So Congress approved and President Obama signed an extension of the hugely popular (and not-really-so-green) cash-for-clunkers program. Woohoo!
We can think of some better “Cash for ...” programs the government should be funding …
- Cash for computers—Think of the power savings. Not to mention the peace of a Twitter-free life.
- Cash for cookies—Your sweet tooth is fueling a corn overload that will topple American agriculture. Oh, and it’s making you fat.
- Cash for shutting up climate change deniers—Eliminate noxious hot-air emissions. Just kidding! Mostly.
- Cash for your ‘stache—Stop shaving. Razors and shaving cream must have some carbon impact, right?
- Cash for your stash—Eliminate purple haze emissions.
- Cash for roommates who leave the lights on no matter how many times you remind them and also wear your hoodie without asking and don’t seem to realize that other people live here too, Trevor!
- Cash for chunky heels—So 2008.
- Cash for your kids (Did you really need more than two?)
- Cash for coal—Leave it underground where it belongs.
- Cash for cabbage—Gives us gas.
- Cash for beans—Ditto. Reduce your personal methane emissions.
- Cash for beef—Cut back on meat, which, come to think of it, has a far higher carbon impact than vegetable protein like beans.
- Cash for CAFOs—Confined animal feeding operations—meat factories. They’re ecologically disastrous. And gross.
- Cash for bunkers—Convert your nuclear fallout shelter into a “climate change preparedness center.”
- Cash for Doobie Brothers albums—The vinyl is toxic. Plus, really? You’re still holding onto those?
- Bonus! Actual Good Idea: Cash for frequent flier miles—Exchange them for train tickets, bus passes, bicycles—any other form of getting around would be less harmful from a greenhouse gas standpoint.
Will Whole Foods’ new mobile slaughterhouses squeeze small farmers?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
javaplace Posted 9:53 am
11 Aug 2009
Permalink
Rex I Posted 11:14 pm
11 Aug 2009
Permalink
javaplace Posted 8:08 am
12 Aug 2009
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
code
{font-family:"Courier New";
mso-ascii-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-hansi-font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style> "Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Programs" (http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/avrp/avrp.htm) that focus on air quality rather than energy. For the record, it was for that reason that I actually opposed it - it took a good program and adapted it for its own purpose - energy, while neglecting the air quality aspects. A good illustration of that is the programs exemption for 25 year old vehicles - these are the most polluting vehicles on the road. But that's they way legislation is done....it turned out to be a good program just the same.
Permalink