I think you're conflating two quite different things, viz. your own consumer choices and those of society as a whole. You might well prefer public transport, but 'standard of living' is not a subjective measure. Objectively, imposing a reduction in car use would be a cut in the standard of living, not because car use is better or worse than any other transport, but because it would represent a cut in access to resources, i.e., a wage-cut (or price rise, or rationing, ultimately it's the same thing).
>Moreover this contributes to
>a more compact urban environment with concurrent gains in sociability through
>use of apartment buildings, (more energy-efficient than houses),
Again, you are imposing your own subjective choices on others. Jordan Hayes' points on this are well-made. I myself preferred living in a flat until I became a father, at which point negotiating the buggy down the lift and stairs made house ownership preferential. The point is you might think that apartments are better, but forcing people to live in apartments would amount to a forced restriction on their access to resources, i.e. a wage-cut.
>on a smaller
>area, with less land paved over and correspondingly more land available for
>plant life to counteract global warming. I could go on.
I assume then that you would welcome the developments in agri-business that have reduced land pressure by increasing yields. In fact its the reduction of land under cultivation that is making more land available for housing developments - a happy development, in my view. (Incidentally, both European and American afforested areas have been growing for more than a decade now.)
>
>Car-hating is a progressive political emotion.
No car-hating is a reactionary emotion. It is a sublimated form of anti- working class prejudice.
>We ought to promote it. I also
>own one, but I still hate it.
Which only goes to show what a reactionary emotion it is - first its self-hatred, and secondly, it's insincere anyway, since you are unwilling to act upon it. -- James Heartfield