🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5806@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
=In article <820011@hpcc01.HP.COM>, gph@hpcc01.HP.COM (G. Paul Houtz) writes:
=>    Because reliance on non-renewable fuels is part of the problem.
=>    By taxing the fuel, you encourage both non polluting forms of
=>    transportation (i.e., carpools/buses/trains), and you encourage
=>    development of renewable energy sources like solar.
=
=Carpools, buses, and trains are LESS polluting forms of transportation,
=though all of them, with the right patterns of non-use, can be
=equivalent to, or worse than individual car ownership.  (The bus with
=one or two passengers, for example; the train with 10% of the seats
=full; the two person car pool in a 10 mpg car vs. a single driver in
=a 30 mpg car).

It seems that three things, when done, can lead to a high use of the
less-polluting resources and avoid the problem mentioned :
(1) Get people to think about using mass transit first when they want to
    make a trip, instead of automatically going in a single-occupant vehicle
    which is unfortunately the mindset of most people.  That is, first
    consider mass transit for the trip; only drive your car alone if the
    best mode of mass transit for the trip is extremely inconvenient.
(2) Encourage people to buy high-m.p.g. vehicles when, and if, they buy a
    vehicle.
(3) Encourage mass transit companies to delete trips that almost always have
    extremely low ridership.

=Let me give you a hypothetical example to consider.  What if there
=were a commodity that was non-renewable, but was in very abundant
=supply at $1/ton.  Now, imagine a renewable alternative available
=at $100/ton.  By your reasoning, the renewable resource is
=preferable -- even though the costs of using it will dramatically
=lower everyone's standard of living.

Would it be reasonable to use the non-renewable resource to fulfill part of
the demand and the renewable resource to fulfill the rest of the demand for
the resource?  (This would make it easier than if only the non-renewable
resource was being used to switch over to complete use of the renewable
resource when the non-renewable resource runs out, which it eventually will.)

=>     While there is no such thing as non-polluting
=>   energy, there are forms of energy that are much less polluting than
=>   gasoline powered cars, for instance, electric cars and solar chargers
=>   for those cars.   The idea is to encourage investment and interest in
=>   those areas, rather than just using oil until it's gone.
=
=Why do you assume that oil will ever be "gone"?

Because we use it up faster than natural processes produce it.


Planet Bog - pools of toxic chemicals | Michael Ludwig
bubble under a choking atmosphere     |
of poisonous gases.  But aside from   | First try mludwig@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
that, it's not much like Earth.       | If that doesn't work, then mail me
        - Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) | at eaiu117@orion.oac.uci.edu

UCI and I don't agree on anything.