Michael Tobis wrote:
> How do you come up with 50%?
>
By comparing the fleet efficiency of the USA to what is easily
achievable with a wide range of existing vehicles. It's not like there
is any rational reason for subsidising SUV production.
It should be noted that (in the UK) people move house on average every 7
years, although this is presumably made up of some regular movers and
others who stay in one place for decades. I guess people change vehicles
at a similar (probably higher) rate. So I don't buy your "couple of
generations" claim (well, maybe that is true for giving up *all
driving*, but IMO that suggestion is a bit of a straw man). People who
actually think about trying to reduce their transport requirements can
often do so with relatively little effort. However, currently the price
of petrol even in the UK is so low that it barely figures in the process
from a purely economic point of view (the time cost of commuting is a
bigger issue for many if not most people).
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
