Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Climate change: And still they slept on....

Expand Messages
  • J.H. Crawford
    Hi All, This is an especially alarming report on sea-level rise and comes with two graphics that might get the attention even of Americans (since the flooded
    Message 1 of 28 , Mar 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi All,

      This is an especially alarming report on sea-level rise and comes with
      two graphics that might get the attention even of Americans (since the
      flooded areas shown are in the USA). This problem is turning out to be
      MUCH more serious that scientists had previously thought. See especially
      this part:

      -----------

      Although ice sheet disintegration and the subsequent sea level rise lags
      behind rising temperatures, the process will become irreversible sometime
      in the second half of the 21st century, Overpeck said, "unless something
      is done to dramatically reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.

      "We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the
      next decade. If we don�t do something soon, we�re committed to four-to-six
      meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."

      ------------

      If this is not enough to get people to act, I don't know what is.
      Let's try to see that this gets circulated widely.

      Regards,
      J.H. Crawford

      Polar melting may raise sea level sooner than expected

      http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-57103.html

      [see images in source]

      The Earth�s warming temperatures are on track to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets sooner than previously thought and ultimately lead to a global sea level rise of at least 20 feet, according to new research.

      If the current warming trends continue, by 2100 the Earth will likely be at least 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present, with the Arctic at least as warm as it was nearly 130,000 years ago. At that time, significant portions of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, resulting in a sea level about 20 feet (six meters) higher than present day.

      These studies are the first to link Arctic and Antarctic melting during the Last Interglaciation, 129,000 to 116,000 years ago. "This is a real eye-opener set of results," said study co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck of The University of Arizona in Tucson. "The last time the Arctic was significantly warmer than present day, the Greenland Ice Sheet melted back the equivalent of two to three meters (about six to ten feet) of sea level."

      Contrary to what was previously believed, the research suggests the Antarctic ice sheet also melted substantially, contributing another six to 10 feet (two to three meters) of sea level rise. The new findings will be published in the March 24 issue of Science.

      Co-author Bette Otto-Bliesner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said, "Although the focus of our work is polar, the implications are global. These ice sheets melted before and sea levels rose. The warmth needed isn�t that much above present conditions."

      The ice sheets are melting already. The new research suggests the melting could accelerate, thereby raising sea level as fast, or faster, than three feet (about one meter) of sea level rise per century.

      Although ice sheet disintegration and the subsequent sea level rise lags behind rising temperatures, the process will become irreversible sometime in the second half of the 21st century, Overpeck said, "unless something is done to dramatically reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas pollution.

      "We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next decade. If we don�t do something soon, we�re committed to four-to-six meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."

      As sea levels rise, coastal regions are more susceptible to the impacts of storm surge. The predicted rise would eventually inundate heavily populated coastal areas worldwide.

      Overpeck, a professor of geosciences and director of Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at The University of Arizona, Otto-Bliesner and their colleagues report their new findings in a pair of papers. A complete list of authors is at the end of this release. The National Science Foundation funded the research.

      The researchers used a computer model that scientists use to predict future climate, the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model (CCSM), and combined it with ice sheet simulations to estimate what the Earth�s climate was like 129,000 years ago.

      The team also cross-checked the computer�s estimate of ancient climate against data from natural recorders of ancient climate such as sediments, fossils and ice cores.

      The CCSM did a good job of estimating past climate changes. That gives the researchers additional confidence in the model�s predictions of future climate change, Otto-Bliesner said.

      The work shows that meltwater from Greenland and other Arctic sources raised sea level by as much as 10 feet (about three meters) during the Last Interglaciation. However, coral records indicate that the sea level actually rose 13 to 20 feet (four to six meters) and sediments under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet indicate parts of the ice sheet disappeared.

      Antarctic melting must have produced the additional sea-level rise, Overpeck concludes. He said the rise in sea level from melting in the Arctic could have destabilized parts of the Antarctic ice sheet.

      In the last few years sea level has begun rising more rapidly, Overpeck said. He�s concerned, because unlike the Greenland Ice Sheet, the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is below sea level. If it starts to melt, it could go fast, he said. Moreover, during the Last Interglaciation, most of the warming was in the Arctic and only in summer. Now the Earth is warming at both poles year round.

      "To get rid of Greenland�s ice, you have to melt it. In the Antarctic, all you have to do is break up the ice sheet and float it away and that would raise sea level," he said. "It�s just like throwing a bunch of ice cubes into a full glass of water and watching the water spill over the top."

      Overpeck said the team�s next step will be developing a more precise estimate of the threshold of ice sheet and sea level change beyond which major sea level rise is inevitable.



      ----- ### -----
      J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
      mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
    • Mike Neuman
      When circulating the article, it s important to mention that these changes will not just arrive all at once at the close of the century. The projected sea
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        When circulating the article, it's important to mention that these
        changes will not just arrive all at once at the close of the century.
        The projected sea level increases and temperature climbs will
        continue to get worse as the century progresses, getting more severe
        as the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere keep piling up.

        There may be a way to stop or at least extend the length of time
        before that happens but major actions have to be taken now, not 5,
        10, 20 or 50 years from now. It requires dramatically curtailing the
        amount of greenhouse gas we are pumping into the atmosphere from fuel
        burning. If we wait 50, 20, 10 or even 5 more years to begin
        massively reducing aggregate amounts of such gases to the atmosphere,
        the sooner and faster the oceans will rise. Acting now, therefore,
        is imperative.

        In the U.S., motorized transportation contributes the largest
        quantity (about a third) of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere out of
        the 4 major economic sectors. Personal automobile driving
        contributes two-thirds of that amount.

        It is not enough to switch to operating more fuel efficient vehicles,
        either, because even with a fuel efficient vehicle you can reduce
        your emissions further by not driving it.

        To really get down to confronting global warming, Americans need to
        become car-free. Other actions Americans can take in confronting
        global warming include avoiding all long distance trips by airplane
        or train, conserving energy in the home, avoiding fuel burning
        recreational activities (ATVs, snowmobiles use, motor boating), and
        not supporting NASCAR.

        Widespread burning of nonpetroleum fuel sources, such as biofuels and
        ethanol, is also problematic because burning these fuels still adds
        to the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

        Since people will seldom change their habits unless they see that it
        is in their best interest to make the changes, it should be the
        function of the government in this case to make it in the people's
        best personal interest to drive less or go car-free throughout the
        year. (There are other social and economic benefits of less overall
        driving as well, such as less air pollution, better individual
        health, reduced highway expansion and upkeep expenditures). The
        government can make it more in the public's best interest by
        incentivizing not driving.

        Some of us have been sounding the alarm on global warming for quite
        some time now already. There still may be time to act, but the time
        may be running thin, now.

        Mike Neuman

        Conserve, NOW!
        Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Environmental Costs by
        Offering Financial Incentives that Reward Less Driving, Flying and
        Home Energy Use

        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConserveNOW/

        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > Hi All,
        >
        > This is an especially alarming report on sea-level rise and comes
        with
        > two graphics that might get the attention even of Americans (since
        the
        > flooded areas shown are in the USA). This problem is turning out to
        be
        > MUCH more serious that scientists had previously thought. See
        especially
        > this part:
        >
        > -----------
        >
        > Although ice sheet disintegration and the subsequent sea level rise
        lags
        > behind rising temperatures, the process will become irreversible
        sometime
        > in the second half of the 21st century, Overpeck said, "unless
        something
        > is done to dramatically reduce human emissions of greenhouse gas
        pollution.
        >
        > "We need to start serious measures to reduce greenhouse gases
        within the
        > next decade. If we don't do something soon, we're committed to four-
        to-six
        > meters (13 to 20 feet) of sea level rise in the future."
        >
        > ------------
        >
        > If this is not enough to get people to act, I don't know what is.
        > Let's try to see that this gets circulated widely.
        >
        > Regards,
        > J.H. Crawford
        >
        > Polar melting may raise sea level sooner than expected
        >
        > http://www.innovations-
        report.com/html/reports/earth_sciences/report-57103.html
        >
        > [see images in source]
        >
        > The Earth's warming temperatures are on track to melt the Greenland
        and Antarctic ice sheets sooner than previously thought and
        ultimately lead to a global sea level rise of at least 20 feet,
        according to new research.

        (snipped)
      • J.H. Crawford
        ... no, no, no. Tax all driving, hard. Tax flying, tax carbon. Don t reward people for buying more efficient cars, tax the hell out of them for buying Tahoes.
        Message 3 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Mike Neuman said, in a generally well-intentioned and sensible post:

          >Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Environmental Costs by
          >Offering Financial Incentives that Reward Less Driving, Flying and
          >Home Energy Use

          no, no, no. Tax all driving, hard. Tax flying, tax carbon.
          Don't reward people for buying more efficient cars, tax
          the hell out of them for buying Tahoes. Tax 'em good even
          for buying a Prius--say half as much as for buying a Tahoe.
          Europe has been doing this for generations. The USA needs
          to start now. There's no other way. Sorry.

          The people who don't have cars and don't drive are doing
          the least harm and are never rewarded under these kinds of
          "reward" schemes.

          Regards,



          ----- ### -----
          J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
          mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
        • Mike Neuman
          Who said anything about rewarding people for buying more fuel efficient cars? Not me. Under this plan, people who don t own cars would get the maximum rebate!
          Message 4 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Who said anything about rewarding people for buying more fuel
            efficient cars? Not me. Under this plan, people who don't own cars
            would get the maximum rebate!

            The incentives would be for not driving cars. The government would
            take the money the billions of dollars used for building highways and
            offer it back to the public as rewards for driving less. The money
            would come from raising fuel taxes (as you want), and from other
            sources like the military.

            Mike


            --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
            wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Mike Neuman said, in a generally well-intentioned and sensible post:
            >
            > >Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Environmental Costs by
            > >Offering Financial Incentives that Reward Less Driving, Flying and
            > >Home Energy Use
            >
            > no, no, no. Tax all driving, hard. Tax flying, tax carbon.
            > Don't reward people for buying more efficient cars, tax
            > the hell out of them for buying Tahoes. Tax 'em good even
            > for buying a Prius--say half as much as for buying a Tahoe.
            > Europe has been doing this for generations. The USA needs
            > to start now. There's no other way. Sorry.
            >
            > The people who don't have cars and don't drive are doing
            > the least harm and are never rewarded under these kinds of
            > "reward" schemes.
            >
            > Regards,
            >
            >
            >
            > ----- ### -----
            > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            > mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
            >
          • John Bredin
            To really get down to confronting global warming, Americans need to become car-free. Other actions Americans can take in confronting global warming include
            Message 5 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              "To really get down to confronting global warming, Americans need to
              become car-free. Other actions Americans can take in confronting
              global warming include avoiding all long distance trips by airplane
              or train, conserving energy in the home, avoiding fuel burning
              recreational activities (ATVs, snowmobiles use, motor boating), and
              not supporting NASCAR."

              Excuse me, avoiding ALL long distance trips by TRAIN?!?

              First, you're lumping fuel-efficient trains with cars and airplanes
              in wastefulness.

              Second, if I (who live in Chicago) was car-free AND not taking ANY
              long-distance trips by plane OR train, I could, what, never leave
              metro Chicago? Never leave Illinois? Or just never leave the Midwest?

              Never again visiting my relatives on the East Coast? Not being able
              to send my kid (if and when I have one) to Harvard or Stanford?

              If you're going to blithely lump long-distance rail travel in with
              driving and flying as environmental no-no's, you're essentially
              talking about totally balkanizing the country. Most Americans, even
              people with strong environmentalist leanings, aren't going to buy it
              and are going to tend to ignore all your suggestions as similarly
              untenable. (For the record, I agree with most of your posting except
              for the train thing.)
            • Mike Neuman
              ... Midwest? ... What I am proposing are yearly positive incentives for avoiding motorized travel of any kind. You wouldn t be obligated to avoid anything.
              Message 6 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "John Bredin" <jbbredin@...>
                wrote:

                > ... if I (who live in Chicago) was car-free AND not taking ANY
                > long-distance trips by plane OR train, I could, what, never leave
                > metro Chicago? Never leave Illinois? Or just never leave the
                Midwest?
                >
                > Never again visiting my relatives on the East Coast? Not being able
                > to send my kid (if and when I have one) to Harvard or Stanford?

                > ...

                What I am proposing are yearly positive incentives for avoiding
                motorized travel of any kind. You wouldn't be obligated to avoid
                anything. It would be your choice to avoid getting the rebates.

                Currently, the airline industry gets away with paying no taxes on
                aviation fuel. It's about time they do that. That's where most of
                the money should come from to pay these "nonfrequent flyer" rebates.


                The rebates should also apply to avoiding long-distance train travel,
                or at least those propelled by diesel engines, since they emit
                greenhouse gases, too.

                Mike
              • J.H. Crawford
                Look, folks, the long-proposed carbon tax is a simple and probably very efficient way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (It would also help with petroleum
                Message 7 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Look, folks, the long-proposed carbon tax is a simple
                  and probably very efficient way to reduce greenhouse
                  gas emissions. (It would also help with petroleum
                  exhaustion--anyone notice what's happening with the
                  price of oil? $67 today and rising.) It would favor
                  efficient modes (like rail) and slow/stop growth in
                  inefficient modes (like air). It further has the effect
                  of making modes that can use electricity from renewable
                  sources (wind, solar) less expensive (electric trains).

                  And, again, please... no rebates.

                  Regards,


                  ----- ### -----
                  J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                  mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                • John Bredin
                  ... of ... rebates. ... travel, ... I apologize then, but the incentive aspect wasn t clear in your original posting. I was reacting to this passage: To
                  Message 8 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > What I am proposing are yearly positive incentives for avoiding
                    > motorized travel of any kind. You wouldn't be obligated to avoid
                    > anything. It would be your choice to avoid getting the rebates.
                    >
                    > Currently, the airline industry gets away with paying no taxes on
                    > aviation fuel. It's about time they do that. That's where most
                    of
                    > the money should come from to pay these "nonfrequent flyer"
                    rebates.
                    >
                    >
                    > The rebates should also apply to avoiding long-distance train
                    travel,
                    > or at least those propelled by diesel engines, since they emit
                    > greenhouse gases, too.
                    >
                    > Mike
                    >
                    I apologize then, but the incentive aspect wasn't clear in your
                    original posting. I was reacting to this passage:

                    "To really get down to confronting global warming, Americans need to
                    become car-free. Other actions Americans can take in confronting
                    global warming include avoiding all long distance trips by airplane
                    or train, conserving energy in the home, avoiding fuel burning
                    recreational activities (ATVs, snowmobiles use, motor boating), and
                    not supporting NASCAR."

                    You seem in this paragraph to be generally suggesting what Americans
                    should do to confront global warming. My problem was that you were
                    including, in a list of tasks that are otherwise reasonable and
                    feasible, a task that I consider nigh-impossible to perform AS
                    WRITTEN. A person can live their entire life car-free if they have
                    convenient public transit. One can conserve energy every day by
                    (among other things) diligently shutting down devices that use
                    electricity whenever they're not in use. One can engage in a myriad
                    of recreational activities that don't involve burning fuel. On the
                    other hand, it's hard to envision a person living year after year
                    without ever traveling to another city (which is the sum total of
                    being car-free *and* "avoiding all long distance trips by airplane
                    or train") either to visit relatives, to attend funerals or
                    weddings, to enjoy the cultural exchange of visiting a different
                    place, or even just once in their life to attend university.

                    Obviously, if you're talking about fiscal incentives, you're right
                    that a person can make their own choice regarding whether a given
                    trip or the tax incentive is more valuable. I would, however,
                    suggest not disincentivizing rail travel to the same degree as auto
                    or air travel. Though it DOES produce pollution and consume energy,
                    it does not do either to the same extent as driving or aviation.
                  • Mike Neuman
                    ... The so-called carbon tax hurts those most affected by the high gasoline prices of today already - the low to middle class persons who reside in areas not
                    Message 9 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Look, folks, the long-proposed carbon tax is a simple
                      > and probably very efficient way to reduce greenhouse
                      > gas emissions.

                      The so-called carbon tax hurts those most affected by the high
                      gasoline prices of today already - the low to middle class persons who
                      reside in areas not served by mass transit (incl. bus transit).

                      Where would you put all that added money once you collect it from the
                      carbon tax? What's so wrong about redistributing the money bacl to
                      those who drive a minimum or no miles over the year?

                      A gradual rise of sea level to 20 feet by the end of the century is
                      what we are going to get if we do nothing.

                      Mike
                    • J.H. Crawford
                      ... income tax reductions for the working poor and lower middle class ... that s right ... J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                      Message 10 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >Where would you put all that added money once you collect it from the
                        >carbon tax?

                        income tax reductions for the working poor and lower middle class

                        >A gradual rise of sea level to 20 feet by the end of the century is
                        >what we are going to get if we do nothing.

                        that's right



                        ----- ### -----
                        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                        mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                      • mtneuman@juno.com
                        ... Why not put the money where they will do some good in fighting pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, highway building, traffic congestion, and still help
                        Message 11 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >
                          > income tax reductions for the working poor and lower middle class
                          >
                          Why not put the money where they will do some good in fighting pollution,
                          greenhouse gas emissions, highway building, traffic congestion, and still
                          help the poor and the middle class: Rebates for Driving Less (or not
                          driving at all)!


                          Mike Neuman
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConserveNOW/message/30

                          "It is never pointless to think about alternatives that may at the moment
                          seem improbable, impossible, or simply fantastic."
                          -- V�clav Havel
                        • Simon Baddeley
                          The focal point for redistributed tax money has to include education - in many forms and many places. One of the most successful campaigns for helping to get
                          Message 12 of 28 , Mar 30, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The focal point for redistributed tax money has to include education - in
                            many forms and many places. One of the most successful campaigns for helping
                            to get girls to stay on at school in Bengal was via investing in birth
                            control information in school buses used by young pupils. This form of
                            education plus supplementary incentives saw young women who would previously
                            have dropped out of school while boys continued to secondary education,
                            staying on and as result redressing the imbalance of gender power that
                            contributed to unsustainable population growth. Car companies are astute at
                            using these methods to insinuate autodependency into the minds of the young
                            at an early age. We need ingenious ideas on school buses. As a regular
                            traveller on buses (with my folding bicycle) in Birmingham and elsewhere I
                            see ads for concessionary fares, ads against dropping litter, ads for bus
                            drivers. I would have thought some publicity for green travel such as
                            cycling would not run amiss and not be seen as competing with bus travel.
                            How about ad, congratulating passengers for choosing then greener option of
                            bus travel - showing the bus "footprint" compared to the number of cars that
                            would be on the road if passengers were travelling that way.

                            Simon


                            > From: <mtneuman@...>
                            > Reply-To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 23:54:01 -0600
                            > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Climate change: And still they slept on....
                            >
                            >
                            >>
                            >> income tax reductions for the working poor and lower middle class
                            >>
                            > Why not put the money where they will do some good in fighting pollution,
                            > greenhouse gas emissions, highway building, traffic congestion, and still
                            > help the poor and the middle class: Rebates for Driving Less (or not
                            > driving at all)!
                            >
                            >
                            > Mike Neuman
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConserveNOW/message/30
                            >
                            > "It is never pointless to think about alternatives that may at the moment
                            > seem improbable, impossible, or simply fantastic."
                            > -- Václav Havel
                            >
                          • J.H. Crawford
                            The Rebates vs. Carbon Tax debate is closed. All the useful points have now been made. ... J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                            Message 13 of 28 , Mar 31, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The Rebates vs. Carbon Tax debate is closed. All the useful
                              points have now been made.



                              >
                              >>
                              >> income tax reductions for the working poor and lower middle class
                              >>
                              >Why not put the money where they will do some good in fighting pollution,
                              >greenhouse gas emissions, highway building, traffic congestion, and still
                              >help the poor and the middle class: Rebates for Driving Less (or not
                              >driving at all)!
                              >
                              >
                              >Mike Neuman
                              >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConserveNOW/message/30
                              >
                              >"It is never pointless to think about alternatives that may at the moment
                              >seem improbable, impossible, or simply fantastic."
                              >-- Václav Havel
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >


                              ----- ### -----
                              J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                              mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                            • Mike Neuman
                              ... With encouragement by a local bicycling advocacy contingient that I belong to, our metro bus system has accomodated the needs of bicyclists with a Bikes
                              Message 14 of 28 , Mar 31, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Simon Baddeley <s.j.baddeley@...> wrote:

                                > We need ingenious ideas on school buses. As a regular traveller on
                                > buses (with my folding bicycle) in Birmingham and elsewhere ...

                                With "encouragement" by a local bicycling advocacy contingient that I
                                belong to, our metro bus system has accomodated the needs of bicyclists
                                with a "Bikes on Buses" program. It's used fairly often (more than I
                                thought it would be) and appreciated. I haven't used it myself but
                                others use it when caught in bad weather, with flats, or if a route is
                                unsafe or too long at the beginning or terminus.
                                http://www.mymetrobus.com/RackRoll/BikeRacks.htm

                                My apologies, but since the "R" word has been censured, I can only
                                reply to the second half of your post.

                                Mike
                              • J.H. Crawford
                                ... Rebate is not censored, but we ve covered all the ground, no? ... J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                Message 15 of 28 , Mar 31, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  >My apologies, but since the "R" word has been censured, I can only
                                  >reply to the second half of your post.

                                  "Rebate" is not censored, but we've covered all the ground, no?


                                  ----- ### -----
                                  J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                  mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                                • Mike Neuman
                                  I just finished listening to a rebroadcast of a program on NPR s On Point which was on the topic we are talking about. The show was called: Solutions to
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Mar 31, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I just finished listening to a rebroadcast of a program on NPR's "On
                                    Point" which was on the topic we are talking about. The show was
                                    called: "Solutions to the Global Warming Crisis".

                                    The attention grabber: "The consensus is in. We've got maybe ten
                                    years to stabilize global warming or else. So, let's get real. What
                                    would it really take to win this battle?"
                                    http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/03/20060330_a_main.asp

                                    Ten years is, according to NASA's Goddard Institute Director James
                                    Hansen, about all the time we have left to do something to prevent
                                    planetary catastrophe from global warming (such as the onset of a
                                    gradually increasing 20 foot rise in the level of the oceans).

                                    About 5 minutes into the show, program host Tom Ashbrook interviews a
                                    former professor of mine from the 70s, Daniel Bromley, who is still
                                    BTW teaching at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where I obtained
                                    my degrees.

                                    He's not what very many people call you typical bean counter. I'll
                                    let him describe his line of thinking himself:

                                    "Some of my friends are economists, who spend their lives putting
                                    dollar values on things, and I regard it as an enormous waste of
                                    time. I have to be polite with them and I chide them about "why are
                                    you doing this?" But I think it is a disaster."

                                    "It is a disaster because if you live by the sword, you'd better be
                                    prepared to die by the sword. You put dollar values on things and,
                                    low and behold, you want to be careful because somebody might come
                                    along, a developer might come along, and say "I've got a higher
                                    dollar value for this wetland than what you've shown it to be `worth'
                                    for filtering and breeding habitat. Therefore get out of here and I'm
                                    going to turn this into a shopping mall with a big asphalt parking
                                    lot.""

                                    "So I resist putting dollar values on nature because somebody can
                                    always trump you and somebody can always beat you at your own game."
                                    http://www.earthsky.com/humanworld/quotes.php?id=44509
                                    http://www.aae.wisc.edu/dbromley//cvbio/dwbbio.pdf

                                    Anyway, if you listen to the NPR show, he argues strongly in favor of
                                    taking the carbon tax approach, which is to increase taxes on
                                    fuels. I support that approach. Contrary to how J.H. Crawford sums
                                    things up, it's not "The Rebates vs. Carbon Tax debate", it's what to
                                    do with the tax revenues that are brought in as a result of the
                                    higher taxes paid on fuel.

                                    Simon B. says: "the focal point for redistributed tax money has to
                                    include education - in many forms and many places". I agree with
                                    that. What better way is there to educate people on the importance
                                    and benefits of conserving energy than by rewarding them for using
                                    less of it (with rebates)?

                                    J.H.C. says the people who don't have cars and don't drive are doing
                                    the least harm and are never rewarded. Under a program that rewards
                                    individuals and families for driving less, those who don't own
                                    (register) a car get the maximum rebate allowed.

                                    J.H.C. says use the tax revenues from the higher fuel taxes to reduce
                                    income taxes for the working poor and lower middle class families to
                                    which I respond that in offering the new tax revenues to people and
                                    families who burn fewer fossil fuels, we would be helping the low and
                                    middle income people the most since studies show the lower the income
                                    people have, the less miles they typically drive in a year (no big
                                    surprise there). But by constructing the scale for the positive
                                    incentives to be in an inverse relationship to the number of miles
                                    driven, there would be incentives for people to drive even less than
                                    they do now.

                                    Madison, the city I reside in, has an excellent mass transit system.
                                    It has bike paths all over the place, and most of the streets have
                                    sidewalks already - and designed for use by EVERYONE.

                                    Fuel prices have already increased dramatically here, like everywhere
                                    else, but people are still not filling the buses, bicycle paths and
                                    sidewalks. Instead, they are purchasing less of other things, such
                                    as live entertainment, the arts, music, education and maybe books.

                                    Classrooms are getting larger, not smaller like they should be. But
                                    traffic levels continue to grow.

                                    Air pollution health advisories are increasing.

                                    There needs to be meaningful POSITIVE incentives ("rebates"), in
                                    addition to the increasing prices of gasoline to encourage greater
                                    use of the transit system, the bicycle paths and the sidewalks.
                                    Otherwise, auto traffic will continue to grow.)

                                    No one bothered to ask how the program would be implemented. It's
                                    described in the paper. Odometer meter recording is not rocket
                                    science.

                                    Have we covered all the ground yet? Why do you ask?

                                    Al Gore argued for the Carbon Tax back in the 1990s. My professors
                                    were arguing for a pollution tax back in the 1970s, which I
                                    supported. Professor Bromley and others ratcheting up the carbon tax
                                    concept again. Unfortunately, unless it can sold as more just
                                    another Robin Hood type of proposal, it has about as much of a chance
                                    of success as a snowball on Earth ninety-four years from now.

                                    --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > >My apologies, but since the "R" word has been censured, I can only
                                    > >reply to the second half of your post.
                                    >
                                    > "Rebate" is not censored, but we've covered all the ground, no?

                                    Yea, sure.

                                    mtn
                                  • Philip Riggs
                                    I ll chime in once (sorry JHC) to point out cost of burden of rebates. On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Mike Neuman wrote: Under a program that rewards individuals
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Mar 31, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I'll chime in once (sorry JHC) to point out cost of burden of rebates.

                                      On Mar 31, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Mike Neuman wrote:
                                      Under a program that rewards
                                      individuals and families for driving less, those who don't own
                                      (register) a car get the maximum rebate allowed.

                                      By rebate, I assume it would work by having to file some paperwork at
                                      the end of the year to collect, just as to claim a rebate for a
                                      commercial purchase requires sending the UPC from the box, copy of
                                      receipt, etc. Not a good idea. It burdens individuals who are not the
                                      problem. Additionally, people who would most benefit would equate
                                      rebate with additional work and reject it.

                                      I agree with with the approach using taxes that put the burden of not
                                      only paying for oil use, but also the burden of associated paperwork
                                      (translate: time to do themselves, or money to pay someone else).
                                      Moreover, there should be lots and lots of additional burdens that
                                      should require personal attention (time and effort) from the
                                      individual rather than only a financial burden that the wealthiest
                                      can easily pay or hire someone else to perform.

                                      it's what to
                                      do with the tax revenues that are brought in as a result of the
                                      higher taxes paid on fuel.

                                      How revenues are used and distributed would be up to the government,
                                      just as "sin" taxes or any other taxes are now. Education, as well as
                                      other social services, would be included in general revenues as long
                                      as a Bush type isn't in office to use it for a tax break based on
                                      income or personal friendship. Thus the Bush rebate plan! "Give the
                                      money back to the ones who contributed the most."

                                      So I say forget rebates, increase cost and burden of use and keep the
                                      money for social services.

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Ian Fiddies
                                      What we have in Sweden is a tax rebate for miles driven in or to work. There is a suggestion being discussed now to change this and replace it with a kilometre
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Mar 31, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        What we have in Sweden is a tax rebate for miles driven in or to work. There
                                        is a suggestion being discussed now to change this and replace it with a
                                        kilometre rebate. This would mean that the cyclist would be reimbursed the
                                        same amount as the car driver. As things stand today if you drive 10km to
                                        work you get a rebate, if you cycle the same stretch you get FA.



                                        Another suggestion that is in the pipeline is changing the law so that
                                        employers can give their workforce travel passes without them being taxed.



                                        Ian Fiddies
                                      • mtneuman@juno.com
                                        On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:47:19 -0700 Philip Riggs ... An example of how the plan would work is provided as follows: A person voluntarily enrolls in the program
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Mar 31, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:47:19 -0700 Philip Riggs
                                          <priggs@...> writes:

                                          > By rebate, I assume it would work by having to file some paperwork
                                          > at the end of the year to collect, just as to claim a rebate for a
                                          > commercial purchase requires sending the UPC from the box, copy of
                                          > receipt, etc.

                                          An example of how the plan would work is provided as follows:

                                          A person voluntarily enrolls in the program by having the odometer of his
                                          vehicle read and recorded. After a year goes by, the person has the
                                          odometer read again, and if the odometer shows less than 6,000 miles for
                                          the preceding year, the person received a $400 check. If the odometer(s)
                                          shows less than 4,000 miles, the person receives $800. If the odometer(s)
                                          shows less that 2,000 miles, he receives a check for $1,200.

                                          The amounts paid per mileage threshold could be set higher, or lower,
                                          based on the overall transportation budget level and the desired results.
                                          A $30 application fee to enroll in the program would cover any
                                          administration cost associated with the program.

                                          The idea is not that different than what many insurance companies have
                                          done for years, which is to charge lower premiums to policy holders if
                                          they drive a their vehicles less than 7,500 miles a year. The difference
                                          here is that it would apply to all the vehicles registered to the
                                          household, not just a single vehicle, and the rewards would be higher.
                                          (The amounts paid per mileage threshold could be set higher, or lower,
                                          based on the overall transportation budget level and the desired
                                          results.)

                                          The simplicity and low cost of administering this concept is attested to
                                          by the insurance industry itself.
                                          http://www.centspermilenow.org/odometer.htm

                                          The plan would encourage people to choose locations for living that are
                                          closer to where they work, shop, and play, rather than choosing their
                                          residences at considerable distance from where they normally need to be,
                                          as is presently the case for many people who commute long distances to
                                          work.

                                          > Not a good idea. It burdens individuals who are not
                                          > the
                                          > problem. Additionally, people who would most benefit would equate
                                          > rebate with additional work and reject it.

                                          I've been paying the minimum rate to insure my vehicles for years by
                                          claiming the low annual mileage stipulation. It's not a high promotional
                                          item for American Family Insurance, because it doesn't bring in as much
                                          money in premiums, but people who know about (like me) don't reject,
                                          provided they choose not to drive much over the year.
                                          >
                                          > I agree with with the approach using taxes that put the burden of
                                          > not
                                          > only paying for oil use, but also the burden of associated paperwork
                                          >
                                          > (translate: time to do themselves, or money to pay someone else).
                                          > Moreover, there should be lots and lots of additional burdens that
                                          > should require personal attention (time and effort) from the
                                          > individual rather than only a financial burden that the wealthiest
                                          > can easily pay or hire someone else to perform.

                                          There would be no reason to hire anyone to do this. It'd be as simple as
                                          renewing your vehicle license every year. It'd be even easier if you
                                          didn't own or lease a vehicle at all. All you'd need to do is complete
                                          the one-page application form.


                                          > How revenues are used and distributed would be up to the government,
                                          >
                                          > just as "sin" taxes or any other taxes are now.

                                          That's the way fuel taxes are dispersed now. The government determines
                                          which highway and bridge projects get fund. The tax revenues go to the
                                          road building industry, to lay more concrete for more highway driving.
                                          That's a sin tax if there ever was one. The rest of your arguments don't
                                          apply to this proposal at all. The only ones who would benefit
                                          financially would be those individuals and families who drove less, or
                                          not at all during the year. But the benefits of reduced driving levels
                                          everywhere in the jurisdiction that chose to implement this would be
                                          immense in terms of public health, reduced public cost and the
                                          environment.

                                          > Education, as well as other social services, would be included in
                                          general revenues as long
                                          >
                                          > as a Bush type isn't in office to use it for a tax break based on
                                          > income or personal friendship. Thus the Bush rebate plan! "Give the
                                          >
                                          > money back to the ones who contributed the most."
                                          >
                                          > So I say forget rebates, increase cost and burden of use and keep
                                          > the
                                          > money for social services.

                                          Mike Neuman


                                          "But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call
                                          themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but
                                          at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of
                                          government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward
                                          obtaining it."
                                          - Henry David Thoreau
                                        • J.H. Crawford
                                          Hi All, Ok, this topic really is OVER. It isn t even about carfree cities. Yes, rebates might be made to work with a bureaucracy the size of, say, social
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Apr 1, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi All,

                                            Ok, this topic really is OVER. It isn't even about carfree cities.

                                            Yes, rebates might be made to work with a bureaucracy the
                                            size of, say, social security and lots of people doing
                                            enforcement (odometer cheating), and some way to figure
                                            out how to give the $2000 check to people who actually
                                            don't have a car (and some way to verify that they're
                                            not cheating, say sub-cutaneous RFID devices for everyone),
                                            and etc., etc., etc.

                                            Oh, and by the way, where does all the rebate money come from?
                                            Borrowed from the Chinese, I suppose.

                                            If you do a carbon tax, it really is simple to administer.
                                            Just tax at the well-head or whatever. No carbon in your
                                            energy? No tax. The tax money can be used for anything,
                                            even including paying back the Chinese.

                                            Regards,

                                            Joel


                                            >On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:47:19 -0700 Philip Riggs
                                            ><priggs@...> writes:
                                            >
                                            >> By rebate, I assume it would work by having to file some paperwork
                                            >> at the end of the year to collect, just as to claim a rebate for a
                                            >> commercial purchase requires sending the UPC from the box, copy of
                                            >> receipt, etc.
                                            >
                                            >An example of how the plan would work is provided as follows:
                                            >
                                            >A person voluntarily enrolls in the program by having the odometer of his
                                            >vehicle read and recorded. After a year goes by, the person has the
                                            >odometer read again, and if the odometer shows less than 6,000 miles for
                                            >the preceding year, the person received a $400 check. If the odometer(s)
                                            >shows less than 4,000 miles, the person receives $800. If the odometer(s)
                                            >shows less that 2,000 miles, he receives a check for $1,200.
                                            >
                                            >The amounts paid per mileage threshold could be set higher, or lower,
                                            >based on the overall transportation budget level and the desired results.
                                            > A $30 application fee to enroll in the program would cover any
                                            >administration cost associated with the program.
                                            >
                                            >The idea is not that different than what many insurance companies have
                                            >done for years, which is to charge lower premiums to policy holders if
                                            >they drive a their vehicles less than 7,500 miles a year. The difference
                                            >here is that it would apply to all the vehicles registered to the
                                            >household, not just a single vehicle, and the rewards would be higher.
                                            >(The amounts paid per mileage threshold could be set higher, or lower,
                                            >based on the overall transportation budget level and the desired
                                            >results.)
                                            >
                                            >The simplicity and low cost of administering this concept is attested to
                                            >by the insurance industry itself.
                                            >http://www.centspermilenow.org/odometer.htm
                                            >
                                            >The plan would encourage people to choose locations for living that are
                                            >closer to where they work, shop, and play, rather than choosing their
                                            >residences at considerable distance from where they normally need to be,
                                            >as is presently the case for many people who commute long distances to
                                            >work.
                                            >
                                            >> Not a good idea. It burdens individuals who are not
                                            >> the
                                            >> problem. Additionally, people who would most benefit would equate
                                            >> rebate with additional work and reject it.
                                            >
                                            >I've been paying the minimum rate to insure my vehicles for years by
                                            >claiming the low annual mileage stipulation. It's not a high promotional
                                            >item for American Family Insurance, because it doesn't bring in as much
                                            >money in premiums, but people who know about (like me) don't reject,
                                            >provided they choose not to drive much over the year.
                                            >>
                                            >> I agree with with the approach using taxes that put the burden of
                                            >> not
                                            >> only paying for oil use, but also the burden of associated paperwork
                                            >>
                                            >> (translate: time to do themselves, or money to pay someone else).
                                            >> Moreover, there should be lots and lots of additional burdens that
                                            >> should require personal attention (time and effort) from the
                                            >> individual rather than only a financial burden that the wealthiest
                                            >> can easily pay or hire someone else to perform.
                                            >
                                            >There would be no reason to hire anyone to do this. It'd be as simple as
                                            >renewing your vehicle license every year. It'd be even easier if you
                                            >didn't own or lease a vehicle at all. All you'd need to do is complete
                                            >the one-page application form.
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >> How revenues are used and distributed would be up to the government,
                                            >>
                                            >> just as "sin" taxes or any other taxes are now.
                                            >
                                            >That's the way fuel taxes are dispersed now. The government determines
                                            >which highway and bridge projects get fund. The tax revenues go to the
                                            >road building industry, to lay more concrete for more highway driving.
                                            >That's a sin tax if there ever was one. The rest of your arguments don't
                                            >apply to this proposal at all. The only ones who would benefit
                                            >financially would be those individuals and families who drove less, or
                                            >not at all during the year. But the benefits of reduced driving levels
                                            >everywhere in the jurisdiction that chose to implement this would be
                                            >immense in terms of public health, reduced public cost and the
                                            >environment.
                                            >
                                            >> Education, as well as other social services, would be included in
                                            >general revenues as long
                                            >>
                                            >> as a Bush type isn't in office to use it for a tax break based on
                                            >> income or personal friendship. Thus the Bush rebate plan! "Give the
                                            >>
                                            >> money back to the ones who contributed the most."
                                            >>
                                            >> So I say forget rebates, increase cost and burden of use and keep
                                            >> the
                                            >> money for social services.
                                            >
                                            >Mike Neuman
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >"But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call
                                            >themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but
                                            >at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of
                                            >government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward
                                            >obtaining it."
                                            >- Henry David Thoreau
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >


                                            ----- ### -----
                                            J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
                                            mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
                                          • Andrew Dawson
                                            ... Here in Montreal we have a similar thing going on with our buses. http://www.atuq.com/actualité/actualite_35.asp
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Apr 1, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Simon Baddeley wrote:
                                              >Car companies are astute at
                                              >using these methods to insinuate autodependency into the minds of the young
                                              >at an early age. We need ingenious ideas on school buses. As a regular
                                              >traveller on buses (with my folding bicycle) in Birmingham and elsewhere I
                                              >see ads for concessionary fares, ads against dropping litter, ads for bus
                                              >drivers. I would have thought some publicity for green travel such as
                                              >cycling would not run amiss and not be seen as competing with bus travel.
                                              >How about ad, congratulating passengers for choosing then greener option of
                                              >bus travel - showing the bus "footprint" compared to the number of cars
                                              >that
                                              >would be on the road if passengers were travelling that way.

                                              Here in Montreal we have a similar thing going on with our buses.
                                              http://www.atuq.com/actualit%ef%bf%bd/actualite_35.asp
                                              http://www.atuq.com/actualit%ef%bf%bd/actualite_36.asp

                                              Later, Andrew
                                            • Christopher Miller
                                              ... Interesting; I haven t been on a Montreal bus (as opposed to the Metro) for ages. Are they up on the buses already? One thing I think would be useful is to
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Apr 1, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                On Apr 1, 2006, at 8:21 PM, Andrew Dawson wrote:

                                                > Simon Baddeley wrote:
                                                >> Car companies are astute at
                                                >> using these methods to insinuate autodependency into the minds of
                                                >> the young
                                                >> at an early age. We need ingenious ideas on school buses. As a
                                                >> regular
                                                >> traveller on buses (with my folding bicycle) in Birmingham and
                                                >> elsewhere I
                                                >> see ads for concessionary fares, ads against dropping litter, ads
                                                >> for bus
                                                >> drivers. I would have thought some publicity for green travel such as
                                                >> cycling would not run amiss and not be seen as competing with bus
                                                >> travel.
                                                >> How about ad, congratulating passengers for choosing then greener
                                                >> option of
                                                >> bus travel - showing the bus "footprint" compared to the number of
                                                >> cars
                                                >> that
                                                >> would be on the road if passengers were travelling that way.
                                                >
                                                > Here in Montreal we have a similar thing going on with our buses.
                                                > http://www.atuq.com/actualit%c3%a9/actualite_35.asp
                                                > http://www.atuq.com/actualit%c3%a9/actualite_36.asp

                                                Interesting; I haven't been on a Montreal bus (as opposed to the
                                                Metro) for ages. Are they up on the buses already?
                                                One thing I think would be useful is to have these ads on TV and
                                                radio and in the papers as well (and not just the free "Metro"
                                                newspaper that belongs to the Swedish-owned international chain): it
                                                seems to me that targeting these ads only at transit users is setting
                                                one's sights a bit low...

                                                Here's a direct link to a PDF showing the ads in question, which are
                                                supposed to be placed in buses in the nine public transit
                                                corporations around Quebec:

                                                http://www.atuq.com/_library/images/contentImages/Visuels_regroupes.pdf

                                                "By taking public transit

                                                - Pierre and Sophie are getting rid of traffic jams
                                                - Jacqueline is taking care of smog
                                                - Pierre and Sophie are freeing up traffic
                                                - Lea is protecting the environment
                                                - John is saving the planet
                                                - Marie-Ange is freeing up traffic
                                                - Raymonde is keeping the economy rolling
                                                - Marc is fighting against the greenhouse effect"


                                                Christopher Miller
                                                Montreal QC Canada
                                              • Andrew Dawson
                                                ... This means money which is always in short supply when is comes to mass transit. ... It s in house. ... These things are better off on the back of a bus
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Apr 2, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Christopher Miller wrote:
                                                  >Interesting; I haven't been on a Montreal bus (as opposed to the
                                                  >Metro) for ages. Are they up on the buses already?
                                                  >One thing I think would be useful is to have these ads on TV and
                                                  >radio and in the papers

                                                  This means money which is always in short supply when is comes to mass
                                                  transit.

                                                  >as well (and not just the free "Metro"
                                                  >newspaper that belongs to the Swedish-owned international chain): it
                                                  >seems to me that targeting these ads only at transit users is setting
                                                  >one's sights a bit low...

                                                  It's in house.

                                                  >Here's a direct link to a PDF showing the ads in question, which are
                                                  >supposed to be placed in buses in the nine public transit
                                                  >corporations around Quebec:
                                                  >
                                                  >http://www.atuq.com/_library/images/contentImages/Visuels_regroupes.pdf
                                                  >
                                                  >"By taking public transit
                                                  >
                                                  >- Pierre and Sophie are getting rid of traffic jams
                                                  >- Jacqueline is taking care of smog
                                                  >- Pierre and Sophie are freeing up traffic
                                                  >- Lea is protecting the environment
                                                  >- John is saving the planet
                                                  >- Marie-Ange is freeing up traffic
                                                  >- Raymonde is keeping the economy rolling
                                                  >- Marc is fighting against the greenhouse effect"

                                                  These things are better off on the back of a bus than inside of one.

                                                  Later, Andrew
                                                • Andrew Dawson
                                                  ... On a foot note there are things like Operation Lifesaver. http://www.oli.org/ http://www.operationlifesaver.ca/ Also when it comes to promoting rail and
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Apr 2, 2006
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    >Christopher Miller wrote:
                                                    > >Interesting; I haven't been on a Montreal bus (as opposed to the
                                                    > >Metro) for ages. Are they up on the buses already?
                                                    > >One thing I think would be useful is to have these ads on TV and
                                                    > >radio and in the papers
                                                    >
                                                    >This means money which is always in short supply when is comes to mass
                                                    >transit.
                                                    >
                                                    > >as well (and not just the free "Metro"
                                                    > >newspaper that belongs to the Swedish-owned international chain): it
                                                    > >seems to me that targeting these ads only at transit users is setting
                                                    > >one's sights a bit low...
                                                    >
                                                    >It's in house.
                                                    >
                                                    > >Here's a direct link to a PDF showing the ads in question, which are
                                                    > >supposed to be placed in buses in the nine public transit
                                                    > >corporations around Quebec:
                                                    > >
                                                    > >http://www.atuq.com/_library/images/contentImages/Visuels_regroupes.pdf
                                                    > >
                                                    > >"By taking public transit
                                                    > >
                                                    > >- Pierre and Sophie are getting rid of traffic jams
                                                    > >- Jacqueline is taking care of smog
                                                    > >- Pierre and Sophie are freeing up traffic
                                                    > >- Lea is protecting the environment
                                                    > >- John is saving the planet
                                                    > >- Marie-Ange is freeing up traffic
                                                    > >- Raymonde is keeping the economy rolling
                                                    > >- Marc is fighting against the greenhouse effect"
                                                    >
                                                    >These things are better off on the back of a bus than inside of one.

                                                    On a foot note there are things like Operation Lifesaver.
                                                    http://www.oli.org/
                                                    http://www.operationlifesaver.ca/

                                                    Also when it comes to promoting rail and the environment there hasn't been
                                                    much out there either.
                                                    http://www.imrcmodels.com/ho/html/45202.htm

                                                    Later, Andrew
                                                  • hcfdave
                                                    ... from the ... class? No-- carbon tax money should be directed toward making fares affordable, and special programs for greatly lowered fares for people with
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Apr 6, 2006
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "J.H. Crawford"
                                                      <mailbox@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > >Where would you put all that added money once you collect it
                                                      from the
                                                      > >carbon tax?
                                                      >
                                                      > income tax reductions for the working poor and lower middle
                                                      class?
                                                      No-- carbon tax money should be directed toward making fares
                                                      affordable, and special programs for greatly lowered fares for
                                                      people with low income, people with disabilities, as well as also
                                                      for people who don't have drivers licenses (maybe there should
                                                      be a "non-driver registry" and checking system to make sure no
                                                      criminal motorheads rip off the system-- if that reeks too much of
                                                      privacy invasion, substantial penalties for those caught ripping
                                                      off the pubic transpo system-- for example, If someone's car
                                                      breaks and there happens to be a bus that can rescue them in
                                                      spite of this driver's direct responsibility for the demise of public
                                                      transpo, they should certainly pay maximum fare!)

                                                      Happily-Car-Free Dave
                                                    • tokyotuds
                                                      ... Hi Ian, Here in Japan it is standard for employers to reimburse 100% of transit commuting costs to employees. My pass costs about US$75 a month (avg.
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Apr 8, 2006
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Fiddies" <v03fiia@...> wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > Another suggestion that is in the pipeline is changing the law so that
                                                        > employers can give their workforce travel passes without them being taxed.
                                                        >

                                                        > Ian Fiddies
                                                        >

                                                        Hi Ian,

                                                        Here in Japan it is standard for employers to reimburse 100% of transit commuting costs
                                                        to employees. My pass costs about US$75 a month (avg. US$150 in Tokyo) and the
                                                        reimbursement is a non-taxable benefit for me, and is deductible on my employers
                                                        corporate tax. And the community suffers one less car on the road to the office.

                                                        A win-win-win situation....

                                                        I feel absolutely every tax authority should adopt this policy. Even better is to eliminate
                                                        the paperwork by simply making transit free to the rider as JH Crawford advocates.

                                                        Mata,
                                                        TokyoTuds
                                                      • Andrew Dawson
                                                        ... So make public transit free and pay for it all through gas taxes. Later, Andrew
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Apr 9, 2006
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          tokyotuds wrote:
                                                          >Here in Japan it is standard for employers to reimburse 100% of transit
                                                          >commuting costs
                                                          >to employees. My pass costs about US$75 a month (avg. US$150 in Tokyo) and
                                                          >the
                                                          >reimbursement is a non-taxable benefit for me, and is deductible on my
                                                          >employers
                                                          >corporate tax. And the community suffers one less car on the road to the
                                                          >office.
                                                          >
                                                          >A win-win-win situation....
                                                          >
                                                          >I feel absolutely every tax authority should adopt this policy. Even
                                                          >better is to eliminate
                                                          >the paperwork by simply making transit free to the rider as JH Crawford
                                                          >advocates.

                                                          So make public transit free and pay for it all through gas taxes. Later,
                                                          Andrew
                                                        • Dan Kliman
                                                          ... That creates a big paradox, especially when the goal is car-free cities. In this scenerio, transit would become dependant on driving, and more
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Apr 9, 2006
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            --- Andrew Dawson <m82a1_dawson@...> wrote:
                                                            > So make public transit free and pay for it all
                                                            > through gas taxes.

                                                            That creates a big paradox, especially when the goal
                                                            is car-free cities. In this scenerio, transit would
                                                            become dependant on driving, and more specifically,
                                                            gas consumption.

                                                            You would be placing transit at the mercy of the
                                                            perpetuation of car driving.

                                                            Dan
                                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.