Raise the driving age to 18, you get less cars on the road, less CO2 emmissions, gas prices go down, fewer oil wars, less teen pregancies and more time to study for a good education. Sure 'small buisness' would be hurt, but then you realize that is mostly fast food joints which is behind Americas fattening which lead to higher health costs. Not to mention all the deaths related to teenage drivers and all the dumb teenage posters wanting to stop global warming by changing lightbults. I think I just save the world. Al Gore can kiss my a**!
2007-07-25 00:46:06 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Zero emission cars are really only zero at the tailpipe and while global warming is hyped the gas prices are clearly real. Alternative energy is a an alternative to conservation, not oil. Why wait for technology 20 yrs down the road, when we can pass legislation this year?
2007-07-25 01:07:16 · update #1
You make the assumption that teenagers have no legitimate need of a car.
Your assumption is false.
Even though it has been over forty years since I was a teenager I do not think that the world has changed that much.
Many teenagers must be able to work and run businesses to support themselves and their families. Not all teenagers are fortunate enough to live in families where they are supported economically.
Many teenagers do useful work and are learning to do useful work. A car is a necessity as much as for a working teenager as it is for an adult.
My father died when I was a teenager.
My father had no life insurance.
As a result of my father's death my mother had a nervous breakdown and was unable to work.
My mother received some money from social security, but it was not enough to pay the mortgage on our house.
Fortunately I was able to start my own business and make enough money to at least make the payments on the mortgage of our house.
I did not make very much money, but I did make enough money to pay the mortgage and keep us from losing our house to foreclosure.
If I had not been able to work as a teenager we would have lost our house to foreclosure.
I needed a car to run my business as much as any adult needs a car to run a business or get to a job. I could not have run my business if I did not have a car.
Your answer demonstrates one of the most glaring problems with deciding who is permitted to do what in order to stop Global Warming.
You have made the incorrect assumption that someone else's use of a motor vehicle has no value, so we can prohibit that use.
Unfortunately your assumption is not correct and you would cause a great deal of hardship and misery if you or someone like you were permitted to regulate another persons use of resources to run their lives and make a living to support their families.
You would accomplish little of any value and you would cause a great deal of harm.
2007-07-25 01:50:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Check out the parking lot of your local high school. The student lot is full almost every day. Students have to get parking permits that cost only a few $ for the school year, while those who take the bus are punished by having to pay $50 a semester. Many who drive to school live close (several blocks) to school. Most only drive to and from school. All could take the bus. The high school might be a good place to start driving restrictions or parking permits could cost the same as bus passes and be used as a fund raiser to lessen the cost of bus passes or to buy new sports equipment and uniforms
2007-07-26 17:19:30 · answer #2 · answered by lucy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The effect would be to INCREASE global warming because their parents would have to make special trips in their cars to drive the teens to school, work, and other places. But since people between 16 and 18 make up a very small fraction of drivers, the effect would be so small as not to be noticed.
2007-07-25 01:48:58 · answer #3 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, the reduction in CO2 would be minimal at best. It would just require the parents to drive the teen wherever they wanted to go. I agree that it would definitely make the roads safer, though!
The best way to get cars off the road is to make effective public transportation available. What we have now in most cities is bare essentials. If I wanted to get across town, it could take me a couple of transfers and a couple of hours to do it. And in its current state, you can only use public transportation if you have a job that is in just one place all the time. I'm a home care nurse and I could only see about 2 patients a day if I had to take public transportation.
The next best thing we can do is to make zero emission, or almost, cars available. The technology is there, it just isn't being manufactured by the auto makers.
2007-07-25 00:57:58 · answer #4 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well, let's not unfairly attack teenagers.
How about if we have a combined IQ and CSQ (Common Sense Quotient) requirement for driving? The dumb as rock people could still get around with a streamlined public transportation system: livestock trailers hauled by biodiesel trucks. Think about all the happy sheeple...
The roads might become uncommonly safe with a 70% drop in traffic. Immense fuel savings just in the number of cell-phone talking, make-up applying, land-barge driving menaces to society. Problem solved.
2007-07-25 02:17:41 · answer #5 · answered by 3DM 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know, if you think about it, you can shape anything into 'helping' global warming. It's crazy that people are actually believing all this hype when in reality, it's all about taxes. Because of 'Global Warming', Chris Dodd wants to implement a national Carbon Tax. Now tell me, will John Edwards be taxed more because of his 30,000 sq ft mansion? (He really DOES have a thirty thousand square foot mansion for those who didn't know that.) The politicians motto is "Do as I say, not as I do." If they all practiced what they preached, I might listen to them a little more. But as it is, they are the biggest bunch of hypocrites I have ever seen.
2007-07-25 01:13:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
"Look at the UK. they are flooding slowly with rain - if it were warmer - then wouldn`t they have droughts?"
No. As the polar ice caps melt there is more water in liquid form which warms and evaporates giving more rain.
I don't believe global warming is as serious a problem as some think but I did want to clarify that.
2007-07-27 06:24:49 · answer #7 · answered by Soldier 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably not
Reliable public transport just like in Japan, safety in the streets and more severe crimes for transport accidents and violations, and will to move by bycicle instead of motor vehicle- good both for health and for the enviroment
2007-07-25 02:42:09 · answer #8 · answered by Princess Kushinada 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't be a great help. You still have pollution rolling out of India,China and Africa. Don't believe the US hating socialists like Al Gore we are not always the great evil.
2007-07-25 02:11:44 · answer #9 · answered by archkarat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don`t think so.
A large part of "global warming" is hype.
Look at the UK. they are flooding slowly with rain - if it were warmer - then wouldn`t they have droughts?
Also, considering a possibility that it`s not a hype - asian and african countries are wanting to become industrialized fast. That is also a factor that would contribute to 'global warming'.. if it were true, that is.
2007-07-25 00:56:30 · answer #10 · answered by U_S_S_Enterprise 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋