79 in fact. Pretty low for a country that rich, but to find 69 you have to go to Africa or the poorest Latin or Asian countries.

Hey and in Freiburg they just cancelled the LEZ because the air quality improved…

Year on year, the number of cars on the road keeps growing. There’s simply not enough space to add new roads, so traffic is slowly growing to a complete halt. Limiting the number of cars is one of the only ways to keep cars viable. You could have licenses based on need, for sale and by lottery. If it becomes harder to get a car, more people will organise themselves to not need a car. And it would make the demand for car sharing explode.

Whether or not violence is morally acceptable isn’t the most interesting thing in my opinion, but rather “what strategy is most likely to win”. It’s not a subject I’m well versed in, but the first analysis I found showed that non violent protest movements tend to win, see https://www.datawrapper.de/blog/are-peaceful-protests-more-successful-than-violent-ones (I know I know, correlation is not causation, so digging in deeper is needed). If you read this article, you can already see that a little bit of violence is enough to help turn people against you. The more restraint, the easier it appears to be to let people join your cause (or at least not turn against you). That doesn’t mean being meek, you can still be incredibly obstructionist while being non violent. In Europe, a huge amount of rhe progress we made was because elites feared the masses. Because of the potential of violence, maybe, but not because of actual violence. Most of all because of huge union movements who could grind whole industries or even the country to a halt. What works in one place doesn’t necessarily work on another one, of course.

Security services use things like airgapping, but our politicians talk to each other using WhatsApp…

Great documentary!