From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Emissions Inspections, is new really be
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 01:11:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.164726.16331@ncar.ucar.edu> chris@chinook.atd.ucar.edu writes:
>>...The best solution, clearly, is the one that intrudes least
>>on people's lives (unless you think the purpose of government is
>>to control people and direct their lives, for their own good... Certainly
>>our government was chartered and intended to intrude on individual
>>rights and choices as little as possible.)

>No, instead the government does a bunch of micro-policy bullshit.
>They tell auto industry "your cars must get x MPG by 199y", large
>cities say "today is a no burn day", instead of just getting at the
>root of the problem, the price of gas.  If you raise the price of
>gas, GM will put out efficient cars, people will car pool more,
>mass transit will become more cost effictive.

And restrict driving to the rich... There are always exceptions to 
a rule, so any single law will create unfair situations. By regulating
specific subjects with limited laws (minimum milage on cars, burning
of trash, etc...), the laws can be taylored to the specific subject
to avoid unfairness. There is no way to do so with a general, sweeping
law. It's a choice between many laws that inturde on a few people's lives
slightly and in a way that considers unusual situations versus a single
law that effects everyone without regard to special circumstances.

>>I'm not sure what will permanently solve these problems, but I think
>>major, intrusive efforts (i.e. taxing gas to the point where no one
>>can afford to drive) should only be used when we _know_ less repressive
>>options will not work _and_ that some solution is vitally required.

>Were not talking $5 a gallon.

Then what are you talking about? You are refering to a tax sufficient
to reduce consumption, and the current tax is ~50 cents. Two years
ago, gas prices in California were up to about $1.50, without greatly
altering consumption. Therefore, I'd the price would have to rise
above $2.00/gallon ($1.50/gallon tax) before it would do what you
want. Since the "average" consumer has well over twice the money to
spare as a poor person, a tax that would effect the average consumption
would be (at least) a very heavy burden for the poor.

>...with the idea that people & communities will start to
>adjust.  So that William Kucharski can drive down to the Conteninal in
>Denver, so I can go to Idaho to kayak, instead of on transportation of
>Sweedish bula-bula wood tables.  Also keep in mind that transportation
>is a built in cost of imported products.

I see: You want transportation available as a luxury of the rich, but
not for basic goods and services (remember, essentially all fresh
food during the winter has the be transported a considerable distance.)

>>...(Would you worry about
>>having a disease that wasn't contagious, didn't threaten your
>>life or health, and had no noticable symptoms?)

>No because the disease has not exceeded my basic requirments to
>be a problem.  Gasoline has exceeded my basic requirements to
>be a problem.  Remember when we run out of petrol we will need
>to find a substitute for gas, plastics, & nylon, with what I would
>expect to be a period of great instability.

Plastics (nylon, by the way _is_ a plastic...) at least can be made
without petrochemicals, although at a much greater cost. In any 
case, that's why I prefer to talk about cheap energy not cheap gas.
If gas can be replaced with an equally cheap alternative, the
problem you refer to doesn't exist (unless you think we will run
out of gas suddenly, i.e. from present availability to none in a
few years... )

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
Newsgroups: co.general