> I think this a whole bunch of non-sequiturs.
I agree.
> First, what does commuting have to do with transport of goods or
> waste?
Nothing. The complaint was that people live "too far" from where they work. The average commute distance does not support that.
[...]
> But more seriously, a lot of waste and pollution can be saved by reducing
> commuting by cars simply because there are many cars, almost as many as the
> number of commuters. The saving can be achieved either by taking off a
> number of cars of the road by using transit - which is more efficient if
> fully utilized - as well as by reducing the average commuter distance.
> Moreover, reducing sprawl will save even more in road construction and
> maintenance.
What would be a good number for average commute, instead of 12 miles? Is it just fetishism of lawns and nice smelling air that causes factory and farm workers to desire to live 12 miles from where they work?
> As to the alleged "unsustianability" of the cities - you must be dreaming.
> There would be no civilization, no technology, no medicine, no
> transportation, no science, no telecommunication without cities - just a
> bunch of bumpkins doing primitive agriculture with bare hands, hoes and
> oxen.
I did not dispute that; I wrote that the cities depend on the factories and farms that are not located within the city limits, not that cities aren't necessary or historically important.
I suppose if you have a magic wand, and would place everyone in cities and all the farms and factories outside of them, with light rail to hubs that connect all the farms and factories, this would be a good plan.
However, I don't think taxing gas at the pumps or taxing crude is that magic wand. It would be a nasty, long, path of suffering for the rural poor and working people who depend on their cars and buses.
I will bow out, because Gar Lipow's posts have been better than mine on this issue. But the bottom line is that we can and should think long term re: emissions producing energy, but we need to recognize that almost as much CO2 comes from Industry as Transportation, and things that are electric often get their electricity from coal burning plants.
Sometimes it seems that these threads wander from "we need to reduce emissions, there is a documented anthropogenic effect on the environment, and climatology predicts disaster, so let's talk about solutions" to "cars suck, let's get rid of them", which I am infering from this rant:
> But this is an altogether different issue from the "back-to the roots" life
> styles of spoiled US middle classmen, attorneys, physicians, consultants,
> artists, etc. who earn income in the city and then buy farmhouses in the
> countryside pretending to be "farmers" and taking advantage of all kinds of
> tax breaks and subsidies. I know for the fact that upstate New York and
> Pennsylvania is full of that kind of developments - I presume other states
> have it too. I understand that this is this crowd that is most vocal about
> the vices of the cities and virtues of simple farm living. My response to
> it is that they can live any life style, or think and say what they want -
> just do it at their own expense without vast public subsidies that their
> idyllic life style receives from the government in terms of tax breaks,
> credits, road construction ad maintenance. I do not see why the public
> should pay for someone's trip, nah, free ride down the memory lane.
I don't fetishize my cars and wasn't supporting those who do, or those who commute 80 miles to work by car. As to wheter this phenomenon is a major source of transportations emissions is the issue, and 12 miles as an average doesn't indicate to me that it is.
Matt
-- PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 icq: 120941588 http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123
Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
-H.L. Mencken