Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- From: "Robert" <robert@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:40:57 +0700
The people who use more tend to be the folks to whom the incentive will
matter least. Gas would have to cost five to ten times what it does
today before I'd really start to care enough about the cost to change my
behavior -- but you'd get the poor people out of their cars and onto the
buses and trains (or even bicycles) long before that.
This is an interesting bit. Efficient anything is great and all, if your ROI is there.
But better still is just rational zoning. I am american, and things are bad.
Houses here, mall there, grocery the other way. Offices way over the other way,
with the factories down wind.. Cities are built for cars, not for people!
I have been in asia the last 6 years. Here is it much better. I can look out the window
and see a quicky mart, a fruit shop, a bar, 2 restaurants, dry cleaner, etc. In china I shared
my floor of a tower with a civil engineering firm, an insurance firm, an export firm, and 2
other families house!
Mixed use. I walk everywhere. Take a moto every week to the big market, and a taxi
with friends when going out. If everything is handy, why drive? No car payment,
insurance, repairs, parking, depreciation, inspections, plates, etc.
And then there is telecommuting.
Why, exactly, do we need all of these cars?!?
If you look at personal energy usage, cars are maybe first? So, we get rid of most via convenience..
Then heating/cooling, hot water - Solar thermal is much more effective than solar power.
insulation is cheap.
refrigerators - shop across the street. Buy fresh. Maybe a small one for beer and snacks.
for all the rest - big tv's, computers, well, getting down to small potatoes but every bit
helps.
We do not need taxes, credits, or a change of life style.
We do need smarter cities, designed for people, optimized for convenience.
Put a bus or train stop in every kilometer, and things get better still.
Then the problem almost solves itself.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- From: Stephen Sprunk
- Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- References:
- Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- From: Stephen Sprunk
- Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- From: Stephen Fuld
- Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- From: Stephen Sprunk
- Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- Prev by Date: Re: Philosopy - was Terje, Nick - do you have a minute?
- Next by Date: Re: Philosopy - was Terje, Nick - do you have a minute?
- Previous by thread: Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- Next by thread: Re: DARPA, at least, has a clue
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|