Carfree lifestyle?
Listened to Sen. Brownback's energy policy from 6/6/07:
http://www.eenews.net/tv/video_guide/620
He calls for energy independence (for North America) within 15 years. Is this possible? I don't think so, as we use energy now.
3 million barrels/day of Sand Tar oil from Canada by 2020? How is thing going to help with our 21 million barrel/day consumption?
20 billion barrels in ANWR? How long will that last us? 5 years?
Renewable fuels? Corn ethanol? Biodiesel? What about our food supply? Can we FARM without petroleum?!
Switchgrass and cellulostic ethanol? I'll believe it when I see it.
Electric cars or hybrids, much room to help with transportation, BUT we need better battery technology, AND we'll need to expand electricity production. Will we use more coal? (We have 250 years of coal???)
I have to stand firmly on the side of conservation as the most powerful tool, whatever the above ideas might help create a more sustainable source for our energy sources.
I'm just curious - is there ANY way to convince people that a "carfree" lifestyle is possible? Is there any value in subsidizing personal choices that consume less?
I've heard that efficiency and conservation merely help to bring energy prices down and encourage NEW consumption with the savings. It may be true, but if taxes can help price consumption higher, this tendency can be reversed. (Brownback is against this - such pandering!!)
I've been without a car for 29 months now. Very possible for a single person, although I broke my shoulder bone 5 weeks ago and haven't been able to bike since. Buses are sometimes nice, if you're not in a hurry. My normal commute is 20 minutes, but also needs walking time, waiting time.
I actually jogged 8.1 miles to my girlfriend's house last night in 67 minutes, a warm humid evening too, and then took the bus 8 miles today to work in 72 minutes, including about 2 miles of fast walking. That's 9 minute/mile pace. Sure you can say I got exercise and reading time, but I admit I'm not happy to consider commuting 2.5 hours every day.
Some people claim the cost of car ownership, spread out over the cost to earn the money to pay for it comes out to 5 mph (12 minutes/mile). But this must be considering pretty low wages, and I agree at least, that many people would be better off without a car (or with one LESS car), if they honestly assessed their costs, although the balance is dependent upon public infrastructure to provide an alternative.
Anyway, what if we offered a $1000/person/year tax rebate to every adult who chooses to not own a car. Perhaps there's loophole, like person A has zero cars, and person B has two cars, and person B loans car to person A. So an offset would need to add a $1000 TAX for every adult who owns two cars. Then there's the issue - a person might own two vehicles, a truck and a small car, and select which to use based on transportation needs. Is it really fair to tax that person for this smart policy that saves fuel? THEN, perhaps there's the person who owns ONE car, and only drives 2000 miles/year, is there no reward for this conservation?
No, the better policy is to tax gas consumption directly, $5/gallon, and then you can refund every $1000/year. If they consume less than 200 gallons/year, they'll get the rebate I suggested. Poor people who consume less are ahead, but poor people who consume more will have to consider adjusting their lifestyle if they can't afford the tax.
I just had dinner last night with a friend who is also single, and says he likes to take Sunday drives to see the country side. I don't want to "take away" his choice, but there's no reason to not ask him to pay for it.
The other side of consumption is that rich people can upgrade to high efficiency vehicles and plug in hybrids. Poor people take vehicles they can afford, whatever the mileage. Mostly that just means to me a need for a transition time, raising tax $1/gallon/year for 5 years.
Well, besides the subside, how can cities make a difference? At one level, they could zone transit friendly regions of the city as "carfree zone", or at least perhaps like narrow traffic calmed roads with even one way 5mph speed limits. Perhaps for larger areas, a few "transitways" can pass through.
Overall it is promising to do as much as possible to develop communities that can exist well without cars, where transit, walking and biking can meet most of the needs. And without parking lots, such regions can have more green space, more pedestrian paths, and overall a higher population density.
Well, not new thoughts, but I just wonder how how such things could be done, and if there's value in a national policy to promote them, for reducing our use of oil and energy.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/video_guide/620
He calls for energy independence (for North America) within 15 years. Is this possible? I don't think so, as we use energy now.
3 million barrels/day of Sand Tar oil from Canada by 2020? How is thing going to help with our 21 million barrel/day consumption?
20 billion barrels in ANWR? How long will that last us? 5 years?
Renewable fuels? Corn ethanol? Biodiesel? What about our food supply? Can we FARM without petroleum?!
Switchgrass and cellulostic ethanol? I'll believe it when I see it.
Electric cars or hybrids, much room to help with transportation, BUT we need better battery technology, AND we'll need to expand electricity production. Will we use more coal? (We have 250 years of coal???)
I have to stand firmly on the side of conservation as the most powerful tool, whatever the above ideas might help create a more sustainable source for our energy sources.
I'm just curious - is there ANY way to convince people that a "carfree" lifestyle is possible? Is there any value in subsidizing personal choices that consume less?
I've heard that efficiency and conservation merely help to bring energy prices down and encourage NEW consumption with the savings. It may be true, but if taxes can help price consumption higher, this tendency can be reversed. (Brownback is against this - such pandering!!)
I've been without a car for 29 months now. Very possible for a single person, although I broke my shoulder bone 5 weeks ago and haven't been able to bike since. Buses are sometimes nice, if you're not in a hurry. My normal commute is 20 minutes, but also needs walking time, waiting time.
I actually jogged 8.1 miles to my girlfriend's house last night in 67 minutes, a warm humid evening too, and then took the bus 8 miles today to work in 72 minutes, including about 2 miles of fast walking. That's 9 minute/mile pace. Sure you can say I got exercise and reading time, but I admit I'm not happy to consider commuting 2.5 hours every day.
Some people claim the cost of car ownership, spread out over the cost to earn the money to pay for it comes out to 5 mph (12 minutes/mile). But this must be considering pretty low wages, and I agree at least, that many people would be better off without a car (or with one LESS car), if they honestly assessed their costs, although the balance is dependent upon public infrastructure to provide an alternative.
Anyway, what if we offered a $1000/person/year tax rebate to every adult who chooses to not own a car. Perhaps there's loophole, like person A has zero cars, and person B has two cars, and person B loans car to person A. So an offset would need to add a $1000 TAX for every adult who owns two cars. Then there's the issue - a person might own two vehicles, a truck and a small car, and select which to use based on transportation needs. Is it really fair to tax that person for this smart policy that saves fuel? THEN, perhaps there's the person who owns ONE car, and only drives 2000 miles/year, is there no reward for this conservation?
No, the better policy is to tax gas consumption directly, $5/gallon, and then you can refund every $1000/year. If they consume less than 200 gallons/year, they'll get the rebate I suggested. Poor people who consume less are ahead, but poor people who consume more will have to consider adjusting their lifestyle if they can't afford the tax.
I just had dinner last night with a friend who is also single, and says he likes to take Sunday drives to see the country side. I don't want to "take away" his choice, but there's no reason to not ask him to pay for it.
The other side of consumption is that rich people can upgrade to high efficiency vehicles and plug in hybrids. Poor people take vehicles they can afford, whatever the mileage. Mostly that just means to me a need for a transition time, raising tax $1/gallon/year for 5 years.
Well, besides the subside, how can cities make a difference? At one level, they could zone transit friendly regions of the city as "carfree zone", or at least perhaps like narrow traffic calmed roads with even one way 5mph speed limits. Perhaps for larger areas, a few "transitways" can pass through.
Overall it is promising to do as much as possible to develop communities that can exist well without cars, where transit, walking and biking can meet most of the needs. And without parking lots, such regions can have more green space, more pedestrian paths, and overall a higher population density.
Well, not new thoughts, but I just wonder how how such things could be done, and if there's value in a national policy to promote them, for reducing our use of oil and energy.
posted by Ares Olympus at 4:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home