yet another reason Texas can go fuck itself.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrBrau1

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 29, 2000
Messages
10,436
Location
Verplexed in Vermont
Texas is biggest carbon polluter

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080116/ap_on_re_us/global_warming_texas

Debbie Howden, an Austin real estate agent, said her family of six has two pickup trucks, three SUVs, and no apologies. "I would definitely put size and safety over the emissions thing," said Howden, 55. She calls their high fuel bills a "necessary evil."

horrid bitch.
 
Last edited:
His theory on why Texans love their trucks and SUVs? "The larger the car, the bigger you feel," he said.

Must be a lot of insecure guys (and their wives and girlfriends/boyfriends) in Texas. :wink:
 
There is little doubt the state's stand on pollution reflects the influence of Texas' biggest and most powerful industry: energy.
A more plausible explanation than too many insecure guys or spillover influence from death penalty laws IMO. :wink:
 
haha, oh my.

a necessary evil?

i do not share the same planet with these people... i do not share the same planet with these people... i do not share the same planet with these people...
 
Would her sins be forgiven by a "carbon-credit" indulgence? Or is that just for mansion-dwelling/jet-setting Nobel laureates?


DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!
 
Why should we all care about how we get to work or go about are daily life if the big players on the international scene dont do their bit?
 
What's beautiful about her size and safety statement is that trucks like that make roads more dangerous for other drivers who don't want to drive a boat. I can't tell you the number of times these big trucks have eased their way into my lane because they can't see my little car. Not to mention if I park in between two trucks then I can't see if traffic is passing when I'm backing out.
I've already had one person hit me because of this. And I was going at a snail's pace too.
And the safety, :lol:

http://www.suv-rollovers.com/index.cfm

Unless you plan on hauling heavy things, there's no need to get one of these things. It's a gas guzzler. Environment issues aside, you're paying more to get to the same places that I am, and you putting yourself and others at a higher accident risk.
 
That lady's a good reason to implement a $2+ a gallon gas tax, with the proceeds used to fund the green infrastructure and hybrid vehicle tax credits.
 
She'd be singing a different tune if she paid for gas what the Europeans are paying.
 
Why punish the consumer? Why not go after car companies? Why not levy some kind of manufacturing tax on automobiles that aren't environmentally friendly?
 
We need both types of measures. Even by the most cutthroat business standards (which include watching what the competition is doing and anticipating the possibility of rising resource costs), the American auto industry has shown monumental lack of foresight in pegging its fortunes on markets like Texas.
 
nathan1977 said:
Why punish the consumer? Why not go after car companies? Why not levy some kind of manufacturing tax on automobiles that aren't environmentally friendly?

Um, and what manufacturer wouldn't just pass that on to the consumer through increased pricing? You think they'll just happily absorb this tax themselves out of the goodness of their hearts?
 
nathan1977 said:
Why punish the consumer? Why not go after car companies? Why not levy some kind of manufacturing tax on automobiles that aren't environmentally friendly?

A multipronged approach is needed. The gas guzzler tax does not apply to SUVs unfortunately - that needs to change. I don't consider it punishing the consumer if a gas tax changes the buying decision of a consumer. Right now, hybrid owners (and others with high mpg cars) are subsidizing SUV owners because the former use less gas. Also, in a way, your approach was implemented by requiring fleet mileage to be 35 mpg by 2020 (smaller cars have a lower profit margin than SUVs).
 
Beckham leaves massive global 'footprint'
FoxSoccer.com

Updated: January 23, 2008, 8:30 PM EST

David Beckham is already the world's richest footballer.

He may also be its biggest environmental threat.

According to Soccer America daily, with reference to data provided by the British environmental group Carbon Trust, the Los Angeles Galaxy superstar is responsible for 163 tons of carbon dioxide yearly — compare that to the normal 9.4 tons the average Englishman produces.

Beckham's Carbon Footprint — a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide — may be the largest in human history.

No, Beckham isn't breathing any more or less than anyone else, but his extensive air travel for matches and endorsement obligations, along with his fleet of cars and homes, has provided the statistics for Carbon Trust.

The former England captain logged over 250,000 miles last year as he flew back and forth between the U.S. and Europe for England's European Championship qualifiers, while also participating in a Galaxy tour of Oceania in the latter part of the year.

Beckham and his wife Victoria also collected over 50,000 frequent flyer miles for advertising obligations around the globe.

Collectively, Beckham flew farther in 2007 than a trip from the earth to the moon.

At home, Beckham owns a fleet of 15 cars, including a Porsche, a Hummer and a Lincoln Navigator.

"He should use his celebrity status to make people aware of the damage that traveling can cause to the planet," a Carbon Trust spokesman said, according to the report. "With all his money he should be using it at least to reduce his own footprint. He has more freedom of choice when it comes to methods of traveling. He could also choose greener cars."

Peter Cranie, a spokesman of England's Green Party said, "A celeb like Becks, who claims the need to travel on such a massive scale, should be making an effort to counteract the damage he is doing."
 
I'm not sure that the increased petrol cost approach works. Here in the UK where I live, petrol is £1.02 per litre, which works out at current exchange rates as 7.6244USD for a US gallon. And there are ever more cars on the road, and every day I see more and more huge cars (although we're yet to get as obsessed with huge cars as America). All that has happened here as prices go up is that people spend more money on fuel

Beyond that, though, I don't know what the answer is :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom