because of all the cars who need to drive in and out from city to the suburbs
    7
  4. it's wild how few rules would need to be changed for a lot of issues to start solving on its own but it's not done. What you've listed would both reduce traffic jams and make housing more affortable (by not enforing urban sprawl)
    6
  5. They only work if they get priority over individual transportation or they'll just get stuck and not being able to fulfill the scheduled times
    5
  6.  @justanotheryoutubechannel  I've been in towns with "ugly" wires and if done right you eventually won't notice them. But really, if you're already installing wires might as well go the whole way to electric trams. Rail is more effecient with steel on steel compared to rubber on road which creates a lot of friction. With wires they also dont need to carry the weight of the batteries (which tend to be very heavy) so that's extra saving.
    4
  7. It also seems to be politically motivated, better cities attract more people but people living in cities tend to have other voting behaviour so there's an incentive for those who would lose votes to not allow that
    2
  8. Radioactive cesium is more problematic than uranium to my understanding
    2
  9.  @tomservo5007  never understood why not just advocate on putting solar panels on all roofs instead? That's mostly unused space that no traffic runs over, wearing it down (but also casting shadows regularly)
    2
  10. ​ @twelvestitches984  using a lot of water in a river will make it drop downstream which will cause the level of ground water drop too. Most of it might end up in the ocean but if you remove it the ground water will vanish too. You're basically just taking away water from people downstream
    2
  11. That's particularly true for tech because in most other fields you first have to prove something works before you can release it onto the masses
    1
  12. Tech billionaires are all about disruptive innovation. It's better to waste billions on a new solution that doesn't work instead of using an already established solution that works
    1
  13. ​ @carlrodalegrado4104  but if we won't save the water shortage problem we also won't have enough water to produce food anymore
    1
  14. Why? We already know the problems that are stopping us, no need to test them again
    1
  15. Hyperloop was intentionally designed to fail. It was to distract from a working public transport system so cars could continuously be sold.
    1