My fix for global warming: outlaw personal autos in cities

[wuliheron]

Seriously?

Seriously.

 

[monovillage]

High gas prices will get this done.

Of course! That's why there are no personal use cars, trucks or motorcycles in Europe.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Cities are forced to subsidize public transportation because wealthier urbanites look at it as an occasional mode of convenience but nothing more (i.e. they'll take public transit when it's convenient for them and only then). They also have a fetish for light rail since they will ride buses as an absolute last resort, feeling that they are the transportation for poor people, not them. Take away their cars, and they'd do just fine; they can finally use the public transportation they keep asking billions for every year.


I don't get your point. Are you Texans all royalty and too good to ride a bus or train? And size makes not a bit of difference, with express buses it doesn't take that much longer to get somewhere via bus than by private car. I bet the vast majority of urbanites never go more than 5 miles or so from home or work in any event. And if you do go beyond that regularly, you probably should be living in a suburb anyway since you miss the entire point of urban life.

Mass transit doesn't run where I live. I can catch a bus about 5 miles from where I work but I have to drive 17 miles to get to that point. Not much use in doing that. Light rail is available in downtown Houston then again I don't work downtown. The company's facilities are located in the suburbs.

 

[charrison]

Yes.

Which is more livable, dense high rise or suburban areas with green belts and parks. I really question the sanity of what greens call livable.

 

[davmat787]

Since the "science of global warming is settled," time to do something about it. I propose that personally-owned/private automobiles be banned within the city limits (excluding national freeways passing through the city) of any urban area above a certain size, maybe 25k (we can always adjust). One caveat would be that public transportation exists in the city, if not, it would it would be immediately built then the auto prohibition would come into play. The only automobiles allowed in city limits would be publicly-owned (buses, firetrucks, ambulances, etc) and delivery vehicles from private companies; the only motor vehicles that private citizens would be allowed would be scooters or similar and most transportation would be via public transit vehicles like bus or train. An exemption would be made for those with physical disabilities to have a ADA-compliant van. All federal highway funds would be redirected to public transit, and some more funds could be added to provide the intra-city high speed rail that the cities seem to crave.

Here is a great 30 second video on this proposal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX161ulHrSA

 

[sandorski]

Which is more livable, dense high rise or suburban areas with green belts and parks. I really question the sanity of what greens call livable.

Depends on your criteria, but for the greatest Energy Efficiency, Time Efficiency, and overall Convenience, it's near impossible to beat High Density Housing in a well designed Urban environment.

 

[Darwin333]

Before I am even willing to consider that I would like to know how you plan on convincing the other 6 1/2 billion people on the planet that do not live in the US to do the same. This is a global problem after all and its not like if we do the right thing and no one else does the US will be spared from the potentially problems, right?

 

[wuliheron]

Before the auto companies bribed every official in every major city in America (often by just giving them free cars) all the cities had electric street cars. They worked great, people loved them and crowded them, and the governments ripped almost every one of them up anyway.

Recent progress with hydrogen fuel cells and electric batteries along with the rising cost of oil will likely force the issue whether people want change or not and no matter who tries to bribe who. Even in places like Mexico city, Beijing, and Calcutta notorious for air pollution the trade offs will no longer be worth the price.

 

[Darwin333]

Before the auto companies bribed every official in every major city in America (often by just giving them free cars) all the cities had electric street cars. They worked great, people loved them and crowded them, and the governments ripped almost every one of them up anyway.

Recent progress with hydrogen fuel cells and electric batteries along with the rising cost of oil will likely force the issue whether people want change or not and no matter who tries to bribe who. Even in places like Mexico city, Beijing, and Calcutta notorious for air pollution the trade offs will no longer be worth the price.

I wonder what the average person in Mexico City, Beijing, and Calcutta currently pay for a vehicle and how much more an EV, hybrid or hydrogen car would cost them?

 

[Darwin333]

Completely serious. And basically you're saying that it's only the people in Hummers that are fvcking the climate up; since you have a Prius you don't count? Saying the problem isn't cars it's the emissions is a nonsensical statement, without the cars there wouldn't be any emissions so you're making a circular argument. I'm fine with taxing gas more, and since urbanites wouldn't be buying any that would bring down the base price of gas anyway. I'm fine with increasing urban density too, pack in 10s of thousands per square mile for all I care. BTW, cities could function fine without cars; you're making excuses just like the Texan above - your convenience isn't a reason to exempt yourself from carbon reductions while you give guilt trips to a suburban soccer mom driving an oversized SUV.

You got an air conditioning unit in your house? How about a heater? Its obvious you have a PC of somesort and internet access, I assume you also have a TV and a microwave? An oven maybe? Hot water? Any cement used to build your home?

All of that stuff causes more emissions than what you would save by taking cars out of cities but you really aren't the problem. The problem is that billions of people do not currently have all that stuff but they really really want it and are working to get it. How do you convince them to pay much more (in this context that means going without much longer) or to simply stop wanting to increase their standard of living?

 

[monovillage]

Depends on your criteria, but for the greatest Energy Efficiency, Time Efficiency, and overall Convenience, it's near impossible to beat High Density Housing in a well designed Urban environment.

Whether the ignorant peons want it or not.

 

[Darwin333]

My fix for global warming is to legislate that farmers must collect all cow farts. Its a completely wasted resource that merely contributes to greenhouse gas levels. Why some private entrepreneur hasn't already investigated the technology I haven't a clue, but its obviously at least as feasible as banning private vehicles in all cities around the world. I say the FDA should fund the research.

Dumb question again, what about the cows that aren't under the FDAs authority? I am not sure what the ratio of cows in the US is compared to the rest of the world but I assume the majority of cows on the planet do not fall under the FDAs rule.

 

[sandorski]

Whether the ignorant peons want it or not.

Fail

 

[wuliheron]

I wonder what the average person in Mexico City, Beijing, and Calcutta currently pay for a vehicle and how much more an EV, hybrid or hydrogen car would cost them?

That's just too difficult to express in any meaningful way or even make an educated guess at. Currency values change so dramatically and often that the vast majority of international trade consists of just swapping one ship's cargo for another. Relative costs can also vary so much that what we consider a cheap pair of sunglasses they consider major luxuries. Other places consider what we pay for things like rent or electronics highway robbery.

 

[Imp]

Why ban when you can tax?

Do the London thing. Hasn't helped congestion all that much, but it's created a very nice revenue stream to fund da guberment. Some of which could go to public transit.

 

[wuliheron]

Dumb question again, what about the cows that aren't under the FDAs authority? I am not sure what the ratio of cows in the US is compared to the rest of the world but I assume the majority of cows on the planet do not fall under the FDAs rule.

The idea is that the gas is a wasted resource and will more then pay for itself. Those countries who resist would end up paying higher energy costs and international pressure would provide an added incentive to change their flatulent ways. No different really then social pressure not to fart in a crowded room.

 

[a777pilot]

Since the "science of global warming is settled," time to do something about it. I propose that personally-owned/private automobiles be banned within the city limits (excluding national freeways passing through the city) of any urban area above a certain size, maybe 25k (we can always adjust). One caveat would be that public transportation exists in the city, if not, it would it would be immediately built then the auto prohibition would come into play. The only automobiles allowed in city limits would be publicly-owned (buses, firetrucks, ambulances, etc) and delivery vehicles from private companies; the only motor vehicles that private citizens would be allowed would be scooters or similar and most transportation would be via public transit vehicles like bus or train. An exemption would be made for those with physical disabilities to have a ADA-compliant van. All federal highway funds would be redirected to public transit, and some more funds could be added to provide the intra-city high speed rail that the cities seem to crave.

Since the "science of global warming is settled,"

Really? When did that happen? I must have missed the memo.

 

[monovillage]

Really? When did that happen? I must have missed the memo.

You didn't miss it, in fact you can't find a single climate scientist from Gavin Schmidt to Judith Curry who says that the science is settled.

 

[charrison]

Depends on your criteria, but for the greatest Energy Efficiency, Time Efficiency, and overall Convenience, it's near impossible to beat High Density Housing in a well designed Urban environment.

You might win land efficient, but I think all other points are up for debate. It seems the more dense a city, they worse its traffic becomes. And in my opinion there is nothing less convenient than living in high density housing.

 

[zsdersw]

Ban cars? There's no chance in hell I'd support anything like that.

How about we let the market do what it does best: provide for consumer wants/needs. There will come a time when oil becomes comparatively more expensive to extract/refine than other alternatives. When that becomes a matter of actual world supply, you can bet your ass there will be more biofuel, hydrogen, electric, or natural gas alternatives. Consumer demand and economic necessity are the two greatest mothers of invention and development that we've ever known.

Oil shale, for example, is a natural resource that America has enough of on its own to provide oil/gas for a *long* time. The trick is to extract and refine it. When the price of oil gets above $90/barrel this extraction/refining process becomes economically viable.

 

[Deeko]

This is terrible, this is idea.

 

[sandorski]

You might win land efficient, but I think all other points are up for debate. It seems the more dense a city, they worse its traffic becomes. And in my opinion there is nothing less convenient than living in high density housing.

Watch the link I posted earlier.

 

[sandorski]

Ban cars? There's no chance in hell I'd support anything like that.

How about we let the market do what it does best: provide for consumer wants/needs. There will come a time when oil becomes comparatively more expensive to extract/refine than other alternatives. When that becomes a matter of actual world supply, you can bet your ass there will be more biofuel, hydrogen, electric, or natural gas alternatives. Consumer demand and economic necessity are the two greatest mothers of invention and development that we've ever known.

Oil shale, for example, is a natural resource that America has enough of on its own to provide oil/gas for a *long* time. The trick is to extract and refine it. When the price of oil gets above $90/barrel this extraction/refining process becomes economically viable.

I agree that a Ban won't work, but neither will waiting for the "Market". The "Market" is too slow and needs the appropriate nudges from Regulation to transition in a timely manner. This is especially true when your Competitors won't be waiting on the Market and will take the initiative.

 

[zsdersw]

The "Market" is too slow and needs the appropriate nudges from Regulation to transition in a timely manner. This is especially true when your Competitors won't be waiting on the Market and will take the initiative.

I disagree. This isn't like a new product.. this is something fundamental to the economy of the civilized world: transportation and energy. If you don't think the market can move swiftly in a direction that is vital for its own survival, you're not paying attention.

 

[dmcowen674]

High gas prices will get this done.

This

Only the rich will be able to run cars