Thursday, May 04, 2006

High Gas Prices = Good




http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5378487

Environmentalists having been saying exactly the same thing for 10 years as an infamous Sierra Club webpage so embarrassingly shows: http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/subsidies.asp

The externalities they cost out are vague and unsupportable while at the same time they ignore every single positive externality no matter how well documented.

The true agenda is one of irrational and unreasoned hatered of the private moror vehicle. It is that simple and therefore that intractable. You see even the progess in the last few decades failed to sway the anti-auto crowd as there's is a conclusion based belief system.

To further reveal the true agenda, one need only examine what these self proclaimed environmentalists would do with the tax money. Invest in more efficient roads to reduce pollution? No. Invest in advanced technology to reduce the negative externalties? No. Institute by back programs for the worst polluters to purchase low emissions vehicles? No. Instead they want to spend money on public transit despite no evidence whatsoever that transit either saves energy or reduces externalites. Why then transit? Because transit allows a degree of control over individual lifestyles unattainable by any other means in a Western Democracy. Again, an agenda so hardheaded it resists rational discussion.

9 comments:

chickenlittle said...

Sorry Robert, but I truly enjoy riding the Coaster here in SD county 2 or 3 days a week. I don't feel I give up any autonomy at all. They allow bikes on board so I make connections that way. I can do this pretty much year round here too.
I am ambivalent about the new publically funded project, the Sprinter, because I have no desire to visit Escondido. I believe it will be a boon for Cal State San Marcos and Oceanside (they could both use it).
Oh, did I forget to mention that my car burns biodiesel?

Rob Dawg said...

And how much is your SD Coaster subsidized? I know to the penny but before I post it is important to see your grasp of the subject.

Oh and a MBZ 300 burns biodiesel, nothing to be proud of.

tom stone said...

robert,i enjoy the fact that you seem to be a pragmatisit rather than an idealogue...just changing the formula in tires would mwke a huge difference,and there are a lot of things that can be done to improve fuel efficiency which are technologically and economically feasible right now...not freaking hybrids which bring new problems or heavily subsidized mass transit...just simple,incremental improvements that are already proven to work.dual fuel cars for just one.

chickenlittle said...

I assume it's highly subsidized. Then again, I count a lot of things as subsidized: maintaining I-5 and feeder roads, building the latest cluster-f$ck construction at the 5/405 merge (that one galls me because I've cycled past, through and around it these last three years. Oh did I forget the biggest subsidy of all, maintaining access to "cheap" oil?

Rob Dawg said...

Tom, you are correct. A few Rockwell Hb and we could save millions of gallons with only a very small rise in noise and accidents. My favorite is outlawing roof racks. Roof racks consume 1.5 billion gallons annually. Gawd, do I retain obscure facts or what? I wrote the following almost 3 years ago: Narrower tires could instantly add 2 mpg. Removing roof racks could add from 1/2 to 2 mpg. Both cost LESS.

Trade ruggedness for economy; aerodynamic fronts, extended wheel coves, re-chipping for economy, LED signals, new "glass" and steel wheels are almost cost neutral.

More aluminum and composites, surface coatings and the like are probably "return on investment" desirable consumer features.

Now for the kicker, all these are happening.

Anonymous said...

If you spent any amount of time in a city with good public transit, like Vienna or Tokyo, you would know how ridiculous your statement is.

Public roads, traffic lights, etc. actually engender mroe governmental control over "individual lifestyles" than an efficient public transit system does. Oh, and talk to Japan about their energy savings.

Rob Dawg said...

Tokyo also charges 3x fares and while Lodon only charges 2x they also suffer from massive infrastructure deficiences that are only addressable by genral tax revenues as in both cases there is no possibility for chaging users the full costs. Thus my statement stands that transit has huge negative externalities.

Charles Hughes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Public Transit is Communism. Company tells employee, "you do not NEED a raise because your costs are not rising". Anytime I hear the word "NEED", I want to move up into the hills.