How many miles per year do you drive? would you support limits on driving?

[welshTerrier2]

Another thread talks about the earth becoming uninhabitable due to global warming and the loss of the rain forests ... some talk of rising seas and the collapse of global agriculture ... burning fossil fuels is no longer just about smelly air or even respiratory disease; we could be looking at dit-dit dit-dit dit-dit dat's all folks ...

the risk to continued life on the planet is very real ... do we only a few years to "fix things" or is it more like ten or twenty or even fifty? whatever number is accurate, the question needs to be asked whether we are getting the kind of leadership we need ...

one question worth asking is, should we ration "driving" of vehicles that burn fossil fuels ... the idea of rationing would NOT be a "high cost of gas" kind of rationing but a "every citizen gets an allocation" kind of rationing ... we could either ration the fuel itself or we could ration driving (if a way to do that can be devised) ...

would you support, like starting very soon, a limit on how much each person can drive?

i worry that this would be so unpopular, although i think it's necessary, that our political system would never support the idea ... no one wants to tell us the bad news even if it's the truth ... no one in office, anyway ... kudos to Gore for his efforts on this ...

the best we can hope for right now, and it is far short of what is needed given the risks, is legislation (CAFE standards) that would mandate that cars got better miles per gallon ... nice but not good enough ... desperate times often demand radical change but our political institutions are caved in towards the middle ... just because an idea is extreme or radical or even unpopular doesn't mean it's wrong ... too many have come to thing of radical ideas that way ... sometimes radical ideas are the very best and the most necessary ...

Perhaps we need a "5000 Mile" campaign to limit our annual driving to 5000 miles per year ...

The poll question is: How many miles per year do you currently drive?? ... only count the miles where you are the driver ...

The discussion question is: would you support some form of rationing and how would you go about it?

[gristy]

1. You mean, like gas rationing?

Not sure about your idea, but if you're going to do anything, rationing gas purchased rather than miles driven makes more sense to me.

[welshTerrier2]

2. OK ... gas rationing is just one method

i agree that it seems like the most obvious way to control the process ...

what i don't like is that right now the rationing is "price based" ... the poor, who still need to use their cars, are being killed by these high prices ... i would like all citizens to "share the restrictions" more equally ...

most importantly, i believe we all need to drive much less because of the risk to the planet ... this would of course necessitate all kinds of changes including a major rethink on mass transit ...

[FILAM23]

58. For me

rationing is out of the question. I work for a company that does
contract work at hosptals. Those hospitals are anywhere from 6 to
70 miles from my home. I can not move closer to the center because
our contract with the 2 closest hospitals (also our 2 busiest) require
that we can get there and be ready to work in less then 30 minutes.
Also it sounds borderline facist to me.

[rzemanfl]

3. Rationing should be based on GAS MILEAGE not miles driven.

Some rich fuck in a Hummer or Aviator should not get to drive as many miles as someone in a sensible car.

[Redstone]

4. Gallon-based rationing would do that.

Redstone

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. How many poor folks own a 40K hybrid?

You can already see it in the used car market. The throw away vehicles of the past are now becoming hot ticket items. Big bulking SUVs are going down in price dramatically, leaving the poor with little options when it comes to fuel economy.

[rzemanfl]

50. How many poor folks live in the suburbs and have long trips to

and from work? What I am saying is that my Geo Metro has less impact on supplies than my neighbor's Escalade when driven the same distance. The last time gas got high the same thing happened, people with money got new cars and people without it drove old gas guzzlers. Not much that can be done about that over the short term. At least the market for big used vehicles could be trimmed and one could be pretty sure the folks that got them would not drive them much.

[TheFarseer]

62. Alot of folks can afford

a 1990-something Grand Am or a Civic or whatever that gets good gas mileage, like low 30's. Older car does not have to mean an '82 Caprice Classic or whatever land yacht people are thinking of.

[MercutioATC]

5. 25k-30k miles per year and NO.

I do not support either rationing or additional taxes on those who drive more.

The market is perfectly capable of sorting things out without our misguided ideas.

[LincolnMcGrath]

8. "The market is perfectly capable of sorting things out"

That is what we were told in the 90s when gas shot up to $1.50!


from 2000;

GWEN IFILL: Are you saying nothing needs to be done and we should leave it alone and it will work itself out?

CARL ROSS:

Well, there's no question it will work itself out because the market indeed works. And that's what -- supply and demand works. It's not in OPEC's long-term interest to have over $30 oil. It will undermine their position over time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/transportation/jan-june00/gas_3-15.html

[On the Road]

13. Well, Remember What Happened in the 70s?

There were two oil shocks and the price of crude skyrocketed by 1981.

This was followed by a long, slow decline in prices that led to a lengthy economic boom. The reason was precisely that the market took over. Exploration has been underfunded for the last 20-25 years due to low oil prices.

Now, basic guidelines like CAFE are simple common sense and good public policy. And if there is really is very little more oil to be discovered, then drastic government policy is inevitable. But there's no reason now to conclude that this is peak oil.

[LincolnMcGrath]

23. Exploration has been underfunded for the last 20-25 years due to greed

of oil companies.

Companies who also shut down nearly 300 refineries since the 80s to keep refining capacity low.

[On the Road]

46. A Company Not Engaging in a Losing Venture

is hardly acting out of greed. If there was money to be made, it would have been done.

I don't know about the refining side. It is possible that oil companies may have intentionally manipulated the market by shutting down refining capacity, the way Enron manipulated the power market to cause price spikes. That should justly be criticized as greed.

But remember the large number of corporations and governments involved in all phases of the oil business. It is a global market, and this is the result of actions of all players in the industry. That suggests it was for real economic reasons.

The free market causes price fluctuations of commodities. There's an argument to be made for controlled markets, but in that case, we would not have enjoyed the low prices of the last two decades.

A lot of the greed has been political -- politicians putting short-term votes against sound long-term policies like CAFE standards and alternate energy sources.

[MercutioATC]

17. The crux of the problem isn't regulation, it's consumer sentiment.

...and that's a market issue.

Gasoline is still cheap at $3.00/gallon. It's cheap at $4.00/gallon.

If it reaches...say...$5.00/gallon, the market will take care of things.

The fact is that we, as Americans, have been spoiled by the ability to consume at will without serious repercussions, and that behavior is reinforced by the lack of repercussions. The only way to change the situation is to change the way we view it...and we're not going to change the way we view it unless it makes a difference in our lives.


Change all of the laws you like. Until the market deals with the issue, you're not going to change the behavior.

[LincolnMcGrath]

25. It is not consumer sentiment filling tanks to get people to work every day

It is basic need!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. "Basic need"? Not really. It's all advertising driven

by which I mean that it was the auto companies that

1) destroyed transit systems throughout America
2) used advertising to convince people that cars were an extension of their personalities

and the land development and real estate companies that

1) paved over the countryside
2) told people that they couldn't live without a one-acre yard
3) told people that one HAS TO be a homeowner, so that consumers moved sheep-like an hour out of the city just to afford an overpriced house that they hardly have time to enjoy

and the mass media who

1) report the "news" as if crimes and fires are all that happens in the city
2) urge people to shop here and shop there and drive everywhere while doing it

and the megachurches who
1) tell people that the end of the world is a GOOD thing
2) act as if the American suburbanite is the crown of creation

The American people (and people elsewhere) have been suckers for the corporations. It's time to make them aware of the facts. It's time for them to take back their lives from the auto companies and the mortgage companies and the others who have herded them into an unhealthy way of life. Much of the time, The Holy and Almighty and Sacred and Most Infallible Market is a con man.

This is not a drill. Global warming is real, and automobile emissions are responsible for about 1/3 of carbon emissions.

We have to make it harder to drive or fly and easier to use other means of transportation or to stay within a walkable distance for most purposes.

[MercutioATC]

57. But the underlying problem is our sense of entitlement.

$5/gallon gas would be the best thing that could happen to us in the long term. We won't innovate until it's profitable to do so...

...more expensive gas/energy would make it profitable.

[welshTerrier2]

10. the market? the market?? the market???

would that be the very same market that gave us SUV's over the past 20 years??? that market did a very nice job reducing the CO2 levels and reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn ...

markets are REACTIVE through the pricing mechanism ... they are not PROACTIVE ... when life on the planet is being threatened, and it is, i for one do not want to wait until enough people can't afford gasoline to make a difference ... nor do i think that's an appropriate "rationing mechanism" ...

markets do a good job with the price mechanism; they do a very poor job defining either sound or equitable policy ...

[we can do it]

14. Yet Another Brilliant Post

Just like the market will keep utility prices down yadada Bullfuckingshit

[LincolnMcGrath]

22. The market will decide if it is another brilliant post.

:eyes:

[FormerDittoHead]

29. dugg. n/t

[cornermouse]

7. This is totally impractical.

To name a few possibilities.

Do you also plan to build housing and forgive their current home loans and finance the new loans so people can move close enough to meet your quota? What's that going to do to the national economy?

A lot of these areas that you would like them to move to are currently occupied by trees and wildlife (a hit on the environment) which will have to go before they start building.

Some of the larger town's schools would be overwhelmed with new students and would require major building projects and associated costs.

[welshTerrier2]

9. how about mass transit?

start with busses ... than better rail lines throughout urban areas ... also, what about mandatory car-pooling ...

you've raised all sorts of objections - how about some solutions to global warming - or is that all just hype to you?

[cornermouse]

18. Mass transit is not practical to smaller outer towns.

They would have to run them at least every hour if not every half hour. Time spent getting from your place of work to the out of town bus stop + time spent waiting for the next bus/train + time spent riding on the bus/train with one or more stops in every town doesn't add up to much of a home/family life. It might not add up to much sleep either.

Not much chance to go shopping for cheaper groceries in the big city on the way home.

Due to work schedules there might not be enough riders on some of the busses to make the route profitable at certain times of the day. This could result in cuts in the bus schedule during low traffic hours and longer waits if you're unlucky enough to be taking the wrong bus. Some people have flexible or schedules which are different every day. On the face it would appear to be difficult to schedule enough seats. Car-pooling works best if you work the same schedule with an employee who is a co-worker and living in the same small town. Do you have any idea how unlikely that is?

Hype? Not hardly. I live it every day. That's why I bought a hybrid.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. Transit is not to be evaluated on the basis of its worst examples

Good transit systems are multi-modal: rail for major destinations, buses for more local areas, and for even more local areas, vans, as well as provisions for bikes and pedestrians.

Your average suburb or small town is built on the assumption that no one walks or takes transit. You can't even get from one strip mall to another on the other side of the road safely because there are no pedestrian bridges or traffic lights with WALK signals.

But your description of transit sounds like the nightmare of someone who has only imagined riding.

Riding transit is so much more relaxing than driving that I can't even begin to compare them. You can sleep, read, knit, even work on your laptop while riding a bus or train. You can talk to your neighbors.

Before you condemn transit, you need to experience a really good system.

[ShaniqaPie]

24. Take the Bus! Take the Bus!

I hear you. Those people who think they need an Excursion or a F-350 Cowboy Cadillac dooley to pick up a steak and a sixpack could learn a lot from African Americans. Take the bus, dammit! And don't even thik about tearing down my urban house and all the trees around it to build your train to the 'burbs.

S. P.

[welshTerrier2]

26. progressives versus libertarians

wow, a first post!! welcome to DU, ShaniqaPie ...

i live outside Boston ... we already have train lines in place ... the problem isn't that we need new lines, the problem is that there aren't enough trains ... inside the city, it's much easier to get around ... there are plenty of busses and plenty of local trains ...

what's most disturbing to me is what passes these days, among some, as "progressive" ... on my planet (i have my own - don't ask), a progressive sacrifices for the "common good" ... there are more than a few posts in this thread, and i see them all the time on DU, that i would define as more libertarian than progressive ...

it's my damned car and you have no right to tell me how to use it ... well, the goal is NOT to restrict anyone's freedoms ... but there comes a time, like when more and more are legitimately worried about our ability to sustain life on the planet (i think of that as kind of a big deal), that we need to do whatever is necessary as quickly as we can ... again, the goal isn't to restrict freedoms; the goal is to prevent a global catastrophe ...

[cornermouse]

30. You still do not understand.

You live outside Boston but even outside Boston its still a pretty dense population there, right?

It is not anything like that around here. There just aren't as many people around here as there are where you live. Less people per square mile = no mass transit and realistically speaking mass transit would probably not even be self supporting, let alone profitable.

[welshTerrier2]

33. wanna talk about CO2 emissions and ...

the end of life on the planet?

you sound like one of those "the only way they'll get my car away from me is when they pry it from my cold dead fingers" ...

what's your plan to reduce CO2 emissions? willing to wait another 25 years for electric cars to catch on? or maybe nuclear powered cars?

we've about run out of time ... it just might be that the best options, i.e. the necessary options, are not very appealing ...

[cornermouse]

48. You want to tell me how empty and nearly empty busses

are going to reduce CO2 emissions? Because I haven't seen you explain that one. I've seen you ignore it completely in your singleminded pursuit of an impractical proposition.

I don't know what the answer is. I just know that what you're proposing may work very well where you live but it ain't going to work in a lot of other places.

By the way, are you going to give up mowing your lawn? I've heard that lawn mower motors are highly efficient pollution generating machines.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. I'd like you to look at suburban Portland sometime

The buses are not "nearly empty," because they run frequently seven days a week, so people can depend on them.' Light rail is the transportation of choice, even for suburbanites, for attending events in the downtown area.

There's a huge hidden population of people out there who would prefer not to drive, but our current infrastructure forces them to.

The citizens of Denver, who voted to tax themselves to build a comprehensive light rail system, have the right idea.

[cornermouse]

65. Maybe we're comparing apples and oranges.

You're talking suburbs, I'm talking separate small towns (less than 7,000 or 8,000 per community) with countryside/farmland interrupted by an occasional house that are surrounding a larger city.

Around here your bussing system would be running empty busses, period. But after reading your reply about McMansions... Hello!... People do live on small farms. The only McMansions around here, not that there are that many, are large farmers or owners of farm equipment stores.

Anyway, there are benefits to this lifestyle that I am beginning to believe you would not understand only because you haven't ever been there. But whatever. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with people who are every bit as wrapped up in their own dogma as any neo-conservative ever thought about being.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Separate small towns are great in some ways (I lived in one for seven

years), but a curious thing about the town I lived in (and I've heard it from other people who have lived in small towns, too) was that even though the town was quite walkable (I was six blocks from downtown), everybody in my neighborhood except me drove there.

If they'd see me walking, they'd stop the car and ask if I needed a ride.

People would even drive the three or four blocks from one end of the little downtown to another. :wtf:

Actually, not a bus system but a van system circulating among the residential areas could have been a great benefit to the many elderly who lived in the town.

[cornermouse]

71. The small towns have updated enough that there is a van

that circulates for the elderly.

All the same, I saw a white haired lady walking down a 4 lane highway (not in town) last week in a dress and flat dress shoes. Heat's been in the upper 90s flirting with 100s. They've cut down all the trees near the highway for safety or something so there was no shade for her to walk in. No car broken down.

I'm sorry for blowing off some steam and frustration in the previous post. I've always thought Amtrak or something would be nice, but I don't think that's going to happen around here any more than a bus will. I've toyed with various options due to gas and time spent driving down the road which isn't real fun when you're really tired. None of them, however, include the move into the big city option. I can't hardly stand to be there, let alone live there. It has something to do with claustrophobia and too many people, I think.

[CTyankee]

77. My spouse takes the bus to work every day!

We live near the bus line. He works at City Hall and even in the worst weather he can manage to walk to the bus stop. I'm proud of him!

[lynne]

31. Speaking of mass transit -

- I tried out our local metro-suburban area bus system this week. Got on at the first stop and rode it to the end. I compared arrival times against the printed schedule to have an idea of how accurate the schedule was.

I discovered that a trip that normally takes 20 minutes in my car took 1 hr. 10 minutes on the bus. The bus arrived at the first stop 20 minutes late. There is about a 45 minute wait between buses.

Obviously, our bus system is impractical if you must be somewhere at a specific time. Mass transit may be satisfactory for larger metropolitan areas but it sucks in the suburbs.

[welshTerrier2]

32. and that's your answer to global warming?

i live in the burbs and mass transit here is close to useless ... places you can get to take forever compared to driving; with many places, you can't get there at all ...

i'm NOT saying that everyone should stop driving and use mass transit; i'm saying that we should demand real mass transit and then everyone should start using it ...

all these "i won't give up my car and here's my reason" comments completely fail to address the life threatening crisis we face ...

[lynne]

34. Did it sound like an answer to you?

No, it wasn't meant to be an answer. I was relating my experience with regard to my local mass transit.

Hey, at least I made an attempt. I took off time from work and spent several hours in the heat trying our local mass transit to see if it would work for my family. I will guarantee you that's more than the great majority have done.

Instead of your snarky "is that your answer . . . ?" comment, how about acknowledging the fact that at least I tried.

Sheesh - no good deed goes unpunished, huh?

:banghead:

[welshTerrier2]

36. OK ... you got it!

i think it's great you checked out your local mass transit ... your experience does a perfect job highlighting the problem ... mass transit in most areas of the country totally stinks ... this is especially problematic in the suburbs of large cities ...

so, if mass transit doesn't work where you are, what ideas do you have to reduce CO2 emissions?

my point with this thread is that we need radical change and we need it yesterday ... we need to start building mass transit ... we need to start teaching Americans that, while we all love our cars, we may not be able to keep driving them nearly as much as we currently do ... we need to start developing "satellite" parking lots to carry commuters into urban areas ... and i think we need to start rationing gasoline ...

and of course there are all sorts of other ideas worth exploring ... this might include certain restrictions on employers ... for example, staggered workshifts might be needed to cut down on stop and go traffic ... or perhaps we would need to explore more "remote offices" or "work from home" requirements ... no, not every job can be done remotely but many can ... maybe we need to mandate that ...

overall, i'm worried that the changes we need will be so unpopular that our politicians won't be willing to take any risks by proposing them ...

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Yanno ..... I honestly think we **can** overcome this and not give up much

... over the long haul, that is. In the short term, its really pretty bad.

I think we will always have comfy, reliable, weatherproof, self-determined means of personal transport. I just don't think these will always be cars ... or even always be personally owned. I really don't know what they'll be.

But I honestly think that mankind will see his technology evolve to meet his needs and to serve him.

We're here discussing strategy to overcome a global fossil fuel shortfall and its concomitant deleterious effect on our planet. We're not the only ones who know about this. EVERYone knows about it. It is simply that not everyone wants to acknowledge it and address it head on. Some are doing the head-in-the-sand mambo. Some are working their asses off to make as much money as they can until the well (quite literally) runs dry, and others are at least thinking if not doing something about it.

Just think about Honda and Toyota. They're the first to market with credible hybrid cars (a solution everyone knows is, at best, and interim stopgap). Having worked for Japanese clients several times, I'm pretty confident that hybrids are far from the only tricks they have up their R&D sleeves.

I'll even go a step further out on my limb. What will kill the car (as we know it today) is not high fuel prices, but lack of road and parking space.

:::::putting on Buckminster Fuller costume::::

Would it not make sense to encourage the research CalTrans had going on a while ago (and may still have) wherein sensors in roadways controlled what looks like a car. I say 'what looks like a car' because the car was not driver controlled. It was operated by an on board computer taking orders from the embedded roadway sensors. It fed orders back to these same sensors in matters of routing and destination. Imagine a world where such 'capsules' were simply a public utility. You get into one, pay a fee or flash a smart card, program your destination (and route, if that matters to you) and away you go. At the end of the trip, you exit the capsule and go on about your business. Alternatively, you might wish to actually buy your own capsule and keep it in your driveway (I have no idea *why* ... but why not??). You pay to embed sensors on the driveway and you're on the grid. Life would look much like it does today, except we get more cars on the road and for the most part, we keep them moving and productive rather than parked and contributing nothing.

The propulsion system for such capsules is probably on someone's R&D drawing boards right now. And the only oil it uses is some minor amount for lubrication.

Imagine, in this same world, fast, reliable, energy efficient, largely silent mag lev trains running in urban settings and longer intercity routes. The technology is here and now and proven. Imagine new mag lev track being assembled on overhead structures that run down existing highway medians, or along side these same highways on the rights of way at the edges.

Imagine, then, a merging of the capsule technology and the mag levs.

Imagine.

[mopinko]

70. employer based van pools could work

efficient, low pollution people movers, like natural gas fueled vans, tied to large employers, could save a lot of pollution.
there is nowhere that could nto benefit from SOME form of transit.

[wellstone dem]

11. I currently drive about 30,000 miles a year

It would be interesting to see how the technology would progress to improve communication. Presently, i supervise 3 offices. I live in the city which is pretty much midway between the two. when in my home community I walk to work (usually 3 days a week.) Other wise I travel to one of the other offices. It clearlyh makes a difference my having a presence in those offices. I just can't see technology changing enough to make it just like walking into the next office. I always get asked tons more questions when I'm in an office. That said, I drive a toyota matrix and get 30 miles to the gallon, and with my daughter moving on to college, I will be able to move to a Prius with my next car purchase.

If there is rationing, it should be based on gas usage, not miles traveled.

[tibbir]

12. I live in Houston, which is huge and has like no mass transit to speak of.

However, I moved closer into town 3 years ago and I'm about to move "inside the loop" next month. That should keep my mileage down to 10,000-15,000 a year.

[Bridget Burke]

100. I live in Houston & use Metro to commute...

Usually, a combination of bus & train every day.

Of course, I live Inside the Loop--for several reasons. Surely, you're going to check out transit routes serving your new neighborhood. Congratulations1

[Ysabel]

15. i drive approx. 174 miles per year...

my husband drives approx. 504 miles per year...

my husband drives a motor scooter - which gets over a hundred miles to the gallon - i drive a car - i have filled my car with gasoline - one and a half times - so far this year...

total for our family yearly mileage: 687 miles...

even - years ago - when i drove all day long for a living / job - i still drove less than 25,000 miles per year...

- i picked the lowest option available in your poll i have no opinion concerning rationing at this time...

[MurrayDelph]

16. It won't let me answer twice.

I drive about 22K miles a year
in my Prius.

[Pushed To The Left]

19. I would oppose rationing. One of the reasons I'm liberal

is that I support personal freedom. There are people that have no choice but to commute every day, and public transportation isn't practical for many people. There are other ways to protect the environment without sacrificing freedom. Tougher environmental standards for businesses and for auto manufacturers would be a better method, IMO. Let's go after the people in power rather than stepping on the little guy.

[LynneSin]

102. I agree with you on that one

:D

[tech3149]

20. currently drive under 2500 mi/yr

If I were working it would of course be more. I chose my home location so that all things I need are only one or two miles away. When there was a choice to be made for employment I set a 15 mile limit on the commute to and from home. Unfortunately in todays job market, that's a virtual immpossibility.

I don't favor any sort of imposed limit. With the current structure of communitiies, it would punish most people that have little choice how long their work commute must be. I would prefer an approach of education to help people realize how much the quality of life can improve with low impact sustainable community planning. Focus attention on planning and zoning boards to focus on the economic advantages of mixed communities. Someplace where homes business's and retailers are accessible on foot, bicycle or reasonable mass transit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. But if people are dumb enough to move to the exurbs simply

because they want to afford a McMansion, then they HAVE made a personal choice.

Some people do have to work far from home, but in so many cases, the long commute is a self-inflicted wound and I feel ZERO sympathy for all the trendoids who bought houses in Maple Grove or Hudson because they couldn't afford a big house closer in and would have felt it beneath their dignity to buy a smaller house or, God forbid, send their children to school with dark-skinned children.

[cornermouse]

49. A lot of people live outside of the large cities for reasons other

than wanting a bigger house or racism. If you're happy living in a large city, that's fine. Just don't try to force everyone else to join you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. It's not so much living outside of a large city as living in a tract of

McMansions, with NOTHING in the way of jobs, stores, services, schools, or any other necessities of daily life in walking or biking distance.

I've noticed that exurbanites by-pass genuine small towns that contain at least some of these necessities and instead of building gradually out from the core of a small town and preserving the character of the town and the existing businesses, they go a mile out into the cornfields, and then the developers bring in all the strip mall and big-box chains to suit them.

These days, anyone who knows about gas prices and global warming and STILL chooses to move to a place that will force them to drive everywhere is living in a fool's paradise.

That's a fact. Urban sprawl is helping to destroy the planet. The individual may say, "I want/need/must/don't give a shit and will live in a trophy house with three cars in the driveway and easy freeway access," and it may even be true in that individual's case.

What is good in the short term for an individual may not be good for society or the planet as a whole, or even for the individual in the long run.

It may seem like a far-fetched analogy, but look at what happened when China enforced its one-child policy--setting aside the question of whether it was a wise policy (I don't think it was). Since everyone "has to" have a son as a form of old-age insurance, couples began aborting female fetuses or abandoning or killing girl babies. So a lot of couples got their hoped-for son.

The trouble is, so many people have done that over the past decades that there is now a shortage of women. Those precious sons have no one to marry, especially if they are of low economic status, so those couples who were being "oh so smart" will be cared for by a son who himself will be along in his old age. (In fact, it was traditionally the daughter-in-law who did all the nursing home type work, so the situation is even worse.) Parents of daughters are affected, too, because their daughters are in danger of being kidnapped into forced marriages.

I'm sure if you had asked those couples twenty-five years ago why they were insisting on having a boy as their one child, they would have had all kinds of reasons why this was necessary--to have someone to take care of them in their old age, to please their own parents, not to lose face in the eyes of the neighbors, to have someone to help with the heavy work, etc.

No matter what the benefit to the individual family, the result has been a severe demographic imbalance for China as a whole in the short term, and, in the long term, the prospect of a lot of lonely and bitter men.

One of the Native American tribes had a saying, "Always think how your actions will affect the next seven generations."

In those terms, the typical exurban lifestyle cannot be justified.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Rationing emissions (or gas) would be better, I think

If you limit some Hummer-commuting pencil-dick to 10k miles a year, that's still more damage than a Prius driver could clock up even if they drove 100k.

On the other hand, if you rationed both to, say, 250 gallons/yr then the Prius driver could get his 10k easily enough: Hummer guy might not reach the end of the parking lot, but that's his problem for being a ass-clown.

(People who actually need a chunky 4x4 to go off road would get an exemption. They do exsist...)

Edit: Just to add, one idea that has been bounced around is a carbon quota - You can burn up to x amount for free: If you want more, you have to pay extra; If you use less, you can sell it - which encourages people to cut down. (Sort of the way Kyoto is supposed to work, but on an individual basis).

[welshTerrier2]

27. works for me ...

i like the idea of rationing based on a fixed gallon per driver system ...

i don't like, however, the "buy extra gallons" idea ... maybe there could be a small number of extra gallons available but ability to pay should not enable any citizen to pump more CO2 into everyone else's air ...

[MH1]

28. Probably not. I would not support the method that would be needed to keep

track of it.

I would prefer taxing gas and offsetting the tax by a tax credit for the non-rich that would cover a certain number of miles driven per year (to offset the tax, not pay for the gas). The reason for the offsetting tax credit is that you want to mitigate the impact on people who need to drive to get to a low-paying job.

Of course I haven't thought through all the details of this idea. And I'm in no case under any delusion that this Congress would do anything like that at all.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. I drive about10K personal miles a year and as much as 20K for business

I work from home, so my commuting miles are zero. The 10K is devoted to the 'rhythms of life' - grocery shopping, errands, etc. My business miles are mostly to attend meetings locally or to get to the airport. I'm sure I could cut down my personal miles, but not by any significant amount. My business miles, on the other hand, are pretty much beyond my control, unless I choose not to work. My company maximizes technology to overcome distance, but most of my meetings are simply unavoidable to do the work we do.

All that said, I would not be opposed to rationing. Any added costs associated with travel to meetings gets passed on to my clients. In essence, my being at their properties becomes part of the cost they bear in hiring me.

But instead of rationing, I'd like to see rationing along side a rebatable tax. This simply seems more egalitarian and more progressive. Under the rationing portion we'd all get gas stamps, akin to what we saw in WWII for many goods. These stamps don't actually pay for anything. They simply are the symbol of your right to make a purchase at market rates. You give to the gas station a stamp for every gallon you buy. You woudl then be free to buy as much more as you chose, but at a VERY high cost, most of being tax. Depending on your circumstances, you might be entitled to some of that tax back as full rebates. ('Circumstances', of course, and the way to track and acknowledge them, is a not small detail that needs to be worked out.)

One circumstance might be where one lives and where one works. Another circumstance might be what mileage one's vehicle gets. Or one's medical circumstances might be applied (several dialysis sesssions a week, for example).

The surplus tax would be applied to wither alternate fuel research or expansion of mass transit.

Which brings me to my final thought on this. Mass transit needs to be expanded exponentially. I understand that rural areas are least likely to be helped, but the state of mass transit in our major cities and megalopolises is more than lacking. The Paris, Tokyo, or London metro systems, as but three examples, are mirrored in this country only, perhaps, by New York. Just on the east coast, Boston, while within itself and its close in suburbs is sorta okay, why not link it to Providence and southern New Hampshire? Why not link Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, and DC? Only Amtrak serves them on an intercity basis, but connections to all areas of these cities is difficult or non-existant. Even DC, which has a pretty good metro system, has poor service to even its close in suburbas and no serious link to Baltimore - just the MDot trains that serve only the narrow corridor betwen Baltimore and DC. I live between the two cities. Why is it easier for me to drive 25 miles to the closest DC metro station than to drive to a commuter train and then go through the time consuming hassle and expense to connect to the DC metro? The two cities are a scant 45 miles city center to city center. Why are not all of their shared suburbas linked by a common rail system? Why is Baltimore so poorly served?

Those stories are repeated in every major urban center.

[welshTerrier2]

37. George Steinbrenner, free trains and busses and more ...

you talked about seeking an egalitarian system but then added this idea: "You would then be free to buy as much more as you chose, but at a VERY high cost, most of being tax."

this is what i call the George Steinbrenner model ... allow me to explain ... a few years ago, Major League Baseball decided to tax teams with very high payrolls ... the goal was to level the playing field by discouraging the bizillion dollar contracts ... well, Mr. Steinbrenner just kept on buying the very best talent you could find and pays whatever taxes are assessed ...

the problem with the "buy all you want" if you can afford the high prices is that it says to the wealthy, global warming is not your concern ... yes, you'll have to pay more but you are free to pollute all you want to ... instead of looking at the problem from a purchasing perspective, as this seems to, i would look at it more from the perspective of limiting how much poison each citizen will be permitted to spew into the atmosphere ... no one, regardless of purchasing power, should be allowed to "buy their way out" of the sacrifices that must be made to save the planet ...

the most "egalitarian" system gives each and every citizen (perhaps globally - a separate issue) an equal allocation of pollutant volumes ... no one should be able to buy more EVEN IF THE PROCEEDS ARE PUT TO GOOD USE ...

when i studied economics hundreds of years ago, i had a professor who advocated for 100% free mass transit ... he claimed that the cost of auto emissions was a "hidden" cost that was not being factored into the price of cars or gasoline ... he argued that mass transit provided a huge cost saving (in terms of lowered pollution) and that those willing to benefit the society by using mass transit should accordingly ride for free ...

his idea was that the savings (i.e. the benefits) of mass transit exceeded the costs of providing it and that the maximum possible incentive should be provided by society to encourage its use ...

it would be great to try this in just one city or perhaps have a "mass transit" week to introduce people to the idea of using it ... free mass transit - i like the idea - it won't happen anytime soon until sanity and real problem solving becomes the focus of people in Washington ... right now, anything that's "anti-car" is DOA ...

[Stinky The Clown]

38. I see your point about the Steinbrenner factor

My thought was to try to find a way for those people who truly *must* drive a lot to be able to get the fuel they need (not the fuel they want). Perhaps another approach is to have people apply for fuel credits or fuel allowances and have to provide justification to get them. The downside of this is the opportunity for mindless buraucracy and ignorant bureaucrats ... and corruption.

Again, I generally have no problem in finding ways to reduce carbon use (what we're really talking about, it seems to me) but there needs to be ways for honest people who would otherwise not be able to function fully without it, to function.

I **think** the DC metro has done the free ridership periods a few times. It is actually a pretty good system as far as it goes. My only beef is that it doesn't cover enough territory. Where it *does* go, however, it is almost always my first choice. Their ridership is up and has has been so trending since the day it opened. The system is also clean and safe and generally well managed.

Funny side story ..... when they were planning the system, the citizens of the Georgetown section of DC fought it tooth and nail, citing fears of 'commuter criminals' coming to their lily white neighborhood and stealing things. Like we could all imagine a thief boarding a train with a stolen piano on his back. Anyway, years later, it is G'town who is sorry. Their residents pay more to commute or have to take busses. Not too many jobs moved there. And irony of irony, the worst escape route for a criminal in hot pursuit (like after a purse snatching) is the metro. This may no longer be true, but for a time at least, no criminal in hot pursuit who entered the metro left it not in custody. I'm not saying mass transit is crime deterrent. I *am* saying that argument against it is so much bullshit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. That's a real common scare tactic from the auto lobby

"Mass transit will bring criminals in." (Unspoken: black criminals)

While the Westside light rail line was nearing completion in Portland, the auto lobby shills spread rumors that Latino gangs (the far west end of the line has a large Latino population) were each claiming a station as their territory.

In the late 1990s, a proposed north-south line was defeated by the freeper suburbs southeast of the city because they were afraid that "black gangs" would come and recruit their children. (The northern half of the line was later built.)

[mopinko]

68. mass transit

in chicago, they made a conscience decision to jack up the price of parking in the downtown, so that more people would take public transit. they tried to get a circulator trolley around the downtown, but thugs wouldn't kick in for that. (everything is focused on the very center of downtown, not getting around once you are there.) so, instead, they started some new bus routes.
they also got the hospitality industry to pay for free cute little trolley like buses that to all the tourist things.
but, then, i live in a blue city. i guess that could be the cure. elect dems.

[marlakay]

39. Husband just bought me scooter for my birthday

Its great, only for around town 25-35 mph but wonderful for that. 95 miles per gallon and I have a place under my seat to put a few groceries or books. My husband commutes with our small car and I was feeling guilty driving the suv to town which is a few miles away.

I am so happy now.

Marla :)

[LWolf]

40. I would support

some sort of limits, perhaps fuel limits, on petroleum fuel engines in urban areas given an excellent public transit system.

I would not support limits on rural areas unless non-petroleum fueled vehicles were readily available and affordable.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

45. would do wonders for the unemployment rate

as in drive it skyward.

Plus it would give the housing bubble the ability to last a few more years, as houses near employment centers skyrocket it value.

But as long you were one of the few that managed to keep your job and happened to live near work, it would be awesome!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. If the working class actually used its potential power

the people affected could vote in local governments that would mandate and/or subsidize the construction of affordable housing near jobs.

The Great and Infallible and Most Sacred and Not-to-Be-Questioned God Market is responsible for the current imbalance in affordability.

[AJH032]

47. You want to limit a personal freedom?

Sounds borderline Republican to me. There's better, more effective ways to help the environment.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Such as?

:shrug:

[AJH032]

61. really?

You imply that the only way to help the environment is to put a quota on car miles.

Anyway, here are a few ideas: place heavy taxes on companies that pollute so that it becomes very expensive to do so, recycle more, use fuel efficient vehicles (ie, hybrids), walk more, use public transportation, turn off power when you're not using it, rebuild the forests we've destroyed, stop buying SUVs for city driving, and of course, we should develop newer, efficient technology that doesn't pollute the way fossil fuels do.

[welshTerrier2]

63. "place heavy taxes on companies that pollute"

all companies that produce gasoline and cars that burn gasoline pollute ... if you "place heavy taxes on them", they will be forced to raise their prices ...

if they raise their prices, only the people who can afford the increases will be able to drive ...

i prefer not to limit pollution by placing most of the burden on the poor and middle class ... i think we should limit, by citizen, the amount of pollution each of us can produce ...

and as for all your other ideas, the question i have is how do you bring about those changes ... having people walk more or use public transportation more is fine; how do you make that happen? what should i have to breathe in the pollution from some moron's Hummer because he doesn't choose to have his "personal freedom" restricted? what about my personal freedom?

all the ideas you've proposed are excellent by without government intervention, we can't get there from here ... well, government intervention or a "rich men only" market intervention ... for me, the burden should be shared more fairly than markets are able to do ...

[Solon]

75. What personal freedom?

Driving is a privilege, not a right, it can be taken away on a whim, if you will, and has been in many cases. Hell, if you can't pass the test, you can't drive, and there are many other restrictions as well. Since when has driving become a personal freedom?

[4bucksagallon]

55. Yeah I support it, as long as I get paid for time off from work haha.

Give me a break do you really think that reptiles with their hummers are going to go for rationing? They will call for raising the price on gas to a level so only the "well to do" can drive. Mel Gibson movie comes to mind haha.

[stray cat]

56. Some employees can't afford to live near where they are employed

so no - I don't support a limit on driving because it primarily hurts the working class.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. There are some cases like that, and it reflects the lack of unity and

therefore power among the working class.

If the working class were organized, they could demand affordable housing near where jobs are and regular bus or train service between their job sites and homes.

Resort towns are a well-known example. What if all the resort workers organized and refused to go to work until the city council of the resort city promised to finance regular bus service between the resort and the area where most of the workers lived?

But the working class in this country has been lulled into believing that they have no power and no options but to be part of the consumer culture.

On the other hand, some working class people have been so seduced by the alleged "American Dream" that they pursue home ownership even when it's not really financially practical: they buy a house way out in the boonies because it's the only house they can afford, but then the commute (there are former New Yorkers who have bought in the Poconos) turns out to be so grueling and so expensive that they might as well have remained as renters closer in.

If the working class knew their own strength (in numbers), they could demand affordable housing closer in.

[Stinky The Clown]

83. Aspen, CO, did that some years ago.

Of course, they put the workers waaaaaaay over there ... like 25 miles away.

[barb162]

59. I would split that out between PLEASURE v. necessity

driving.

If you have a MD specialist far away, you drive there. But the cross country vacations...forget it.

[welshTerrier2]

60. understandable but it might not be an option

imagine in five or ten years not being able to use air conditioning because high energy usage is killing the planet ... imagine that on the worst 100 degree plus days, air thick with brown smog, no air conditioning could be used because electric companies could not produce the necessary power without polluting the air ...

how does this square with the medical argument you made? how many would die in these month long heat waves?

many of the ideas presented in this thread are perfectly reasonable in a world where there are legitimate choices available to us ... the fear, and i think it's very real, is that we will NOT have any choices once global warming really takes hold ... starting with limits on recreational driving is fine; it probably will not be enough ...

if technology doesn't come to our rescue very, very soon, drastic, unpleasant changes are going to be needed ... i think most Americans are pretending this problem doesn't really exist ... those who say they believe the threat is real haven't yet accepted the kinds of radical change that will be required ...

[Stinky The Clown]

64. A few points about the electric grid ......

We often hear, at times like the current hot spell, of the 'stretched' electric grid. I heard a very interesting report recently on the radio.

Most new electric generation plants are fired by natural gas, which is, in fact, pretty clean burning. A goodly percentage is nuke. Hydro remains viable. Solar and wind are making some noticeable gains, but still remain largely (very) minor sources. We also have more than enough generating capacity to meet any demand. The problem is not generation or fuel sources. It is the dleivery infrastructure. Relatively little has been spent on that in decades. Sure, new transmission lines have been added to supply newly developed areas, but the old, existing lines are in dire need of maintenance and upgrades. Transmission wires do, indeed, deteriorate. As they do, their capacity to carry the same volume of electricity for which they were intended declines. The result is line breaks and power outages. The hot weather exacerbates this condition, causing, literally, breaks in the wires.

So there's no shortage of electricity. There is only lack of infrastructure investment.

[welshTerrier2]

66. "pretty clean burning"

"Most new electric generation plants are fired by natural gas, which is, in fact, pretty clean burning."

well, you're getting well beyond my science ...

when you use the phrase "clean burning", i understand that to mean "complete burning" such that no particulate matter is released into the atmosphere ... but i'm not clear that this can be the case for CO2 which is the primary cause of global warming ...

if matter can neither be created nor destroyed, burning gas still has to "produce output" ... is it not correct to say that that output is CO2?

[Stinky The Clown]

73. The output is CO2 and H2O

Yes, it does, in fact give off CO2. It has only one other byproduct - water. It gives off one CO2 molecule for every two H2O molecules. It also releases far more energy than comparable volumes of coal or petroleum fuels - or said another way, it takes less gas to produce a given amount of energy than coal or petroleum.

No, it isn't perfect, but it is far better than other options.

In the end, however, I suspect there will (or at least could) be a shift from even natural gas as new energy sources come online.

I (honestly - not snarkily) wonder if anyone is doing research on geothermal power - like directly from volcanic sources of which there are plenty. No additional combustion needed - just use the heat naturally in magma and other high energy geothermal sources.

I did a project many years ago in Colonial Williamsburg. The engineers on the job did a very clever system to heat the building. The dug a series of deep narrow wells and tapped the very earth down there to temper water. the water was simply recirculated to a heat exchanger at the top of the well field where it gave up its heat for controlled reuse. The heat exchanger could run in a forward or reverse cycle so it could heat or cool the building. The only cost was for the electricity to run the pumps (a very minimal cost compared to the heating and cooling costs).

The 'well field', by the way, fit entirely in the footprint of the bulding and was accessible in a crawl space below the basement level. Each well was really two separate holes, each just big enough to carry a 1" pipe - one for supply and one for return.

I'm not conversant in the technology of all this, but know the result to have been very impressive. In the same project, we took the latent heat out of the cooking exhaust to heat water for domestic use year round and the rest of it to contribute to the geothermal system.

I have to wonder .... if they could get enough heat from an area of approximately 100' by 100' of just plain old Tidewater Virginia dirt to heat a building, could we not do something similar to use the heat to generate electricity?

[Solon]

76. Natural Gas is a poor substitute...

sorry to say this but Natural Gas is hard as hell to import from overseas, and to be honest, its going to go into a sharp decline on this continent soon, if it hasn't already. Its a poor energy exchanger to begin with, and is already used for other uses that are extremely energy intensive, like oil shale/sand extraction(energy sink), and also goes into heating homes in the winter. Bad idea, overall, in relying on it for electricity production, even short term, do people forget the blackouts in Denver so soon?

[welshTerrier2]

96. infrastructure deficiencies and deregulation

sounds like you were dead on with your comments about the electric grid infrastructure ...

check this out: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/28/behind_the_blackouts.php

[Stinky The Clown]

97. Yup .... just another case of 'them' getting rich on our backs

Yanno ...we talk about corporate greed and all, and well we should, but when we allow them fair profit based on what we pay them for, we all get a good deal. Allow them to try to grow by doing 'business' instead of their fucking jobs, we lose every damned time.

There are days when I despise MBAs more than lawyers (an overly broad, over the top statement to express a sentiment ... for all the defenders of lawyers and CPAs).

[barb162]

116. My argument won't square at all under the situation you

bring up. There will just be a lot of people dying of the heat then.

[ComerPerro]

69. Good for you who can drive less than 5k miles per year, but remember

some of us live in the real world, and we need to drive.

[AtomicKitten]

72. I work at home and have 55K miles on a 9-year-old car.

I consider myself fortunate. However, I honestly believe we could try a lot harder to conserve as a nation. The good news is the economy and gas prices are such that conservation may become a positive side-effect.

[Jackson Roykirk]

74. In the early 1970's, I commuted daily by train...

... from San Mateo to San Francisco. It cost me $25.00 per month for an unlimited-use ticket. At the time, it was far cheaper for me to do that than drive. At any rate, I used to love taking the train, and I read lots of great books during the 40-minute commute.

Wish I could use public trans where I live now. :cry:

And I miss that Southern Pacific train!!!!!

[CTyankee]

78. So did I! I took the train from Dobbs Ferry, NY to Grand Central Station

It was a great little commute right on the Hudson River. And Grand Central is wonderful. My office was only a few blocks away on East 40th St. I loved New York in the 70s. Now if I go into Manhattan I'm exhausted by the experience. NY is a great town but it wears you down.

[AtomicKitten]

81. good times

train ambience is unique: laid-back, romantic.

and .... welcome to DU

[Morning Dew]

79. 50,000 + miles per year here -

though, in my personal vehicle, it's about 2 thousand per year or so.

Here's the thing - I drive public transportation for people with disabilities, which is a great service and very necessary, but incredibly inefficient.

It's not uncommon to have a single passenger for a 30 mile trip for a $2.50 fare. The balance of the actual trip cost is subsidized by tax dollars (as it is for "regular" public transportation).

[SteveG]

80. Some of us have jobs that require driving

I average between 16 to 20 thousand miles per year which is reimbursed by my employer. The locations that I work at are located approximately 100 miles apart and I have to be at each one at least twice a week. If limits were imposed, my job would go away. I manage computer networks and provide support for about 700 users, and have to be physically present. Mass transit, unfortunately is not an option - it just does not exist in our area. I have to oppose limits.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. But if driving is inconvenient for enough people

they will start to demand mass transit.

You need to look at countries where mass transit WORKS, even in rural areas.

The problem is a lack of imagination. People look at there lives the way they are now, and any change seems impossible.

I'd urge all DUers to do a thought experiment. What would happen in gas went to $5.00 a gallon?

I'd urge all DUers who are planning to move to a new area in the next few months to think carefully about where they move to. That brand new house sprouting up in a cow pasture may be attractive, but not if you have to drive an hour to work. Given the cost of gas, buying a place closer in might actually be cheaper. You can save even more money by living within walking distance of a grocery store and LEARNING to walk or cycle for brief errands. Hopping into the car to buy one item is a HABIT for many people, not a necessity.

My local PBS station just finished rebroadcasting The 1940s House, about a British family who lived the life of wartime Londoners for three months.

The lasting effect was that the mother of the family stopped driving to supermarkets and began walking to shop at local stores. She found that she had liked the sense of community that results from shopping locally.

[BooScout]

84. The BEST SOLUTION I have heard lately....

...is one they are starting here in the UK following the example of what they are doing in several EU countries.

That is to have neighborhoods where NO ONE owns their own car. They have community cars. You simply put your own personal ID card in the car to activate it when you need it. A community car can be booked in advance or based on availability, you can grab one if the need arises. You don't have to worry about car payments or insurance payments, you simply pay based on usage.

Availability is sometimes a problem, but people seem to be managing fairly well.

[Greyhound]

86. And what are the people that have very long commutes?

going to do? Are we going to subsidized their new housing? Maybe you want to impose some sort of rent/price limits on housing? I'm pretty sure you'll end up with 100,000,000 people moving to california and the Dakotas will become wilderness areas.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. See some of the messages above

Some long commutes are necessary.

Others are simply people who were dumb enough to buy a house far from their job because they thought that cheap gas would last forever and would have no environmental effects.

[Greyhound]

89. Right the school teachers police and firefighters in SF and Manhattan

make 100 mile commutes because they want to. :eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. Partly because they are dead set on buying a house, and

given the prices and the long commutes, they may actually be better off renting and investing in something else.

Alternatively, they could get their unions to demand affordable housing. The city councils in expensive cities could put a freeze on building permits for luxury developments and give tax breaks to builders of affordable housing.

[Greyhound]

106. None of which will help at all. Rents are just as out of reach to those

people as a mortgage. Nobody that works in SF, for example, lives in San Ramon (1 1/2 hours one-way, when there isn't an accident) because they want to, they live there because that's the closest housing they can get into.

Since the 40's, this country has been developed to make travel by automobile a necessity, the red cars in LA are a prime, and extremely well documented, example. A practical, functional, profitable mass transit system was bought out by a consortium of Standard Oil, Firestone, and GM, who in turn, dismantled it, going so far as to tear up the tracks that were laid.

Bankrupting commuters will not make the situation any better.

[emdee]

91. No, I would not support a driving ration....

after just having gone through several years of adding many miles to my car because of extensive doctors appointments, no I would not support any rationing of driving. Living in a rural area, many people drive over 100 miles a day to get to and from work. There's no way I would support a limit on driving. As much as I'd love to stay home more, sometimes it just isn't in the cards and I, being 46-years-old, would balk at having to get 'permission' for extra miles.

We should, however, be supporting and demanding that alternative fuels be aggressively explored and implemented.

emdee

[madmunchie]

92. Not a good idea.

How about not worrying if you 16 yr old gets a new car to drive to school every day? How about school buses instead of the glut of teenage drivers? That would make our road safer to.

How about learning to live with higher gas prices and each person determining how much gas they can afford to use to go to work etc. If people didn't think that they were ENTITLED to the cheapest gas rates in the world, maybe they wouldn't feel the need to drive tanks to the grocery stores.

[paulk]

93. right now I'm driving less than 100 miles a year

because I'm able to walk to work.

There have been times in the past when I drove over 2000 miles a month - to and from work.

That's how it is out here in the west, a place you should visit before posting stupid ideas like this one.

Sometimes radical ideas aren't the "very best and the most necessary". Sometimes they're just plain dumb.

[welshTerrier2]

95. total failure to even mention global warming

congratulations on the worst post in the thread ...

[paulk]

110. Oh, I'm sorry. Did I interrupt your "serious" discussion ?

What form of government will you put in place to enforce your idea?

A dictatorship?


A "progressive" dictatorship?

[mucifer]

94. Pediatric Spanish speaking hospice nurse here

I work in peoples homes and see 3-5 patients a day. I travel all over a large county. I am an RN. I get paid more than the social workers, chaplains and especially nursing assistants. Other than forcing people adults and kids to die in institutions, I don't see how this could be done.

[welshTerrier2]

98. a couple of points

it's clear that certain travel is "necessary" travel ... obviously, some flexibility would need to be built into any rationing system ... i would hope that the criteria would be based on legitimate criteria rather than catering only to the wealthy through the pricing mechanism ...

the second thing that is clear is that we need to radically reduce our use of automobiles ... if tens of thousands or tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions might die because of global warming, we need to get damned serious damned soon about reducing CO2 emissions ...

[Kixel]

99. Prior to rationing

You need a functioning public transportation system. If that were a valid option, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I moved about 2 1/2 hours away from where I grew up. It seems that there is a major function that I can't miss more and more often-weddings and funerals and all the other little (but important things)things. I would love to be able to cost effectively hop on a train and go. If I had to jump a few hoops, it would be well worth it. I also commute to work.

I would love other alternatives and I am supporting candidates who view it as an important issue. To place those kind of limitations with out an alternative option is not acceptable, however. It's not okay for people to say I can't attend important family functions because I made a better life for myself by moving.

Focusing on different methods of transportation first would be the most beneficial. Then you can look at rationing options.

[midnight]

101. No I would not like to be told how many miles I could drive.

That's ridiculous. We have the technology to achieve better gas mileage. Just do it-make better cars.

[LynneSin]

103. I'd rather put a tax on gas guzzlers & tax breaks on hybrids and high MPG

I know I'll get thrashed for suggesting this but for many folks here at DU, driving isn't something they can easily choose not to do.

I estimated that just for work alone I drive 4500 miles, which under your plan leaves me 500 extra miles to do what I wish.

But since my family lives 100 miles away plus I need to get groceries, staples, doctor visits and other necessities, I usually end up driving a total of 8k miles a year.

I could take public transportation but there is no direct link from the area where I live to where I would work. I tried it once and it took over an hour for public transportation comparied to the 20 minutes it takes for me to drive it. I'm all for public transportation but I am NOT willing to give up 2hours every day just to make a few people happy here at DU that I'm not using my car.

Perhaps what should be done is to tax the vehicle. I mean, I drive a Corolla and get about 30mpg (very little highway driving). But there are people out there who drive as much if not more than me and drive vehicles that get 8-12MPG, which means they are probably filling up 2-3 times more often that I am.

I would rather add an extra tax to vehicles with such poor gas mileage and that extra money would then be used to give a tax break to those people who buy alternative energy cars OR at least a car that gets like 40MPG or higher (let's face it, hybrids are expensive but a Toyota Yari can get 40MPG and is priced less that $15k)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. People who take transit learn to USE the downtime

whether it's to catch up on reading, knit that sweater they never seem to have time for, or sleep in a way that they couldn't if they were driving.

They find that it's not really wasted time. It's an extra hour of enforced leisure.

[LynneSin]

105. I'd rather have that leisure in a place where I'm comfortable

I've done the hour-long commute and it's difficult to relax when you're stuff in into a box.

If I could do the commute with no transfers and less than 30 minutes, I would be so there. But an hour crammed into a confined space with too many people will work on my nerves

[semillama]

107. We need trains again

If there was rail service between Columbus, Ohio and Atlanta (where my fiance goes to school), I would never drive there.

The invention of the internal combustion engine may be looked back at as one of the top inventions that ended up doing way more harm than good.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

108. Ironically, cars were once considered the "clean alternative"

to horses.

[welshTerrier2]

109. FOR A DETAILED "POST MORTEM" ON THIS THREAD ...

go here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2749539&mesg_id=2749539

[sakabatou]

111. I don't know, I haven't driven for a year

but my estimates... 9300 miles a year.

[nickinSTL]

112. In theory, I'm not against driving limits...

however, the infrastructure needs to exist to make that possible.

The public transport in my city sucks. I'd be happy to take it if it went where I need to go reasonably. It would be a mess for me to take it as things are now.

I'd also be fine with riding a bike to work if I lived close enough, during good weather.

I'd be fine with limiting my driving to shopping trips and going to visit my parents in Florida once a year.

Though I'd much rather that personal transport be converted to a better fuel alternative - I do really enjoy driving.

[blues90]

113. Anything done would have to be regulated by someone

How can you control miles driven with so very many cars and trucks on the road and keep track of it , who's going to pay for this and with what ?

i am all for cutting driving down and car pooling and mass transit but people can't seem to be conviced to give out their personal space on the road . They seem to love their damn cars .

It may be possible to allow pumps only to dispense a set amount of fuel and track return customers by their cards . Whatever is done won't be simple .

In southern calif people seem to be driving more than ever before and this sicken me . I do my part and don't drive much , I do all errands I can;t walk to and plan the route so it is the shortest but we sit in traffic and burn more fuel than driving . It's insane and I don't think we will pull out of global warming in time to save ourselves . it's all about personal greed and cars as a form of recreation , people could bring lunch to work as a start and save on two fronts but most people I know drive to get lunch each day , so spoiled people have become , so lazy and dumbed down , to suggest there is hope is hope in itself .

[BluePatriot]

114. It is going to be so hard for the USA...

..I find driving as such a part of our culture. Route 66, "road trips," etc. This may be part of the resistance to change a lot of us are running smack into.

Driving can be fun, but we need to make better, efficient, cleaner vehicles in order to continue this part of our culture, and I don't see it happening quickly enough.

Oh, and I probably fall into the less than 5000 mi a year range.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

115. A 1/3 under 5K.

Atta boys and girls!