<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><!---->### Great Idea!
But, why not get serious, and impose a tax on all homes with more than
100sq.ft per occupant - after all, home heating and cooling puts out
so much carbon dioxide? We all could fit into 1/10th of available
apartment space!
</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm game. Of course, I would prefer a bit more. Maybe 500 sq foot per
person. But then you get into having to differentiate between
"conditioned" space and non-conditioned space. It gets too complex to
administer without too much additional cost of inspections. A usage
tax on excess energy usage over a base amount combined with a usage
based tax on oversized homes would be great though. That way you can
tax those who simply use too much instead of having the poor people
without the means to replace insulation and furnaces bear the brunt of
the taxes. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Now, actually, a guzzler tax is too timid - why not impose a 100,000
tax on all cars that carry less than 50 passengers? We would hardly
produce any CO2 if we all traveled in buses only.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Do you want to gain R&D revenue? Or is your goal to kill the
economy? And do you want something that can actually be done? You have
just as much chance getting a car ban passed. Then you just shift the
burden and no real research gets done. We need to find ways that allow
people to move about great distances quickly and independently using
renewable resources and that's the objective. The goal is improving the
lives of people for the short and long term. Not to simply speed up the
process of making life intolerable. <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
And if you are really serious about your beliefs, why not impose a tax
of 1,000,000$ on all new births? After all, each baby born is nothing
but pollution, tons and tons of CO2 generated over her lifetime....
</pre>
</blockquote>
I think I am sensing sarcasm? This is silly. No one could pay it. Human
life would cease to exist. no one would be able to afford reproduction.
I really don't care about the CO2. I'm not yet convinced that global
warming is bad. It's just a question of funding the research necessary
to maintain our way of life while freeing us from having to be
dependent upon foreign countries for a non-renewable and limited energy
source.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
OK, I admit I just can't contain my sarcasm when I read yet another
call to threaten to kill somebody to get what "we" all "need". "More
money needs" to be spent on your favorite project - hey, let's take a
gun, stand by the gas pump and squeeze some jerks you hate for 1.50$
per gallon? You get free cash, and a feeling of moral superiority to
boot.
</pre>
</blockquote>
So I was right. That's good. Who said anything about killing anybody? I
don't hate these people. And there's no moral superiority here. The
question was how to change behavior and encourage R&D without
destroying the economy. It's easy to point att he flaws in my ideas but
do you have alternatives? Or do you think that the status quo is
sufficient for our future needs and nothing at all needs to change?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7641ddc60712190721w35054bc8yd421530683a3c815@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I prefer to get my feeling of moral superiority from saying "No to
violence". "If you want something done, do it yourself, don't force
others to do it". "You have no right to attack somebody unless he
first provably and indisputably attacks you". Etc, etc.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Who is talking about violence here? Did I miss something? I never
endorse violence. Having a viable alternative to foreign oil would make
us less succeptable to what goes on in the middle-east and would reduce
the need for us to be involved in wars over there. I don't see where
you are getting this.<br>
</body>
</html>