Want to reduce auto emmission?

If you want to reduce auto emissions, you have to reduce dependence on the car. In the are code 250 area, except for Victoria and Kelowna, we should not worry about cars.

In Vancouver it is different, even though we have a large and expensive public transit system, for many it is next to useless, but we still pour hundreds of millions of dollars into it annually and achieve next to nothing.

what is needed is a comprehensive 'rail' system, over 300 km. of route mileage, to attain a network size to attract the motorist from the car.

What would be the cost?

300 km. @ $125 million/km. (RAV/SkyTrain metro cost) $37.5 billion.

300 km. @ $90 million/km. (Evergreen Line hybrid light rail/metro) $27 billion.

300 km. @ $30 million/km. (proposed Ottawa LRT) $9 billion.

300 km. @ $15 million/km. (Average Karlsruhe LRT on-street/track sharing cost) $4.5 billion.

Gateway $4.5 billion.

RAV/Canada line 19 km. $2.3 billion.

One can see that for the cost of modern LRT utilizing both building on-street (on reserved rights-of-ways of course) and track sharing with regular railways one can achieve a 300 km. network for the cost of Gateway or put another way, for about twice the cost of RAV/Canada Line, we could build over 15 times of rail route, servicing many more communities!

See why no one else in north America, with a few exceptions (due to population size Washington DC and Los Angles are building new metros L.A. also operates LRT and Washington DC is now planning for the return of LRT), is building with metro? See why no one comes to Vancouver to see how we build rapid transit?

Has the penny dropped guys! It hasn't yet with TransLink.

Feebating anyone?

This is a classic candidate for feebating. Simply tax the worst offenders and use the money for rebates on best.

The auto industry will complain, but they will still sell just as many cars and if individual companies cannot remain competitive in the new marketplace, well...that's corporate Darwinism.

I personally believe this is part of the reason (the main one still being quality) that Toyota and Honda have been steadily gaining marketshare against the "Big 3".

While I agree with Grumpy that intelligent public transit is preferred, I think that population density/city planning need to be more intelligently applied as well. Suburban sprawl has aggrevated the transportation system as much as it has the residential emission situation.

How about directly adding to the gas tax with the money going directly back into public transit and EV car subsidies?

huh?

Uhm, gallons? I have no idea what gallons mean, so those examples are pretty much useless to me.

As for Grumpy, he seems to forget that Montreal and Toronoto are both building new metro extensions, along with many others, although he still has a point.

How about taxing everyone.

Why tax only fuel users? Why not tax everyone then open more bus routes with smaller buses and make public transportation free.

With the advent of modern technology it is possible to to incorporate flexible routing and scheduling an a demand basis. It's even possible to do real time route adjustments to pick up phone-in riders.

Quit the blame game and start doing some serious out-of-box thinking otherwise we'll just wind up giving away any advantages we have in life to those who are or those who don't give a shit.

I don't know just how accurate Grumpy's figures are but you could sure buy a hell of a lot of buses for $2.3B.

imperial---metric

Hi tessa, 1 gal=4.5 litres

Grumpy

I wanted to know what you would do for public transit in the GRVD without the flaming of the existing skytrain system. By that I don't need to hear the retrashing of it (I get it that its not what you would have picked but now that we have it I don't think knocking it down and starting over is a viable option) so with the amount of time and knowledge you have what would you do to improve transit while working with the current set up?

6000 SUX

less science and less fiction all the time...

http://eater.org/gallery/albums/OMGLOL/6000sux.sized.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboCop

is Omni Corp far behind?

Gas Guzzler tax

The government should scrap the luxury sales tax on vehicles and instead have a gas guzzler tax. Any vehicle that gets less than 40mpg should be hit with a 10% tax, and any vehicle that gets less than 20mpg should be hit with a 25% tax. That WOULD have an impact! Tax the gas guzzlers, save the world!

SOV Tax

How about taxing vehicle at toll booths based on:

engine size + weight X number of empty seats.

That would have an impact, no?

the problem with gas guzzler taxes

is they unfairly penalize people in the trades who need big trucks.

What we need is consumers with common sense. Don't hold your breath.

the problem with gas guzzler taxes

is they unfairly penalize people in the trades who need big trucks.

What we need is consumers with common sense. Don't hold your breath.

Cost of doing business

If you need a big, gas guzzling truck for your business then it is a cost of doing business; one that every company/person in that trade will have to have. And, if you truly need it, then is it not a tax write-off? A gas guzzler tax on vehicles at the point of sale will encourage everyone to look for more fuel effecient alternatives. I don't think taxing people who are polluting the environment more than others is penalizing others unfairly. As a consumer, I will share in those costs if businesses need to hand them down to me.

I can't believe some of the

I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading here.

1. Why are you [apparently] willing to spend $125 million PER KILOMETER for another rail system that will lose money? Grumps is spot on with his analysis. The only way that public transport will remain viable is for the construction costs to come down.

2. In case you don't realize it, fuel is already taxed - to death. Both the federal and provincial governments have been taxing fuel since the dawn of time. They got real serious about it during the reign of Canada's worst dictator [pee-aire trudope]. If you choose to have a ride that gets 10 miles per gallon, then you are already paying far more in taxes than most of us do.

3. There seems to be a lot of urban comments and very few rural comments on this subject. Here's one. My truck is a 4*4. My car is a 4*4. My tractor [well the big one anyway] is a 4*4. The reason? Well not all of us live in balmy Vancouver. There are times when it's either shift into four wheel drive and pollute your face off or call a tow truck to get you out of a snow drift. Some people own four wheel drive vehicles because they are necessary.

4. How about taxing vehicles at toll booths? Cool. What a way to destroy the economy and the environment in one swell foop. It ain't like we already have line ups for almost everything imaginable and now you want to make another one and for what purpose? To force people to wait with their engines idling so they can pay more money into a system that doesn't work to start with. Clever. In addition, this number of seats thing may work if [IF!!!!] it only applied to commuters. What about the travelling salesman? Or the guy who is going to a business meeting? Or some guy who is trying to get to a job interview? Or the trucker trying to deliver a load of goods?

5. Pass the increases on as a cost of doing business? It ain't like business doesn't already have a mitt full of gummint regulations to work around. A few thousand more regulations won't hurt much will they?

6. I saw a comment concerning the scarcity of Smart Cars since November. Now that you bring up the subject, I haven't seen too many either. I did see one with Saskatchewan plates out by Barriere a while ago. We were driving back home from the Okanagan during a lull between winter storms and we saw some brave soul in one. I have heard that they only get about 65 MPG and are almost small enough to put in your pocket. By comparison, my brother's Volkswagon Jetta TD, which has true 5 passneger capability also got 65 MPG. Which would I choose? It's kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?

Tractorman

Here comes the sales pitch!

Buy, Buy, Buy!

So the solution is to consume more!?

So the plan is to grow, grow, grow!?

We need to make do with less on a planet that has limits!

Intersting that so few, besides Modern Serf, recognize that our settlement patterns greatly afect our use of energy.

So despite the greenwash from the Premier and the car dealers association, we will still build the same suburbs and more lanes for more cars!?

If the car dealships had their way 'we' would be buying a new car every year!

We won't stop until we choke on our own exhauist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's the point of

What's the point of improving gas mileage by twenty percent if the number of cars increases by twenty percent? Nothing is gained.

There are too many people in this country. If there were half as many, we could all drive gas guzzlers and still reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of telling us all to do with less, the government should reduce the birth rate and immigration and encourage emigration.

Every human in this country generates 5 tonnes of green house gasses per year. By not having the average 2.3 children per family, I’m reducing my greenhouse gas contributions by 11.5 tonnes per year and exceeding the 1 tonne challenge by 1150%.

I have no intention of cutting back on consumption as long as the government allows the population to increase. I don’t have kids so I have no compunctions about trashing the planet.

Where is the incentive?

Where is the incentive to buy a way higher priced 4X4 hybrid? It may take you years to recoup that higher price in gas cost savings.

Where is the incentive for companies to produce more fuel efficient vehicles? If you go shopping for a truck or car, you'll see how limited your choices are.

The fact of the matter is that we need to do something and people, including those in rural areas, need to make the best choices for the planet. There are many who claim to "need" that gas guzzling 4X4, but never leave the Lower Mainland. We know that the car industry isn't going to do anything about it. Ask any car dealer, they'll sell their grandma down the river to make a nice profit.

Where is the incentive?

I'll be picking up mine from daycare in an hour.

Kudos Wilbur, I've never heard "I can't get laid" as a reason for screwing everyone else before. That's a first.

Quote:Where is the incentive

well folks,looking at the news the other day,i noted that the big three are billions of dollars in the red !!!

might be incentive to sell more ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY VEHICLES...when they have to pick up their CORPORATE WELFARE CHEQUES from the government of the day...LIKE CHRYSLER DID BACK IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN THEY WERE TREADING WATER...

REMEMBER !!!

Boy did they ever get a big WELFARE CHEQUE! from the Americans...THEN THEY GOT SMART AND STARTED FLOGGING THE ....k-car...REMEMBER !!!

seems,these clowns are hard of hearing and of course they sell cars ...THEY ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

More taxes in general is NOT

More taxes in general is NOT a solution to the environmental problems. We have billions of dollars of our money in "surplus" (i.e. excessive taxes) that could be used in all sorts of ways to help with environmental problems.

The soccer-mom with the Lincoln Navigator is way more of a problem than the Roofer with the F350 pickup! While soccer-mom could (should?) be driving a Jetta diesel, the roofer needs a pickup.

The solutions are going to be mandatory efficiency and smarter consumers. The gov't can mandate fuel efficiency. The tough one is going to be forcing consumers to buy more efficient vehicles. Maybe targeted taxes (taxing people in cities who buy big trucks who don't need them for work) might be a partial solution to forcing consumers to make "smarter" choices. Also, eliminating taxes on fuel efficient vehicles would be a good idea.

Everybody makes their own sacrifices.

Stump

You got a problem with that. Your kids are already some of the highest energy/capita users in the world. Who's screwing who?

If you think Canada is overpopulated

you can always come to Vancouver where we have a number of lovely bridges for you to take the solution into your own hands. I'd recommend Lion's Gate or Ironworker's for the nicest view for the short trip down.

My beef with Wilbur is his/her attitude that not having kids gives you the right to 'trash the planet'.

Chris H tax scheme deserves thought

I like Chris's tax scheme. I would like to add that the cars should also get 20 year or 400,000 km warranties on the powertrain, frame and body. Cars not getting those warranties should be taxed into extinction. Cars should be built to last. No tax on equipment for cars being retro-fitted to burn hydrogen.

Car companies should get tax breaks for building hydrogen burning cars, and there should be a world-wide 25 billion dollar prize to the first inventor/team to develop safe and practical (cost-effective) hydrogen storage and distribution for automobiles. If a government solves the problem, then it gets the prize. The technology should then be available to all - with no patent ever to be granted for the technology. Wind, geothermal, solar, and tidal generators should be used to decompose H2O. All vendors of gasolene wishing to remain in business must make hydrogen available for cars.

WILBUR GO IN STYLE

Stump
Its reassuring to know, that there are people like Wilbur the Wild out there, as I have two gas guzzlers that Im going to unload soon. Rather than follow your bridge advice, which can tie up bridge traffic needlessly. If Wilbur the Wild purchases my beaters, within 6 months he will be gone, having starved to death from supporting these guzzlers .Wilbur the Wild stay away from those bridges until you seen these beauties,they may cause slow death but, you’ll go luxuriously.

Sure the roofer needs his truck ...

"Maybe targeted taxes (taxing people in cities who buy big trucks who don't need them for work) might be a partial solution to forcing consumers to make "smarter" choices."

You could always tax the gas guzzlers at the point of sale and then give a tax rebate to those that claim the vehicle as a business expense. There are ways of doing it without hurting the roofer who needs the big truck. Needing a big truck because you pull a 5th wheel around to go camping is a want and not a need, and should be taxed accordingly.

In London and Paris the price of gas is nearly $2 a liter. Their before tax cost of gas to the consumer is something in the neighbourhood of 56 or 57 cents (10 cents cheaper than BC). We could go that route, but I think people here would be much more receptive to taxing vehicles at the point of sale. We are simply not taxing people for the damage to the environment. At what rate do you discount this damage? What will clean air be worth to your grandchildren?

Cars are not the cause of Global Warming

More global warming gasses come from houses and buildings than from cars and trucks.

Cars and trucks are a conveniently visible problem, but a small portion of the global energy consumption problem. Building more efficient buildings around the world would go a long way towards solving the problem.

So stop ragging on the car deals and start bugging Bob Rennie instead. Even if you get everybody -- EVERYBODY -- in North America out of their cars and on foot, or on a bicycle the problem of global warming will Not Be Solved.

I'm certainly not saying cars aren't a problem, but isn't it better to focus on solving the real problem instead of just the visible one?

I own a car. I cycle to work every day.

Really?

From The Vancouver Sun - Larry Pynn - Nov.24, 2006:

"Per-capita energy use for heating, lighting and appliances actually declined five per cent between 1990 and 2002, while household energy use rose eight per cent due to increases in the size of Canada's population.

Between 1981 and 2003, the proportion of Canadian households heating their homes with oil fell to 13 per cent from 34 per cent, while those heating with natural gas rose to 50 per cent from 42 per cent and those with electricity rose to 33 per cent from 21 per cent.

Compared with oil, heating with natural gas or electricity (when produced with low emission technologies such as nuclear and hydro power) produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, Statistics Canada said.

By 2004, retail pump sales of gasoline had increased 24 per cent over 1990, reaching a record 36.6 billion litres."

Skywalker

Not that long ago the push was for more diesel fueled cars. Diesel was about two-thirds the cost of regular grade gasoline. In the last 4 years the price of diesel has doubled and it is priced higher than regular. What that means is that no matter what you do to be more efficient and save youself money the oil companies will see to it that there are no monetary benefits for your efforts. I kind of makes people cynical. Scare someone into spending much more for a hybrid car and soon they will question the wisdom. Make the hybrid cheaper in the long run and there will be a positive reaction.

Then you also need to recognize that hybrid cars are not going to work well in some road conditions and for some families. Even transit does not work in all regions.

Finally all this spin from Campbell is more hot air as there is no money to be available to implement his green vision. He must be chortling his way to the next election.

Here, Cars are the Problem!!!!

darcy.mcgee get real. In the Lower Mainland, light duty vehicles (cars SUV's) are responsible for 30% of emissions. This is expected to grow by 30% by 2030. The rest of the region's emissions are not expected to grow. The 30% does not include the emissions from refining gas or from tar sands production. It does not include the energy used to produce the vehicle.

Regarding buildings. Yes, less reduce emissions. But buildings (housing) is more essential to life than cars. Most people living in the world and most people who have ever lived or will ever live will get or have got by fine without a car. Even hundreds of thousands of people including myself get by without one. You can to if you really put your mind to it.

Golden Ears Bridge the Really Bad Deal

Why do people always pick on the Canada Line instead of the Golden Ears Bridge. The bridge is $200 million over budget and will cost $800 million. On opening day, it is expected to carry only 20,000. Compare that to $2 billion for the Canada Line which is expected to carry 100,000 per day. So that is 40,000 per user for the Golden Ears Bridge verses 20,000 for the Canada Line.

The proposed Highway 1 expansion and Port Mann Twinning are even worse. Say the current capacity is 100,000 per day and there is demand for 130,000. Thus the new bridge and lanes would be needed for only 30,000 users. At $1.5 billion, that is $50,000 per user.

The Canada Line SkyTrain are less expensive per user than most LRT systems in North America. The exception is Calgary.

Roads are the really bad deal. Fight them, not transit!!!!

The bridges are necessary.

Unless you want to stop population growth in the lower mainland in it's tracks. Which is not really all that bad of an idea. Work on that.

you want to stop population growth in the lower mainland

SNOT,You want to stop growth in the lower mainland, feed em all lots of beef, in 10 years or so, they'll all be dead from heart failure,problem solved.

housing -v- cars - Darcy...

The problem is both, housing and cars. I hope that all future condos are green. Condos save much energy in terms of heating/cooling required (when build using green technologies. Large houses (like SUVs) require lots of energy to produce as well as to use. Over the last 30 years, there have been far too many single detached houses built that are more than 2000 sq. ft. Most families can live quite comfortably within a 2000 sq. ft. house. Though many people like these spaces, they are a sin against nature.

Better than single detached homes for individual families are cluster homes that are built in groups of four with common walls on two sides thus creating central heat sinks. If they work it right (and know how to share), they can even build in some nice shared amenities, thereby reducing the need for building and heating recreational areas.

Just because one can afford an over-sized home, it does not make it moral to have one. The few exceptions to this are for the extremely rich and/or famous. They need larger spaces just to have some peace. As the have nots become more numerous, these homes that the excedingly rich build will become more like prisons than oases.

Cars need to be made smaller for the same reasons houses need to be smaller.

If we truly look at what works best for the planet, most manufacturing should take place in warm dry climates that don't require so much heat/protection from the elements. Canada is a bad place to manufacture things for this reason. Unless we develope inexpensive renewable, non-polluting energy, Canada is a bad place to develope heavy industry.

Plenty of Bridges, Too Many Cars

There are more than enough bridges. We need much better transit and land use planning so people are not being forced to drive and clog up the roads and bridges around the region.

Related issues

The ongoing expansion of Delta Port facilities; the conversion of ALR land for industrial purposes; the future alienation of treaty settlement land from native to industrial and commercial ownership; the twinning of the Port Mann; and other changes to facilitate further industrialization and enhancement of shipping and receiving infrastructure as a result of a carefully scripted program on this government's agenda since the day it was elected will more than cancel out any progress made by a few individuals who decide to buy Toyota Prius automobiles over the next ten years.

Citizen responsibility is important but as long as our elected representatives won't be accountable and responsible for what they are really up to - instead of doing the people's business and furthering the peoples' agenda – (as they promised to do) - rather than advancing their own (the Campbell government's that is) we are in deep and deepening waters.

Gordo just paying his

Gordo just paying his buddies back by building all these roads and bridges to nowhere and how many billions?
I believe he's out to financially break BC.

http://www.publicpowerbc.ca/

An interview from today's NYTimes

Questions for Drew Shindell
Political Heat
Interview By DEBORAH SOLOMON

Q: As a physicist and climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, you recently testified before Congress about ways in which the Bush administration has tried to prevent you from releasing information on global warming. Can you give us an example? Sure. Press releases about global warming were watered down to the point where you wondered, Why would this capture anyone’s interest? Once when I issued a report predicting rapid warming in Antarctica, the press release ended up highlighting, in effect, that Antarctica has a climate.

If your department is that politicized, how does that affect research? Well, five years from now, we will know less about our home planet that we know now. The future does not have money set aside to maintain even the current level of observations. There were proposals for lots of climate-monitoring instruments, most of which have been canceled.

By NASA? Well, it’s a NASA decision following the directives from their political leaders. The money has been redirected into the manned space program, primarily.

Are you referring to President Bush and his plan to send Americans to Mars? The moon and Mars, yes. It’s fine to do it for national spirit or exploring the cosmos, but the problem is that it comes at the cost of observing and protecting our home planet.

Why is NASA involved in climate research in the first place? There is no federal agency whose primary mission is the climate, and that’s a problem, because climate doesn’t command the clout that it should in Washington. Since NASA is the primary agency for launching new scientific satellites, it has ended up collecting some of the most important data on climate change.

I take it you don’t ride along on the satellites. Like the guy in “Dr. Strangelove” who was riding on the bombs? No. I would volunteer to go up on the shuttle, but I don’t think they would take someone like me. My eyesight is really bad.

What do you make of the news of that female astronaut who reportedly planned to kill a romantic rival? Who knew that NASA would turn up in Congress one week and in the tabloids the next?

There are now several bills floating around Congress that would limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Is one better than the others? They are useful first steps. But they are just baby steps. In the long term, we have to reduce emissions much more than any of these bills envision. At the state level, California is a great example of what the rest of the country should be doing. They require that energy be used efficiently, and as a result their per capita energy use has stayed level for decades, despite the growth in their economy.

Why do you think the federal government has been so phobic about adopting energy-efficiency regulations? “Phobic” is the right word, because it’s irrational not to conserve when you think of all the advantages, such as keeping money in consumers’ pockets instead of sending it to Middle Eastern countries that hate us.

What do you consider the most immediate threat of global warming? More heat waves, more drought, rising sea levels and stronger hurricanes.

On the plus side, will New Yorkers one day be able to walk down Broadway in the dead of winter and get a tan? No, it’s not going to get sunnier. Same amount of sun. Just hotter.

The president acknowledged the problem of “global climate change” in his State of the Union address last month. What do you think of the phrase? I’m mostly O.K. with it. It’s a phrase scientists use all the time.

And “global warming”? A bad name. Global warming sounds cozy and comfortable.

So perhaps you should try a new coinage. “Climate meltdown” sounds a little more ominous.

A significant number.

SharingIsGood

A significant number of these 'oversized' homes have illegal suites in them and therefore are making your vision happen.

not my vision

snert:
My vision isn't having somebody dodging taxes from rental income to afford owning an oversized home - though there is higher density. If everyone was honest about their true income, it could reduce the taxes for all; people wouldn't need to try to get away with illegal suites, which could be classified as immoral, but it must be OK if everybody does it - wrong! Poor people can't do it, they can only rent; but the mantra seems to be, "They had better be clean and quiet if they want the opportunity to live in my illegal suite."

It's interesting

SharingIsGood

It's interesting that you label the suite owners as evil doers for trying to dodge taxes etc. The solution to this lies with municipal governments who chose to not allow additional living accommodations in "single" family dwellings. The reason for that being that some single family dwelling owners may prefer to be just that.

As far as your comment about "clean and quiet" I don't see a big problem with that. Just where does it say that you have to accept unsavoury individuals for tenants?

This seems to apply to the perpetually legislated slum called the DTES though.

A Sustainability Tax instead of Property Tax

I would propose that we dump property taxes and replace with a 'Sustainability Tax'.

One that considers the buildings number of occupants, floor area, water use, 'fast' runoff produced, green house gases emitted, distance to nearest bus stop/LRT/Commuter Train station, etc.

Incentive: Live lighter on the ecosystem; pay less tax.

Sad how few people post about the patterns of settlement which have been terribly inefficient when it comes to energy use and transporation (only efficient in a systen that discounts external costs to the environment, health and community).

What do you think?

I Think

freebear

That only the rich people will benefit from your proposal simply because they will be able to save the most taxes by following it.

They will soon control all of the properties within the low taxation zones. So what are the other 95% of us going to do?

Sustainability Tax Concept Clarification

The idea is to reverse NIMBYism Snert.

The only way the rich will benefit is if they support smaller homes, public transit in their neighborhoods, affordable housing (low income), recycling centre, community gardens, etc.

If the rich do not want these things/activities/land uses (and so many other criteria) in their neighborhoods; they WILL PAY MORE TAX, not less.

In other words, less effective, less efficient (e.g. city infrastructure), less ecological (firendly) and less socially just activities and land uses (re: properties); will pay MORE!

Does this help explain the concept?

I understand what you are saying.

The rich will benefit by virtue of the fact that they will own all the property unless you wish to make all the housing in these areas public then watch things turn into slums real quick.

I've never been to London or New York but I do believe that wealthy or at least reasonably wealthy people are quite content to live in smaller accommodations if the location is right.

You can only crowd so many souls in a small space and the rest have to look elsewhere. It's not hard to guess who the losers will be.

Snert: And who are the

Snert:

And who are the losers now? I am talking about change for the better, not worse!

Perhaps the (high) sustainability tax would mean property owners would sell. A group could purchase and develop co-housing?

Quote:If the rich do not

Yeah, because we should all have to do what the rich want! The rich should decide urban planning issues of course. It's worked out so well to date hasn't it?

I think it's a pretty poor substitute for democracy when the rich can buy their way out of being good citizens and make the whole community suffer for it.

Bad, bad idea.

No Fan of the Rich

Obviously I am having trouble explaining the sustainability tax. There will be a base rate, and verything else would be based on sustainability crieria/measures.

Someone living in a neigbourhood with a greater mix of: housing types (condos, single family homes, duplexes, fourplexes, town houses, patio homes, coop housing, co-housing), households, demographics, incomes, community garden, community waste management, shared laundry facilities, bus stop, commercial shops/businesses, etc. WOULD PAY LESS TAX.

Someone living in a 'community' that is gated, single housing type ('Monster Homes') no public transit, no demographic and income mix, etc. WILL PAY MORE TAX.

The idea is to move behaviour towards sustainability, and those that do not move behaviour will pay

You know governments and taxes.

You know governments and taxes. They'll try and tax everyone to the max.

Where would you suggest that this type of community be built or do you have an area in mind now? Maybe that will clarify things a bit more.

Canadian Government Promotes Self, Not Green Cars

"..Of that $21 million will go towards the ecoENERGY for a Personal Vehicles program. This so called program will provide information on green cars on the market in the form of stickers and websites..."

Is is just me or do they sound like the previous Liberal government that spends lots of money on promoting itself and getting nothing done. Do we really need 21 million spent on information websites and stickers?

The websites already exist. That leaves stickers and advertisements for the Conservatives to promote green cars and themselves.

They alluded to something useful prior to the announcement, giving $2000 tax credits to consumers buying fuel efficient green cars but decided on this personal Public Relations campaign of stickers and websites instead.

If half of the 21 million goes to administration that could of left 10.5 million towards tax incentives to actually buy the cars. That could of helped the sales of over 5000 cars, instead we get a zillion stickers and redundant websites promoting green cars and the Tory government.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, does this new ecoENERGY do anything useful, or is it a Conservative promotion tool?

pfezziwig, www.GreenCarsNow.com

Car safety

The only legitimate argument right now for faster replacement of cars is for safety. Check out the safety index scores compiled by www.informedforlife.org. There are more safe cars on the road now than in 2003.

As for emissions and fuel efficiency, we are still coasting on standards the US set in the 1990s.

No matter how you look at it, unless we change our expectations, cars are going to be a tough issue.

Where is a safe, inexpensive electric car for urban use? I'm not talking about these LSVs (Low Speed Vehicles), the glorified golf carts that max out at 40 KMPH. They don't have to be crash tested. Would you put your children in a vehicle like that?

the rubber meets the road

On the news today, car drivers in B.C. were bitching about the gas prices being higher here then else where in the country. What’s all the bitching about? The gas companies are only trying to encourage consumers to conserve, this is the green way .All the polls say that we won’t mind paying more to save the environment. Well start saving. This is where the rubber meets the road. Love it, love it.

urban cars

There's a bunch. They're called trolley buses. But you have to share them with a couple of dozen other folks and make minor adjustments to your schedule. Oh, the horror, the horror.

Too much hassle? Buy a bike. Even though they are still in the minority, too many people are proving you CAN rely on transit, bikes, and walking for for most of your urban transporation needs for the nay-sayers to have a withered, unused leg to stand on anymore.