Putting peope in prison was not the point of my original post; preventing repeat dangerous drivers from harming more people was. I’m absolutely open to alternatives to incarceration.

Do you have some examples of what could be done to minimize harm to victims and, in particular, prevent future crime?

You’re contradicting yourself, immediately above you say mandatory prison sentence.

For driving after permanent license revocation. That could perhaps have been clearer; consider it clarified.

Let’s start from first principles and see where we disagree:

1. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
2. That privilege, if repeatedly abused, should be removed permanently.
3. Once removed, further driving must be disincentiviced, and if necessary, punished.
4. The disincentive/punishment must apply to rich and poor alike.
5. It therefore cannot be purely monetary.

If you disagree with any of the above, I’d like to know which, and why. If you agree with them all, what disincentive/punishment do you suggest, if not incarceration?

The three strikes would not lead to a prison sentence, just permanent license revocation. If the driver in question continues to drive at that point, they have demonstrated that they are a danger to society and must be removed from it for the safety of others.

Further, just imposing fines for unlicensed driving would effectively make it legal for rich people to drive recklessly. That, if anything, would be reactionary.

He pleaded guilty to hit-and-run, his third such offence

Three strikes policy must become a thing for reckless driving and related offences. After your third conviction you never get to drive a car again in your life.

“They’d just drive anyway”

Mandatory prison sentence and vehicle confiscation, regardless of who owns it. Unless it’s literaly stolen, it’s the owner’s responsibility to ensure the driver is legally allowed to drive.

“But not being able to drive is undue hardship”

Tough.

I mean, have you seen the rush hour traffic on Coruscant?

Is that the one about the guy who was so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life?

For convenience, the wagon could be motorized. Perhaps even have a nice, comfy seat or two.

Consider being less unpleasant.

When one of them has nothing to do with the other three, splitting them into separate paragraphs is good practice to avoid confusion.

Forklifts […] are operated in pedestrian heavy areas much more frequently [than cars].

???

What are paragraphs?

Once or twice.

Look, I don’t think we really disagree with each other. I think it would be great if we switched to sail-based shipping. But for that to be viable the masses would have to be OK with the results of that, as you laid out above.

I’m not hopeful that will happen, not until supply chains start breaking under the strain of climate change its consequences. By then, it may be too late to switch.

I suggest you get to work on implementing your solution, then. It’s very easy, after all. Let me know how it goes.

We could

Who’s “we”? You’re referring to some kind of collective humanity, but so such collective exists in the real world. There is no grand effort to work together to solve common problems.

You’re ignoring the fact that sailing ships cannot compete with fossil power. Any problem becomes easy if you’re willing to ignore reality.

We could easily

I think you and I have different definitions of that word.

drastic action is necessary which will result in large inconveniences and disruption for billions of people, but nobody wants that, and no politician will get elected selling that.

Correct.

Fair.

The point was not to imply that shipping is not a large source of CO2, but:

1. More than once, I have seen it stated that a small number of cargo ships dwarfs the world’s car fleet in terms of CO2 emission. This is wrong, and originates with abovementioned conflating of sulphur and carbon.
2. At 3.9% of all GHG emissions, it is hardly correct to refer to shipping as one of the “biggest CO2 polluters”.
3. It’s not low hanging fruit. Moving cargo by sea is really very efficient, and we’re not going to reduce that carbon source by switching to other means of transport. The only way to reduce it is to move less stuff.

I do believe you are grossly incorrect

What makes you think that? None of the sources you provide disagree with what I wrote.

The biggest CO2 polluters are […] cargo ships.

No, this is a misunderstanding. Cargo ships are a major source of sulphur pollution, not carbon. Cargo ships use the cheapest fuel they can. Cheap fuel is rich in sulphur. They can do this because there are no emission regulations on the open sea. A commonly cited figure is that a single cargo ship releases more sulphur than all the cars in North America.

This figure is then misinterpreted by people who failed basic chemistry to mean that cargo ships are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, the opposite is true; cargo ships are one of the most efficient ways to move stuff over large distances. Only electric trains are better, and only if the source of the electricity is not fossil.

What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions.

I skipped it because I agree. There’s nothing to debate on that point.

However, the point of my first reply was to highlight that this perspective is often exaggerated to paint the global middle class (the top 10% richest people on the planet, i.e. most people in western Europe and the anglosphere) as innocent victims when in fact they are also to blame. This is what I replied to:

The narrative that the average joe is to blame for this shit is so infuriating to me.

This sentiment is oft-repeated on this kind of post, and the implication that “average joe” is not responsible is not only wrong, but actively harmful.

Also you’re last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be ‘bad’ per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)

Of course. By the same token, individuals trying to avoid their own responsibility by parroting “big oil invented the idea of a carbon footprint” is definitely bad practice.