Global Warming: Higher Cost for Drivers
9 Comments Published by clay October 27th, 2007 in State and Local Politics.Plan to reduce global warming calls for higher cost for drivers
If the Bay Area is to make a real contribution to the fight against global warming, it will require an aggressive program to discourage solo vehicle commuting, along with improvements in fuel economy and a new development paradigm that puts people near jobs and public transit, Bay Area leaders were told Friday.
Those ideas, which include a pricing package that increases the per-mile cost of driving during peak hours were contained in a proposed framework for a regional transportation plan to take the Bay Area to 2035.
The cornerstone of the plan challenges Bay Area leaders to fight global warming by reducing the area’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, and again 40 percent below that.
The big challenge, even to change development patterns within the Bay Area, will be to get the region’s nine counties and 101 municipal governments to agree on land-use policy.
The problem at hand is that the bay area drivers want to reduce Co2 emissions and they plan to do that by raising and creating taxes and more tolls, to scare the drivers, and make it more better for them to take the bus or drive carpool.
the problem with this is that it would be the same thing as scaring little Johnny into not pulling his sister’s pigtails, it works and johnny never does it again, the problem is we don’t want to scare drivers away from driving that would ruin our economy. I think the best choice of action would be to make it better to drive carpool with out raising taxes to much, and not adding tolls, tolls would only make more traffic, either in another area or the area before the tolls. Create more driver advantages for those who ride with others, other than bleeding drivers dry of their money.
The problem at hand is brainwashing. Today’s society has been brainwashed into believing that gasoline is the sole problem. We do not need to change the fuel we use. Look at what has changed in the last 50 years. We have come up with four radically different fuels (ethanol, natural gas, biodeisel, and hydrogen). The cars that we put the fuel into have more or less stuck to the same technology used back in the days of the american muscle car. It is about time that we get out of the chrome age. If you want to reduce CO2 emmisions, take a lesson from japan and shrink the cars the every day commuter drives. It wouldn’t hurt to plant a few more organisms that BREATH CO2 (plants) too. So, the next time you hear some one say we need to change the fuel, tell them we need to change the car.
Peronally i believe that cars do have a huge impact on our global warming. As of right now i can’t think of anything else that will cause global warming. We need to start taing ations into fixing the problem,and soon! if we don’t out future kids will be faing probems. It’s not going to affect us in any way but it will later,and the ones we love will be facing the consequences. to have people pay more to drive a vehicle would be a good idea. But thats my personal opinion.
Global warming is very big issue. The article states that fuel prices on cars should rise, so that it will force people to either car pool or take some kind of mass transportation, whether it being a bus, or metro, etc. Yes, cars do cause a huge amount of gases in the atmosphere which do cause global warming, but they aren’t the only one. Large manufactures, and machinery, all put out gases that harm the environment, so it’s not just cars. Yes, I do think though, that something should slow down the global warming, for example making hybrid cars that dont use so much fuel, and for larger companies, maybe make it so they can only expell so much gases from their factories or equipment. Many things are causing global warming, not just cars, even though they are a big part of it. I think chages to the cars and manufacturers that release a lot of gases in the air, should find another way, so we can slow down the global warming.
Buddy says the things that I think, but in a much more eloquent and well-thought-out way. The biggest problem here with the car, not the fuel. Actually, it seems to me the biggest problem is urban sprawl and the fact that walking anywhere is next to impossible, but it’s much to late to fix that problem. Unless of course we blew our entire infrastructure up and started over, but that’s just crazy talk.
But getting back on track, the problem is with the car. I remember hearing a while ago about a law that would require all cars to get at least 30 MPG highway within something like five years. I have no idea whatever happened to that law, but I like the sound of it. Except I’d amend it so that anyone who still owned a car that got crappy gas mileage would have to pay out the nose to keep it. I call it the Hummer Tax. If you feel the need to buy a car that rapes the environment that badly, presumably because you a stupid douchebag with no redeeming qualities and a small penis, then you need to be separated from your money. You obviously can’t take care of it.
/rant off
Global warming is a major issue that’s effecting more than just our planet, it’s affecting us as well. Although the Bay Area is contributing to the fight against this problem, I don’t think the Bay Area alone can solve everyones issues. Global warming is effecting everyone and so I think more should be done about it. I don’t think many peeople really see the danger or the harm that can eventually come from it. Even now, today, it’s affecting our health in ways we don’t think about.
Another thing is the fuel we’re using. We have better fuels that are more environmental friendly and can help with trying to solve the issue at hand, but we keep using our normal gas. There are more ways than one, we do have other alternatives. Biodeisel for instance, or any other natural gases. Even a battery operated vehicle would help. We all have the option available to us, the only thing is not many people are willing to do it.
And besides, it’s not like cars and other methods of transportation (ex. jets, copters, etc.) are the only thing contributing to the uprising of the issue. There are big businesses that probably do even more damage than we do just getting ourselves to places everyday.
I agree with buddy. The fact is after being told one thing over and over again, you begin to belive only that. I mean i understand gasoline messes with our planet basically, but we have been using the same thing since way back then. And the US is the prime problem when we consider the problem of global warming. Obviously other countries are doing something right. Or better said, not doing certain things, or doing less of them. Its about getting your priorities in order and actually making a change. And i think the biggest thing stopping that from happening is our culture and the tight grip we have towards are set way of living. But things that have to be changed, will be changed.
Gas prices have always been going up and down, but so have public transportation prices. Global warming won Al Gore the Nobel Peace Prize. The idea of taking off a few cars from the street doesnt mean that they would never drive again, but just a little less. One city fighting global warming wouldn’t save the rest of the world which constantly emits pollutants into our atmosphere. It’s a good start that they want to get people to use public transportation and the idea of effective fuel economy and people put near jobs and public transit would set the idea for people to see not only what is more environmentally friendly, but that would save them more money.
Something brought up alot is that cars are a main source of pollution and global warming. Yes, they are, and yeah there are alot of other things that cause global warming. Trying to keep cool on a hot day by keeping the air conditioner on causes global warming. The biggest source of greenhouse gases is electric generation.
Homes > Cars
Focusing on transportation would help against global warming, but conservation of energy around the house could do the same. Would it be easier to scare people into using public transportation? Energy efficient lighting, appliances, etc. would all help in the long run. The only problem is that people don’t care enough to consider it. They would have to be scared into thinking “omg prices are high. quick to the bus!”. How far can a city go to make their citizens think like that?
i too belive the prblem is with the car itself and not the gas we use. We could reduce CO2 emmissions simply by carpooling more and reducing the size of the car. The smaller the car, the less gas it needs, therefore, it realeases less CO2.
Another problem society has tody, is that they drive EVERYWHERE, even if the place is only a few blocks away. If people walked to certain places or rode bikes, we would all benefit. Less CO2, more excercise.