did Al Gore ever propose this?

[yorgatron]

1. Gasoline taxes would be increased by at leat $1.00 per gallon
2. There would be NO ownership of private vehicles
3. All vehicle over 15 years old would be subject to MANDATORY RETIREMENT

someone is spouting off at one of the websites i visit to talk about cars.
he was also going on about "liberal Micheal Moore types" etc.etc. ad nauseum.

[TheWraith]

1. That person is lying, insane, or both.

Nobody in politics, certainly not Gore, has ever seriously proposed any those things.

Challenge him to prove it with links to new articles, or clips of the speech. Something attributable. He won't be able to. At best he could pull out some fabricated quote from a RW bullshit chain-mail deal.

[xray s]

2. here's an idea

make HIM prove it.

he can't.

[stepnw1f]

3. Tell Him To Prove Each

Then tell him to get his head out of the ass of that racist drug addict, Limpballs.

[BillZBubb]

4. Gore did propose raising the gasoline tax.

The rest is bullshit. Gore thought raising the tax would curtail demand and spur people to buy more efficient vehicles. The tax revenues would be used on research to develop fuel efficient vehicles.

[mzmolly]

6. I don't believe it was by $ though. However, they might consider

the cost of gas today - and record revenues for gas companies/the bushies in their collective chagrin?

[mzmolly]

5. Absolutely absurd.

Ask them for proof - as they don't have it.

[Lisa]

7. I don't believe he proposed a gas tax that high ... a fraction of that

"In fact, Al Gore proposed a 12 cents a gallon BTU tax on all fossil fuels in 1993 and when Congress killed that he cast the tie-breaking Senate vote for a 4.3 cent a gallon gas tax increase." And check the source -- yes, a conservative columnist. And I've seen gas fluctuate on its own, by more than 12 cents in the past year -- twice.

http://www.conservative.org/columnists/divine/001005dd.asp


Re: mandatory retirement, aside from the automakers' "planned obsolesence" (where the car is so junky that it falls apart or costs too much to fix after a decade or so), I haven't heard Gore endorsing anything of the sort for older vehicles. There is a provision regarding the phasing-out of CFCs in vehicle air conditioning systems, but that was agreed to by Reagan/Bush when the US decided to support the Montreal Protocol for protecting the ozone layer. And these systems can be replaced with ones using different chemicals, so there is no need to get rid of the whole car.

While it's true that (with the exception of new gas-guzzlers like the Hummer) we'd be better off in terms of fuel use and air quality if we could replace less-efficient vehicles with ones which use less gas and emit less pollution, and cars today tend to be more advanced than they were 15 years ago -- the vast majority of environmentalists don't think we should FORCE people to change vehicles -- something they would do anyway, in time. If anything, banning older vehicles would make things worse, because there would be heaps of rusting cars lying around, and even more pollution and resource consumption from the need to make replacements!

Environmental policy experts would rather leave it to market forces (gas-guzzlers cost more money to run), or inspections like the "Air Care" programs being tried out in various municipalities. (I suppose that some people will complain that it's their "right" to have a vehicle that emits a lot more than the manufacturer says it should, but the tests are pretty easy to pass, and they seem to be forgetting that a car which is belching out smoke has something wrong with it, and is costing THEM money anyway.)
http://www.aircarecolorado.com/links.htm

And he certainly NEVER called for owning private vehicle ownership. He suggested that the internal-combustion engine should be phased out and replaced with different technology -- but note that Bush is also on the hydrogen fuel cell bandwagon these days!
"Under the President’s hydrogen fuel initiative, the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by fuel cells. The hydrogen fuel initiative complements the President’s existing FreedomCAR initiative, which is developing technologies needed for mass production of safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles."
http://www.whitehouse.gov.edgesuite.net/news/releases/2003/01/20030130-20.html

[yorgatron]

8. i asked for proof,but it might be a while.

the place isn't very busy.
my brother and i are both into old cars,but you wouldn't BELIEVE the amount of stupid crap we have to listen to sometimes :eyes:

[Lisa]

10. if one takes the "life cycle analysis" approach

(this is a technique used to evaluate the impacts of various products) -- if one compares car types which are not too dissimilar in terms of their fuel requirements and emissions, in theory it will have a worse impact on the environment if you get an entirely new car every 10 years, than if you keep an old one in proper shape and on the road for 30. Making 2 additional cars places an additional burden on the environment in terms of resource extraction, refining and manufacturing, and the wastes emitted (and the problem of getting rid of them eventually).

The anti-environment types are setting up a "straw man" argument. They'd have us believe that policymakers like Gore want to "take away all the cars" (and other ones I've heard include "banning air travel and Christmas lights" and "forbidding us from buying out-of-season produce from other areas"). Not true! There is a big difference between the "eco-fascist dictatorship" which exists in their imaginations, and encouraging more efficient technology (for example, LED Christmas lights rather than the old incandescents). And why ship apples in from New Zealand when there are apple growers going out of business in Washington State, practically next door? Plus, I don't believe that most people will choose to get in a car and drive for 30 minutes if there is a reasonably-good store right on the next block -- making driving unnecessary is not the same thing as banning car ownership. (Lots of people in Europe have cars ... nice ones, too ... but prefer to take the train or bus, if it's handier.)

One thing Gore did a lot of work on was the option of buying "offsets" to counteract any damage done from activities which one feels are necessary and important. He argued in favor of this when he helped create the Kyoto Protocol. (It can be applied on the international scale, e.g. economies with heavy industry like the US -- or personally, such as when you're visiting your family on the other side of the country.)

http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction.htm

[BrklynLiberal]

9. You have to figure anyone stupid enough to support W is stupid enough

to believe that crap without checking into its actual reality.
Their unrelenting gullibility is what makes them W's most reliable base.

EDIT: For example: Look at all those who took the Swift Boat Liars as something worth listening to.

Bush could pee on their shoes and tell them it is raining and they would just smile and look for their umbrellas.