Environmental Economics

As an abstract proposition to be propounded in a college classroom, I think I can understand this DRIVE LESS business. It’s glibly simple when confined to a setting that just no longer intersects the real world significantly.
But in that real world, it’s almost beyond comprehension. Good luck trying to get anywhere with it, so to speak.
And getting anywhere is the crux of the matter, isn’t it? Many consumer choices have little effect on other choices or other aspects of life. But DRIVE LESS is different.
People watch a movie on Netflix for the sake of seeing the movie. But they typically don’t DRIVE for the sake of driving, they drive for the sake of something else. In other words, the only way to DRIVE LESS is to withdraw to the same extent from the world – to avoid some visits with friends or relatives, avoid some classes or meetings, etc. (Even if some “transit” is available, in the USA it’s almost always uselessly slow, tardy, and unreliable, and hardly ever goes where and when you need to go; it’s merely a sinecure for its massively overpaid employees.)
So it should be unsurprising that people rumble and complain when they are coerced into withdrawing from the world at the capricious and arbitrary whim of forces beyond their control. Especially since these forces are rarely passing asteroids or weather fronts. No, they wear very human faces – those of powerful executives, back-to-the-Flintstones environmentalists, virtue-signalling politicos, and other such culprits.
Therefore, as long as you and I are still around, I expect this discussion to come up periodically – and with never any particular resolution.