Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
6840 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 14, 2008 8:27 am) As far as your article, it leaves out a big factor of all the roads we have already paid for that continue to generate revenue. Which should be spent on maintenance and future roads. A very biased poorly thought out article. Put all the gas tax out there for roads and we will see how much more it takes. Then up the tax accordingly.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 9:05 am) Here's the Texas link: Do Roads Pay for Themselves?
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 14, 2008 9:15 am) and about three-quarters of which goes to the state’s highway fund, where it is spent on transportation uses and some non-transportation functions of government. So how much goes for Roads and maintenance? It is the same crap they pull in CA and probably most other states. Put it in the general fund and then it gets all mixed up so they can make whatever claims they would like. Gas tax is now and has been a money maker for the states. They are not interested in cutting the mileage because the more gas you burn the more bucks they get to spend. Now take the Federal money. TX only gets back 70% of what they send to Washington DC out of the gas tax collected. Where does the other 30% go? So maybe TX should only build those roads that will pay for themselves. So what if one 15 mile section of highway does not pay for itself. What about the thousands of miles that make them a fortune? You don't see that because they are playing games with our gas tax money. What a bunch of hooey  If I wasn't so cheap I would go drive my SUV up and down the road spewing GHG. Hope it chokes Ahnold the pinhead.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 9:47 am) The other 30% goes to Alaska btw for all those bridges to nowhere. 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 14, 2008 10:36 am) Compare the economy and taxes generated of an area with a lot of roads (LA?) to any area in the U.S. with nothing more than a dirt road.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 14, 2008 12:13 pm) And don't forget that the railroads deserve equal time.
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Jul 14, 2008 12:21 pm) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System A subway, bus, or HST is almost solely designed to move passengers; not moving military equipment, supplies, or general commerce goods. Consumers are taxpayers usually. It's fairly hard to make $ w/o the tax-man collecting some. I think trains used to haul bulk-cargo (coal, wheat, corn ...) are great and should be encouraged. I think systems should be paid for by those who use the system.
|
|
|
Replying to: kernick (Jul 14, 2008 12:57 pm) More freight moved by trains and barges could mean fewer trucks, and maybe fewer emissions (to touch on the topic a little). |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Jul 14, 2008 8:18 am) I consider education, project engineering (dam building, power plant building) Transport infrastructure building, R&D as investment. Any amount invested in those should improve human, economic or environmental benefit. I consider gulf war, welfare spending, infrastructure upkeep as spendings. I am advocating less spending and more investment. Some spendings are necessary, but others could be cut. >That money is spent. Do you mean there is no way to stop the counter anymore ? The national debt is a serious issues and maybe tackling it from the root would prove effective. I suspect HST and mass transit investments were not the reason. >we are near revolt over the current gas prices. mm, not sure if the mindset of cheap gas being a right as equal as free speech is a healthy one. US prices are still half of European prices, so US motorists should be happy. >Why do people think that we should tax automobile drivers to finance mass transit? Because the polluter should be the payer. Gas is not only rejecting CO2 but also many other dangerous gas. Gas is deepening US trade deficit, gas is inherently unsustainable. Current gas prices don't reflect that. >why not tack an additional tax on air travel. That is also a good idea, provided that money be also used to offer alternatives. The problem is that I don't see alternatives for overseas flights. >Last I read a cross country flight dumps as much CO2 per passenger seat as a small car in one year (about 5 tons) I think a cross country high speed line would allow the same trip overnight. This would be a great project. It is true aircraft CO2 release is a true problem and HST bring solutions to that, albeit not 100% perfect. >No buying carbon credits for the rich. Carbon trading is a key environmental development opportunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_credit#How_buying_carbon_credits_can_reduce_- emissions We are still in the early stages, so not perfect yet. This is not a reason to throw it away. > I am thinking we will all have electric cars soon. Then What do we need mass transit for? because congestion won't be tackled by individual cars and railways are the best answer to that. Some people want to have the choice in their transportation mix.
|
|
|
Replying to: imidazol97 (Jul 14, 2008 8:31 am) The problem is that the project is still not started : building has not commenced yet and it looks like it is set to slip by another year. The project is dating back from 1998 where gas was cheap. I can't imagine how it would like if it was operational already. >Now you're seeing the light Depends how one understand it. I meant it in a humorous way. Water vapor accounts for the majority of current GH effect. in fact we need green house effect, otherwise there would be no life on earth. However, the increase in man made GHG (CO2, Methane, NOx, CFC..) is upsetting the balance. Unprecedented levels of GHG are strongly influencing the climate and every month, there are new studies supporting that. With the permafrost melting in Siberia, we can expect a massive amount of methane release in the air. It may become an uncontrollable chain reaction. I am not throwing stones. I don't need because the environment will do it in my place. I just think we had plenty of warning signals and it is not good just doing nothing (or drilling more)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Are automobiles a major cause of global warming?
