RE: [greenyes] Sticker Shock

["Snyder, Mark" <Mark.Snyder@no.address>]

Hi,

As far as I can tell, there seems to be some miscommunication/misunderstanding taking place in this discussion.

Nobody appears to be arguing that Hummers/gas-guzzlers are appropriate, therefore, comparing the stickers to dumping your oil change down the sewer seems to be missing the point. Jenny makes a good point about how a sticker scheme might be appealing to folks who cannot afford a newer, more efficient car, but would still like to do something, however small. Similarly, there could be folks who might have the newer, more efficient car, who would still be interested in a sticker scheme to alleviate their guilt about driving alone vs. carpooling or taking mass transit.

Additionally, comments such as "Do we want to fight as effectively and aggressively as we can to achieve substantive gain, with the very real risk of getting nothing vs. fritter around the edges of what America in the 21st century has reduced us to" also seems to miss the point. If we really wanted to fight as effectively and aggressively as we can to achieve substantial gain, we would be fighting to get as many vehicles as possible off the roads, regardless how much gas they sip or guzzle. The problem lies not so much with how large the vehicles are as with the simple fact that there are too [bleeping] many of them.

However, it seems there are some folks who would like to campaign and/or promote the specific notion that owning or driving a Hummer/gas-guzzler is unethical. And it's fine for people to feel that way - I'm one such person who does. I cringe when I see large SUVs on Minnesota freeways that display the "Critical Habitat" license plate [http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/features/plates/index.html] because I cannot help but think that such folks have completely missed the point on the roles played by the other choices they've made in life in creating the need for such a program to begin with.

However, I think history has shown that attempting to shame people into changing their behavior has not been a terribly effective strategy for the most part. And I think that's part of the point that Chris was trying to make.

Mark Snyder
Pollution Prevention Specialist
Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance

-----Original Message-----
From: richard@no.address [mailto:richard@no.address]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 3:55 PM
To: Eric Lombardi; 'Jenny Gitlitz'; 'greenyes'
Cc: 'Peter Anderson'
Subject: Re: [greenyes] Sticker Shock


OR,
Isn't CT just another phrase for 'NOT taking responsibility for your own
actions?'
Is it OK for me to change the oil in my car and dump the oil into a local
creek if I buy one of these bumper stickers?
No one needs to be driving a Hummer on city streets.  Lets be real, gas
guzzlers harm the environment needlessly.
And, none of these discussions include the added cost of using three times
as much steel to make the hulk in the first place.  Or the added wear on the
roadways, or the problems they cause in parking lots where they rarely fit
into one space, OR ... [enough - if I don't quit now, I'll be knocked off my
soapbox, and someone will try to wash my mouth out instead].

Richard Gertman
Environmental Planning Consultants
A Green Business
1885 The Alameda, Suite 120
San Jose, CA 95126-1732
408-249-0691
richard@no.address

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Lombardi" <eric@no.address>
To: "'Jenny Gitlitz'" <jenny.gitlitz@no.address>; "'greenyes'"
<greenyes@no.address>
Cc: "'Peter Anderson'" <anderson@no.address>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:09 PM
Subject: RE: [greenyes] Sticker Shock


Jenny,

That's what my first thought was ... it's just a carbon-trading (CT) scheme
for individuals, similar in many ways to allowing the dirty power plants to
keep on running.  If it's good for them, why not us?  Then again, some
people think carbon-trading isn't good.  I guess I would say that CT is OK
only if it's used as a "bridge" that allows sunk investments to recovered
and requires a timeline for old tech to retire and new tech to come on-line.

Eric

Eric Lombardi
Executive Director
Eco-Cycle Inc
303-444-6634
www.ecocycle.org


-----Original Message-----
From: Jenny Gitlitz [mailto:jenny.gitlitz@no.address]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:49 PM
To: greenyes
Cc: Peter Anderson
Subject: Re: [greenyes] Sticker Shock

How is this any different from other GHG market trading mechanisms? That it
targets the wallets of individual drivers instead of corporate power plant
coffers?

Yes, it sounds ridiculous for Hummer owners to buy these stickers to appease
their guzzling guilt, but for many of us who are stuck driving 10-year old
cars because we can't afford the $22,000 sticker price of a Toyota
Prius--much as we'd like to buy one--this low-cost sticker program might be
one small way for us to encourage a few small-scale alternative energy
projects.

The question is, does the bumper sticker scheme somehow detract from
national efforts to raise CAFÉ standards or implement other broad
conservation policies?

--Jenny

Jennifer Gitlitz
Research Director, Container Recycling Institute

Home Office:
2 Pomeroy Ave.
Dalton, MA 01226
Tel. (413) 684-4746
Mobile: (413) 822-0115
Fax: (413) 403-0233
Email: jgitlitz@no.address

Please note the new address for CRI¹s main office:
Container Recycling Institute
1601 North Kent St., Suite 803
Arlington, VA 22209-2105
Tel. (703) 276-9800
Fax: (703) 276-9587
www.container-recycling.org
www.bottlebill.org


On 4/12/05 1:34 PM, Peter Anderson at anderson@no.address wrote:

> GLOBE AND MAIL
>
> Honk If You Love Your SUV
>
> Pricey bumper stickers give the owners of gas-guzzlers licence to drive,
> while still being friendly to the environment
> By WILLIAM LIN
> Saturday, April 9, 2005 Page A15
>
>
> WASHINGTON -- The United States may have withdrawn from the Kyoto
Protocol,
> but a Pennsylvania company says Americans can still fight carbon dioxide
> emissions without leaving home -- by paying as much as $80 for a bumper
> sticker.
> Benven LLC, run by a team of University of Pennsylvania graduate students,
> boasts that its bumper stickers take the equivalent of 350 cars off the
road
> for a year. Its product, the TerraPass, allows drivers to counteract their
> gas-guzzling cars' emissions by paying for clean-energy projects. In
> exchange, vehicle owners get a clean conscience and a one-year pass for
> their bumper that identifies the vehicle as pollution-free.
> "If you think of the rest of Americans, they want to be nice to the
> environment. But they want a vehicle to get around in," said Tom Arnold,
the
> company's chief operating officer. "With TerraPass, you can keep driving
the
> car and still be responsible."
> The passes sell for $30 to $80, depending on how much gas the vehicle
uses.
> For instance, it would take $80 to offset a Hummer's annual emissions, Mr.
> Arnold said.
> TerraPass pools the sales and funds clean-energy projects, such as
windmills
> in California and cow-manure digesters to control methane emissions. The
> Philadelphia-based company said that to date, it has "erased" 1.8 million
> kilograms of carbon dioxide emissions.
> TerraPass also buys credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, a market for
> trading greenhouse-gas-emissions credits. TerraPass buys and retires them,
> helping to cover the costs of energy projects.
> About 450,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide credits have been purchased so
> far -- nearly $1,200 worth, the company said. Mr. Arnold said the company
> has spent more than $7,000 on emission-reduction projects in total.
> "...
> "...
> "...
> "...
>
>