If only we have some easy solution to this... like capitalism.
Allow gas prices to rise to what the market will support and those that want to pay for gas guzzlers can, while those than have more economical cars pay less at the pump.
If only we have some easy solution to this... like capitalism.
Allow gas prices to rise to what the market will support and those that want to pay for gas guzzlers can, while those than have more economical cars pay less at the pump.
And if your car you received as a hand me down from the parents at graduation is a gas guzzler well, tough shit, buy a new car!
Reducing gas consumption is good but it has to be balanced with actually being able to drive older cars because that is what most low income/middle income people own (currently). The freshly graduated student isn't driving a $30,000 Prius. So make more efficient cars affordable and the problem will mostly solve itself
If only we have some easy solution to this... like capitalism.
Allow gas prices to rise to what the market will support and those that want to pay for gas guzzlers can, while those than have more economical cars pay less at the pump.
I don't think that solves the larger issue though. The market can support a vast amount of inefficiency in our fuel system: our atmosphere and the political systems of Russia/Venezuela/Iran can not*. As it stands we need to start to move Americans away from our reliance on oil or else we face dire consequences. I'm all for using the markets, but we have to use them wisely. With a significant gas tax we can reduce the amount of money we're sending to corrupt oil rich nations, as well as create a revenue source we can invest in public transport/alternative energies. Just letting the market provide us with cheap gas is going to drain away our financial/environmental wealth and leave us worse off for it.
If all you're concerned about is keeping gas prices low, then sure you've got a solution. But that short-sightedness is only going to lead to trouble down the road.
*by this I mean that Hugo Chavez, Putin and Ahmadinejad are able to be kept up as leaders because of the wealth of oil these nations have. These leaders are able to keep enormous popularity due to the financial windfall they get from merely sitting on resources, rather than creating any meaningful reform.
If only we have some easy solution to this... like capitalism.
Allow gas prices to rise to what the market will support and those that want to pay for gas guzzlers can, while those than have more economical cars pay less at the pump.
And if your car you received as a hand me down from the parents at graduation is a gas guzzler well, tough shit, buy a new car!
Reducing gas consumption is good but it has to be balanced with actually being able to drive older cars because that is what most low income/middle income people own (currently). The freshly graduated student isn't driving a $30,000 Prius. So make more efficient cars affordable and the problem will mostly solve itself
I agree. That's why I like the idea of "taxes" and "rebates" on new vehicles and vehicle registration.
New vehicles get taxed/rebated based on gas consumption. Throw in some exemptions for those requiring gas guzzling vehicles for business reasons.
Vehicle registration fees can be based on the same thing, with decreases as the car gets older. (So hand-me-downs become more affordable.)
RE: Trucking shipping food and such.
We should really be trying to redesign our infrastructure here in North America anyway. Start building more trains to move goods and localize most food so it doesn't have to be shipped as far, etc.
I've always wondered how the alternative fuel source vehicles would function up here (North Dakota). I'm guessing not very well. At least I can bike to work in the summer I guess.
8.7 miles? So what, 4.35 miles each way? You could bike that in 15-20 minutes easy, don't you dare play "oh woe is me" with this example.
Are you fucking serious -
I ride to work, it is about the same as him - on the FREEWAY. "Woe is me" - how about "I'd much rather use the convenience of the freeway, than have to bike 10 or so miles, change my clothes, get there in half an hour, and then repeat at the end of the day."
Your attitude is making you come off as some sort of eco-nazi quite frankly.
"Oh - thats the only car you have and you work at Target to support your three kids - tough shit sister. . .GAS TAX!"
8.7 miles? So what, 4.35 miles each way? You could bike that in 15-20 minutes easy, don't you dare play "oh woe is me" with this example.
Are you fucking serious -
I ride to work, it is about the same as him - on the FREEWAY. "Woe is me" - how about "I'd much rather use the convenience of the freeway, than have to bike 10 or so miles, change my clothes, get there in half an hour, and then repeat at the end of the day."
Your attitude is making you come off as some sort of eco-nazi quite frankly.
"Oh - thats the only car you have and you work at Target to support your three kids - tough shit sister. . .GAS TAX!"
10 miles is different than 4.5. I'm serious that you can bike 4.5 miles in 15-20 minutes, which is not at all an unreasonable commute.
Also everyone is jumping on me for saying "new" car when really what I meant was "different" car. There are plenty of used sedans and other economy models in the second hand market that I don't think would fall under a gas guzzler's tax. I have a friend who bought an '80s Civic for $400 and that thing gets around 30 mpg and he's able to use it as a daily commuter vehicle. There are other options available.
Again -- the idea isn't to outlaw gas guzzling vehicles, simply to make those people who don't look for other solutions pay a tax as a disincentive to continue using them. Something that most people can afford, but would be a bitch to pay anyway. I mean I can afford the recent $250 traffic ticket I got, but if I had the whole thing to do over again, I'd probably try to avoid breaking traffic law. That kind of disincentive, not some draconian Final Solution for gas guzzler's, just an extra tax levied against them to reflect the fact that they use an inordinate amount of fuel compared to many, many, many other vehicles on the road.
And another quick point -- incentives are fine and good, but you still have to pay for incentives. If we're going to increase the cost of doing government, we have to increase the budget of the government. How does a government increase its budget?
10 miles is different than 4.5. I'm serious that you can bike 4.5 miles in 15-20 minutes, which is not at all an unreasonable commute.
I'd suggest that for some jobs nearly any commute on a bike is unreasonable. Of course, the answer to that could be a public transit system that can move people 4.5 miles in less than an hour, rather than more cars. But depending on what you need to wear to work, or take back and forth from work, a bicycle commute may not be doable for some people. Not all people are you, not all people work your job.
And that's before you get into those who, due to physical disability, might be unable to bike that distance (but can still drive). It's not inconceivable.
8.7 miles? So what, 4.35 miles each way? You could bike that in 15-20 minutes easy, don't you dare play "oh woe is me" with this example.
Are you fucking serious -
I ride to work, it is about the same as him - on the FREEWAY. "Woe is me" - how about "I'd much rather use the convenience of the freeway, than have to bike 10 or so miles, change my clothes, get there in half an hour, and then repeat at the end of the day."
Your attitude is making you come off as some sort of eco-nazi quite frankly.
"Oh - thats the only car you have and you work at Target to support your three kids - tough shit sister. . .GAS TAX!"
10 miles is different than 4.5. I'm serious that you can bike 4.5 miles in 15-20 minutes, which is not at all an unreasonable commute.
Also everyone is jumping on me for saying "new" car when really what I meant was "different" car. There are plenty of used sedans and other economy models in the second hand market that I don't think would fall under a gas guzzler's tax. I have a friend who bought an '80s Civic for $400 and that thing gets around 30 mpg and he's able to use it as a daily commuter vehicle. There are other options available.
Again -- the idea isn't to outlaw gas guzzling vehicles, simply to make those people who don't look for other solutions pay a tax as a disincentive to continue using them. Something that most people can afford, but would be a bitch to pay anyway. I mean I can afford the recent $250 traffic ticket I got, but if I had the whole thing to do over again, I'd probably try to avoid breaking traffic law. That kind of disincentive, not some draconian Final Solution for gas guzzler's, just an extra tax levied against them to reflect the fact that they use an inordinate amount of fuel compared to many, many, many other vehicles on the road.
Do you live in a city, or something? Do you realize that some people have to risk driving on horrible interstates to get anywhere near a town? You can either bike 40 miles on rural roads with no shoulders, or you can drive 15 minutes on a horribly dangerous interstate. I don't think you even started with good intentions.
I currently live in an apartment 20 miles from work. I just bought a house 30 miles from work, because anything closer in is far outside my price range. I drive a pickup truck because my family owns a cattle ranch and I spend a good amount of my spare time there working and helping out with what I can. Guess I should just make more money, buy a house closer to downtown, take out an ARM, buy a second car and insure it, huh.
I currently live in an apartment 20 miles from work. I just bought a house 30 miles from work, because anything closer in is far outside my price range. I drive a pickup truck because my family owns a cattle ranch and I spend a good amount of my spare time there working and helping out with what I can. Guess I should just make more money, buy a house closer to downtown, take out an ARM, buy a second car and insure it, huh.
Do you live in a city, or something? Do you realize that some people have to risk driving on horrible interstates to get anywhere near a town? You can either bike 40 miles on rural roads with no shoulders, or you can drive 15 minutes on a horribly dangerous interstate. I don't think you even started with good intentions.
I was talking to the guy complaining because how else would he do a 4.5 mile commute? I understand there are other circumstances, but 4.5 miles is doable under any circumstances besides extreme weather or health concerns or some kind of specific employment.
I currently live in an apartment 20 miles from work. I just bought a house 30 miles from work, because anything closer in is far outside my price range. I drive a pickup truck because my family owns a cattle ranch and I spend a good amount of my spare time there working and helping out with what I can. Guess I should just make more money, buy a house closer to downtown, take out an ARM, buy a second car and insure it, huh.
You would need all that to pay an annual registration tax?
Do you live in a city, or something? Do you realize that some people have to risk driving on horrible interstates to get anywhere near a town? You can either bike 40 miles on rural roads with no shoulders, or you can drive 15 minutes on a horribly dangerous interstate. I don't think you even started with good intentions.
I was talking to the guy complaining because how else would he do a 4.5 mile commute? I understand there are other circumstances, but 4.5 miles is doable under any circumstances besides extreme weather or health concerns or some kind of specific employment.
How about fear of injury?
I'd love to bike to work, as it's only about 5 miles away. However, the only realistic way to get there (other than going an extra 5 miles out of the way) is via highway. At least around here, biking on that road is a death wish.
And what about stuff like hot weather? As nice as it would be to bike to work...Texas Summers kind of put an impediment up for a lot of folks.
I agree that biking to work is a nice idea, but just because it is close doesn't mean it's feasible.
Heir on
0
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
And another quick point -- incentives are fine and good, but you still have to pay for incentives. If we're going to increase the cost of doing government, we have to increase the budget of the government. How does a government increase its budget?
Hmmmm.
Hmmmmmmm.
I know!
I know!
Cut taxes, right?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Do you live in a city, or something? Do you realize that some people have to risk driving on horrible interstates to get anywhere near a town? You can either bike 40 miles on rural roads with no shoulders, or you can drive 15 minutes on a horribly dangerous interstate. I don't think you even started with good intentions.
I was talking to the guy complaining because how else would he do a 4.5 mile commute? I understand there are other circumstances, but 4.5 miles is doable under any circumstances besides extreme weather or health concerns or some kind of specific employment.
How about fear of injury?
I'd love to bike to work, as it's only about 5 miles away. However, the only realistic way to get there (other than going an extra 5 miles out of the way) is via highway. At least around here, biking on that road is a death wish.
And what about stuff like hot weather? As nice as it would be to bike to work...Texas Summers kind of put an impediment up for a lot of folks.
I agree that biking to work is a nice idea, but just because it is close doesn't mean it's feasible.
But...but...it works where I live, right?!
I'd say improving the public transit system such that one can get 4.5 miles away in under an hour (assuming you're not on the same street) might be a start, and is probably more reasonable than expecting somebody who is expected to be dressed professionally to bike to work when it's either 120 degrees our 10 degrees below zero out. At least in urban/suburban areas.
Still doesn't work for all those pesky rural areas, though...but I mean, fuck those guys. It's not like many of the raw materials we need for our economy and society (including, you know, the food that powers your bike) come from there.
And another quick point -- incentives are fine and good, but you still have to pay for incentives. If we're going to increase the cost of doing government, we have to increase the budget of the government. How does a government increase its budget?
Hmmmm.
Hmmmmmmm.
I know!
I know!
Cut taxes, right?
Or maybe spend less.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
What about trucks used for shipping? It seems like they shouldn't be subject to this tax.
Differences in regulation between commercial and public use is nothing new. I'm pretty certain there's plenty of exemptions those trucks already get. I think obviously the uses of fuel which are unavoidable and ultimately productive to our economy would not be the target of a proposed gas guzzler's tax.
On the other hand, food transport is one of the hugest wastes of fossil fuels in the US because, at the moment, gasoline is cheap while land near population centers is not.
There should be incentive for people to start smaller, local farms or a way that those farms can compete against the large-scale corporate farms hundreds of miles away. Ultimately we're not going to be able to solve either the peak oil or the greenhouse effect problems without growing more of our food closer to where people actually live.
What do you think about urban farming? The prototype building in that story is estimated to cost $1 Billion, but there are some universities toying with the idea that estimate they could build one for half that. Of course, the one from the article as works as a water treatment / recycling plant using barrier plants and zebra mussels.
There's also the rumored-to-be-a-fake Toshiba microreactor. It fits into a basement and can provide enough power to a city block at 5 cents per kWh. If there weren't such absurd nuclear paranoia, this would make businesses self-sufficient and combined with PV cells, wind power, etc., would make the power grid more modular (i.e. less susceptible to cascade failures).
How do you think this would impact the oil dilemma? Could we design communities around these innovations?
EDIT: I was going to make a separate thread for these, but I didn't think there would be enough to talk about between two short articles. However, urban farming sounds totally rad!
How do you think this would impact the oil dilemma? Could we design communities around these innovations?
EDIT: I was going to make a separate thread for these, but I didn't think there would be enough to talk about between two short articles. However, urban farming sounds totally rad!
Urban farming is totally rad. I am, however, skeptical as to whether it can actually meet the kind of food demand you're looking at in a large metro area. At some point you're still going to have to dedicate at least some real land to supporting that population (and growing food out on actual farms is probably more efficient, in terms of manpower and energy, assuming those farms are kept close to the cities they feed). At which point (bringing it back to topic) you're still going to have people with unreasonable bike commutes (or even public transit commutes)...and in areas where weather is an issue, or for people who also need hauling capacity, that means a Prius may not do the trick.
Nuclear is also a great alternative for power, but you've also got other non-energy-related raw materials you need besides coal and oil...everything from iron to copper to gravel. These things don't fall from the sky, they're pulled from the ground out in Bumfuck, North Dakota...which means people need to live out in Bumfuck to do the pulling (and to do the transporting, and to sell groceries to those dong the pulling, and hey maybe they'd like a movie theater in Bumfuck, and so on, an so forth)...but, again, may urban dwellers who don't give much though to this (or don't care) say fuck those assholes. All drivin' their trucks and SUVs and shit. I say your ass can try driving a Civic in Bozeman, Montana when there's three feet of snow and they don't clear your street for a week and a half because your neighborhood is "low priority." Our fucking Montero got stuck on our street, the snow was so fucking deep. And that thing has both decent clearance and 4WD.
Oh, and "live near where you work" is a great idea, provided everybody has the kind of job security one rarely sees outside the government. But moving every time I lose my job or have to change jobs is pretty limiting (especially if I, *gasp*, want to own rather than rent), as is requiring me to only search for jobs within reasonable biking distance of my home.
I have a friend who bought an '80s Civic for $400 and that thing gets around 30 mpg and he's able to use it as a daily commuter vehicle.
Then your friend got extremely lucky as an 88 Honda Civic 2 door hatchback is blue booked at $1220. not everyone, in fact very few, people will have this kind of luck.
I drive 5 miles each way to work, it is a 10 minute drive. It takes me 2 hours to walk to work. I can not bike to work as I have no way to shower once I am there, nor am I changing in the bathroom, and winters would make it impossible to bike. I am the only person who lives in my direction, and the only other person I know that drives lives 45 min in the other direction. Asking him to take another 40 min out of his day to take me to and from work is unreasonable.
Other easy ways to implement a gas-guzzler tax that doesn't fuck over people like S0up:
Make it an additional tax on the sale of a new vehicle.
They already do this, and have for a while. It's called the "Gas Guzzler Tax".
And a late-80s Civic has fuel advantages, but what you gain in fuel economy you lose in safety. The reason cars now and cars 20 years ago get about the same mileage isn't always laziness on the automakers' part, it's the fact that cars weigh a ton more now than they used to because of newer safety regulations.
That late-80s Civic probably doesn't even have a driver's side airbag.
Get a motorcycle. Your commute will be faster. You can buy one for easily under $1000. You will get >100 MPG. You will be more sexy to women.
Edit: Well, not all of those at the same time. But there are motorcycles you can buy for easily >$1000 and there are motorcycles that get >100 MPG.
I got to be one of the first at the scene of an accident and see first-hand what happens to motorcyclists when drivers of larger vehicles don't pay attention. And while you can ride defensively to mitigate this risk, you certainly can't eliminate it and it's much higher than in a car. Plus again you run into the fact that motorcycles are not feasible for a commute everywhere. We have like a three-month riding season up here. Do you ride your motorcycle in a foot of snow when it's 10 below zero? Do you think it's reasonable to expect people to own multiple vehicles for their commute?
Urban farming is totally rad. I am, however, skeptical as to whether it can actually meet the kind of food demand you're looking at in a large metro area.
A single tower is expected to serve 50,000 people per year. So, basically you'd need 20 farm towers* per million (*of this prototype; I imagine if we got good at it fewer towers would be required). The Twin Cities metro has 2.82 million people, so 57 buildings spread among 188 cities and townships doesn't sound unreasonable.
At some point you're still going to have to dedicate at least some real land to supporting that population (and growing food out on actual farms is probably more efficient, in terms of manpower and energy, assuming those farms are kept close to the cities they feed).
I'm not sure I get why you think traditional farms would be more efficient. I have no idea how farm towers would differ ecologically or economically, so I hope you can clarify for me.
Nuclear is also a great alternative for power, but you've also got other non-energy-related raw materials you need besides coal and oil...everything from iron to copper to gravel. These things don't fall from the sky, they're pulled from the ground out in Bumfuck, North Dakota...which means people need to live out in Bumfuck to do the pulling (and to do the transporting, and to sell groceries to those dong the pulling, and hey maybe they'd like a movie theater in Bumfuck, and so on, an so forth)
There's no denying that those communities need to be built, and transporting those materials is basically immutable. However, we can still cut down on shipping by having that community be self-sufficient, which was what I was really on about.
Urban farming is totally rad. I am, however, skeptical as to whether it can actually meet the kind of food demand you're looking at in a large metro area.
A single tower is expected to serve 50,000 people per year. So, basically you'd need 20 farm towers* per million (*of this prototype; I imagine if we got good at it fewer towers would be required). The Twin Cities metro has 2.82 million people, so 57 buildings spread among 188 cities and townships doesn't sound unreasonable.
I suppose. For some reason, 57 30-story buildings just seems pretty big to me, in an area where land is already at an extreme premium. Plus I was thinking of larger metro areas, like on the 5+ million scale.
I'm not sure I get why you think traditional farms would be more efficient. I have no idea how farm towers would differ ecologically or economically, so I hope you can clarify for me.
Well, economically they're taking land that's already at a premium. Might not seem like a lot, but again you're talking on the order of a hundred additional high-rise buildings for a large metro area. Ecologically? Probably not. Overall, I'm probably just talking out of my ass though. ;-)
There's no denying that those communities need to be built, and transporting those materials is basically immutable. However, we can still cut down on shipping by having that community be self-sufficient, which was what I was really on about.
True. There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to how we deal with food transportation in particular. And I'm not just talking about materials: once you have people living in places like western Montana, saying "olol ride a bike drive a prius" starts to become less reasonable. At least enforcing it. There really do exist places where AWD/4WD (and decent clearance to boot) isn't entirely optional.
Get a motorcycle. Your commute will be faster. You can buy one for easily under $1000. You will get >100 MPG.
I ride a motorcycle. Show me one that gets more than 100MPG and I'm all over it. A moped maybe - I dont know. But there isn't a bike out there thats pushing greater than 100MPG, not even tourers.
10 miles is different than 4.5. I'm serious that you can bike 4.5 miles in 15-20 minutes, which is not at all an unreasonable commute.
4.5miles on the freeway is NOT 4.5 miles on surface streets. If it was, I'd never have the internal monologue with myself "Do I want to braive I-5 today. . ."
There really do exist places where AWD/4WD (and decent clearance to boot) isn't entirely optional.
You don't have to tell me. I have inlaws that live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. They're practically Canadian hillbillies. Every town is 30 miles from the next one, and you often have to drive two towns over if you want to see a movie or shop at a real grocery store. I should disclose, though, that I live within 5 minutes of Minneapolis and drive a Prius. Is my manliness in question? ;-)
There really do exist places where AWD/4WD (and decent clearance to boot) isn't entirely optional.
You don't have to tell me. I have inlaws that live in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. They're practically Canadian hillbillies. Every town is 30 miles from the next one, and you often have to drive two towns over if you want to see a movie or shop at a real grocery store. I should disclose, though, that I live within 5 minutes of Minneapolis and drive a Prius. Is my manliness in question? ;-)
I drove a Civic for a while up here in Montana. A 'red' Civic. I say 'red' because that's what it said on the paperwork and what the VIN would suggest. It was actually a shade somewhere between Barney purple and Barbie pink. I bought it cheap from my stepdad, who actually bought it for himself (not my mother), for reasons I can only imagine also had much to do with price.
To this day I have not had my man card reinstated.
I feel like a douchebag posting in here so much today, but I thought that the 1959 Opel was worth discussion. The custom-rebuilt car got 376.59 mpg in 1973!
Of course, a lot of that is the fact that the car's insulation and seating was removed, but modern hybrids don't even approach that kind of mileage. It has something to do with heating the fuel line to produce "lean vapor" for fuel injection. I don't know what that means, but fuckin' A!
Assuming you cut the mileage by a third for restoring the insulation and seating, and you'd still have 125.53 mpg. This is a non-diesel, non-hybrid car built 30 years ago. Get on this, Detroit!
I feel like a douchebag posting in here so much today, but I thought that the 1959 Opel was worth discussion. The custom-rebuilt car got 376.59 mpg in 1973!
Of course, a lot of that is the fact that the car's insulation and seating was removed, but modern hybrids don't even approach that kind of mileage. It has something to do with heating the fuel line to produce "lean vapor" for fuel injection. I don't know what that means, but fuckin' A!
Assuming you cut the mileage by a third for restoring the insulation and seating, and you'd still have 125.53 mpg. This is a non-diesel, non-hybrid car built 30 years ago. Get on this, Detroit!
Off the top of my head, I'd ask if any of the modifications made to the drivetrain and engine would effect performances at high mileage...in other words, how would this thing run after 100K miles? (Insert joke about high mileage American cars here, but still)
I just think that, to some extent, there'd have to be some reason that the innovations used on that car (that were feasible for a mass-market car designed for street use at 50mph+) haven't been implemented.
Get a motorcycle. Your commute will be faster. You can buy one for easily under $1000. You will get >100 MPG.
I ride a motorcycle. Show me one that gets more than 100MPG and I'm all over it. A moped maybe - I dont know. But there isn't a bike out there thats pushing greater than 100MPG, not even tourers.
Honda Unicorn. They claim 129 MPG average. It's only 150cc, but still made for city driving.
I got to be one of the first at the scene of an accident and see first-hand what happens to motorcyclists when drivers of larger vehicles don't pay attention. And while you can ride defensively to mitigate this risk, you certainly can't eliminate it and it's much higher than in a car. Plus again you run into the fact that motorcycles are not feasible for a commute everywhere. We have like a three-month riding season up here. Do you ride your motorcycle in a foot of snow when it's 10 below zero? Do you think it's reasonable to expect people to own multiple vehicles for their commute?
1) More motorcycles on the road would make things safer for everyone. Everyone would be better off if we didn't have to worry about bachelors in Hummers just so they can flex their miniature peeners, who tend to have no spatial awareness and change lanes without signaling.
2) I live in Southern California. We don't ever get not-motorcycle weather. So, no experience how it is riding in snow.
1) More motorcycles on the road would make things safer for everyone. Everyone would be better off if we didn't have to worry about bachelors in Hummers just so they can flex their miniature peeners, who tend to have no spatial awareness and change lanes without signaling.
True.
2) I live in Southern California. We don't ever get not-motorcycle weather. So, no experience how it is riding in snow.
I don't ride, I'll admit. But the fact that I've never seen anybody do it combined with the enthusiasm with which riders up here bring out their bikes come spring suggests that it sucks ass. And/or is incredibly dangerous.
Do you live in a city, or something? Do you realize that some people have to risk driving on horrible interstates to get anywhere near a town? You can either bike 40 miles on rural roads with no shoulders, or you can drive 15 minutes on a horribly dangerous interstate. I don't think you even started with good intentions.
I was talking to the guy complaining because how else would he do a 4.5 mile commute? I understand there are other circumstances, but 4.5 miles is doable under any circumstances besides extreme weather or health concerns or some kind of specific employment.
I was in no way complaining that I have no other means to get to work. I was simply stating the fact that as someone who doesn't drive often due to high gas prices and only drives such a short amount shouldn't be penalized for it due to his vehicle. I'm not driving a hummer for fuck's sake, I'm simply driving a car handed down to me just SO he could get to work and back easily, without fear of extreme weather, 95 degree summer days, needing a ride, missing the bus, being to sweaty to be presentable at my work place, etc. While, yes, I'm not driving much everyday, the luxury of being able to get to my bank to cash my check before it closes is nice. Also being able to visit an old friend up in Maine once a year is also pretty nice (Or should I arrange a ride for that too?).
How could this help the situation you stated about the folks driving a RV towing a Hummer? They obviously have enough money to pay for filling their vehicle at 800$ a pop. What stops them from paying this "gas tax" all the time and still filling up their vehicle every 100 miles?
(And yes Mike, I am aware folks buying a new large vehicle must pay a gas tax).
Posts
Allow gas prices to rise to what the market will support and those that want to pay for gas guzzlers can, while those than have more economical cars pay less at the pump.
And if your car you received as a hand me down from the parents at graduation is a gas guzzler well, tough shit, buy a new car!
Reducing gas consumption is good but it has to be balanced with actually being able to drive older cars because that is what most low income/middle income people own (currently). The freshly graduated student isn't driving a $30,000 Prius. So make more efficient cars affordable and the problem will mostly solve itself
If all you're concerned about is keeping gas prices low, then sure you've got a solution. But that short-sightedness is only going to lead to trouble down the road.
*by this I mean that Hugo Chavez, Putin and Ahmadinejad are able to be kept up as leaders because of the wealth of oil these nations have. These leaders are able to keep enormous popularity due to the financial windfall they get from merely sitting on resources, rather than creating any meaningful reform.
I agree. That's why I like the idea of "taxes" and "rebates" on new vehicles and vehicle registration.
New vehicles get taxed/rebated based on gas consumption. Throw in some exemptions for those requiring gas guzzling vehicles for business reasons.
Vehicle registration fees can be based on the same thing, with decreases as the car gets older. (So hand-me-downs become more affordable.)
RE: Trucking shipping food and such.
We should really be trying to redesign our infrastructure here in North America anyway. Start building more trains to move goods and localize most food so it doesn't have to be shipped as far, etc.
Agreed. There's whole sections of this country that have gone un-irradiated. We need to do something about that!!
Are you fucking serious -
I ride to work, it is about the same as him - on the FREEWAY. "Woe is me" - how about "I'd much rather use the convenience of the freeway, than have to bike 10 or so miles, change my clothes, get there in half an hour, and then repeat at the end of the day."
Your attitude is making you come off as some sort of eco-nazi quite frankly.
"Oh - thats the only car you have and you work at Target to support your three kids - tough shit sister. . .GAS TAX!"
Also everyone is jumping on me for saying "new" car when really what I meant was "different" car. There are plenty of used sedans and other economy models in the second hand market that I don't think would fall under a gas guzzler's tax. I have a friend who bought an '80s Civic for $400 and that thing gets around 30 mpg and he's able to use it as a daily commuter vehicle. There are other options available.
Again -- the idea isn't to outlaw gas guzzling vehicles, simply to make those people who don't look for other solutions pay a tax as a disincentive to continue using them. Something that most people can afford, but would be a bitch to pay anyway. I mean I can afford the recent $250 traffic ticket I got, but if I had the whole thing to do over again, I'd probably try to avoid breaking traffic law. That kind of disincentive, not some draconian Final Solution for gas guzzler's, just an extra tax levied against them to reflect the fact that they use an inordinate amount of fuel compared to many, many, many other vehicles on the road.
Hmmmm.
Hmmmmmmm.
I'd suggest that for some jobs nearly any commute on a bike is unreasonable. Of course, the answer to that could be a public transit system that can move people 4.5 miles in less than an hour, rather than more cars. But depending on what you need to wear to work, or take back and forth from work, a bicycle commute may not be doable for some people. Not all people are you, not all people work your job.
And that's before you get into those who, due to physical disability, might be unable to bike that distance (but can still drive). It's not inconceivable.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Really?
How about fear of injury?
I'd love to bike to work, as it's only about 5 miles away. However, the only realistic way to get there (other than going an extra 5 miles out of the way) is via highway. At least around here, biking on that road is a death wish.
And what about stuff like hot weather? As nice as it would be to bike to work...Texas Summers kind of put an impediment up for a lot of folks.
I agree that biking to work is a nice idea, but just because it is close doesn't mean it's feasible.
I know!
I know!
Cut taxes, right?
But...but...it works where I live, right?!
I'd say improving the public transit system such that one can get 4.5 miles away in under an hour (assuming you're not on the same street) might be a start, and is probably more reasonable than expecting somebody who is expected to be dressed professionally to bike to work when it's either 120 degrees our 10 degrees below zero out. At least in urban/suburban areas.
Still doesn't work for all those pesky rural areas, though...but I mean, fuck those guys. It's not like many of the raw materials we need for our economy and society (including, you know, the food that powers your bike) come from there.
Or maybe spend less.
but they're listening to every word I say
What do you think about urban farming? The prototype building in that story is estimated to cost $1 Billion, but there are some universities toying with the idea that estimate they could build one for half that. Of course, the one from the article as works as a water treatment / recycling plant using barrier plants and zebra mussels.
There's also the rumored-to-be-a-fake Toshiba microreactor. It fits into a basement and can provide enough power to a city block at 5 cents per kWh. If there weren't such absurd nuclear paranoia, this would make businesses self-sufficient and combined with PV cells, wind power, etc., would make the power grid more modular (i.e. less susceptible to cascade failures).
How do you think this would impact the oil dilemma? Could we design communities around these innovations?
EDIT: I was going to make a separate thread for these, but I didn't think there would be enough to talk about between two short articles. However, urban farming sounds totally rad!
Urban farming is totally rad. I am, however, skeptical as to whether it can actually meet the kind of food demand you're looking at in a large metro area. At some point you're still going to have to dedicate at least some real land to supporting that population (and growing food out on actual farms is probably more efficient, in terms of manpower and energy, assuming those farms are kept close to the cities they feed). At which point (bringing it back to topic) you're still going to have people with unreasonable bike commutes (or even public transit commutes)...and in areas where weather is an issue, or for people who also need hauling capacity, that means a Prius may not do the trick.
Nuclear is also a great alternative for power, but you've also got other non-energy-related raw materials you need besides coal and oil...everything from iron to copper to gravel. These things don't fall from the sky, they're pulled from the ground out in Bumfuck, North Dakota...which means people need to live out in Bumfuck to do the pulling (and to do the transporting, and to sell groceries to those dong the pulling, and hey maybe they'd like a movie theater in Bumfuck, and so on, an so forth)...but, again, may urban dwellers who don't give much though to this (or don't care) say fuck those assholes. All drivin' their trucks and SUVs and shit. I say your ass can try driving a Civic in Bozeman, Montana when there's three feet of snow and they don't clear your street for a week and a half because your neighborhood is "low priority." Our fucking Montero got stuck on our street, the snow was so fucking deep. And that thing has both decent clearance and 4WD.
Oh, and "live near where you work" is a great idea, provided everybody has the kind of job security one rarely sees outside the government. But moving every time I lose my job or have to change jobs is pretty limiting (especially if I, *gasp*, want to own rather than rent), as is requiring me to only search for jobs within reasonable biking distance of my home.
Then your friend got extremely lucky as an 88 Honda Civic 2 door hatchback is blue booked at $1220. not everyone, in fact very few, people will have this kind of luck.
I drive 5 miles each way to work, it is a 10 minute drive. It takes me 2 hours to walk to work. I can not bike to work as I have no way to shower once I am there, nor am I changing in the bathroom, and winters would make it impossible to bike. I am the only person who lives in my direction, and the only other person I know that drives lives 45 min in the other direction. Asking him to take another 40 min out of his day to take me to and from work is unreasonable.
And a late-80s Civic has fuel advantages, but what you gain in fuel economy you lose in safety. The reason cars now and cars 20 years ago get about the same mileage isn't always laziness on the automakers' part, it's the fact that cars weigh a ton more now than they used to because of newer safety regulations.
That late-80s Civic probably doesn't even have a driver's side airbag.
XBL: QuazarX
Edit: Well, not all of those at the same time. But there are motorcycles you can buy for easily >$1000 and there are motorcycles that get >100 MPG.
I got to be one of the first at the scene of an accident and see first-hand what happens to motorcyclists when drivers of larger vehicles don't pay attention. And while you can ride defensively to mitigate this risk, you certainly can't eliminate it and it's much higher than in a car. Plus again you run into the fact that motorcycles are not feasible for a commute everywhere. We have like a three-month riding season up here. Do you ride your motorcycle in a foot of snow when it's 10 below zero? Do you think it's reasonable to expect people to own multiple vehicles for their commute?
I'm not sure I get why you think traditional farms would be more efficient. I have no idea how farm towers would differ ecologically or economically, so I hope you can clarify for me.
There's no denying that those communities need to be built, and transporting those materials is basically immutable. However, we can still cut down on shipping by having that community be self-sufficient, which was what I was really on about.
I suppose. For some reason, 57 30-story buildings just seems pretty big to me, in an area where land is already at an extreme premium. Plus I was thinking of larger metro areas, like on the 5+ million scale.
Well, economically they're taking land that's already at a premium. Might not seem like a lot, but again you're talking on the order of a hundred additional high-rise buildings for a large metro area. Ecologically? Probably not. Overall, I'm probably just talking out of my ass though. ;-)
True. There is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to how we deal with food transportation in particular. And I'm not just talking about materials: once you have people living in places like western Montana, saying "olol ride a bike drive a prius" starts to become less reasonable. At least enforcing it. There really do exist places where AWD/4WD (and decent clearance to boot) isn't entirely optional.
I ride a motorcycle. Show me one that gets more than 100MPG and I'm all over it. A moped maybe - I dont know. But there isn't a bike out there thats pushing greater than 100MPG, not even tourers.
4.5miles on the freeway is NOT 4.5 miles on surface streets. If it was, I'd never have the internal monologue with myself "Do I want to braive I-5 today. . ."
To this day I have not had my man card reinstated.
Of course, a lot of that is the fact that the car's insulation and seating was removed, but modern hybrids don't even approach that kind of mileage. It has something to do with heating the fuel line to produce "lean vapor" for fuel injection. I don't know what that means, but fuckin' A!
Assuming you cut the mileage by a third for restoring the insulation and seating, and you'd still have 125.53 mpg. This is a non-diesel, non-hybrid car built 30 years ago. Get on this, Detroit!
Off the top of my head, I'd ask if any of the modifications made to the drivetrain and engine would effect performances at high mileage...in other words, how would this thing run after 100K miles? (Insert joke about high mileage American cars here, but still)
I just think that, to some extent, there'd have to be some reason that the innovations used on that car (that were feasible for a mass-market car designed for street use at 50mph+) haven't been implemented.
Honda Unicorn. They claim 129 MPG average. It's only 150cc, but still made for city driving.
1) More motorcycles on the road would make things safer for everyone. Everyone would be better off if we didn't have to worry about bachelors in Hummers just so they can flex their miniature peeners, who tend to have no spatial awareness and change lanes without signaling.
2) I live in Southern California. We don't ever get not-motorcycle weather. So, no experience how it is riding in snow.
True.
I don't ride, I'll admit. But the fact that I've never seen anybody do it combined with the enthusiasm with which riders up here bring out their bikes come spring suggests that it sucks ass. And/or is incredibly dangerous.
I was in no way complaining that I have no other means to get to work. I was simply stating the fact that as someone who doesn't drive often due to high gas prices and only drives such a short amount shouldn't be penalized for it due to his vehicle. I'm not driving a hummer for fuck's sake, I'm simply driving a car handed down to me just SO he could get to work and back easily, without fear of extreme weather, 95 degree summer days, needing a ride, missing the bus, being to sweaty to be presentable at my work place, etc. While, yes, I'm not driving much everyday, the luxury of being able to get to my bank to cash my check before it closes is nice. Also being able to visit an old friend up in Maine once a year is also pretty nice (Or should I arrange a ride for that too?).
How could this help the situation you stated about the folks driving a RV towing a Hummer? They obviously have enough money to pay for filling their vehicle at 800$ a pop. What stops them from paying this "gas tax" all the time and still filling up their vehicle every 100 miles?
(And yes Mike, I am aware folks buying a new large vehicle must pay a gas tax).
XBL: QuazarX