Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jfrazell wrote:Griggie does have a point. The people in Waller or any county outside heavily urbanized areas are presented with an undue hardship. No politician who supports "just get over it" will get their vote.

Unfortunately, no political act or sleight of hand can change the long-term trends there. Not that they will abstain from claiming otherwise, of course.

Where there's a will there's a way.

*Drill all the oil on the West Coast out.
*Charge urban dwellers $100 monthly for the privelege of living in a city. Those funds go directly to rural areas.
Hey everyone has to sacrifice

So the proposal is to subsidize the lifestyle that we are going to have to move away from by taxing the one we need to move towards?

I think commuter taxes (both indirect, such as gasoline excise taxes to fund commuting infrastructure,* more direct, as in toll financing of commuting facilities, and most direct, the adoption of fees to access urban cores during peak times) are a much more likely outcome.

*Probably replaced by Vehicle Miles Travelled tracking and taxation before too long

and that subsidizes the urban lifestyle. I'm not sure why you're thinking an urban lifestyle is better, but we'll leave that for another conversation.

EDIT: McCain just announced a proposal to make the US erergy independent by 2025. I'm down with that.

I don't think he's saying an urban lifestyle is better. I think he's saying that it's more energy-efficient.

Having the population less spread-out from the places we work and buy things means less energy consumed moving people and things over the countryside. This is the practical value of cities, no?

I have friends in Boston who take public transportation to work, or ride bikes. And they can walk to good restaurants. I can't do those things. I burn a lot more gas than they do.

Can't grow food, work in a plant or factory either. You can't have a fully urbanized country unless you're talking Japan, and even that country is not urbanized. But agreed, there are potential energy savings, although it would be interesing in light of telecommuting and the ability to use solar panels to make yourself energy efficient-how much better that would really be. Even at a personal level its an interesting dichotomy. I take the bus, but I have to drive 15 miles to get to the park n ride.

But again the greatness of rural vs. urban life is, is a separate topic

OT but typing "is, is" can officially sprain your brain.

jfrazell wrote:OT but typing "is, is" can officially sprain your brain.

I will take that as license to make one quick note: Los Angeles County is still the manufacturing jobs capitol of the United States.

http://www.laedc.org/reports/Mfg-2007-Report.pdf

Thats funny right there.

jfrazell wrote:EDIT: McCain just announced a proposal to make the US erergy independent by 2025. I'm down with that.

Allowing that, as a press release, it may not be as detailed as whatever white paper/policy document is eventually released, do you think that this Lexington Project will achieve what you believe is necessary within the timeline you have outlined above?

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/Read.aspx?guid=eb4563f3-e78b-4229-afda-8610092d0df2

I would like to think that. It looks interesting, and has many of these ideas. However, we need to push beyond to a hydrogen/electric economy (so aka keep going and not just clean fuels). So I'm pessimistic until proven wrong.

Also cap and trade is an idea just this side of scammnitude. But again, different topic unrelated to energy.

It is much better to genetically alter yeast to produce light sweet crude oil than anything else.