Promoting Fuel Efficient Cars, Establishing Green Spaces

¶ … promoting fuel efficient cars, establishing green spaces or forestry, random emission testing, and encouraging alternative transportation, walking, and bicycle use. The total cost is $15.5 M.

Fuel efficient cars

Fuel efficient cars not only reduces pollution but I chose it due to the fact that it is also a good option given today's rising gas prices.

Fuel efficient cars come in 2 categories -- electric and water. What this means is that these cars substitute gas -- which pollutes the atmosphere -- with either electricity or water or hydroxyl.

Hybrid cars are healthier for the environment since they combine gas and water (or electricity) producing lower emissions. They also reduce dependence on fossil fuel which is the main source of fuel today.(Future-Method.com)

The trade-offs of fuel efficient cars are first and foremost price. That, however, can be overcome by compelling distributors to lower the price by making it a more common commodity.

Nonetheless, other disadvantages include the following:

Hybrid cars weigh more than standard cars due to weight of batteries

High voltage wires may be exposed in a crash leading to greater danger

They are not practical for long distance use since batteries need to be recharged and there are few stations that service hybrid cars.

Nonetheless, if hybrid cars become more popular, these problems will be overcome with time

2. Green spaces / forestry

This is one of my most certain choices. Trees and green space are relatively cheap to plant and their benefits are enormous. Not only do they breathe out oxygen and encourage life, but they also refresh people and de-stress us.

Green spaces are terrific for reducing all sorts of pollution. They can, for instance, suppress noise pollution by densely growing shrubs and green. Trees have been shown to absorb pollutants; as few as 20 trees can offset the pollution from a car driven 60 miles per day. Green spaces can also clean partially-treated wastewater . They reduce both liquid waste and solid waste. The former by providing low-flow plumbing, rainwater collection, drought-resistant landscaping and so forth, and the latter by setting household garbage limits. They also provide local recycling and composting centers whilst community gardens provide chemical-free food production.

Their trade-offs are hard to envision. The primary one that comes to mind is the fact that green-spaces take away from urban space, consequently causing people to compress in smaller places. Whilst wealthier people can afford the wider, greener spots, urban centers may become increasingly more congested causing pollution to become compressed and expand in these pockets of urban space.

3. Random emission testing

Cars that are tested for emission tend to pollute less than the same cars that do not pass the emission test (Supnithadnaporn, 2007). Testing for emission is therefore important since it tells us which cars can be allowed to drive and are less pollutant to the atmosphere and which vehicles need to be corrected in order to reduce environmental pollution. Some cars may be simply emitting unnecessary air pollution due to their being poorly tuned. Emission tests detect that can correct the tuning. This is a simple test that prevents a great deal of exponential air pollution.

The trade-off is that the government provides the price for this and setting up the machines, resources, space, hiring and training the qualified people as well as running the test is expensive. Organizing the entire system is also expensive as well as complicated and time-consuming. Persuading people to take off time to have their car emission-tested is another headache both for the driver and the government.

4. . Encouraging alternative transportation walking and bicycle use.

The logic is clear. Alternative transportation, walking and bicycle use aside from providing benefits of excercise and quietness not only reduces congestion on road but dramatically cuts down on air pollution since gas is not used.

The drawbacks are clear too. Cars and vehicles provide benefits that alternate methods of transportation simply cannot provide. Not only are vehicles faster, but they can also carry more people, can carry objects that need to be carried (as opposed to bicycling and walking) and are simply more pragmatic and immeasurably more helpful in today's rushed world. This is particularly so for those who have to travel the large distances form work to home as well as transport kids to school and so forth and who have to achieve all of this in a limited established time frame. Vehicles are simply more expedient and irreplaceable. Nonetheless, walking and bicycling can be encouraged and incentives set to encourage their greater use.