NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/energy/7115

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!skadi!stead
From: [e-mail] (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: NEWS: True Costs of Commercial Nuclear Power -- The Economic Failure
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:17:36 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 91
Nntp-Posting-Host: skadi.css.gov

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Don Palmrose) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Stead) writes:
> stating that efficiency means high cost.  It doesn't.  My point was that the
> poor cannot even affort these "low cost high efficiency cars".  From my living
> all across the country over the last 14 years, the poor can seem to only
> affort that really old car because it only cost them $500 to $1000.  Having

I have lived in several areas of the country as well.  This is not my
experience.  A lot of poor actually buy new cars.  I don't know how.  Right
now I live just 2 blocks from a low-income housing project.  There are lots
of cars in there that are new and are much more expensive than the one I
bought 3 years ago.  I spent 11 years as a student in various places.
Among students who were in the same financial situation I was (entirely
self-supporting and making much less per year than even full-time minimum
wage), we all bought 7-10 year old fuel-efficient Japanese cars.  They
were very cheap (in that $500 to $1000 range), get 25-30 mpg city and
pretty reliable.  Being a geo scientist, I used mine for field work
as well, and had it along 100's of miles of unpaved road and through snow and
whatnot, so don't say it wouldn't work in rural Idaho.  I did field
work there, too.  I see a lot of these same cars in the poor neighborhoods
around me as well.  As for the old Caddys, Lincolns and Bonnevilles that
some like to drive - that's just a choice - there are plenty of other options.

> I'm sorry Richard, this is totally unworkable for the people below the poverty
> line.  They do not pay very much in taxes and would have to pay alot for the
> gas they use which is not much different than the amount I use for those
> living in places like Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming.  Again the working poor
> generally cannot afford the "low cost high efficiency cars" and will end up
> paying more under your scheme.

That's just not true.  Take a car at 25 mpg (your rural poor would actually
have higher mileage, since most of their miles would be highway).  Drive
12,000 miles a year (higher than average which is 10,000).  Tack on $1
a gallon more in tax.  That's $600.  Only a small percentage of people
in this country pay less than that, and they also recieve lot's of federal
aid.  If the balance didn't work, just increase the aid a bit.
($600 in tax means $4000 in taxable income.  For a single that's a year
total salary of $7600.  For a single mom with 2 kids that's $12200.
There aren't a lot of people in these categoires.  An income in this range
most likely means you don't own a car, because you can't pay for food,
housing, clothing, and car maintainance, insurance and gas.)

> A motorcycle is no better than a bicycle during the winter months up here in
> Idaho.  Everyone I know with motorcycles put them away for 7 to 8 months a
> year here in Idaho.  You really fail to grasp the affect winter weather has
> on people and their choices for autos up here in the Rocky Mountain states.
> Plus, a motorcycle is more like a hobby for those people living in the
> Rockies.

Buy a snowmobile.  You can buy a snowmobile, motorcycle and Geo metro together
for less than the price of a Ford Explorer or whatever other beast you
are defending.  Snowmobiles are very practical as well - they are used
to access our seismic stations north of the arctic circle in Norway, etc.
They are used to move equipment as well as people and they do it fast and
very efficiently (you never want to cart more fuel than you need to above the
arctic circle).  Ski resorts also use snowmobiles for both people and equipment
and even as ambulances.  They are more practical in the snow than the 4x4
beasts.

> Again, you fail to see how dependent people in the West are on their autos for
> their livelyhood, safety, and comfort.  You cannot expect something that could
> work in an urban environment will have no drastic long-lasting impact on the
> rural west.  People out here do not like people in the east trying to social
> engineer their lives especially from people who cannot comprehend the kind of
> life they have to lead.  This is what you want to do and if you cannot see or
> understand the points I am making, you truly have the blinders on concerning
> this topic.

I may live in the east now, but I spent over 7 years living in the west.
You say I don't understand the poor.  I have been poor.  I currently live near
poor.  Both my parents were very poor when they were growing up - one in the
city, one in a rural area.  Just 3 years ago, the house I lived in for the
first several years of my life was razed along with several others as a
crime-control measure in the poorest, most crime-ridden section of Philadelphia.
I put myself through college - my parents would not have had the money to.
I have been poor and I personally know the poor.

Your argument strikes me as something else, however.  A few exchanges back,
you were defending your big 4x4 - normally a very expensive machine, a sign
of someone well-to-do.  You are undoubtedly quite well off.  You never
mention any personal experience with poor people or being poor yourself.
It makes me suspect that you are using the poor as an excuse to further
your own lifestyle choices, not out of any concern for the poor.  I hope
that's not true, but the color of your arguments make it appear that way.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
[e-mail]