I should have known that Americans won't give up their convenience for a greater cause. Or perhaps they are really terrible with numbers. -sweat
the thing is people are willing to do it only if they see it cost benifit to them personally as in, do you think if my appliances use less electricity, that OVER ALL my bill may be less? also because the chunks of money that they may pay here or there seem small and all at once but you do the gas thing on just a daily routine, seeing yourself shell out that money ALL THE TIME doesn't seem very good
^ well.. if the government can implement reneweable energy together with increasing fuel costs.. that might work. if reneweable souce is cheaper than fuel.. who wouldn't wanna the green cause? bottom line is still money.. thats reality isn't it? some cities are designed for cars. its a fact that needs to be rectified if policy to reduce private cars is to be successful. convenience and time is an unavoidable issue. but it is also usually mapped to numbers. so i believe it is funfamental to address an alternative transport system, that does not compromise convenience and costs..
well americans need cars for transportation otherwise everyone would be taking super fast trains like in japan xD
The convenience issue can be addressed by better urban planning, less house / low density residential zones... I understand it's fundamentally opposites the American Dream. With everyone driving cars, the government(s) should impose tax on households owning more than one car (I understand ONE car per household can be argued to be a necessity) and higher tax rate for fuel inefficient cars. Then impose further tax to cars entering the downtown area to discourage long commuting. All those extra money can go to the transit system and urban renewal. And oh, property tax should be based on land use (for example, a condo should TOTAL up to pay the amount payable for the piece of land the condo sits on, while each house should be charged more since it's inefficient use of land). Build subsidized housing and then stop zoning (so that there will be little to none new houses/condos available on the market, which will drive up the price and discourage sprawling) I miss the old school Sim City...
i've heard they are trying to pass the 10 cents per gallon in the bay area, is it happening in whole US though?
yea.. urban planning. but the problem is.. what to do for exiting cities? its an issue urban planners are trying to resolve.. and its tough. the idea of a central buisness district, or inner city.. which many cities have.. requires much travelling. and that can't be resolved overnight. if it can.. there wouldn't be a need for so much discussion.. haha
That's where urban renewal kicks in... Taking down abandoned buildings in the inner city (where there are plenty of) and re-zone the inner city. Better infrastructures... Vancouver is one city which cleaned up pretty well after passing a by-law to have the ownership of buildings abandoned for more than 10 years returned to the city, in a few years, the city accumulated areas big enough for a major reno. Yale Town and Gas Town used to be the ghetto abandoned industry shells, now they are the hot ticket to cozy lofts.
^yea.. so such stuff really need to be done in order to remove the need for cars in the first place. after which, you dun even need to persuade ppl to not use cars cos there is no longer a need/ demand. design/ redesign a city for pedestrians or cyclists will help much in the green cause. right now.. cars are jus not gg to disappear.. on the other hand, with reneweable technology advancing everyday, cars that run on total reneweable energy will one day be affordable. but i prefer non-car city.. its jus my friendly and safe for pedestrians. and its only through slowing down, can we really appreciate our environment.
it doesnt make sense for the government to tax people more for this kind of thing though... especially if your talking about the american government, where it all goes to the us war machine. charging individuals more money wont discourage people from driving and owning vehicles. most will just suck it up, but hate the government more. the only way to solve this problem is to make people aware so they can make their own decisions. the government should be able to fund environmental incentives without charging their citizens more money. having tax BREAKS actually makes more sense. tell a company they will save a few percent off their yearly income taxes if they switch a certain portion of their vehicles to diesels or hybrids and you will see real change.
I prefer a city which has a downtown/central with little to no car, major means of transportation includes public transit (subway/streetcar/tram/light rail) and bike. Cars are very useful when you move... or make a huge purchase from IKEA -tongue2 But how often does one actually move or purchase new furnitures from IKEA? -mellow Hybrid cars will not be caught on in a few years yet. Since most mechanics are not trained/experienced enough in fixing the kinks and problems with hybrid cars, maintenance is going to be EXPENSIVE = consumer-unfriendly. -dead I don't know, the way some states/counties do it, they charge property tax on vehicles in a single household, each additional vehicles will be charged at a higher rate. Supposedly those tax are collected for infrastructure maintenance. I see your point of the whole war thing. But War is just an excuse to distract the mass population from the failure(s) of government policies. Your reply reminded me of "Stranger than Fiction", where Maggie Gyllenhaal pays every penny of her tax EXCEPT for those percentage dedicated to the military and any exploitative campaigns. -tongue2 The problem with the tax break incentive in the US is that their tax rate is ALREADY VERY LOW (after much lobbying), it is nearly impossible to offer a environmental tax break significant enough to sway the business decisions of the corporations.
global warming aint a scary thing now; many pplz doesnt even kno about it or give a sh*t. However, i think Global warming is a scary thing if i think about it. Nature is very scary most of the times; we wont be able to predict what will happen next even wit our current technology. i think US is the only country that REALLY give a sh*t about it now.
I don't think that is true... If they really gave the sh*t about it, why don't they sign the Kyoto Protocol like so many other countries that have already done so??
humanity, will not pay to stop global warming since they personally wont gain any profit. you can not only speak of the Americans, but of every people living in other countries. You can speak her of the chinese, europians and the American people. It is of course logical for each people think: why would I spent my money on something of which I dont gain personal profit, the ' problem ' global warming doesn't concern me, since that problem is for people who come after me. And then i am already 6 feet under.. I am against global warming there, but do I do something about it?, no...... you can me find then an @sshole, but who is here against global warming and does something about it. Talking about global warming is useless, if you dont take actions. but the history learn that the earth always knew of wamr and cold periodes trough the centuries. So why is everybody making a fuss about it, maybe because of that american dude, what is his name again ? that former president. But helping the earth to become less polluted is a nice way to help the earth, plant more trees -_-2 euhmmm, lets would you pay in order to stop gloval warming????? ps:sorry for my crappy english, hope you understand what im trying to say.-sweat
I understand most of your English. So no worries. I personally am concerned about global warming not particularly because that random guy called Al Gore talked about it. Just like I didn't start practising yoga because I saw some celebrities use it in their weight loss plan (in fact, WAY before then). My belief is that humanity is long overdue to be extincted, as history has proven, many catastrophes happened upon us, just because we survived them doesn't mean that we are going to survive each and every single one of the upcoming catastrophe(s) natural throws at us. Take an example. A person was told that he may be dying. It's a huge MAY BE. Will the person decide not to consult a doctor and take some action upon it just because it's not definitive and he "feels fine"? Should we just sit around and see if that person will drop dead all of a sudden and say "oops, we should have taken the less risky option, SHOULD HAVE BEEN better safe than sorry."? To me, I believe that humanity is BOUND to end. Sooner or later. And if we don't put an active effort into delay the demise of humanity, it will just happen upon us SOONER rather than LATER. Will any of us able to take the responsibility that, just may be, global warming is TRUE and happening and is killing the planet (and in turn, us as humanity in general)?
people will pay if it helps them in any way. otherwise, I don't think people would agree to pay higher taxes
LOL, which means that they won't (pay a "stop global warming tax"). Since "surviving" doesn't sound threatening enough an incentive.
haha well they're gonna die anyways and it doesn't help the people of this generation because they'll die before global warming gets really serious
