We don't look at usage issues nearly as much as we look at supply issues.
For instance: the quantity of oil that we import from Saudi Arabia annually (and the policy implications/carbon cost/ etc...) is roughly equal to the amount of oil used to warm the tires on our cars (rolling resistance).
I absolutely agree with this article. Unfortunately, it's going to take decades or more for any government official to be able to promote smarter living arrangements without getting booted out of office, or at least sternly disapproved of by the public majority. Americans don't want to be told that we should live in smaller domiciles close to lots of other people. The "American Dream" consists of the big house with the luxurious lawn, and politicians who say otherwise just aren't going to be elected. Americans want to be told that we can have it all and we don't especially care what our impact is. Material wealth and excess = "success". Forgive me if this sounds pessimistic and anti-American; I don't really feel that way. I think we'll come around eventually. I just think we're spoiled and hypocritical- but we can learn!
This article was very interesting. What is the purpose of creating a tax that will encourage big homes and more CO2 emissions to get to work, which is further from the city? Is this a tactic to improve the economy? Do we really want families with incentives to move further away from the city into single family houses with increased energy use? If you look at Germany, for example, nearly every family lives in a multiple family building whether they are out of the city or not. Why can't we develop a tax to encourage multiple family homes in more places?
A good way to encourage participants are tax incentives. Maybe it will encourage those who don't have the money to afford to live in big houses to go green.
It does seem that scrapping this policy despite the environmental benefits would be frowned upon by the american public. It would also have negative effects on the already hurting real estate market. I wish there was an easy way to get Americans to change the type of living arangement they desire.
I have to summate are curret situation with the following: The faster we finish our "damage" (MANBEARPIG!), the faster we begin the recouperation period, and attain harmony. Would it not be in the interest of Environmentalists to pursue the expediate utilization of the remainder of our "popular" fossil fuels to achieve the next stage of our development????
6 comments:
We don't look at usage issues nearly as much as we look at supply issues.
For instance: the quantity of oil that we import from Saudi Arabia annually (and the policy implications/carbon cost/ etc...) is roughly equal to the amount of oil used to warm the tires on our cars (rolling resistance).
I absolutely agree with this article. Unfortunately, it's going to take decades or more for any government official to be able to promote smarter living arrangements without getting booted out of office, or at least sternly disapproved of by the public majority. Americans don't want to be told that we should live in smaller domiciles close to lots of other people. The "American Dream" consists of the big house with the luxurious lawn, and politicians who say otherwise just aren't going to be elected. Americans want to be told that we can have it all and we don't especially care what our impact is. Material wealth and excess = "success". Forgive me if this sounds pessimistic and anti-American; I don't really feel that way. I think we'll come around eventually. I just think we're spoiled and hypocritical- but we can learn!
This article was very interesting. What is the purpose of creating a tax that will encourage big homes and more CO2 emissions to get to work, which is further from the city? Is this a tactic to improve the economy? Do we really want families with incentives to move further away from the city into single family houses with increased energy use? If you look at Germany, for example, nearly every family lives in a multiple family building whether they are out of the city or not. Why can't we develop a tax to encourage multiple family homes in more places?
A good way to encourage participants are tax incentives. Maybe it will encourage those who don't have the money to afford to live in big houses to go green.
It does seem that scrapping this policy despite the environmental benefits would be frowned upon by the american public. It would also have negative effects on the already hurting real estate market. I wish there was an easy way to get Americans to change the type of living arangement they desire.
I have to summate are curret situation with the following: The faster we finish our "damage" (MANBEARPIG!), the faster we begin the recouperation period, and attain harmony. Would it not be in the interest of Environmentalists to pursue the expediate utilization of the remainder of our "popular" fossil fuels to achieve the next stage of our development????
Post a Comment