This one was rejected by the list robot for unknown reasons; reposting
In light of the topic and having just returned from British Columbia,
including some time in Victoria (some hiking outside the city and some beer
festival sampling (of course), I'll note that I saw LOTS more people
bicycling in Victoria than I seem to see in Madison. I also saw less
apparent egregious motor vehicle-bicycle conflicts, perhaps because
bicycling is so much more a "normal" thing that motorists are more
accustomed to them.. or it's just those damn polite Canadians. I can also
note, more specifically related to the subject line that I did something I
haven't done since the last time I rented a car (about nine months ago)--I
bought a tankful of gasoline--and the price was .899/litre (well, that was
Victoria price and barely more than the Vancouver price I saw after landing
at YVR; by the time I made my single gasoline purchase before returning the
car the Vancouver price had dropped to either .829 or .825 depending on
where you were, down from that upper 80s price just a day before, which
also happened to coincide with what both the BCFerries and the hostel where
I stayed considered the change from "high season" to "shoulder season."
Hmmmm.....
At .725 and 3.78 litres, that's US$2.26-$2.46/gallon
I don't know if there's a direct correlation, but that's a lot more
bicycles and a lot more transit (buses, trolley buses, rail) being offered
and used under the higher price regime.
>Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 03:23:08
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Gas prices
>
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:29:44, Now go have a beer Bob Paolino said:
>>
>> "A "pay-not-to-drive" plan aimed at slowing down global warming
>> needs to recognise that miles (or kilometres) don't cause global warming,
>> burning dinofuel does, so the credit should reward people who cause less
>> pollution, and if they can do it with more efficient and cleaner vehicles
>> all the better."
>
>
>Michael wrote:
>
>> A motor vehicle that averages 20 miles to the gallon, and is driven
>> 10,000 miles in a year, emits 5.5 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere a year.
>> A motor vehicle that averages 40 miles to the gallon, and is driven
>> 10,000 miles in a year, emits 2.75 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere a year.
>>
>> A motor vehicle that averages 20 miles to the gallon, and is driven 5,000
>> miles in a year, emits 2.25 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere a year.
>> A motor vehicle that averages 40 miles to the gallon, and is driven 5,000
>> miles in a year, emits 1.125 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere a year.
>
>[Is there a reason that going from 10,000 to 5,000 should cut it by _more_
than half? That is, if going from 20 mi/gal to 40 mi/gal cuts it from 5.5
to 2.75, why would cutting back from 10,000 to 5,000 reduce them to 2.25
(instead of 2.75) and 1.125 (instead of 1.375), respectively?]
>
>But what you say supports my argument, corrected figures or not. When you
get down to the cause of global warming it's the "emitting" that's the
problem, NOT the distance over which it is emitted. Someone can achieve
the same impact by going to a more efficient and/or cleaner car, yet the
gas hog (who is also wasting more fossil fuel resources in addition to
polluting more per mile) would get the Neuman reward and the other one
wouldn't. Of course people should ALSO drive less but the efficiency and
emissions of the vehicle--both in vehicle characteristics (overall fuel
economy et cetera and type of driving done (a long highway trip at
relatively constant speed and only a single warmup period uses less fuel
and emits less pollution than the
**S A M E N U M B E R O F M I L E S** travelled in short trips with
multiple warm ups, starts and stops) are ****MORE**** important with
respect to global warming (as is choice of fuel). A hypothetical zero
emission vehicle even driving 20,000 miles is a better step toward slowing
global warming than a 20 mi/gal car driving even as few as 1,000 miles. A
car and a bicycle would be equivalent when it comes to global warming if
the car could be one with zero emissions, so a car could be almost as good
as a bicycle if its one with very low emissions. Driving less is important
for other reasons (even at that, not so much driving less, but rather
driving less when everyone else is trying to drive--miles driven when
hardly anyone else is on the road are simply ***NOT*** the miles that
generate demand for expansions to six, eight, and ten lane highways.
>
>All miles driven are NOT equally harmful.
>
>Michael, I know you've invested a lot of professional and emotional energy
into your specific proposal and are reluctant to let go. But there could
be more effective possible methods that would have a more universal effect
(your plan is self-selecting; it rewards those who have a chance of making
the goals without affecting the behaviour **AT ALL** of those who figure
they don't have a prayer of coming even close) without the administrative
complexity of odometer peeping.
>
>I'm not saying that I have a perfect answer, but I do have a better one.
>
>Wisconsin is slightly above the U.S. average in miles driven at 13,307 for
2000 (compared to 11,988 US). (This is understandable in a comparative
sense, considering the lack of any adequate public transit systems in
Wisconsin cities and the longer distances in the more sparsely populated
areas. It's probably higher out west and lower back east, to make an
oversweeping generalisation) And, yes, this is higher than 10,980 (and
9,892 US) in 1970. I'll leave the calculation of percentage increases in
mileage and population as an exercise for the reader.
>
>Average fuel economy in 2000 was only 22.1 in Wisconsin (compared to 22.0 US)
>
>[Unfortunately, both of these variables are for autos only, excluding
minivans, pickups, and SubUrban Assault vehicles, but that's what the state
reports and it's good enough for illustration purposes.] The "average"
auto will use about 600 gallons of gasoline per year (13,307/22.1) Let's
say we increase the gas tax by $1/gallon, no, how about $2/gallon? We give
every household a refundable (to make it available to low income
households) $1,200 income tax credit to offset the effect for the "average"
car. (If you have two cars each driving that much, too bad--one credit for
the household.) The non-driving household will get a $1,200 reward for not
driving (or at least not buying gas in Wisconsin). (And this is more
effective than odometer peeping because you can't evade it by using a
rental car that keeps miles off your personal car--you pay the added tax
regardless of which vehicle gets filled.) The "average" household will
break even; no reward, no hardship. Anything in between is a graduated
award based on driving less AND (or) being more efficient. Of course, if
there are average households and lower-than-average-driving households,
there will also be households that either (or both) drive more or use less
efficient motor vehicles. These folks who would have no incentive to cut
back (because they don't think they could make the targets) under an
odometer peeping regime now have a strong economic incentive to use less
gasoline--and a choice of how to achieve it.
>
>Granted, to some extent it might be a strong economic incentive to use
less _Wisconsin_-sold gasoline. If you live in Beloit, you'll buy it in
Illinois. If you live in Marinette, you'll buy it in Michigan. If you
live in LaCrosse, Hudson, or Superior, you'll buy it in Minnesota.
Surprise, people already do that, and, yes, this would increase the
incentive to do it more. Hey, I do it, too; if I'm going to/through
Illinois, I won't start with a full tank in Madison where it's very
expensive because I know I can fuel up so much cheaper in Janesville or
Rockford. At the same time, however, I don't make a special trip to
Janesville every time the gauge gets low because it's not worth my time or
driving to do so. If you live on the border, sure, you'll probably almost
always cross it (you do anyway now, and maybe this would be an incentive to
go a _little_ farther... OR to plan your driving differently such that you
don't need to as often, and that wouldn't be a bad thing) but there's a
distance at which people just won't do it because it's too inconvenient.
So, maybe you shouldn't be given a full $1,200 credit if your county
borders another state, not quite as much a reduction if it's close but not
bordering.... Some kinds of taxes already differ depending on where you
live, so this wouldn't be anything new. Perhaps the income tax forms could
have a table showing county of residence and the corresponding gas tax
credit, and you just use that number to fill in on the appropriate line.
>
>Now go build a real mass transit system.
>Now go pedal a bicycle.
>Now go have a beer,
>
>Bob Paolino
>
>From the Department of Military Intelligence and Jumbo Shrimp:
> Sign seen on a recently poisoned lawn on Johnson:
> TruGreen/ChemLawn
>
> ( ) ASCII ribbon campaign
> X against HTML e-mail:
> / \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages!
>
>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino
>From the Department of Military Intelligence and Jumbo Shrimp:
Sign seen on a recently poisoned lawn on Johnson:
TruGreen/ChemLawn
( ) ASCII ribbon campaign
X against HTML e-mail:
/ \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages!
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
