I plan to use this site to post news, commentary, and analysis of current environment and development issues. Of course, I reserve the right to rant about politics now and then.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Fortune Magazine on Gas Taxes
most people think I'm a crazy liberal who wants to impose my values on others (SARC)- like clean air for children and no blood for oil. Well it's not just me and the other "world government" folks - check out Fortune.
Since consumers still want to buy “the biggest, most powerful cars they can afford” dramatic steps MUST be taken to make these types of cars much more efficient or make them outlawed all together. America could take a page out of the European’s book and allow extremely small cars. President Bush and Congress could put a plan in place to slowly outlaw all large cars. The large cars could be traded in for the smaller, much more fuel efficient cars. Of course in some certain circumstances larger vehicles would be permitted (for work-related reasons), but these would only be allowed after a committee had reviewed why they were absolutely necessary.
Also, since ethanol mixed with gasoline does not seem to be the best solution (because of fuel efficiency reasons) President Bush should invest more money in researching and developing more alternatives to oil and coal.
Raising taxes with the tax rebate sounds like an excellent plan for citizens of this country should be willing to make sacrifices for the global community.
One other alternative would be to take the tactic that London has taken. In London they charge a daily fee for all those who drive into the city. This has dramatically reduced the number of people driving in London and had an effect on pollution. The president could also offer incentives to those who carpool as a smaller stab at conservation.
I'm here to respond to the article, but first, in doing so, I'm going to disagree with Colleen. The government can not regulate the size of cars Amercains drive. Just like they can't regulate the size of our houses, which is similarly proportional to CO2 admitions.
The answer does not lie in regulations from the government. If one suggests this, I ask you, do the citizens serve the government, or does the government serve the citizens?
The citizens of the United States do not care enough for the government to act appropriatly. The first step in reducing Co2 admitions in this country is to convince the American people there is a problem. Not just a small problem, but a potentially cotostraphic one. If good gas milage ranks only 22 in terms of important factors in buying a car, United States Citizens obviously do not understand the threat they place on the commons.
Critisism is often directed towards politicians for not acting on the issue of CO2 admitions. Why blame the politicians when their "boss" (the American people) do not demand the issue to be acted upon. Convince the American people and convince the politicians. (I am aware of my sentence fragment.)
2 comments:
Since consumers still want to buy “the biggest, most powerful cars they can afford” dramatic steps MUST be taken to make these types of cars much more efficient or make them outlawed all together. America could take a page out of the European’s book and allow extremely small cars. President Bush and Congress could put a plan in place to slowly outlaw all large cars. The large cars could be traded in for the smaller, much more fuel efficient cars. Of course in some certain circumstances larger vehicles would be permitted (for work-related reasons), but these would only be allowed after a committee had reviewed why they were absolutely necessary.
Also, since ethanol mixed with gasoline does not seem to be the best solution (because of fuel efficiency reasons) President Bush should invest more money in researching and developing more alternatives to oil and coal.
Raising taxes with the tax rebate sounds like an excellent plan for citizens of this country should be willing to make sacrifices for the global community.
One other alternative would be to take the tactic that London has taken. In London they charge a daily fee for all those who drive into the city. This has dramatically reduced the number of people driving in London and had an effect on pollution. The president could also offer incentives to those who carpool as a smaller stab at conservation.
What else could be done?
-Colleen S.
I'm here to respond to the article, but first, in doing so, I'm going to disagree with Colleen. The government can not regulate the size of cars Amercains drive. Just like they can't regulate the size of our houses, which is similarly proportional to CO2 admitions.
The answer does not lie in regulations from the government. If one suggests this, I ask you, do the citizens serve the government, or does the government serve the citizens?
The citizens of the United States do not care enough for the government to act appropriatly. The first step in reducing Co2 admitions in this country is to convince the American people there is a problem. Not just a small problem, but a potentially cotostraphic one. If good gas milage ranks only 22 in terms of important factors in buying a car, United States Citizens obviously do not understand the threat they place on the commons.
Critisism is often directed towards politicians for not acting on the issue of CO2 admitions. Why blame the politicians when their "boss" (the American people) do not demand the issue to be acted upon. Convince the American people and convince the politicians. (I am aware of my sentence fragment.)
-Robbie Day
Post a Comment