🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <eFL0TB3w165w@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca> bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca (Brad Crockett) writes:
>emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>> > I agree with Bruce.  The automobile is so deeply entrenched in the
>> > North American psyche as a form of personal expression that it
>
>> The issue is not of whether or not to inconvenience SOME people. The vast 
>> majority of people use automobiles as their prime personal transportation 
>> mode because there simply isn't a better, AVAILABLE and affordable 
>> alternate method available. 
>
>That depends on how you define better.  Do you mean better for the
>individual or better for society.
>
>> While there are real problems with urban transportation methods, the 
>> answer is not to dream that you can (or even should) plan to eliminate 
>> the car because you have fallen for the currently popular myths about the 
>> "danger" the car poses to society. Especially when you have no readily 
>> available, affordable alternative. People use cars because they are the 
>> most affordable, versatile, and timely method of getting from point a to 
>> point b in a reliable, comfortable and safe method, while carrying a 
>> variety of things with them - passengers, cargo, etc.
>
>They are affordable right now because they are so heavily
>subsidized.  Imagine how much less out taxes would be if
>governments only had to build and maintain roads for buses!  And
>consumer goods would be cheaper as well because businesses would
>not have to devote 1/2 or more of their land area to parking
>stalls to compete effectively.

I take issue with the word "subsidize". To subsidize something means
that the people who use a service are not paying the full costs of the
system, and that *someone else* is paying for that use.

I ask you to think about who that someone else is.

Perhaps taxes would be less, because the roads wouldn't be catering to
car users. But that does not imply a subsidy. You could equally say
"imagine how much less our taxes would be if governments only had
to provivide medical services for healthy people". Paying taxes to 
support health care is fair, because everyone typically has an equal
chance of getting sick, and they do not know whether they will be sick
ahead of time. Likewise, paying for roads is justifiable because everyone
directly or indirectly uses roads (and they should pay for them directly
or indirectly).


In order to show that there is a subsidy, you would have to show that
people who drive cars, aren't paying for the costs of those roads.
Simply saying that taxes would be less if there were no cars, does NOT
imply a subsidy.

There is an area where arguably all pollution emitting things are subsidized.
However this is at the cost of the environment, not from people who don't
use cars (since their alternative means of transport would also contribute
to pollution). The logic of this is that air, water, the environment etc.
is a commodity. By polluting, you are using up that commodity, and that
use should be paid for. Now logic dictates that you should pay for using
up something, and that is where a pollution tax comes in to discourage the
using up of that commodity (since costs limit unbounded use of a resource.)

Some pollution is irreversible, or at best, extremely costly to reverse.
This kind of pollution should be discouraged with extremely high pollution
taxes, or an outright ban. Other types of pollution can NOT be categorized
as irrersible; you can analyse this kind of pollution as "borrowing" from
the environment, since the air, water, etc. consumed is eventually returned
back to the environment, a pollution tax in this case should be based on
how long the resources are used, and when they are returned to the environment.


SO to put things in perspective for cars and trucks and buses, to 
eliminate the subsidy at the expense of the environment, you should
charge people a tax for operating their vehicle, depending on the volume
and type of exhaust their vehicles emit. Vehicles emit water, CO2, CO,
NOx and unburnt hydrocarbon vapors. Ranking this on absolute damage, and
how long it takes to reverse, you would tax highest for NOx, hydrocarbons,
CO, CO2 and least for water vapor. This is because the NOx contributes most
to the brown smog that irritates people's health.

If a pollution tax were uniformly and consitently applied, it would give
a market incentive to reduce pollution, and would make comparisons 
between differing technologies simple. Example: if pollution is taxed
according to damage etc. at every level, it would be simpler to choose
the least polluting cup: since the cheaper cup would necessarily be the
cheapest, ie for plastic, styrofoam, paper or ceramic. Without this
market way of sorting out the best alternative, you would need to 
be armed with studies and scientists every time you wanted to buy the
best of something (do you remember the massive studies needed to sort
out whether plastic or paper of ceramic coffe cups were better?)
Price signals are a very clear and efficient means of sorting out the
best from the worst. Apply pollution taxes uniformly, and the better
alternative will become obvious through market action alone.

>
>Regards,
>
>> 
>> 
>> Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they 
>> want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken
>
>
>Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
>INTERNET: bcrock@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca
>     CIS: 72570,2154


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________