[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Proposed Government Driving Restrictions!



tdarcos@access2.digex.net (Paul Robinson) wrote:
>
>What is your evidence to show that automobile transportation is 
>"environmentally destructive."  Yes, automobiles generate pollution.  
>This does NOT mean they are destructive to the environment.  

Odd logic notwithstanding, automobiles by any measure are environmentally 
detrimental. Pollution, fuel consumption, street runoff, and roadbuilding 
are the most direct impacts, but sprawl development is the ultimate 
car-caused environmental problem.

>Let's stop looking at the amount of gasoline used, that's a red herring 
>to ignore the real problem.
>
>If the idea was to reduce pollution, charge cars by tailpipe emissions,
>this would mean old clunkers, owned by poor people and heavily polluting,
>would be hit with the highest taxes, while the efficient expensive
>automobiles such as a Mercedes Benz would see lower taxes, which is
>politically unacceptable. 

Not a direct tax, but automobile emissions inspection programs do just that. 
If you're polluting, you've got to fix your problem.

>International business competitiveness means you fight on strengths and 
>not on weaknesses.  Japan has a very competitive market internationally, 
>and extreme protectionist internally, same as the U.S.  But with the high 
>taxes and cost of living, the average family lives in 1/3 the space one 
>does in the U.S.
>
>I doubt we want "sardine packing" as a way of life here.

Yet, our sprawl comes with a cost. If we squander our resources driving from 
place to place and the Japanese are not, they have a competitive advantage.

>: and for the global environment it makes sense to be efficient about 
>: our use of fossil fuels. 
>
>Why?
>
>If a gallon of gasoline costs $1.40 a gallon and the driver gets 10 miles 
>per gallon, it costs them 14c a mile to drive.  If it gets 20 mpg, it 
>costs 7c a mile.  Those who need to pay less will move toward more 
>efficient cars.
>
>And if we are supposed to reduce use of fossil fuels, whom are we 
>reducing them for?  I can presume that our descendants are supposed to 
>also reduce their use, so who exactly are they saving these fuels for?

Tough to argue with logic like that.

terry.harris@jhuapl.edu
just my opinions, not those of my employer necessarily




References: