Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 11, 2010 at 5:07am

Really?
Let's continue with your example. You just priced the wheat producers out of existence, but they still have the resources (available labor and equipment). They look over they neighbor the rice producer who is now making a killing. He works just as much as before, but sells his product at a higher price. The former wheat farmer see that and promptly start growing rice, hoping for his share of that good return. The result is that the supply of rice increases and the prices lower as a result of increased competition.

Not only that but this country of yours has a neighboring country that has a surplus of rye. In their own countries prices are depressed due to that oversupply. They look at the country with the high rice prices and think "We can market our rye as an alternative to rice at a lower price than rice, yet still make a better profit than we would get by selling it in our own country." The increased imports further drive down the price or rice

Also, the consumers in your original country don't like the rising costs of food (rice) one bit. They start looking for alternatives: They notice fruits on the trees were considered bitter, but that are quite edible if properly cooked. It's little bit of work, but worth it with the high price for rice.

Once everything has settled consumers end up with more choices than before (rye, rice and the edible fruit) at prices that comparable to before using less acreage than before

Why did this happen? Two main reasons.
1. If prices of commodities increase, users of this commodity will limit their use by looking for alternatives.
2. Capital, labor and resources always look for the best rate of return. In our modern world country borders don't mean much for capital anymore, so if oil prices rise, capital (domestic and foreign) will flow in to provide production capacity for alternatives

The problem is not with creating alternate sources of supply, but with the timeline. If we go in one step from our current tax to a $6 tax, it would create economic disruptions of an unforeseen scale. But if this is phased in over time, the negative effects will be minimized. Economists might be in a better position to figure out the details, like the timeline, and the tax level required to get these results without major disruptions


Michael Perz said:

I really don't know the best way to address this, so I'll just be blunt. You really should spend some time examining the basic principles of economics before giving way to your convictions. Currently your posts indicate a severe lack of understanding of the subject.
Demand does not in any way guarantee supply. Imagine that you govern an area that produces both wheat and rice, and that you decide to prohibitively tax wheat consumption because you feel that too many acres of land are being tilled in its production. Doing so will not give any incentives whatsoever for rice farmers to increase their production. In effect the rice farmers would end up with a monopoly on grain production and you'd end up with a lot more hungry people than there were before. jillnerkowski said:

I found that after searching for alternative vehicles to post on my facebook page, just yesterday, and that, there are an incredible amount of electric and three wheel, hybrid, and miniature vehicles out for sale to drive as opposed to the standard 4 cylinder petrol car.
the problem is, that if they cost more money then a standard 4 cylinder, and there are no regulations governing what we drive, then who will buy them?
but if we tax gasoline, then the vehicles will at first appear to be cheaper ,as the cost to drive them will be cheaper, and then little by little as more and more of them appear for sale for this reason, DEMAND, then the actual cost of them will be cheaper as well. This will not brush under the carpet the very poor like myself, because, already there are options of bicycles and motorized bikes , and public transportation, and these will become more and more available, as our roads change. we have to admit that with our love of freedom, a gas tax sounds less supressive than govt. regulations would be, if our world becomes so polluted that it warrants such. it seems better too because we would have govt. money to improve the roads.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on May 11, 2010 at 5:09am

Unless you can point to evidence that taxing unhealthy foods led to an increase in supply and consumption of healthy foods, the article you linked does absolutely nothing in the way of supporting your argument.

You say you attended college?


jillnerkowski said:

http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/03/10/study-sin-taxes-promote-h...

A recent study examining the potential impact of sin taxes—increasing the cost of junk food, in particular—as a means to promote healthier choices found that, in a lab setting at least, when unhealthy foods cost more, people tended to eat them less. Now, new research attempts to size up the value of sin taxes in the real world. A study published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine followed more than 5,000 people from 1985-1986 to 2005-2006, tracking food consumption habits, as well as height, weight and blood sugar levels. They then compared that data with information about food costs across the 20-year period. Researchers found that, incremental increases in price of unhealthy foods resulted in incremental decreases in consumption. In other words, when junk food cost more, people ate it less.

Permalink Reply by Ali on May 11, 2010 at 5:11am

People do not need junk food to survive, but most people need their cars to survive...Are you expecting most of the country where people work an average of 20 miles away from work to suddenly start biking because now they cannot afford gas nor a new vehicle with your miracle technology? Oh and noone wants to buy their old car because the gas is now a staggering $9.xx/gallon? Way to screw the little guy! Comparing junk food to gasoline is unrealistic at best!

-Ali

jillnerkowski said:

Ali said:

It wasn't the Hudson River that caught fire as far as I know...It was the Cuyahoga River in Ohio...Please get your facts straight before claiming such things...For someone that is fighting for the environment, you seem to have a lot of your facts wrong...Also just hiking the tax on gasoline will not necessarily work, in fact it will never work...You seem to have a flawed understanding of economies of scale and an infant's understanding of economics in general...I suggest you go to your local library, and do some research before advocating such an laughable idea...

-Ali

jillnerkowski said:

I agree with you Jack. I wish we had less oil and less war too.
or maybe more oil, and less that has and will be burned.
I like to imagine we are not all evil oil consumers only interested in driving with free spirits at the cost of our health and environment and futures, and I like to use the example that I learned in college: my teacher told us a story about in the midst of the industrial revolution, we burned and polluted and burned and polluted until the hudson river in new york caught fire from so much pollution and toxic dumping. Then the fight for the environment began, and it has been working.

http://wellness.blogs.time.com/2010/03/10/study-sin-taxes-promote-h...

A recent study examining the potential impact of sin taxes—increasing the cost of junk food, in particular—as a means to promote healthier choices found that, in a lab setting at least, when unhealthy foods cost more, people tended to eat them less. Now, new research attempts to size up the value of sin taxes in the real world. A study published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine followed more than 5,000 people from 1985-1986 to 2005-2006, tracking food consumption habits, as well as height, weight and blood sugar levels. They then compared that data with information about food costs across the 20-year period. Researchers found that, incremental increases in price of unhealthy foods resulted in incremental decreases in consumption. In other words, when junk food cost more, people ate it less.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on May 11, 2010 at 5:32am

While the rye importation is a somewhat reasonable example (I say somewhat because it ignores the various costs associated with importation), your other two are completely flawed. First of all, my example dealt with staple grains which cannot be substituted with fruit. Arguing from this standpoint is akin to saying that staying home to clean out the garage is a viable alternative to driving a car to work. Secondly, leaving aside the cost and complexity of converting land to facilitate rice farming, the hypothetical tax I presented was intended to reduce land use overall.

Duppie said:

Really?
Let's continue with your example. You just priced the wheat producers out of existence, but they still have the resources (available labor and equipment). They look over they neighbor the rice producer who is now making a killing. He works just as much as before, but sells his product at a higher price. The former wheat farmer see that and promptly start growing rice, hoping for his share of that good return. The result is that the supply of rice increases and the prices lower as a result of increased competition.

Not only that but this country of yours has a neighboring country that has a surplus of rye. In their own countries prices are depressed due to that oversupply. They look at the country with the high rice prices and think "We can market our rye as an alternative to rice at a lower price than rice, yet still make a better profit than we would get by selling it in our own country." The increased imports further drive down the price or rice

Also, the consumers in your original country don't like the rising costs of food (rice) one bit. They start looking for alternatives: They notice fruits on the trees were considered bitter, but that are quite edible if properly cooked. It's little bit of work, but worth it with the high price for rice.

Once everything has settled consumers end up with more choices than before (rye, rice and the edible fruit) at prices that comparable to before using less acreage than before

Why did this happen? Two main reasons.
1. If prices of commodities increase, users of this commodity will limit their use by looking for alternatives.
2. Capital, labor and resources always look for the best rate of return. In our modern world country borders don't mean much for capital anymore, so if oil prices rise, capital (domestic and foreign) will flow in to provide production capacity for alternatives

The problem is not with creating alternate sources of supply, but with the timeline. If we go in one step from our current tax to a $6 tax, it would create economic disruptions of an unforeseen scale. But if this is phased in over time, the negative effects will be minimized. Economists might be in a better position to figure out the details, like the timeline, and the tax level required to get these results without major disruptions


Michael Perz said:

I really don't know the best way to address this, so I'll just be blunt. You really should spend some time examining the basic principles of economics before giving way to your convictions. Currently your posts indicate a severe lack of understanding of the subject.
Demand does not in any way guarantee supply. Imagine that you govern an area that produces both wheat and rice, and that you decide to prohibitively tax wheat consumption because you feel that too many acres of land are being tilled in its production. Doing so will not give any incentives whatsoever for rice farmers to increase their production. In effect the rice farmers would end up with a monopoly on grain production and you'd end up with a lot more hungry people than there were before. jillnerkowski said:

I found that after searching for alternative vehicles to post on my facebook page, just yesterday, and that, there are an incredible amount of electric and three wheel, hybrid, and miniature vehicles out for sale to drive as opposed to the standard 4 cylinder petrol car.
the problem is, that if they cost more money then a standard 4 cylinder, and there are no regulations governing what we drive, then who will buy them?
but if we tax gasoline, then the vehicles will at first appear to be cheaper ,as the cost to drive them will be cheaper, and then little by little as more and more of them appear for sale for this reason, DEMAND, then the actual cost of them will be cheaper as well. This will not brush under the carpet the very poor like myself, because, already there are options of bicycles and motorized bikes , and public transportation, and these will become more and more available, as our roads change. we have to admit that with our love of freedom, a gas tax sounds less supressive than govt. regulations would be, if our world becomes so polluted that it warrants such. it seems better too because we would have govt. money to improve the roads.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 11, 2010 at 5:35am

The fruit was an analogy to ethanol. Ethanol is not as efficient to produce, nor unlikely to completely replace oil, but raise the price of oil enough and people will start investing in ethanol refineries (as they did in 2008, and promptly abandoned when the price of oil fell again).

The tax did achieve a lower overall use of land, because some of the food needs are now imported.

Cost matters less than you think. As long as the profit potential for selling rye in the neighboring country after including all cost is bigger than selling it at home, there is no reason to not export it

I guess we agree to disagree

Michael Perz said:

While the rye importation is a somewhat reasonable example (I say somewhat because it ignores the various costs associated with importation), your other two are completely flawed. First of all, my example dealt with staple grains which cannot be substituted with fruit. Arguing from this standpoint is akin to saying that staying home to clean out the garage is a viable alternative to driving a car to work. Secondly, leaving aside the cost and complexity of converting land to facilitate rice farming, the hypothetical tax I presented was intended to reduce land use overall.
Duppie said:

Really?
Let's continue with your example. You just priced the wheat producers out of existence, but they still have the resources (available labor and equipment). They look over they neighbor the rice producer who is now making a killing. He works just as much as before, but sells his product at a higher price. The former wheat farmer see that and promptly start growing rice, hoping for his share of that good return. The result is that the supply of rice increases and the prices lower as a result of increased competition.
Not only that but this country of yours has a neighboring country that has a surplus of rye. In their own countries prices are depressed due to that oversupply. They look at the country with the high rice prices and think "We can market our rye as an alternative to rice at a lower price than rice, yet still make a better profit than we would get by selling it in our own country." The increased imports further drive down the price or rice
Also, the consumers in your original country don't like the rising costs of food (rice) one bit. They start looking for alternatives: They notice fruits on the trees were considered bitter, but that are quite edible if properly cooked. It's little bit of work, but worth it with the high price for rice.

Once everything has settled consumers end up with more choices than before (rye, rice and the edible fruit) at prices that comparable to before using less acreage than before

Why did this happen? Two main reasons.
1. If prices of commodities increase, users of this commodity will limit their use by looking for alternatives.
2. Capital, labor and resources always look for the best rate of return. In our modern world country borders don't mean much for capital anymore, so if oil prices rise, capital (domestic and foreign) will flow in to provide production capacity for alternatives

The problem is not with creating alternate sources of supply, but with the timeline. If we go in one step from our current tax to a $6 tax, it would create economic disruptions of an unforeseen scale. But if this is phased in over time, the negative effects will be minimized. Economists might be in a better position to figure out the details, like the timeline, and the tax level required to get these results without major disruptions


Michael Perz said:

I really don't know the best way to address this, so I'll just be blunt. You really should spend some time examining the basic principles of economics before giving way to your convictions. Currently your posts indicate a severe lack of understanding of the subject.
Demand does not in any way guarantee supply. Imagine that you govern an area that produces both wheat and rice, and that you decide to prohibitively tax wheat consumption because you feel that too many acres of land are being tilled in its production. Doing so will not give any incentives whatsoever for rice farmers to increase their production. In effect the rice farmers would end up with a monopoly on grain production and you'd end up with a lot more hungry people than there were before. jillnerkowski said:

I found that after searching for alternative vehicles to post on my facebook page, just yesterday, and that, there are an incredible amount of electric and three wheel, hybrid, and miniature vehicles out for sale to drive as opposed to the standard 4 cylinder petrol car.
the problem is, that if they cost more money then a standard 4 cylinder, and there are no regulations governing what we drive, then who will buy them?
but if we tax gasoline, then the vehicles will at first appear to be cheaper ,as the cost to drive them will be cheaper, and then little by little as more and more of them appear for sale for this reason, DEMAND, then the actual cost of them will be cheaper as well. This will not brush under the carpet the very poor like myself, because, already there are options of bicycles and motorized bikes , and public transportation, and these will become more and more available, as our roads change. we have to admit that with our love of freedom, a gas tax sounds less supressive than govt. regulations would be, if our world becomes so polluted that it warrants such. it seems better too because we would have govt. money to improve the roads.

Permalink Reply by Roger on May 11, 2010 at 5:46am

greasecar.com. These diesel engines run on used, post consumer, vegetable oil. The kind of oil that every restaurant that uses a deep fryer has to pay to get ride of. The environmental impact is lower that petroleum, the availability is unbelievably higher, it is a renewable resource, and it saves money from every angle of production.

This is not a new idea, in fact, diesel engines were designed to run on a whole myriad of fuels. Guess who doesn't want you to know that.

In short, the solution to fossil fuels already exists. The fact that the US is afraid to implement them is due to the public lack of knowledge. The nail in to coffin to the argument of a non viable "grease engine" is the fact that Wal Mart (arguably the most money hungry and socially irresponsible business in the US) has a whole fleet of these green machines delivering lead coated toys to our nations children at super low prices. When you don't pay for gas, delivery is more profitable.

I hope this helps you realize that there are solutions to this giant problem that is currently killing the Gulf of Mexico.

notoriousDUG said:

OK, tell me a readily available fuel source, one that is not based on a staple of our food supply, that is going to be able to, in less than two years, replace diesel fuel.

Permalink Reply by Joel on May 11, 2010 at 6:00am

Whether for political or environmental reasons, I think nearly everyone agrees that we need to use less gasoline. However, a $6/gallon gas tax is a terrible idea. Let me enumerate some of the problems, and then go on to suggest some alternatives.

1. A gas tax isn't the same as other "sin" taxes. Alcohol and tobacco aren't necessary, transportation is. Yes, there are multiple modes of transportation, but some aren't always options.
2. Gas taxes are regressive. Wealthy people can buy a more fuel efficient car, the poor cannot. The wealthy can move closer to work, the poor cannot. The wealthy can better absorb the increased cost of gas and keep driving, the poor cannot.
3. Cars are necessary. There are maybe a dozen cities in the US that have usable transit. Even in cities like Chicago there are areas that have little to no coverage -- in any usable sense. Just take a look at the CTA map. Notice all of the areas with no train and only minimal bus service?

I think there are ways to use taxes and incentives to change gasoline usage. There are many things we can do, and it isn't simply a matter of making gasoline too expensive to buy.

We need to realize that cars and trucks are a necessity and will remain as such for decades. There are things to do that will reduce their usage at least.

4. Tax vehicles at the time of purchase based on their MPG rating. Gas guzzling SUVs get taxed at a higher rate than small compacts. SUVs are expensive already, so the extra tax burden is on those that can afford expensive new cars, and pushes people towards more efficient vehicles.
5. Incentives for companies and organizations to increase carpooling and transit usage. More people per car/bus means fewer vehicles on the road.
6. Make flexible work hours more common. A huge amount of the pollution caused by cars is the result of idling or traveling slow. Rush hour and gridlock are horrible for the environment. Smoothing traffic so that the roads run at better efficiency all day would reduce pollution, even without reducing the number of cars. (There are policies in the works for this, mostly in the form of peak-hour toll increases).
7. Improve public transit. Like I said before, even in Chicago it is mediocre at best. Busses run infrequently and have terribly short running hours.

We can also make cars themselves more efficient. Mostly, make them electric. Yes, electricity may cause pollution, but it is more efficient in generation than individual cars and doesn't rely on gasoline.

8. We need incentives for electric vehicles.
9. We need more clean power plants.
10. Encourage nuclear power.

As for alternative fuels... None are entirely ready, at least not in the US.
11. Corn-based ethanol is a farce. It is nothing more than another handout to the corn industry. It is inneficient and has sent food prices soaring.
12. We can invest in different types of ethanol (algae, switchgrass, etc.), but it takes time. More money only helps progress so much.
13. Remember, it has to work for cars currently on the roads. Once again, the poor cannot purchase new cars immediately, so it will be a long, gradual transition to any new fuel.

And of course, we can help bicycling.

14. Install proper bicycling infrastructure. Chicago is trying, but is still a billion years behind places like The Netherlands. We need actual bike lanes that aren't in the door zone. Law enforcement to penalize drivers and cyclists who are a safety hazard.
15. Once there is infrastructure, maintain it. The bike lanes always have the most potholes and garbage. They don't get plowed in the winter.
16. Better integration across modes. More park & ride stations for the CTA and Metra, make it easier to take bikes on busses and trains, indoor bike parking at all El stops. If it is a massive pain in the ass to change modes, people will just drive.
17. Make bikes tax-free. The opposite of taxing cars or gas, give people a direct reason to buy and use a bike.

Permalink Reply by Bob Maher on May 11, 2010 at 6:20am

Thank you Duppie and Joel for correcting most of the economic wrongheadedness spewed upon this thread. I was tempted to post a reply myself, but you guys covered most of the flaws, and
then I remembered this:

http://xkcd.com/386/

This lead to my socioeconomic decision to opt for a bike ride instead of correcting flawed economic reasoning on a bicycling website's forum.

Permalink Reply by Ali on May 11, 2010 at 6:49am

Are you suggesting that there are enough grease to power all the locomotives, all the trucks, and all the ships? There is absolutely no way...

I will give you an example...A diesel engine consumes .2 liters of fuel per hour per hp. A small cargo ship will have 15,000 HP engine which granted will not be run at 100% due to wear and tear related as well as efficiency drops as the engine is pushed...But let's assume they are running at 80%. So .8x15,000x.2=2400 liters of grease... 2400/3.6=667 gallons of grease an hour...Just to run one ship and that is given that it has similar caloric content because if not then the engine will need to be run differently...Anyways at any given moment there are thousands of these ships along the U.S. coast and this is not even taking into account, larger ships such as super container ships with 100,000 HP diesels, not to mention that you still have to add the recreational boaters to this. And then add the locomotives with an average of 6000 HP x a few hundred of those...Boy if we try to eat that much fried food for the sake of the environment we will all die in our 40's...But eating fried food is obviously the greener choice...Please do a little bit of research before suggesting an idea as stupid as this and not regurgitate someone else BS...

-Ali

Roger said:

greasecar.com. These diesel engines run on used, post consumer, vegetable oil. The kind of oil that every restaurant that uses a deep fryer has to pay to get ride of. The environmental impact is lower that petroleum, the availability is unbelievably higher, it is a renewable resource, and it saves money from every angle of production.

This is not a new idea, in fact, diesel engines were designed to run on a whole myriad of fuels. Guess who doesn't want you to know that.

In short, the solution to fossil fuels already exists. The fact that the US is afraid to implement them is due to the public lack of knowledge. The nail in to coffin to the argument of a non viable "grease engine" is the fact that Wal Mart (arguably the most money hungry and socially irresponsible business in the US) has a whole fleet of these green machines delivering lead coated toys to our nations children at super low prices. When you don't pay for gas, delivery is more profitable.

I hope this helps you realize that there are solutions to this giant problem that is currently killing the Gulf of Mexico.

notoriousDUG said:

OK, tell me a readily available fuel source, one that is not based on a staple of our food supply, that is going to be able to, in less than two years, replace diesel fuel.

Permalink Reply by Michael Perz on May 11, 2010 at 6:49am

Next time you find yourself listening to your in-laws trash talk the good ol' US and A, be sure to let them know that while their continent is certainly pleasant and the food is often exceptional, many of us in the rest of the world don't necessarily appreciate all of the various murderous and inhuman "isms" they've bequeathed upon us throughout history and that not all of us are in such a spirited rush to emulate their precedent.

Permalink Reply by dan brown on May 11, 2010 at 6:53am

I was going to sit out this thread ... but have somehow become sucked in.

Dug's orig. reply was right on target : so many things (delivery, cost of doing business,etc.) are
tied directly to fuel costs. It would surely cause runaway inflation and probably higher unemployment (stagflation).

Sorry to be so blunt here ... but there was a great econimic summit back in the 70's where a
woman from the audience stood up and stated "I don't know anything about economics...but I
definitely believe the minimum wage needs to be increased...". (Sir) Wm F Buckley Jr (agree with him
or not) looked at her over his reading glasses and said "Madam...the second part of your comment
confirms the first...".

OK - now on the the next thread

Duppie said:

Agreed. I think that a 6 dollar gas tax a silly number, not based on any economic calculations. A much lower gasoline tax would achieve the wanted results. Even in countries like the Netherlands, which has anotoriously high gasoline tax, this tax is more equivalent to $3.5 per Gallon

Dr. Doom said:

America uses ~21 million barrels of oil a day. There are 42 gallons in a barrel, which works out to 821 million gallons a day, or 321 billion a year. A $6/gallon tax would thus (assuming it didn't affect gas use) hoover up $2 trillion, about the same as current annual federal revenue.
Pretty sure you don't need to raise as much money as the federal government takes in every year to encourage green development, whatever that is. Just to give a sense of scale the Manhattan Project cost about $20 billion in 2010 dollars—about 1% of what a six dollar gas tax would raise in a year. Looked at that way, agitating for a .06/gallon tax might not be a bad idea. That would fund a Manhattan Project's worth of pure energy research every year...

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 11, 2010 at 6:56am

Joel makes a lot of excellent recommendations here. Reducing our oil consumption requires a multi pronged approach, including investment in public transit, new vehicle technology, new energy production methods and well-directed incentives that change the behavior of companies and consumers alike.
This of course costs money, a lot of money. With the soaring government deficits I don't think there is the appetite to go on another spending binge. So to make this happen, we need it to pay for itself (at least partially).
That's where tax comes in. Taxation creates government revenue that can be spend on all those points below. By taxing unwanted behavior, we can also limit the amount of incentives required to make desirable alternatives competitive.

Clark touches on another good point in a separate post. Countries with high gas taxes didn't arrive there overnight. Instead it was a decades long process of small increments, sometimes a few penny per gallon, sometimes a little more. Except for a few drastic increases, none of them really had a negative impact on economic growth. I googled for facts on historic gas taxes, but came up emptyhanded.

Joel said:

Whether for political or environmental reasons, I think nearly everyone agrees that we need to use less gasoline. However, a $6/gallon gas tax is a terrible idea. Let me enumerate some of the problems, and then go on to suggest some alternatives.
1. A gas tax isn't the same as other "sin" taxes. Alcohol and tobacco aren't necessary, transportation is. Yes, there are multiple modes of transportation, but some aren't always options. 2. Gas taxes are regressive. Wealthy people can buy a more fuel efficient car, the poor cannot. The wealthy can move closer to work, the poor cannot. The wealthy can better absorb the increased cost of gas and keep driving, the poor cannot.
3. Cars are necessary. There are maybe a dozen cities in the US that have usable transit. Even in cities like Chicago there are areas that have little to no coverage -- in any usable sense. Just take a look at the CTA map. Notice all of the areas with no train and only minimal bus service?

I think there are ways to use taxes and incentives to change gasoline usage. There are many things we can do, and it isn't simply a matter of making gasoline too expensive to buy.

We need to realize that cars and trucks are a necessity and will remain as such for decades. There are things to do that will reduce their usage at least.

4. Tax vehicles at the time of purchase based on their MPG rating. Gas guzzling SUVs get taxed at a higher rate than small compacts. SUVs are expensive already, so the extra tax burden is on those that can afford expensive new cars, and pushes people towards more efficient vehicles.
5. Incentives for companies and organizations to increase carpooling and transit usage. More people per car/bus means fewer vehicles on the road.
6. Make flexible work hours more common. A huge amount of the pollution caused by cars is the result of idling or traveling slow. Rush hour and gridlock are horrible for the environment. Smoothing traffic so that the roads run at better efficiency all day would reduce pollution, even without reducing the number of cars. (There are policies in the works for this, mostly in the form of peak-hour toll increases).
7. Improve public transit. Like I said before, even in Chicago it is mediocre at best. Busses run infrequently and have terribly short running hours.

We can also make cars themselves more efficient. Mostly, make them electric. Yes, electricity may cause pollution, but it is more efficient in generation than individual cars and doesn't rely on gasoline.

8. We need incentives for electric vehicles.
9. We need more clean power plants.
10. Encourage nuclear power.

As for alternative fuels... None are entirely ready, at least not in the US.
11. Corn-based ethanol is a farce. It is nothing more than another handout to the corn industry. It is inneficient and has sent food prices soaring.
12. We can invest in different types of ethanol (algae, switchgrass, etc.), but it takes time. More money only helps progress so much.
13. Remember, it has to work for cars currently on the roads. Once again, the poor cannot purchase new cars immediately, so it will be a long, gradual transition to any new fuel.

And of course, we can help bicycling.

14. Install proper bicycling infrastructure. Chicago is trying, but is still a billion years behind places like The Netherlands. We need actual bike lanes that aren't in the door zone. Law enforcement to penalize drivers and cyclists who are a safety hazard.
15. Once there is infrastructure, maintain it. The bike lanes always have the most potholes and garbage. They don't get plowed in the winter.
16. Better integration across modes. More park & ride stations for the CTA and Metra, make it easier to take bikes on busses and trains, indoor bike parking at all El stops. If it is a massive pain in the ass to change modes, people will just drive.
17. Make bikes tax-free. The opposite of taxing cars or gas, give people a direct reason to buy and use a bike.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page