🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0XDyTB1w165w@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca> bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca (Brad Crockett) writes:
>koichi@unixg.ubc.ca (Koichi J Kishimoto) writes:
>> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)writes:
>> >A tax is probably
>> >a more efficient and fair way of letting people depreciate their investments
>> >(instead of paying big fees to mechanics). They would probably buy newer,
>> >more efficient cars sooner, than if they paid for repairs. And the govt.
>> >would get more money.

I have my reservations about letting any more money than necessary go to
either Victoria or Ottawa.  I would prefer that the governments spend their
time creating policies that we can live with rather than spending enormous
amounts of our money at their discretion.  The last thing we need to do is
let our politicians renovate the legislature buildings again, or jet around 
the province for free when we are really trying to improve our air quality.

>
>This does seem to reduce the effectiveness of the testing from a
>global perspective.  The environmental cost of producing a new car
>vs. using an older one for a little longer is quite high.  One new
>car means a lot of smoke coming out of Detroit or Japan.  It is
>effective, however, in cleaning up the local air - at least
>temporarily.

I couldn't agree more with Brad's statement.  We should all try to think
a little more globally.

>Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
>bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca           :->


David J. Dowdell, UBC                                dowdell@unixg.ubc.ca