Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
replying to Gar
>Suprisingly this
[energy tax]
> 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.
Correspondence is not cause. Europe and Japan have had much lower growth rates than America in recent years.
I question this: 'energy is absurdly cheap here.' Why absurdly cheap? It seems like a good thing that energy is cheap. That's why living standards are high, and industry is productive.
And this:
'Energy taxes aren't as regressive as some people think. Affluent people drive more than poorer ones.'
Yes, I think they are, like all purchase taxes they hit people irrespective of income. As to whether affluent people drive more than poorer ones, I think this depends on who you are calling affluent and who poor. If you mean working people are affluent, then yes they tend to drive more than the under or unemployed and low waged. But I don't see that the professional or capitalist classes drive more. I suspect they drive less.
If you look at the trend towards urban regeneration in New York and London, you can see the much touted urban villages growing up in Manhattan and East London, where the very wealthy colonise formerly run down areas and live relatively concentrated. Meanwhile working class people live in the suburbs of Paris, New Jersey or Dagenham. The former are users of cabs and trains, the latter car owners.
It is pointed that the campaign against the car has taken off because of the extension of car ownership to the majority of the population. There was never anti-car feeling when it was the preserve of professional male breadwinners.
-- James Heartfield Sustaining Architecture in the Anti-Machine Age is available at GBP19.99, plus GBP5.01 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'. www.audacity.org