eric
--- Michael Perelman <michael at ecst.csuchico.edu>
wrote:
> Although it will not help in the short run, one long
> run strategy for
> reducing energy needs would be a more rational urban
> planning system that
> would reduce the need for long commutes and increase
> the efficiency of
> mass transit systems.
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 12:14:23PM -0500, Doug
> Henwood wrote:
> > Gar Lipow wrote:
> >
> > >Doug
> > >
> > >>A simple first step would be a sharp increase in
> the gasoline tax in
> > >the U.S. I'm afraid the Hudson will be lapping my
> ankles before that
> > >happens.
> > >
> > >Suprisingly this probably is NOT the best way to
> reduce energy consumption.
> >
> > Hmm, why not? Greenhouse gas emissions are lots
> lower in Europe and
> > Japan than they are in the U.S. Per US$ [PPP
> basis] of GDP, the U.S.
> > emits 0.67 kg of CO2; the Netherlands, 0.47; and
> Japan, 0.38. Annual
> > energy use per capita is 4,035 kg (oil-equivalent)
> in Japan, 4,738 in
> > the Netherlands, and 7,937 in the U.S. Surely
> energy prices have
> > something to do with this. Of course, the U.S.
> population is much
> > more scattered than the Netherlands & Japan, but
> one reason it's so
> > scattered is that energy is absurdly cheap here.
> >
> > Energy taxes aren't as regressive as some people
> think. Affluent
> > people drive more than poorer ones. And the costs
> could be offset
> > with tax rebates for poorer households.
> >
> > Doug
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/