"TB" <Partyslammer@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:45d8dbf3$0$24728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"jmull" wrote:
(snip)
The value --in terms of security and environment-- of changing our
fuel consumption habits merit the cost. It is worth sacrificing a
little of our prosperity if it means we aren't financing terrorists
and can do less damage to the planet. We can suffer a minor pinch now,
or hand a much more massive problem to our kids and grandkids.
The thing is, this is a *global* problem. How are you going to coerce a
country like China to take similar steps?
even if we can't, does that mean that we should abjure our own responsibility? We can't control sunspots, natural cyclical warming or China, but we can control what we do, and we should.
I'm not sure that boosting the taxes on gas out the wazoo (I think the federal tax on gas is about 18 cents a gallon now, so to raise the cost of gas to 4.00 a gallon would involve a 1000% increase, give or take) is the best nor the fairest way to go. As others have pointed out, it's regressive, and it may hurt people without actually stopping them from commuting to their job/driving for a living/etc. They'll just pay more. I'd prefer a carrot method, more than the stick - incentives to people to buy high mileage or alternate fuel vehicles, incentives to companies to build them, incentives to governments to build more mass transit. Where I live (DC 'burbs), I can't afford to live in a nice place, decent schools, close to the city. I'd love to have Metro reach out here, or at least a commuter rail.. If we need a stick, apply it to companies first - penalties for selling fleets with mileage below a certain rate. I'm sure others will disagree with one or another part of that...
But regardless of what we do, regardless of what the right course is, we should do what we can, regardless of whatever China does in the future.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
