Adam’s wartime domestic policy outline
-One car per household.
-Tax breaks for people who substantially use public transportation.
-Greatly increased government funding of clean and alternative fuel research, partially funded by significant increases in gasoline taxes.
-Tax breaks for solar and other “off the grid” technologies.
-Nationwide plan for increasing public transportation, both locally and from city to city – sort of like a mirror image of the national highway system.
-Significantly increased fuel economy standards for all cars across the board.
-Luxury taxes on giant SUVs.
How about a wartime strategy based on individual sacrifice for the greater good, rather than one based on perpetuating our freedom to be as wasteful and damaging as we want? Or are we too soft and wimpy to handle a little sacrifice for the country we maintain we love so much? How about a homefront plan that benefits us all in the long term, rather than promotes the industries (military hardware and oil, principally) that got us into this mess in the first place? A plan that steps us away from danger rather than toward it?
We are energy junkies who need to kick the habit, for the sake of both ourselves and the world at large. Let’s put all this patriotism to use.
One car per household, eh? Two adult US citizens wouldn’t have the right to own sufficient transportation. I guess dual income families in areas with no mass transit would just have to go broke. Glad you’re not running for office so I don’t have to feel bad about not voting for you.
How about SUV’s with flags plastered all over them? How about the people in positions to decide to go to war who also stand to profit from such war(s)? Is “war profiteer” an outmoded term?
Xkot: I admit, the first one was an exaggeration. Maybe I should have said “tax breaks for one-car households.” But I was trying to lead with a shocker. I crave attention. 🙂
Blech. At this point in our society, one car per person would even be a good start.
Adam is going to be my Energy Secretary when I take the Presidency in 2004. That is, unless Mobil or Exxon offer me a truckload of money…
Oh Adam. How could someone so brilliant come up with such a ill-thought idea as one car per household?
Actually, I’m with you all the way on the rest of your proposals. And I’m sure that the one car rule works out very well when you are the only person in your household. For those of us who live in a larger household, it makes absolutely no sense. If two people were roomates, would one have to give up their car? Does it make sense for me to drive my husband to and fro from work if I need to use the car, even if it requires driving an extra hundred miles? And what will we do with all these suddenly surplus automobiles?
You’re right, in that such an exageration does claim attention. Here’s my couple of initial suggestions to avoid waste and lower energy consumption. No upgrading entertainment equipment (VHS to DVD, for example) until your old equipment wears out. Limit hobbies that basically involve burning gas (ie, snowmobiling and jet skiing).
Anybody else?
Don’t bust my chops, Arthur. I was just going to start negotiations with oil for some payola not to run. Feh.
Lisa, I agree. It’s also apparent that Adam hasn’t spent a whole lot of time waiting on a darkened bus or train platform as a female, late at night. Or walking from the bus stop to home, especially in rural areas. It would probably take more than the cost of war to get this country’s public transportation systems *safe enough* for women to use on a regular basis. Unless we start traveling in packs. And armed. Kind of like a platoon. Ironic, isn’t it?
How about “carpool, if possibile?” (I have a 70 mile round trip and there is no mass transit or vanpool that fits my location and schedule.) But on the energy consumption front, how about taxing for excessive electricity usage? Is it really necessary to have one’s house frigid in the summer and roasting in the winter? And, is it really necessary to so much interior space to climate-control? 30 years ago the average house had 1000 square feet less of living space! Dinosaurs (part of source of fossil fuels) are an endangered species.
When you post about the atrocities of war and all the innocent men, women, and children being brutally maimed and murdered, people make no comment. Talk about limiting automobile use and people are up in arms.
How sad.
Exactly my point, Tuesday. Our whole culture has become about individual privilege, and anything where people work together for a common good is labeled “evil communism” and dismissed. No sacrifice is too small to be vigorously denounced.
yeah, i’m with TUESDAY – these folks wont even entertain the idea of less car usage. (yeah, i’m male, in a big city, so I’d have to figure out something else to give up besides my non-existant car – gee, that DVD player might be sooooo hard to give up, how would i watch my simpsons discs…?)
i drive a 180 mile round trip 3 times a week. except for the commercial vans, it is rare to spot more than one person in a car.
i would gladly take advantage of public transportation – even if it meant inconventience and time consumption, if only there were connections.
the sad lack of decent public transportation needs a big kick start before anyone starts hacking away at 2 car families.
Oh please, people. Let’s all get off the moral high horse, shall we?
Yes, I’m in a two car household. I’ve always tried to limit my use – I didn’t even drive one, much less own one, until I was 25. If I need to run an errand within a 1-1/2 mile radius, I generally walk, weather permitting. This also involves taking my child with me.
Unfortunately, not everything I need is within the aforementioned radius. And sometimes, considering my child, I need to drive places. Sharing my husband’s car, considering his commute, would actually result in more total miles traveled. This fact does not make me unconcerned about energy consumption. It does not make me unconcerned about the plight of the less fortunate in this world. It does not make anybody morally superior, or inferior, to myself.
The question is, what’s a neccessity, and what is a luxery? Would the one car rule be a sacrifice for someone in a one-person household? Not in the slightest. It sure is easy to talk about “sacrifices” when you’re not the one doing the sacrificing, or when you need not face the consiquences.
i forgot to say that i have a four-car household and three of those cars are V-8s.
the four people who are part of this family have four different job sites in four different directions and four different schedules – some have a double load of work and school.
give us public transportation to our destinations and we’ll gladly make use of it.
until then- fill ‘er up.
I think the point is that without the “Nationwide plan for increasing public transportation” Americans will never give up their cars. I use public transport whenever I can (I live in portugal) but even here some places are too hard to reach other than by car.
Still don’t see the point in a V8 or v12 engine when your maximum speed is 60 Mph though.
Public transportation has a LONG way to go before it will fill the needs of any significant chunk of the population. I would like to see Uncle Sam work with the Big Three automakers to create small 30-40 BHP city cars that we could drive to work (or on errands) each day. Get the cost down around three grand, get the milage up around 75-100 MPG and I’ll bet you’ll sell ’em quicker than you can make ’em. Some sort of cross between a golf-cart and a motorcycle, if you get my drift.
It strikes me a bit ridiculous that people object to the idea of car-reduction based on working too far from home. If you’ve got to travel 70 or 100 or 500 miles to work, you live too far from work. Period. I don’t care how relaxing you find it out in the suburbs or up in the hills or whatever: unless you drive for a living, there is no excuse for driving that far to make a living. There is simply nowhere in the country that maintains industry whilst being simultaneously over an hour from the nearest possible place to live, and I’m not willing to pay with my life (being a New Yorker, and therefore a target) because country folk are too self-centered to see that their lifestyles are paying for murder all over the world and right here in my home town.
Which is not to say that it’s impossible to be a responsible driver: there are plenty of cars that get over 30MPG in highway driving… they’re just not status symbols, and therefore don’t sell particularly well in our SUV-crazed culture. See, for examples, http://www.fueleconomy.gov
Fuel costs roughly double here in Austria what it does in the States, due both to a higher base oil price here and higher taxes. On top of this, there is a tax added to your insurance payments based on the horsepower of your vehicle’s engine. Some people still drive big Mercedes, but it’s a strong incentive to drive something smaller. Public transportation, of course, is much better here too; I took the train to work until, at the age of 40, I got tired of getting bronchitis four times every winter from waiting in the snow.
I’d love my husband to live closer to his job. Unfortunately, the houses in the area where he works are 30 to 50% more than they are here, and we haven’t been able to find something in our price range. We bought our current house when he worked at a different company, much closer to us, that later closed that office. As he is also traveling frequently, his Toyota is often parked at the airport.
Now, he’s not sure how long he’ll be able to stay where he is, because the company is up for sale. It makes no sense to move now when we may have to move another few months later for another job.
Generalizations are bad, people. Try and avoid them when possible.
I’m all for more mass transit and cleaner fuels.
We have seen all around the world what socialist and there bad iideals have done.There has yet to have been a scocislist idea that worked.The pilgrams tride the “Common Store”,and it failed because only about 10 percent of the people worked to put food in the store house.
The government almost has it’s dirty fingers in every aspect of our lives as it is.The government was only originaly intended to inforce the law,and represent our great country(U.S.A.).Our four fathers didn’t intend for the government
to control ANY aspect of our PERSONAL lives.Especially on what we own or how much of ANY object we can or can not own.We have enough laws as it is I’d rather not add to the
rather long unconstitutional list.I’m an AMERICAN,and your
socialistic ideal just takes away more of OUR few left
consitutional rights.
COMMON STORE:The pilgrams used this socialistic program in the 16-17teenth century.Everyone was supost to work on there farms,and put the food all in one place.Everyone was
permited to take the amount of food they needed.This was
a form of government were money was not needed,but as you know it failed.