Unexpected Consequences - Smoking Bans/Drunk Driving

[Rooster_Ties]

Let me add that I am happy that oil price is skyrocketing, it will force lots of people toward a more enviromental friendly behavior even if they didn't give a damn about it, and force automotive industry in the same way.

Amen to that. Nobody's ever going to change anything, unless they feel it in the pocketbook.

[Guy Berger]

Let me add that I am happy that oil price is skyrocketing, it will force lots of people toward a more enviromental friendly behavior even if they didn't give a damn about it, and force automotive industry in the same way.

Amen to that. Nobody's ever going to change anything, unless they feel it in the pocketbook.

Agreed... up to a point higher energy prices are actually a good thing since they wipe out some of the externalities from energy use (environmental***, geopolitical). Given a hypothetical choice between appropriate taxes and higher energy prices the latter is inferior - but that is not on the table.

***Assuming that higher energy prices don't cause people to switch excessively to environmentally inferior forms of energy (eg coal).

[tkeith]

My point is that if you drive a useless gas guzzler instead of a low emission vehicle just because you enjoy and can afford it (like a BMW X5 or a Hummer) YOU are damaging my health and I can't call you on it. So if the problem is only personal annoyance, I'd add cell phones conversations and lots of bad behavior, if the problem is pollution I'd add gaz guzzlers and all the behaviors that contribute to it, like plastic bags, etc. Lots of these behaviors could be changed with the very same minimum effort a smoker put in avoiding smoking in public places. That's it. Plain and simple.

On that much we can agree. I do NOT drive a fuel efficient car, but I DO have a valid reason. I live on an unmaintained road and have an interstate commute. There are times of the year where 4WD is not an option, but a very distinct necessity. That said, when I see some tool driving around in a Suburban with a child in the last seat and the rest of it empty, it rather irritates me. Cell phones can go the way of the Edsel and I'd not shed a tear. We have more common ground than I realized -- my apologies.

[porcy62]

My point is that if you drive a useless gas guzzler instead of a low emission vehicle just because you enjoy and can afford it (like a BMW X5 or a Hummer) YOU are damaging my health and I can't call you on it. So if the problem is only personal annoyance, I'd add cell phones conversations and lots of bad behavior, if the problem is pollution I'd add gaz guzzlers and all the behaviors that contribute to it, like plastic bags, etc. Lots of these behaviors could be changed with the very same minimum effort a smoker put in avoiding smoking in public places. That's it. Plain and simple.

On that much we can agree. I do NOT drive a fuel efficient car, but I DO have a valid reason. I live on an unmaintained road and have an interstate commute. There are times of the year where 4WD is not an option, but a very distinct necessity. That said, when I see some tool driving around in a Suburban with a child in the last seat and the rest of it empty, it rather irritates me. Cell phones can go the way of the Edsel and I'd not shed a tear. We have more common ground than I realized -- my apologies.

No need to apologize.

I just watched at TV a research about farming and agriculture.

Basically one third of CO2 global emission comes from intensive (and chemical) agriculture. It's quite complex to explain, but, chemical agents used as fertilizers contribute to augment CO2 emissions, at the same time packing, moving and preserve foods increase CO2 emission, I mean that if you want strawberries or asparagus out of season it will cost to you one hundred more then the price the farmers get. (basically you're paying for transport and packaging, not for food).

In this system for farmers is more profitable to grown up out seasoned stuff for export, rather then vegetables and fruits for internal market, unless they bypass the big distribution and the global market.

The absurd thing is that farmers harvest green tomatoes, that lack all the vitamins and the stuff that makes tomato a healthy food, because all these depens on the fact that you got them only if tomatoes ripen naturally.

In one world: big corporates will not save us, we have to learn and adopt better behaviors.

[tkeith]

Fortunately, I live in a very 'crunchy' area. A short drive away, we can get lots of organic produce; even have the option to eat it at a number of area restaurants. I forget about that when I talk to people from elsewhere. Sane options are a very good thing.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Correct, but I trade MY health when I drive MY motorbike or I smoke.

Not wholly true. You also trade other people's health, in either case, if you do those things in places where they could affect others (and inevitably on your bike). You may not have run anyone over, yet, but you're still trading their health. Society happens, at present, to regard one as more acceptable than the other, which doesn't make either right, from a public policy point of view.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Let me add that I am happy that oil price is skyrocketing, it will force lots of people toward a more enviromental friendly behavior even if they didn't give a damn about it, and force automotive industry in the same way.

Amen to that. Nobody's ever going to change anything, unless they feel it in the pocketbook.

Agreed... up to a point higher energy prices are actually a good thing since they wipe out some of the externalities from energy use (environmental***, geopolitical). Given a hypothetical choice between appropriate taxes and higher energy prices the latter is inferior - but that is not on the table.

***Assuming that higher energy prices don't cause people to switch excessively to environmentally inferior forms of energy (eg coal).

In Britain, petrol prices are something like $7-8-9 a gallon (can't be asked to convert pounds to dollars and litres to American gallons at the moment) and they do not affect people's use as far as anyone can tell.

In a sense, petrol is something like bread or some other essential food. The price can probably increase by several orders of magnitude without affecting consumption - our society is such that hundreds, thousands, of other items can, and would, be sacrificed first. So the effect of increasing prices would simply be to reduce sales of other goods (though which would depend on how prices would be raised - tax or profit).

MG

[porcy62]

Correct, but I trade MY health when I drive MY motorbike or I smoke.

Not wholly true. You also trade other people's health, in either case, if you do those things in places where they could affect others (and inevitably on your bike). You may not have run anyone over, yet, but you're still trading their health. Society happens, at present, to regard one as more acceptable than the other, which doesn't make either right, from a public policy point of view.

MG

Correct, as usual MG.

[porcy62]

Let me add that I am happy that oil price is skyrocketing, it will force lots of people toward a more enviromental friendly behavior even if they didn't give a damn about it, and force automotive industry in the same way.

Amen to that. Nobody's ever going to change anything, unless they feel it in the pocketbook.

Agreed... up to a point higher energy prices are actually a good thing since they wipe out some of the externalities from energy use (environmental***, geopolitical). Given a hypothetical choice between appropriate taxes and higher energy prices the latter is inferior - but that is not on the table.

***Assuming that higher energy prices don't cause people to switch excessively to environmentally inferior forms of energy (eg coal).

In Britain, petrol prices are something like $7-8-9 a gallon (can't be asked to convert pounds to dollars and litres to American gallons at the moment) and they do not affect people's use as far as anyone can tell.

In a sense, petrol is something like bread or some other essential food. The price can probably increase by several orders of magnitude without affecting consumption - our society is such that hundreds, thousands, of other items can, and would, be sacrificed first. So the effect of increasing prices would simply be to reduce sales of other goods (though which would depend on how prices would be raised - tax or profit).

MG

Partially true, if we speak about highly industrialized countries.

In Italy sales of fuel efficient cars is the only segment of automotive industry that works (+ 20%, compared to -27% of normal cars). And it works for lot's of stuff: like photovoltaic systems. We are at the breaking point when single individuals find convenient adopt a different behavior. About photovoltaic panels, two years ago you needed ten years to have some economic benefit, now, because of more efficiency and oil and gas price you start to see a benefit in your pocket after two years.

Because of the general price's rise, lots people quitted to buy bottled mineral water and drink tap water, wich is mostly the same of the bottled one.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Partially true, if we speak about highly industrialized countries.

You know, I always thought Italy WAS one of the highly industrialised countries

In Italy sales of fuel efficient cars is the only segment of automotive industry that works (+ 20%, compared to -27% of normal cars).

That is very interesting.

MG

[porcy62]

You know, I always thought Italy WAS one of the highly industrialised countries

MG

So did I before the last election