Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rocky Mountain News)   "Denver residents may soon be asked to make personal sacrifices to help save the planet." Translation: We're jacking up energy and insurance rates and here's a list of cars you're not allowed to own   (rockymountainnews.com) divider line
40
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1112 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2007 at 8:27 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



40 Comments     (+0 »)
 
dahmers love zombie
2007-06-11 7:07:36 PM  
Denver may ask voters to approve higher rates for "excessive" use of electricity and natural gas. The plan also floats the idea of using insurance premiums to penalize people who drive long distances.

"You can think of them as penalties or you can think of them as market signals," said Conover. "There's some choice involved."

Remember, if it wasn't for this damn war with Oceania, none of this would be necessary.
/we've always been at war with Oceania
 
Weaver95
2007-06-11 7:10:59 PM  
Denver is gearing up to fight global warming, and residents may soon be asked to make personal sacrifices to help save the planet.

Every time some guy in a suit starts talking about 'personal sacrifice' my bunghole starts to itch.

I highly doubt any of the 'chosen people' will have to shoulder the burden of higher taxes. Somehow it always hits the little guys (and ONLY the little guys).
 
Seth_The_Wide
2007-06-11 7:47:38 PM  
FTFA "...encourage...by mandating..."

Well done Mayor Chickenpooper. Libs to the rescue!
 
smeag0l
2007-06-11 8:35:29 PM  
thesource.typepad.comView Full Size

WHAT IF I HAS CARBON CREDITS???
 
InternetLOL
2007-06-11 8:44:17 PM  
Denver may ask residents to make personal sacrifices to combat global warming. Ideas being considered:

• Making heavy users of electricity and natural gas pay more

Doesn't that happen already?
 
Poopspasm
2007-06-11 8:48:05 PM  
Is anyone else a little amused that a city as cold as Denver is fighting global warming?

Yes, yes, I know weather is not the same as climate so shut it. It just made me grin, that's all.
 
classicliberal
2007-06-11 8:59:58 PM  
Poopspasm......why can't they decide what I am supposed to be afraid of???????
 
R5D4
2007-06-11 9:06:05 PM  
InternetLOL: • Making heavy users of electricity and natural gas pay more

Doesn't that happen already?

In some ways, but not proportional to their usage.

For example: say two people drive from point A to point B.

Driver One consumes 1 gallon of fuel to make the journey.

Driver Two consumes 2 gallons of fuel to make the journey.

Total fuel consumed is 3 gallons.

If the price of fuel is determined by supply and demand, then Driver One is unfairly subsidizing the cost Driver Two's inefficiency.

Driver 1 only demands 1 gallon, but pays (half) the price of a 3-gallon demand rate (Or a 1.5 share).

Driver 2 gets a deal, as he also pays a 1.5 share, but used 2 gallons.
 
Jon Snow
2007-06-11 9:09:42 PM  
Local and state government are going to have to pick up the slack for Bushco, as yet again, all they're willing to do is talk about solving the problem while actually conducting business as usual, with all of the negative consequences.

Places like Portland having been going green voluntarily without slowing economic growth.
 
keytronic
2007-06-11 9:10:47 PM  
I like how the environmental movement is moving towards increasing costs and taxation.

Heaven forbid we look at making cars more efficient.

I'm not saying global warming isn't a problem, it is. But, from a practical point of view, mandating better efficiency from vehicles is smarter and more just than these phony taxes.
 
deevo
2007-06-11 9:18:35 PM  
keytronic
I like how the environmental movement is moving towards increasing costs and taxation.

Heaven forbid we look at making cars more efficient.

I'm not saying global warming isn't a problem, it is. But, from a practical point of view, mandating better efficiency from vehicles is smarter and more just than these phony taxes.

No, increased costs are the only way to decrease fuel usage. Increasing efficiency only encourages car culture for the masses, enables long-distance driving, gives no incentive to carpool, gives no incentive to combine trips, etc.

It may be socially inequitable for gasoline to hit $10 a gallon, but it's the only way to actually decrease fuel usage. Of course, all of this goes against Congress' anti-gouging bill, so you have to consider what their real motivation is... collecting votes from the upper-middle class who are so angry that it costs $75 to fill up their SUV for a weekend vacation.
 
Ironpoint
2007-06-11 9:21:44 PM  
LOL,

Driver 1 paid for 1 gallon, got one gallon
Driver 2 paid for 2 gallons, got two gallons.

Obviously driver 2 is more important and worth more as a person and an individual and, as such, requires a larger, more luxurious vehicle. Driver 1 should be buying driver 2 half a gallon of gas for bringing driver 2 down to their level.

Driver 1 can stay home and pay no share. Driver 2 pays their full share of 2.
 
Zulthar
2007-06-11 9:41:35 PM  
As a member of the Denver suburbs I can tell you that this 'plan' is going to drive *more* people out of the core city. First it was busing, then it was crime and high taxes, then it was the Denver abuse of gun-owners. All that is left in the Denver core neighborhoods are the poor, the homeless, and a bizarre alliance of left-wing gays, Jews, DINKs (Dual-Income-No-Kids), and all Denver cops who are required by law to live there.

Even the local phone company is abandoning the Denver core. It is moving as many jobs as it can to the suburbs.

\Yeah - Some would call me a racist about the statements above. Prove to me it isn't true. I just report'em as I see'em.
\\As soon as a husband and wife find out that she is with child they scramble to the suburbs before the child starts preschool.
\\\A lot of Denver teachers send their kids to private school. They see how bad a job they are doing.
 
MrGMan
2007-06-11 9:41:59 PM  
R5D4

I'm not sure "Supply and Demand" means what you think it means...
 
cmb53208
2007-06-11 9:58:37 PM  
Auto insurance premiums based on miles driven? Well, insurance companies already ask that very same question, and a lot of people lie right on their faces: "uh, I only drive 2 miles a day, honest."

And who is going to determine what a "heavy user of electricity" is? Does that mean a low inocme person in a poorly insulated rental unit that lets heat/AC out is going to have to pay more in utility bills?
 
Danceswithwires
2007-06-11 10:14:49 PM  
Seth_The_Wide

Well done Mayor Chickenpooper. Libs to the rescue!

He's no lib, he's a straight up business boy
 
cpayne
2007-06-11 10:15:20 PM  
I love the green incentives..heck give anyone/company that has a hybrid and/or high-efficiency car/truck a Federal Tax Break.

Things would work themselves out
 
owlywowly
2007-06-11 10:28:03 PM  
Zulthar's point, while possibly true, is not logical. In fact, the "poor" are the bread and butter of phone companies, and the other groups he mentioned, at least in the Denver region, represent the highest salaried minorities. Gays and Jews, at least, are known for their frugality and economic success. The gay minority is actually one of the highest paid minorities in the counntry, and while jews are not demographically, in the Denver area they are all well paid. I'm not sure what Zulthar is driving at? That rich, poor and minorities all live together? is that bad? Cops also are relatively well paid. So, the comment makes NO SENSE AT ALL. The nonsensical idea that gun owners were all somehow chased out of Denver is on the face of it absurd, as Colorado has specific laws PROTECTING gun owners and their right to SHOOT TO KILL people who even challenge them at a STREET LIGHT. Honest, we recently aquitted a man who shot someone who "threatened him" at a stop sign.

As to the rest, yes, you are racist, retarded moron.
 
inglixthemad
2007-06-11 10:28:43 PM  
cmb53208: And who is going to determine what a "heavy user of electricity" is? Does that mean a low inocme person in a poorly insulated rental unit that lets heat/AC out is going to have to pay more in utility bills?

Yep. So will the person who keeps their house at 60 in the summer and 80 in the winter.

Charge people based upon what they use? That's unpossible!

Personally I don't care. Most of the stuff they're looking at doing, others are doing elsewhere. The trash thing is pretty common. Efficiency standards are often just silent additions to the building code, and in many cases just there, suck it deniers. The whole priority parking thing? Bahh, leave priority for the handicapped.
 
WhyteRaven74
2007-06-11 10:38:38 PM  
deevo: No, increased costs are the only way to decrease fuel usage.

It hurts the poor, therefore is a moral fiasco. Want to decrease fuel usage? Find a way to do it that doesn't hurt the poor. If you can't find a way? Then give it up.
 
glassa
2007-06-11 10:57:05 PM  
This is more proof to me that "global warming" is only a scheme to increase taxes & allow those in power to acquire more power.

I don't trust these jerks. They're all out for money and that's it.
 
Accolade
2007-06-11 11:12:15 PM  
glassa: This is more proof to me that "global warming" is only a scheme to increase taxes & allow those in power to acquire more power.

I don't trust these jerks. They're all out for money and that's it.

Please tell me this is sarcasm. You could, you know, research it yourself. You might actually find out why it's such a big deal. I apologize if you weren't serious.
 
ptelg
2007-06-11 11:13:10 PM  
Poopspasm - As cold as it is here? It's 90 degrees in mid June, we have winter days as warm as 70. 'shrug' Oh well I guess you know best.
 
Korovyov
2007-06-11 11:35:45 PM  
cmb53208: Auto insurance premiums based on miles driven? Well, insurance companies already ask that very same question, and a lot of people lie right on their faces: "uh, I only drive 2 miles a day, honest."

Depending on the state laws, the city might be able to require workarounds, like getting the odometer checked during periodic inspections (and making tampering with it criminal) or by going realllly Big Brother-ish and requiring tracking devices.

An insurance company might be permitted to require policyholders to show up for odometer checks, but unless the other insurance companies did the same they'd probably offend and drive away a lot of their customer base. Only a government or a monopoly could be that invasive, I'd think, without offering heavy incentives.

And who is going to determine what a "heavy user of electricity" is? Does that mean a low inocme person in a poorly insulated rental unit that lets heat/AC out is going to have to pay more in utility bills?

Depends on the regulations. The devil's always in the details. kWH/occupant makes some sense for residential units, but who wants to set thresholds, and what's "excessive" for a manufacturing site?
 
McNip
2007-06-11 11:39:07 PM  
I have a simple solution. Vehicles that weigh over 4000lbs can only use the 2 right lanes of the freeways. Just watch as people dump their heavy overweight gas sucking SUV's.
 
Iwouldhitit [TotalFark] [OhFark]
2007-06-12 12:02:38 AM  
Zulthar All that is left in the Denver core neighborhoods are the poor, the homeless, and a bizarre alliance of left-wing gays, Jews, DINKs (Dual-Income-No-Kids), and all Denver cops who are required by law to live there.

Not poor, have a house, not gay, not Jewish, single, not a cop, living in Wash Park.

Am I going to die?
 
inglixthemad
2007-06-12 12:25:40 AM  
Korovyov: Depending on the state laws, the city might be able to require workarounds, like getting the odometer checked during periodic inspections (and making tampering with it criminal) or by going realllly Big Brother-ish and requiring tracking devices.

Tampering with an odometer is already illegal.

Depends on the regulations. The devil's always in the details. kWH/occupant makes some sense for residential units, but who wants to set thresholds, and what's "excessive" for a manufacturing site?

Oh for a business like that, I guarantee someone would get paid off, it's the American way.
 
Mnemia
2007-06-12 1:05:50 AM  
A lot of the restrictions on cars would be more easily and more efficiently addressed by simply increasing the gas tax by a couple of dollars a gallon or something. That's my favored solution, since it would a) allow the market to determine the best way to cut down on gasoline usage, and b) allow room for personal choice: you can drive more if you're willing to pay for it. Gasoline usage is also very closely tied to the problem they're trying to address, while auto insurance premiums have very little to do with global warming. A per-mile tax is also stupid compared to a gas tax because it doesn't even reward people for buying more efficient cars.
 
ragingchihuahua
2007-06-12 2:08:18 AM  
People who drive $40,000 luxury SUVs that never leave a paved road are not going to be hurt by higher gas taxes. Oh boo hoo, they might have to cut back on their weekly lattes, but they'll still feel that they're entitled to such a wasteful vehicle to "keep the children safe" and let the wife feel empowered. No, the people who will be hurt are the low-income folks who drive older, inefficient cars they can't replaces and are forced into long commutes because they can only afford to live far from work.

Tax the hell out of new and used SUV sales. The people who buy them are as much about owning a new car as they are a big, "macho" one, and if their new Hummer costs $10,000 more, they might reconsider.
 
deevo
2007-06-12 2:18:06 AM  
WhyteRaven74
It hurts the poor, therefore is a moral fiasco. Want to decrease fuel usage? Find a way to do it that doesn't hurt the poor. If you can't find a way? Then give it up.

That's why I said it's socially inequitable, and it definitely would be unstable financially if we didn't develop things like alternative (non-fossil) fuels and efficient public transit real quick. The only ones really proposing it are the rich little libertarian kids and the environmentalists who believe in protection before human concern.
 
Thorndyke Barnhard
2007-06-12 2:47:50 AM  
The damage is being done at the industrial level.

That's the problem with these "tax the individual" solutions. It's completely backasswards. As long as industry is not compelled to do business in more responsable, sustainable ways then they won't and the consumer's hands remain tied as to just how realistically he can change things.

Make it illegal to damage public property and ressources (air and water) through negligent business practices. Offer both incentives for better practices and sanctions for crappy ones and, voila.

The only thing anyone ever has to say against this is they think this means collapsing the economy, as if business would rather stick it's fingers in it's ears and asphyxiate itself like a four year old having a tatrum than adapt and make money through better ways. Please. Have a little more faith in the intelligence of capitalists.
 
CitizenReserveCorps
2007-06-12 2:51:24 AM  
Zulthar


As a member of the Denver suburbs I can tell you that this 'plan' is going to drive *more* people out of the core city. First it was busing, then it was crime and high taxes, then it was the Denver abuse of gun-owners. All that is left in the Denver core neighborhoods are the poor, the homeless, and a bizarre alliance of left-wing gays, Jews, DINKs (Dual-Income-No-Kids), and all Denver cops who are required by law to live there.

Even the local phone company is abandoning the Denver core. It is moving as many jobs as it can to the suburbs.


Bravo! A bigotry tour de force!

While I don't fall into any of the categories described, I do find your analysis to be incredibly generalistic. It's almost as if you've spent your whole life in Aurora or Thornton and never actually been to Denver, too afraid to enter the fray.

I suspect that the poor is a euphemism for the black and Mexican communities, because white people in the suburbs are always of means, right?

The gays and Jews bit are a little obvious. I'm sure wherever you're from, these types of people are more or less an urban legend. I mean, come on who in the burbs isn't heterosexual and down with Jesus?

The DINKs bit was excellent. Down with the unprocreating intelligentsia comrade! We are here to breed and work!

The police bit really gave it away. Your assertion is that we should support our police, but they don't really want to live here. Straight up parrot propaganda.

The phone company bit is a total non-sequitur.

I suggest visiting places before you cast aspersions about them. Just because your uncle is a grand wizard, don't believe everything he tells you.
 
Public Call Box [TotalFark]
2007-06-12 7:47:00 AM  
After living there for two years, I have to say Denver really needs a better transit system. I mean I was impressed that I could actually commute from Lakewood to Broomfield by bus, but it shouldn't take two farking hours!

\And the 3+ hour bus journey to Attactix in Aurora is insane.
\\Lovely city though, I'd love to be back there again.
\\\How's that whole light rail project working out for you?
 
glassa
2007-06-12 8:33:36 AM  
Accolade:
"Please tell me this is sarcasm. You could, you know, research it yourself. You might actually find out why it's such a big deal. I apologize if you weren't serious."

I'm very serious! It's all about attention and money...especially for Al Gore. He owns stock in the company people buy carbon credits from.

It's all about panic-mongering the gullible to get money from them. I'm not saying global warming isn't happening...I'm not convinced it's ALL human's fault. Even the UN report says the human impact is small.

Good Lord, I swear these nuts would blame humans if we got hit by an astroid tomorrow! That's how arrogant these jerks are.
 
MindStalker
2007-06-12 8:42:29 AM  
"The most remarkable difference is that you used to see people with 15 bags of lawn clippings on the street; you don't see that anymore," said Susie Gordon, senior environmental planner for the city.

WTF? Wouldn't you WANT to encourage this, and have a special pickup for the lawn clippings to use as mulch/etc. Forcing residents to dump them on their own lawn or worse burn them is silly.
 
Mnemia
2007-06-12 9:18:19 AM  
deevo: That's why I said it's socially inequitable, and it definitely would be unstable financially if we didn't develop things like alternative (non-fossil) fuels and efficient public transit real quick. The only ones really proposing it are the rich little libertarian kids and the environmentalists who believe in protection before human concern.

It's simple: if you don't want a heavy gas tax to disproportionately hurt the poor, simply reduce other taxes that disproportionately affect the poor by an equal amount or increase negative income taxes (like the EITC) by an equal amount. You could, for example, exempt the first $10,000 of income from Social Security tax and pay for that tax cut with a big tax increase on gasoline. Then it would be tax-neutral for most of the people who are poor but drive; a tax cut for anyone who doesn't drive, drives little, or drives a very efficient car, and a tax increase for people who drive a ton in a very inefficient vehicle. You could even factor in various exemptions for certain kinds of tradesmen, etc if you wanted. So the "socially inequitable" argument doesn't work that well if it's structured properly.

Also, there would BE much more incentive for the development of better mass transit and alternative fuel vehicles if we slapped a big tax on gasoline.
 
TheGreatGazoo
2007-06-12 10:29:03 AM  
Why not have a graduated scale by how much gas you buy at one time? Ie the first 10 gallons are $3.00, the next 10 are $3.50, and so forth. The bigger the tank, generally the less efficient the vehicle. (obviously this wouldn't apply to big rigs)

You want to drive a civic with a 12 gallon tank, great, you get cheap(er) gas. You want to drive an expedition with a 40 gallon tank, you either have to fill up a lot (a pain) or pay extra for it.

Obviously there would need to be some sort of way to stop people from filling up twice within 10 minutes.

/ just a thought...
 
mongbiohazard
2007-06-12 10:36:55 AM  
Poopspasm
Is anyone else a little amused that a city as cold as Denver is fighting global warming?

Yes, yes, I know weather is not the same as climate so shut it. It just made me grin, that's all.


It's funnier than that... since 9 of the 12 warmest years on record for Denver have all been before 1955. ;)

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/include/showProduct.php?product=annxtrm05.txt
 
Poopspasm
2007-06-12 10:57:02 AM  
ptelg: Poopspasm - As cold as it is here? It's 90 degrees in mid June, we have winter days as warm as 70. 'shrug' Oh well I guess you know best.

I know. I readily admit that Denver is not Antarctica. But I'm from FL, and I'll be living in SoCal by the end of this month. By my standards, Denver is farking frigid. :-)
 
Roy_G_Biv
2007-06-12 12:36:08 PM  
McNip: I have a simple solution. Vehicles that weigh over 4000lbs can only use the 2 right lanes of the freeways. Just watch as people dump their heavy overweight gas sucking SUV's.

As far as I'm concerned, they should be required to do that already, in areas where "trucks use 2 right lanes" is the law. At least for truck-based SUVs and vans. And I'm not an SUV-hater.

Yeah, I know it's not enforced anywhere. But it should be. Based on the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More Fark for your buck

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.