Population distribution and density patterns outside of the East Coast and certain other big cities don’t lend themselves to efficient public transport. Take a city like Detroit, for example. Most people aren’t commuting downtown from homes in the suburbs– they live in one suburb and work in another. And there isn’t enough of a flow between any two points to make light rail or subways feasible.

Then consider the situation in a medium size city, like say, Green Bay, WI. It’s not unusual to have people commuting to work from a county away, and again, and even if they were all headed to some central location they’re too thin on the ground to make mass transport feasible. Post-war growth of American cities tended to spread people out, largely because of cheap gas but also because of interstate highways and the growth of suburbs in themselves. Short of actually forcing people back into the cities three generations of demographic trend isn’t going to be reversed by increasing availability of public transport.

If there’s going to be serious effort to reduce carbon emissions its going to have to start at the back end.

Speedy

I’m guessing you live someplace urbanized where driving is probably not a necessity in the first place. Raising gas prices will cause lifestyle adjustments, but not on a large enough scale to do anything positive for the environment. There are all sorts of arguments for raising gas prices, financing the war mongering in the middle east, but there are more direct ways to protect the environment than raising gas prices.

As for the person who cannot afford the $2 a gallon, he can take the darn bus or if the public transportation sucks, even better reason for the Govt to develop a good one.

Glad to see you recognize that good public transit does not exist everywhere. =) There is still the issue of rural transit and farmers. The original contention that raising gas prices was a good way to help the environment. I think there are better approaches. For one, making the gas guzzler tax a real penalty. Hit them when they buy the SUV’s and hit them every year when the tag is renewed. That directly affects the people driving the shiny new land barges without penalizing the college student who is driving his 1992 civic hatchback that already gets 30mpg.

Combining a more aggressive gas guzzler tax with gov’t pressure on automakers to restrict the displacement of vehicles designed for passenger transit would slow the use of fuel inefficient vehicles that are already on the road while reducing the number of fuel inefficient cars produced & sold each year. All with minimal impact on the people who are already driving fuel efficient cars.

That would be one great day if it happened. And yes, that is very good ganja if it made you just dream that!

Probably not the right place to pick this bone, but how exactly is taxing gasoline more going to protect the environment?

Well for starters, all the SUV kissing people out there might realize that their poor babies don’t really need to watch their DVDs and lie around in a car the size of a football field while they fiddle with their cell phones. Their kids can easily get used to smaller car and they too. So Yay! for more taxation on gas. As for the person who cannot afford the $2 a gallon, he can take the darn bus or if the public transportation sucks, even better reason for the Govt to develop a good one. Anyways, on the same front Ford and Chrysler are showing huge losses in the last quarter, hopefully now they will develop more fuel efficient cars.

clearly we needs the obama in india. we are stuck with this madam sonia (pbuh) onleee.

thanking you saar.

but how exactly is taxing gasoline more going to protect the environment?

Your comment assumes that energy consumption is somehow mandatory and static. In fact, its very elastic to price. So, the guy who can’t afford $2 gas is probably going to find a more efficient way to live his life…like using public transportation. Using a 20mpg car is not some birthright. I understand that any increased taxation should be a gradual thing, so people can adapt to it over time.

Such a tax is also a very good way to assign the correct cost to consuming gas. Tax gasoline and pay for the war you are fighting to preserve your supplies of gasoline. That way, my income taxes can be used for better things.

This society elects their 4 year (potentially 8 year) KINGS (otherwise known as President) based on their image. The intellectuals dont matter, the average person only looks at height and “personality” of the candidate. Absolutely ridiculous polls about “which candidate will have you have a beer with” will be conducted routinely. What does it matter whether Obama smokes or not?? But it is going to matter, and this type of superficial things are more importnat at the end of the day.