Arctic methane and cow farts be damned! Yes, it’s obvious that the science is in: American’s cars are at the heart of climate change. Therefore, it’s only right that we cripple our recovering economy to save the planet! [For members of the ‘literal Internet’, that was sarcasm.]
To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.
To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving would simply have to increase, according to a report released Thursday by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The research also appears in the March edition of the journal Energy Policy.
The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.
In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consumes 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.
Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.
In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.
On the other hand, if the taxes were used to pay down the deficit… Riiight.
Raising the tax on gas to $7.00 a gallon is ridiculous in this economy. People in more rural states will not be able to afford to go to work. Who thinks that is a good idea? Also, the price of everything except wages will go up.
Trucks ship everything. Liberals are actively destroying our rail system and replacing them with bike trails. Without rail, everything now needs to be trucked. If you more than double diesel fuel cost, nothing moves except luxury goods.
Although, when the price of four eggs go for $100 trillion dollars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe) then a $7 dollar tax will be the least of our worries. IF the US keeps spending, that is what will happen.
All this gibberish and no facts or conclusions.. not even a FIX to the problem.
I can see it now.
Cities not setup for Walking and bikes.
YEP, most cities are not designed to be walked around, and you wonder why we use cars so much.
Major distributors for FOOD/meat/goods are located 20+ miles from Consumers.. yep its true. Your meat travels from your state 2000 miles THAT WAY, gets processed, SENT to the store packaging center to be WRAPPED 1000 miles OVER THERE, then returns to your HOME STATE..
Fruit and veg, do the same thing.. Harvested, processed 100 miles away, SHIPPED to birds eye 2000 miles away just to package it, Then SHIPPED to Store distribution plants, and then BACK to your home states..and charge 3 times the price.
The problem for trains..They DONT GO where you want them, and they are more expensive then shipping DIRECT to where its going.
Rail shot itself in the foot long ago.
The original investors TOOK ALL their money out, after the TransUSA rail was installed.
Very little improvements have been added Since that GOLD spike was put into the ground. ALSO understand that the GOV/YOU paid for that to be done. The railroad has been subsidized ever since.
If you look at the maps of the rail lines you will see TONS of abandoned rails as well as trying to get from 1 point to another, long distance, will require you to change trains multiple times. The odds are, that if you want to travel by rail, you will go 200 miles to find a train station.
There is no avoiding this problem. Oil will become more expensive and we will have to deal with it. Libertarians and other nuts who have the “you can have my Hummer when you pry my cold dead fingers from it” attitude are living in a fantasy world. Of course we already knew that. 🙂
#68
“A LOT of people drive 45 minutes or more because they can buy a lot of house for their $$$ outside of the city.”
its the idea of the CITY. people thinking its better to live there, and cause less pollution, to have MORE services, closer shops.
And dont say ALLOT. as those are the few smart rich people doing it. The Poor people TRY to live close to work. AND still you didnt answer my comment. MOST major cities are not designed for alternative traffic, such as walking and Bikes. Stores and malls are not spread across the town AS’ they used to be. They are grouped together 20 miles apart.
69, ECA,
Being a dual-income family or simply middle-class doesn’t make you rich. So yes, there are a LOT of people who make long commutes so that they can get more house for their $$$. But yes some people also happen to be rich who do this as well.
In the cities where I’ve been to, they are call side-walks. Few if any cities have bike trails in parallel to sidewalks. Much of this is probably due to a lack of sufficient demand among the city folk.
The other being is the city expects people on bikes to ride them in the street. Will the amount spent justify appeasing a very small minority of people who refuse to ride their bikes on the streets?
Having said all that, I’ve lived in Germany for over 4 years and they have bike trails in parallel with sidewalks and streets. I think it’s a decent idea. HOWEVER, there is a dramatic difference in the number of people who ride a bike than we do in our country. If most people don’t desire a bike trail, then I see no reason to force everyone else to subsidize a small minority’s transportation wants.
Those businesses probably withdrew as cities found more clever ways to tax or regulate them. So it sounds like a personal problem. Take a bus or taxi. That or have the city give businesses tax incentives to bring their store fronts back into the city.
#43
It is fine, life goes on. Food is not double the cost (I think it is actually cheaper),
Really. We should assemble a basket of goods and compare prices. Here in the States I can get most of the foods made anywhere on the planet cheaply. However, he’s a quick (albeit not entirely fair) test: how much are avocado’s (say about 8oz/220g or so) in Germany?
#60
You do realize that there is more to the problem than simply the will to build a rail system? In LA, the 710 freeway still does not connect with the 110 or 210 freeways through Pasadena because of opposition that has gone on for decades. There are huge NIMBY issues which means legal costs in addition to the cost of buying the land and oh yeah, actually building the rail. In many cities, they solved this problem by building the rail underground which for the most part isn’t feasible in LA.
#69
its the idea of the CITY. people thinking its better to live there, and cause less pollution, to have MORE services, closer shops.
Maybe in your fantasy world. However, in LA most people live in the suburbs and commute because living closer to the city is noisy, dirty, more crime, less space and more expensive housing and oh yeah, you still have to drive.
#70
RE: Bikes
Plus there is the issue you have been trying to get through to everyone: things are far more spread out here in the US. In Boston, NYC and maybe Chicago, a bike might be practical. Anywhere else it is generally not practical. It is not uncommon for people to drive 20-30 minutes to get to a store. My favorite wine shop is a 15 min drive over a 500 foot+ pass.
So do you really live in the real world?