I take your point. But I don't see it as necessarily a fatal objection, on the grounds that in the worst case it's a subsidy for having children, which is always popular; some other subsidy without environmental content for having children could be reduced by way of compensation, if people insist on it (I wouldn't); and maybe if you're old enough to have a card, you're old enough to drive, so maybe the fact that the card is in the house indicates that you're not driving somewhere, which is the point.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Bill Lear <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, February 10, 2009 at 12:40:26 (-0600) Robert Naiman writes: >>I am offering something to the auto industry - the opportunity to make their >>vehicles more fuel-efficient at zero (production) cost. >> >>After all, the auto industry could argue, what really matters is not how >>many miles the _vehicle_ gets per gallon, but how many miles per gallon it >>gets _per passenger_... >> >>Suppose the car comes (voluntarily) equipped with a little electronic box. >>Every time you take a trip in the car of more than X miles, you get some >>kind of economic/pollution control credit if more than one person made the >>trip. You demonstrate this by everybody in the vehicle swiping their cards >>in the electronic box, like frequent flyers on an airline. The electronic >>box has a GPS that counts the miles. Each time the driver and passengers >>earn credit, the auto manufacturer earns economic/pollution control credit >>too, giving them an incentive to promote the program... > > "Honey, I'm going to the store, gimme your and the kids' cards..." > > > Bill > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
